Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Two thoughts on the unfolding Clinton campaign
two thoughts...
1.. when hillary says that she learned from republican attacks on them in the 90's, what she means is that she learned how to parrot those attacks. her insinuating that rezko is
anything more than a small-fry problem with no real stain on obama is right out of the whitewater playbook, the subtle racial attacks are straight up southern (or shall we say archie bunker) strategy. her red-phone gambit is straight up content free fear mongering. she's definitely learned well.
2. i've heard it said that 'the establishment' would rather lose a race but maintain control of the party than vice versa. HRC more strident and republican-eque attacks on obama are a perfect example of that. if she can't be president then
she'd rather that obama (the dems) lose the general than allow the grassroots movement that he's built to supplant the establishment's hold on the democratic party. its utterly cynical power-grabbing and deserves condemnation from all quarters.
Comments (7)
I think you may be right. What we're seeing is a fight for the future of the Democratic Party.
March 7, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is eerily mirrors the election of Howard Dean as the party chairman. Grassroots Democrats were massively behind him for the position because they knew he was not an insider and would shake up the party's tired old losing strategy. But the establishment Democrats wanted another McAuliffe so they trotted out Ickes and a bunch of other Beltway gladhanders.
It was a pitched battle but we in the majority managed to beat back the insiders and thank God we did. Dean was chided in 2006 by Schumer and Emmanuel for sticking to his 50 state strategy and not coughing up party funds to the DSCC/DCCC, but the party is clearly benefiting from his vision, tenacity and long term thinking.
If we nominate Hillary we move the party backwards and will once again be selling out the party's principles to an establishment candidate who will triangulate rather than lead.
March 7, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted a similar comment under Jefo's letter, but I think this bears repeating: Obama needs to approach this (dare I say it) like the next Commander in Chief and put together an attack PLAN against Her Royal Clintoness.
For example, 2 days on tax returns and white house records, 2 days on small fry Rezko vs convicted HRC supporters like Chung, Hsu and Trie - not to mention Marc Friggin Rich; 2 days on her bogus non existent 35 years of "experience", 2 days on the utter chaos of her campaign staff (if she can't run a campaign, how the hell can she run a country?), etc.
Also, someone other than Larry David needs to make a case about this woman's apparent mental health issues. For a laugh, check this out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html
Then think about it. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
March 7, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Larry David piece IS very funny...and amazingly persuasive, too. It's true: Obama at least appears to be much more stable. Course, running for President will unhinge anyone. Can't understand how anyone stands up to the pressure.
March 7, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party needs for Obama to be its leader. Obama plays in all 50 states because he views every state as important. The old Dems concede to many states to the Republicans without even fighting. Just look Hillary is practically conceding two more states to Obama.
March 7, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is overwhelming numbers: supporters, votes, organization. If it's close, the machine wins.
She's surging in PA. Work to do.....
Obama would deliver democrats to Congress one district at a time, nationwide. Hillary has no coattails at all. None. Zip. It would be her whiny excuse why she couldn't get anything done. But I'm so sick and tired of her whiny excuses.
PA seems to believe her going to cocktail parties makes her Commander-in-Chief material. They think the chest-thumping makes her "strong". Because that's worked for well for us so far, hasn't it? How do democrats not see that her foreign policy IS Bush's foreign policy, but a tad less nutty. Same follies, same lack of diplomacy, same refusal to accept responsiblity.
I think she waited 8 rings to answer the phone at 3 AM because she had Mark Penn conduct a poll on what she should do.
Just sick of it.
March 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this campaign and Clinton's tactics are a severe test of Democratic Party leadership. And I think they are failing the test.
Either the Party leadership insists on fairness, decency and ethical behavior or it doesn't. Clinton has crossed too many lines crossed for it to be accidental. They are failing in their responsibility to rank and file Democrats to offer the best candidate - not the most cynical one, or the most well connected one, or the most ethically challenged one.
Folks, use the Democrats.org contact mechanism and hold the National Democratic Party Leadership accountable. Power brokering, cynical hackery, and dirty deals will destroy the Party. Make them challenge the candidates - and the press - to give us honest debate and not a boxing match.
March 7, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment