All Posts Tagged With: "Hillary Clinton"
Hillary for Sec of State?
What do you all think of the buzz about Pres-Elect Obama offering the Sec. of State position to Hillary Clinton? Here are some pros by Chris at the Outside Report (here too). And here are 5 cons from Ken Silverstein.
Will Hillary Voters Stay Home?
CNN is citing a new poll that shows only 54 percent of Clinton voters plan to vote for Obama, down from 60 percent in a previous poll. They claim this is a sign many intend to stay home. My initial reaction: not a big deal, close proximity to the margin of error, and there’s a lot of time.
I kept reading, “In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party’s nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.” This is getting a little more troubling.
Back in March I wrote the following about the ability of both Obama and Clinton to court their opponents backers:
“The core of Hillary Clinton’s base is older women who have voted in every election for twenty years. They will show up to vote. And they will vote Democrat.Senator Obama locks down voters who are anything but reliable. He pulls in first time voters. It’s easy for them to continue not voting. He inspires Independents and moderate Republicans who would never vote for Hillary. And he’s a walking turnout machine for African Americans.”
Her voters will come around. We have the love fest that will be the Democratic Convention, and then McCain’s profile will be raised enough that Hillary supporters will be inclined to have a preference, and as always, they will make it to the polls.
Perhaps its a Fourth of July idealism, but this election feels different. It’s a bigger change, the first without an incumbent President or VP since 1952. It’ll be the first without a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot in my lifetime. (Hillary being the VP looks increasingly unlikely). With two wars and the economy in shambles, people will want to stand up and be counted.
McCain has transformed himself from being a maverick to a candidate largely striving to be conventional. It feels like he’s running a campaign for 2000 or 2004, not 2008. He hasn’t articulated what he’s for and, whats worse, he seems to be losing sight of who he is. Also, he seems stale. His picking Lieberman would be a powerful statement about his bipartisanship–McCain could have is own “first”. Keep in mind, in 200McCain was interested in running as Kerry’s VP, in large part because he was still pissed at Bush about 2000 (vindictiveness isn’t a good quality in a President). McCain likely thinks Kerry would have won had he picked him, this element plus his self-definition as a maverick, and his friendship with Lieberman might make him defy the odds-makers and name Lieberman as his VP. The John McCain of 2000 might have been this bold, but I don’t see the same courage in the very different animal that is the John McCain of 2008.
Assuming McCain makes a conventional pick, perhaps a Romney a Rudy or a Fred, Hillary’s women will run to Obama. If he picks the right female VP, or Lieberman, perhaps he can pull an appreciable amount of Hillary supporters. Otherwise, they will go to Obama, it’s only a question of when.
"A reflection of a reflection"
Today George Will wrote an excellent column arguing that Obama should not add Clinton to his ticket. Will’s characterization of Hillary in the last few lines is a novel turn of phrase, even if the characterization unfairly diminishes Hillary’s contributions to her ascendancy:
“Clinton, having risen politically in her husband’s orbit, is a moon shining with reflected light. Were Obama to hitch himself to her, he would reduce himself to a reflection of a reflection.”
She’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead
Basic Subtraction
Today’s new Washington Post – ABC News Poll is very bad news for the Clinton campaign.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton’s numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as “honest and trustworthy” by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she’ll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn’s Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn’t seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said “Screw ‘em” in a meeting.
Getting in Touch With Clinton, Obama
The argument between a Yale law grad and a Harvard law grad as to who is most in touch with working class Americans is like listening to a debate about which is the tallest skyscraper in Wichita.
Welcome to the Kabuki Theater that is the Democrat Presidential primary.
Hillary Clinton downs a boilermaker at a local watering hole in Crown Point, Indiana, and we are supposed to understand that symbolic act to mean she is a regular Johnny Punchclock?
We know instead that Hillary would bite the head off of a live kitten and drink the blood from its still twitching carcass if that should earn her one additional vote.
Barack Obama offers condescending statements about small town Americans who “cling” to “guns or religion or antipathy to people that aren’t like them” at a San Fran funder with his effete, liberal friends, but he just chose his words poorly.
In response to the firestorm, we get glibness from Obama to make it all better, “Now I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose I chose badly, because as my wife reminds me, I’m not perfect,” so said Obama.
Actually, Obama was not the first to admit it and he only reluctantly conceded the point after being pressed on the issue. Further, Obama’s imperfection is not being hotly contested. It is rather his perfectly clear mischaracterization of those who have not embraced his candidacy.
But is not the pandering or the indignation that most clearly exposes both Clinton and Obama as tasked, in their minds, with having to save all of us mouth-breathing troglodytes across the American countryside from ourselves.
It is that both believe that they are entitled to make choices for which others should not be similarly endowed.
Both Clinton and Obama can send their children to expensive, private schools but believe that low-incomes families in failing school districts should not have such a choice.
Both Clinton and Obama can make millions of dollars through politics but target producers in the private sector with class envy politics and redistributive policies.
So is it Clinton or Obama who is the elitist? Yes.
The truth about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy "experience"
Finally the Obama campaign is starting to hit back at Hillary’s preposterous overstatements about her foreign policy experience. The media has been guilty of giving her a free pass on this issue, hopefully the memo released today by Greg Craig (Former Director of the Policy Planning Office at the State Department) will inspire the media to take a closer look at her foreign policy claims.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing Obama has as much foreign policy experience as Hillary Clinton. But he isn’t guilty of (1) being casual with the truth and (2) trying to overplay a card that would surely be trumped by McCain in the fall. Clinton is guilty on both counts.
The Craig memo begins: “When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.”
Here’s the section most likely to be quoted at length:
“There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in
on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance.
She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part
of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security
staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they
were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no
evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred
in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton
never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national
security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.”
Craig then refutes her exaggerated claims about Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and China.
The first ‘graph of the conclusion nails it:
“The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.”
March 4th Predictions Thread
Chris at the Outside Report now has a prediction thread up. It goes all the way to the convention. It’s worth a read, as Chris is consistently rock solid.
As for my thoughts — I am worried about Obama. This is more based on a gut feel, than rational analysis, but Clinton seems to be gaining momentum in the last few days. I’m not sure if it’s enough to temper the aggressive climb Obama has shown in the last few weeks, but this is a predictions thread, so stands must be taken, even if it leads to my falling flat on my face:
Clinton takes Rhode Island and Obama takes Vermont.
Clinton takes both Texas and Ohio popular vote. The early calling of one of the two states, coupled with a better caucus strategy/trickery by the Clinton campaign either brings her very close or wins the TX caucus. Despite losing the TX popular vote, Obama either ties or wins TX on pledged delegates.
My rationale: (1) Democrats are fickle. We quickly get buyers remorse, and while we’ve pretty much picked Obama, we’ve waited in line at the cashier of democratic primary politics, and we’re just about to check out. We fear the buyers remorse that may be coming. (2) Hillary’s been winning the pop culture war with SNL, crazy as it sounds, I think her Daily Show visit tonight could be big. (3) Despite Obama’s solid performance in the last debate, people started asking about the media handing this thing to her, crazy as it sounds SNL validated the Clinton campaign’s complaint, and people trust fake news as much or more than real news. (4) The Obama NAFTA blunder will be on every paper in Ohio tomorrow, probably Texas too, but that’s a big part of my rationale for Ohio.
If I’m wrong, here’s my best guess at why: (1) Incredibly high OH turnout, and the bad turnout modeling in Ohio polls. (2) Some reports suggest Obama may be up in TX early voting, which shouldn’t be the case given recent trend lines. (3) Not enough time for the NAFTA story to really sink in around Ohio, particularly among blue collar dems who really care about NAFTA, but might not always reliably read the news. (4) Polling models on Latinos in TX, way off. (5) My gut about her momentum is a few days ahead of reality, because of inside-the-beltway-think.
Assuming I’m wrong, if Hillary wins either OH or TX, she will stay in the race through at least Pennsylvania. The next two contexts should favor Obama, but after that, as Chris mentions, could be rough waters. And what will it say about Obama that he couldn’t land his knock out punch after his massive spending spree leading up to March 4th.
Bold Ad by Clinton in TX: This one’s for Ann
While browsing Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, I saw this remarkable ad suggesting that deceased, former Texas Governor Ann Richards would support Hillary Clinton. The theme is “this one’s for Ann.”
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards’ sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama’s campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.
Bold Ad by Clinton in TX: This one’s for Ann
While browsing Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, I saw this remarkable ad suggesting that deceased, former Texas Governor Ann Richards would support Hillary Clinton. The theme is “this one’s for Ann.”
It will be interesting to see how this plays. The ad itself is very effective, but it definitely has the potential to backfire. Richards’ sons have already objected to the video. And in a higher way, it seems low to exploit the memory of a revered Texas political hero, and imply that Texas voters have a debt to Richards they can only pay by voting for Hillary Clinton. In this sense, the ad is exploitative and indecent.
It is a little tough to attack, because the Clinton camp will respond by saying, essentially that the ad was intended to honor Governor Richards memory, and that she was important to both Hillary and to history, and that Obama’s campaign should be ashamed of itself for daring attack the dreams of little girls everywhere.
Update: Obama to run ads in Ohio featuring endorsements from former Presidents Harrison, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, & Harding.