A Regular Gal
I first met Hillary Clinton 16 years ago in a food court in a mall in Derry, New Hampshire. Then, both of us had significantly more hair (hers kept back in a signature headband; mine actually covering my head). Then, it was her husband battling to get his presidential campaign off the ropes, and he was the center of attention.
They came to the mall that day to work the crowd. Everyone was following Bill; me and my fellow college students (one of whom is now John Edwards’ pollster) decided to ask the then-mostly unknown First Lady of Arkansas to join us for lunch. She did, and I honestly don’t remember much of what was said (I do remember that she ate a chicken salad baguette from Au Bon Pain), but I have a cool photograph to prove it happened.
That is a long way of saying that Hillary Clinton has been campaigning in New Hampshire for a long time. And as tonight’s Democratic debate looms, she is on the defensive with three days left to what may be the Clintons last campaign in the Granite State. Some early polls show that her lead is holding. But Obama has momentum, and is setting the agenda and tone of the race.
So the question on everyone’s mind here is: what can Hillary Clinton do to stop Barack Obama?
What argument, piece of research, or killer line can be deployed to stop Obamania? I have no idea what the answer is, but whatever it is, Hillary is a fighter. She has taken more abuse than just about anyone in public life, and again and again has landed on her feet. We can’t count her out. It’s too soon. We can expect a strong counterpunch.
But, part of the comeback is based on the belief that HRC can fall back on the party regulars – a point that Jon Chait ably made yesterday. And that the model, in some ways, is what Walter Mondale did in 1984 against Gary Hart; John Harris, for instance, wrote today that Hillary has the talent to "grind down" Obama like Mondale did to Hart.
Unfortunately for HRC, there are three key differences that make this strategy significantly more difficult: 1) Obama has money, and Hart did not; 2) Mondale had time, and with the process so front-loaded it may tip over, HRC does not; and 3) most importantly, the vast poll of party regulars that Mondale was able to tap into no longer exists.
Remember that in 1984, Mondale had unified AFL-CIO support – and it came, by design, early. Not to mention that the labor movement was larger with 20 percent of the workforce unionized in 1983 versus 13 percent unionized now. There were more natural “regulars” in 1984 than now.
And when the race turned to the South, there were still strong Southern Democratic parties, large pockets of African-Americans (with whom Mondale had a strong relationship, and again labor. Public employee unions, and especially teachers, provided a needed boost: in Alabama, for instance, 30 percent of Democratic primary voters were from union households.
Outside the South, the regulars fell behind Mondale. He won seven out of 10 states with the largest blocs of AFL-CIO-affiliated unions including delegate-rich New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.
In 2008, not only are there fewer union members and the AFL-CIO lost some of its largest unions to the new Change to Win coalition, but the labor movement has not united itself behind Hillary and it is unlikely that it will again. The presence of Edwards in the race as well as the fact that labor is more diverse than it was 25 years ago plus the experience that labor has had in backing one candidate above others makes their unified support highly unlikely. Beyond that natural pool of “regulars,” the party machines are creaky at best, and it would be hard, if not impossible, for her to win the unrivaled support of African-Americans against the historic candidacy of Obama.
So, what Hillary could reap in 2008 from the regulars is significantly less than what Mondale reaped in 1984. Nevertheless, what she has to do tonight is the same: she needs to change the momentum of this race, start redefining her opponent, put the upstart back on his heels, and start solidifying her support with key blocs of voters. HRC needs a 21st-century version of “where’s the beef.”
I just don’t know what food court to find it in.
"Hillary is a fighter. She has taken more abuse than just about anyone in public life, and again and again has landed on her feet."
True, and in a fairytale, that would be relevant. In reality, however, far more often than not a person takes shit undeservingly, and gets nothing in return.
In any case, Clinton playing Lieberman to Obama's Lamont seems like about the stupidest strat conceivable. She may as well just quit now if she's gonna do that.
January 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she should be saying--aggressively--:
*Look*--if you want someone who will definitely ...(fill in the blank)--vote for me!
That can be repeated for each of the several areas she wants to connect to her audience with.
January 5, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's done herself in buying into all that DLC b.s. She's running a 2004 campaign for one thing. She's got this litany of grievances about Bush. People no longer need to hear them. The 2006 campaign showed that Americans had seen the light. But as Americans grew more receptive to a progressive message, she's hung in with the conservatism of the DLC. Sheesh, I'm just hearing her say she's reading a bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower!!! How many voters remember Eisenhower? And if they do, they sure the heck aren't Democrats.
January 5, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC's problem is she's running on our warm and fuzzy feelings about the 1990s, when Bill Clinton already built the bridge to the 21st Century. Obama is showing that the way to win is to cross the bridge, not to stay on the 1990s side of it.
January 5, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell,
excellent observations.
By the way, I not only remember Ike, I met him up close about 100 times. Ike was a good Republican and I'm a good life long Democrat :-)
January 5, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember being let out of kindgergarten to see Ike. That was back in the days when people had bipartisan respect for the President and you didn't need a background check to see one!
My parents took me to see JFK when I was 9. We are Irish Catholics so I can imagine how African Americans might feel about Obama.
January 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
When he was running for President JFK rode through our neighborhood, Irish/Catholic, but some Polish/Catholic too. About another 3/4 mile up the street he was travelling on and he would have been in solid Polish/Catholic territory. Anyhow, his convertible stopped and he stood up and said something in Polish and I always thought he was about 3/4 mile short for whatever it was he said. :-)
January 5, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A terrific vignette about JFK. No wonder we all loved him.
Was he practicing for “I bin ein Berliner” ?
January 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saw Ike a couple of times, the most dramatic being in 1958 when I joined an American Friends Service Committee sponsored protest outside the Stockyards in Chicago where he was to speak. The issue was stopping the atmospheric testing of Nuclear Weapons -- and there were about 200 of us there on the corner just before his car entered the Stockyards, with nice big signs about Mushroom Clouds and kids getting a dose of Radio Active Strotium 90 with their milk and Milk Chocolate Candy.
He was in the same open car that Kennedy had in Dallas, standing up and holding on and waving to the crowds. He looked straight at us, and was a bit taken aback. In those days there were few such demo's, and the Secret Service and the Chicago Cops didn't bother us. We were probably 25 feet from him as he rolled in. Next Day the Chicago Papers had a picture (probably AP) of Ike looking in the direction of the surprise protest. I suspect this was about October-November, 1958.
Am a Solid Progressive Dem, and have been for years -- and having read lots of the revisionist History on Ike -- I now have a great appreciation for him and his years as President. I give him credit for a number of things -- by running in 1952 from his last job as Supreme Commander of NATO, he effectively sawed off the isolationist wing of the Republican Party -- the Taft wing, and at the same time let the gas out of the "China Lobby" the "Who Lost China" gang led by Knowland of California. Taft had voted against The Marshall Plan, NATO, against joining the UN, and against all social programs. If elected, he would have tried to kill Social Security.
Both the Taft and Knowland wings were solidly behind Joe McCarthy -- and Eisenhower let old Joe play out his string until the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and then used his hidden hand to end the Fearmongering. In otherwords, Ike did nothing to really roll back the New Deal accomplishments, but he did kill off for ten years the kind of conservative movement that only returned in 1964 with Goldwater. In 1956 Ike supported changes in Social Security that made the program available to a significant strata of the Black Community. Roosevelt had been forced to accept the exclusion of household help and agricultural labor from coverage by Social Security as the price for getting the program through the Southern Segregationist Senate Committee Chairs in 1935 -- Ike rectified that exclusion.
Ike had the stature to give up without "victory" in Korea -- something no Democrat could have done and survived.
Ike also watched the Pentagon Budget like a hawk, and stopped many useless weapons systems that would have strengthened the Military Industrial Complex. Again, he could look the generals square in the eye, and say no.
Ike supported and signed a number of important programs -- the Interstate Highways, a number of programs of aid for College Students and programs to finance the building out of Colleges in many areas, He financed the building of modern community hospitals (Hill Burton Act), and he supported a partial early version of Medicade. So while in High School I was still "maddly for Adali" with much of his administration's records now available, I see him very differently. He filled out many of the New Deal public programs and should be credited with those accomplishments.
January 5, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sara,
excellent summation of Ike's performance, not much for me to add.
After the war my Regiment was chosen to guard SHAEF Hdq in Frankfurt. I stood guard duty outside Ike's office a few times. He was congenial to the troops, always ready with a word and a smile, but he did chainsmoke Camels. :-)
January 6, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ike also inherited the most golden economic decade we'll ever see in our history. With half the world in ruins, US companies had no competition. He wanted the country quiet and peaceful socially, and except for a little pelvis-shaking by Elvis -- it was. Looking back historically, Eisenhower's America resembled Camelot more than JFK's.
If his administration was flawed it was in the area of civil rights, where he could have done more, and he succumbed to too much fear-mongering by intelligence agents who urged him to intervene in the affairs of 3rd world countries, but the Soviet threat was hard to quantify in those days.
We haven't had a general elected since Ike, but many compare Petraeus to him, so we'll see. Anyone who can turn around the Iraq mess has enormous leadership chops. A political career will probably be offered to him, if he wants it.
January 6, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its a stretch to say Petraeus turned the Iraq mess around, if that's what you're suggesting. Militarily, he flooded Baghdad with troops, that's guaranteed to check the violence, then he used money to buy allies in the Sunni and Shiite camps. For that he gets credit, but its temporary success.
"The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005,..."
"But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq."
The political side of the operation has yet to bear any fruit.
Yesterday an Iraqi soldier, trained by us, was on patrol with some of our troops, he killed two and wounded five of those American troops.
January 6, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Watching the coverage of Clinton over the last few months, experiencing the personal hostility of Obama supporters toward Clinton (that so precisely mirrors that of the "Hillary Haters" of the Right), etc., I, sadly, am beginning to think our culture's abhorence of and resistance to the idea of a woman leader has been under-estimated. (It also has been and will continue to be under-acknowledged.)
As someone who cast my first presidential vote for Shirley Chilsom, a woman, an African American, a genuine economic populist, I started this primary season feeling that the hope for the future that youthful vote represented was finally being realized. Not because of any one candidate (they all have their individual strengths and weaknesses), but because of the whole field of candidates -- anyone of which I felt I could be happy to cast a vote for.
Hillary has never been my first choice. But I was, initially, happy to think that a woman could be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Now, as things have developed, I'm not convinced that's true. I didn't expect to see this campaign end with a woman as President. But I also didn't expect to see it end, as I now fear it will, with me convinced that there is no way, in my lifetime at least, that a woman could ever be elected President.
If Obama gets the nomination, I think he should nominate a woman as his VP.
There are a couple of Democratic governors -- from Western states -- who would be excellent choices.
It would be one way to help convince life-long Democratic women, like me, that he really is seeking to lead the country past the old politics of "culture war" -- so much of which has been based, more than anything else, in fear of the changing role of women in our society and economy -- rather than just exploiting that fear in new and more subtle ways.
January 5, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're off-base in equating the anti-Hillary rhetoric of Obama supporters with that of the Far Right. I also think you're mistaken in interpreting these events as symptomatic of resistance to the idea of a female president.
For myself, I'm not (yet) an Obama supporter, but I have been in the Obama/Edwards/anti-Hillary camp for some time. I don't care what race you are, or what sex you are. But I do care whether or not you voted in favor of the AUMF in October of 2002, and I do care whether or not you refuse to acknowledge that was a mistake. Unfortunately, Hillary's campaign decided early on that apologizing for her AUMF vote would supposedly make her look weak. Given the presence of at least two other promising candidates with better records on Iraq, I had too great a reason to oppose Hillary during the primaries (though I'd support her in the general, if she were the nominee).
I look forward to one day casting a vote for a woman as president, but it's unlikely that day will come in 2008. And the reason for the delay is not my misogyny but rather Hillary's poor judgment in October of 2002 and in the time since.
January 5, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, sure. That must be what it is. Gender. Of course! That there's one totally sensible opinion. Not only that, she's blond, and Edwards is blond, and Obama is dark haired, so he has that advantage too.
If a man was pro-NAFTA, a deregulator, had voted for the Iraq war, and was DLC "Third Way" to the bone, he'd be so popular. Like Joe Leiberman for example. He could be a "change" candidate like Hillary too I bet.
Oh but wait, if Lieberman wasn't chosen, that would have to be due to antisemitism, becasue his hawkishness and policy stances couldn;t have anything more to do with his polical fortune than Hillary's.
Riiiight.
And, never mind Obama's black; which is clearly a huge advantage for him in Iowa and NH and explains his lead.
Those damn pro-African American woman haters!
January 6, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking Obama isn't going to get her anywhere. Her record on Iraq, the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, and her equivocating answers when questioned on any number of issues are an anchor around her neck.
I'll go out on a limb and predict she's toast.
This is from an original Hillary supporter who now supports Edwards.
January 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right - and it's not really her fault. Hillary in 1992 was still an idealist with elements of pragmatism, but Hillary today is a pragmatist through and through. And she's a great pragmatist and, I suspect, driver of government projects. Her policy prescriptions are detailed and reasonable, but that's not enough.
That's not what Democrats, and most Americans, want from their next President. We want ideals, and dreams, and very nearly magic. Hillary has no soaring rhetoric, no big dream to share.
We've had smart, competent Democratic presidential candidates many times, but since Watergate, only the Carter and Clinton, who offered a positive, idealistic vision.
January 5, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. Even if she manages to fend off Obama, will those votes automatically switch to her? I think the large majority will either stay home or vote for a moderate GOP (assuming McCain or Guiliani).
Fair or not, Hillary suffers from an unshakeable negative perception on par with Bush in many people's minds. There is absolutely nothing she can say or do to change this perception. It's set in stone.
January 6, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
She still has lots of money, so she can fire Mark Penn, hire a full-time speech coach, and hire better speechwriters.
She could garner more partisans by trashing Bush and the Republicans -- red meat that has fallen too far off the radar these days.
The ancient cliche that 'fame is fleeting' is one of her biggest problems now. The reason she was always so strong in the early polls is that the other candidates werent as famous. Now, Obama is more and more famous and she's left relying on an innate skillset which is about average for a senator. Biden and Dodd have similar levels of public charisma and look how far they got.
January 5, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton lacks more than charisma. She lacks a large percentage of people who believe that she, and not some other Democrat, should be, must be, president.
This may sound stupid and it is more about impressions than specific issues or ideas, but Americans vote on their impressions rather than specifics.
Clinton's messages are about capability, both as a candidate and as president. But people who rate those qualities highly can find them in other candidates. Obama's messages are more specifically about him. What you get with him can only be got with him.
Because of this, it is easier for voters to abandon Clinton and go with the person who the entire world of the corporate press/media is calling a winner.
January 5, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
I could cite her objectionable Senate votes and dubious policy positions, but my main reason for not supporting Clinton is that I don't consider her a true leader.
For all that she talks about experience, Clinton's only real leadership role was her disastrous experience with Bill's healthcare reform in '93. And unfortunately, it seems that all she learned from that debacle was to make nice and rake in the healthcare lobby's donations.
Hillary Clinton enjoyed the power and influence that came with her husband's name and a SAFE seat in the Senate. With those assets, she could have been a leader in organizing Democratic opposition to the Bush-Cheney juggernaut. Instead, she spent her time on mostly non-controversial causes -- when she wasn't enraging the Democratic base with her triangulating.
Clinton is my senator and she's been hardworking and diligent, although often disappointing. She is a capable and intelligent legislator and diplomat. She is not a president.
Here is where Obama clearly trumps every Clinton argument. He makes leadership seem effortless while Clinton has to labor at playing the part.
I am not an Obama supporter either, but I can see his appeal to an electorate that is hungering not just for change, but for a leader to bring them out of this horrible nightmare that Bush/Cheney have inflicted on America. Obama doesn't need to give specifics for this; it's enough that he's promising change as if it's water in a parched desert.
Time will tell if he's the real deal and can serve up some backbone with the charisma. Clinton, though, will have a tough time trying to outshine Obama.
January 6, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm of the opinion the modern Presidency is more of a role that must be played and a campaign is an audition for the role. B. Clinton was very, very good. He always knew exactly what we expected a President to say in any situation. Obama has that same style.
Having said that, I've simply heard too many candidates promise change to really believe he can do it. If he actually had a detailed health plan that every Congressional party leader endorsed -- with the numbers to show how they're going to pay for it -- I might be more convinced. Then you would have a Democratic Party running on a national agenda -- something you see in other countries, but we don't do that here. We buy the promises and too often end up disappointed.
January 6, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Iowa wasn't just a fluke, what might give Obama the power to really be a change agent could be the turnout of new Democratic voters and Independents. If he can win a big change in Congress and scare all those moderate Republicans the DLC always claimed we had to move right to attract into voting their consciences and moving left to bipartisan votes on OUR terms, he could be a huge change agent.
January 6, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
what do you think about his health care ideas?
January 6, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like any of their health care ideas. I'd go for universal single payer health care. The best I'd hope for from him is that he's more likely to shake things up and open the way for more innovative thinking - maybe move people off the positions they have carved in stone. I think with Clinton we'll get nothing but DLC wonkism and the same old, same old battles which she will most likely lose again.
January 6, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to where Democratic Party activists at the local level are leaning let me provide an anecdote. I am active in our local club. This puts me contact with about 40 like-minded people. Hillary has the strong backing of about 10 people, all who are over 60 years old. The rest of the club is quite negative towards her and among these all have been very impressed with the Obama campaign in their ability to mobilize new people that consider themselves Democrats. Today I would predict most of these people are now leaning strongly towards Obama. I do know that if there was any effort to mobilize this club on Hillary's behalf there would be one strong backlash.
January 5, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one to notice that only 200,000 voters out of 100,000,000 or more, made a decision in Iowa, and only about 40% of those chose Obama. What kind of fools are we to be talking about any candidate who ever had significant support being nearly out of the race?
Maybe Clinton is just about toast now, but that can only be because Americans decide who to vote for primarily by trying to guess who the winner will be, so they can hop on the bandwagon. This has to be the silliest process for selecting a president ever contrived by mankind.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 5, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
true, and i think iowa/nh have seen their last days as king-makers. Next time will be different.
I have advocated many times on this board, we need competence tests, similar to the bar exam for every Presidential candidate. You think W could've passed a tough exam? The same goes for any candidate for federal office. Think about it -- you've got to pass a test to practice law, medicine, sell insurance, and even cut hair in this country, but to vote on legislation that affects the future of every American, you don't have to demonstrate the slightest bit of competence. This is probably why we ended up with a House Intel committe chairman that didn't know Hezbollah was a Shiite Muslim organization run by Tehran. We are the fools for putting fools in office.
January 6, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need competence tests for office seekers so much as we need competence tests for voters. Neither has a place in a democracy, but of the two groups I find our voters to be the really incompetent ones. It really didn't take much competence to recognize that the shrub was totally unsuited for the office of the presidency. But, we elected him, twice.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 6, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take your meaning, but no, we actually didn't elect him twice. In fact I think he lost both times, but I realize the Kerry - Ohio and Florida vote stealing and voter supression issues are harder to prove.
I cringe every time I hear people say that they want to drag people to the voting booths; if people have to be dragged, they are obviously not interested or informed, and probably should stay home anyway.
Jan
January 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A terrific vignette about JFK. No wonder we all loved him.
Was he practicing for “I bin ein Berliner” ?
January 5, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. This got posted in the wrong place. should have been way back.
January 5, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was outstanding in tonight's debate!
She was strong,specific,and yet charming.
In response to the charges that she does not represent change her comment about the first woman being president representing HUGE CHANGE for the US and for the way the world perceives us was my favorite "Hillary moment". She said her very being embodies change.
Let's help her make history.
(Obama in 2016-He's not ready yet)
Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com
January 5, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like when Mrs. George Wallace was elected governor of Alabama? Or the wife of the president of Argentina was just elected president so hubby could still be in charge?
Mrs. Bill Clinton couldn't change a diaper, let alone the mess left by the Bushes and Clintons.
Hey about writing in Condoleeza Rice? You get a twofer.
Or maybe you can vote for a populist?
That would represent real change.
Best, Terry
January 6, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Mrs. Bill Clinton couldn't change a diaper, let alone the mess left by the Bushes and Clintons."
I really just hate to read stuff like this. It just beats down any inclination to expend the energy to perhaps offer a reasoned and different perspective on things like "Mrs. Bill Clinton's" qualifications.
Terry, I have to tell you that your comment sounds mysogisnistic, is definitely sexist, and is something I have no doubt that both John Edwards and Barack Obama would be ashamed to read.
Bruce S. Levine
January 6, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I figured that there would be those like yourself that are looking for an insult against Lady Hawk.
Hillary and her supporters are the ones that mock the status of women in our society just as you do.
If Hillary becomes president yet, it will be because she was Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Is there a single soul so dense that they can deny it truthfully?
When the majority of ladies of Iowa rejected the naked appeal to sexism, they showed you the way, Bruce. You might consider taking it.
Best, Terry
January 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maggie Thatcher already beat her to it, and I'm not sure she was all that beloved or that the world changed their perception of Great Britain as a result.
I take the opposite view. Women leaders in Western countries terrify mysogonistic leaders like those running Tehran and other male-dominated societies. They associate Western liberalism with women gaining the ultimate political power, and it re-energizes them to put up a firewall against it.
I don't base my vote on what the rest of the world is going to think. Many times, they are not aware of the reality here. My European friends have a completely biased perception of our race, and they can't understand why Edwards isn't the front runner.
January 6, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly I do not in any way shape or form see Senator Clinton as an agent of change. She's my senator and IMO she HAS NOT delivered the goods for NY. She along with her staff treat average New York constituents in a brusque and arrogant manner. Thank goodness we have Chuck Shumer to deliver the goods; and yes I've been on the receiving end of that behavior despite my many years of service to the Democratic Party on a local and statewide basis.
Beyond her lousy service to lower and middle-class New Yorkers -- the real question Americans need to ask themselves is:
Do we want the same bunch of oligarchs to run this country? After all the Bush and Clinton families have held the Presidency since 1989! I find it absolutely odd that anyone could say HRC is a symbol of change!
Frankly let's kick both families out of the presidency for at least another 8 years instead of having the presidency go from George H. Bush to Bill J. Clinton to George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton!
January 5, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hear the same stories about HRC from Arkansans, who have little love for her. I'm not sure she's even ever set foot back in the state that got her to the White House since leaving it. It'll be interesting to see if she dumps her Senate seat, if she doesn't win the White House, which would be tantamount to admitting she was using NY'rs all along.
January 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) Invent time machine.
2) Go back in time and change her vote on Iraq, support for NAFTA, deregulation that led to ENRON and also helped the dotbomb and housing bubbles, have opposed Greenspan, not botch HC reform, pay some attention to the middle class, not sit on WALMART's board, and so on.
3) Go into the future, and get a brain and personality transplant which values honesty, integrity, and democracy; above power, scheming, and dealing.
4) Return to the present as an entirely different person, based on present day Barack Obama.
OR
1) Keep repeating she's "Changier" and "More Inevitabilier" and "Ready to Lead on Day One, Take Two."
2) Wish. Real hard.
January 5, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol or...
# 3 Return stolen White House silver in a demonstrable gesture she's a new, honest woman.
#4 Learn to play the saxaphone. It worked for Bill.
#5 Announce Oprah is her running mate, in a bid to steal Winfrey's support from Obama.
#6 Invent new LSD-laced fragrance that puts her audience in a mind-altered suggestive state.
#7 Change slogan from "Ready" to "Ready and Willing" with Dallas Cowboy cheerleader group photo. (should pull the male vote)
#8 Announce her marriage is now open. (should pull female vote)
January 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sara,
I am sure you are familiar with the following quote, which I don't think any candidate for president of either party would dare to repeat this year:When I was a kid and working for JFK, we thought that Ike was useless, yesterday's man. Like you I have experienced the phenomenon that Mark Twain observed:
As to Kenneth Baer's question, "what can Hillary Clinton do to stop Barack Obama?"
My most sincere advice for Hillary is that she retire from the race and ask her supporters, especially those who sign big checks, to support John Edwards.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 6, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol. I guess Obama is too electable.
Couldn't you have found a more improbable scenario to aid the Republican candidate even more? How about a "sincere wish" for Hillary and Obama to both step aside and endorse a Kucinich/Gravel ticket?
And let me guess, you greatly dislike Hillary, and Obama, and are a huge Edwards supporter, and you really want to beat the Republicans, sincerely, and yet you have no problem with the fact that Edwards' numbers in primary states and nationwide are abysmal, that he's never amassed more than a small loyal following, that he couldn't even beat Kerry in 2004, and has little campaign cash left, and his campaign is being run by Joe Trippi, a real boner.
I see "sincere" people like you urging the Dems towards suicidal strategies every election.
January 6, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Baer, are you asking us what "spin" Senator Clinton needs to provide in order to "fool" the primary voters and win this election? It's as if you believe there's simply a few minor things taht Senator Clinton can now do to change perceptions.
I disagree. We'll all see how it plays out in the next primaries--but I suspect voters are not buying what Senator Clinton is selling. And I further suspect that what Senator Clinton needs to be selling is her biography showing her leadership, independence and lonely fights for folks. If those things are in her biography--and I contend that they are missing in enough volumne or depth--then she will do okay. Obama and Edwards have those things in their respective biographies.
As an Obama supporter, I simply believe that Obama's biography supports what I want in the next President--and what I want in the leadership of the Democratic Pary.
January 6, 2008 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What argument can be used to stop Obamania?
Mania is the Greek word for madness.
Mania: An abnormally elevated mood state characterized by such symptoms as inappropriate elation, grandiose notions, increased speed and/or volume of speech, disconnected and racing thought and poor judgment.
That's one argument.
Another would be that inspiration and hope will not fix our healthcare system, medicare, Social Security, renewable energy, foreign policy, etc.
Another would be that Obama is now saying "there has been too much anger in Washington." That sounds good, but it's just slick talk. No... Nobody has been fighting for the American people in Washington. The reps in Washington have been bowing to special interests on a daily basis at the expense of America's future.
I'm hoping the voters will stay grounded and see that Edwards is showing the most leadership and courage and he's telling the most important truths. I'm hoping the voters will see that Edwards plans to unify the public and harness the frustration of Americans for constructive ends is the real hope.
Then again, George Bush was elected twice.
January 6, 2008 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are Obama's vulnerabilities?
One stands out for me: parody.
Everybody is raving about his Iowa victory speech, but as someone who, since childhood, has a weakness for cruel mimicry, I found it irresistible. In a couple of days even I should be able to do a perfect imitation of him. The structure goes:
PLATITUDE
(meaningful pause)
PLATITUDE
(meaningful look and pause)
PLATITUDE
PLATITUDE
Imagine doing this with the instructions on how to change the date on your cellphone, for example.
There are people in Hollywood that owe the Clinton's big time, if they want to survive they should call in a few markers. Any professional impersonator should be able to turn such pompous windyness into a couple of hilarious minutes on YouTube.
Only the comedy writers strike is keeping Obama alive.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 6, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Kosmic,
I confess, that like you probably do, I have serious problems with Edward's hair, however, he seems to be the only Democratic candidate that actually offers any program for change instead of just rhythmically delivered platitudes.
Obviously since his message is anti-corporate and anti-Wall Street, it is easy to understand why he has problems raising funds. However, if he can survive long enough to see Hillary blow up, then he has a chance, because the depth of the present economic crisis has not been fully realized by most voters yet, but by convention time they may be much more responsive to his message.
When we talk about "electable", the question should be "electable to do what, for whom, when?" The only Democratic candidate that actually answers those questions, despite his truly deplorable hair, is Edwards.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 6, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
for the life of me I don't understand why 85% of the public isn't rushing to support Edwards.
January 6, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink