Holy Confoundemnification Batman
By Courtney Goodloe
Week of February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008
Advertisement
The Doer Has Done Herself In
By Courtney Goodloe
Once stenched it is damn near impossible to cleanse.
You know how when you step in some dog-poo -- you can try and try and try hard as you might -- but can never quite rid yourself of the smell -- short of obliterating your shoe?
Well, what will be the final, pathetic, Clinton campaign dirty-trick was the work of a staffer who missed Rove 101 but fancied themselves a master. Was plausible deniability a casualty of incompetence, obliviousness, arrogance or just plain suicidal tendencies?
As they have all along, her campaign once again seems to miss the point that whatever else you do, your fundamental mission should be to attract voters -- no matter how preordained you think your win should be. It seems so simple that presumably one should not have to explain this to professionals, but apparently we do.
The voters she needs to be attracting and re-attracting (not repelling) have either drifted from her camp or were in Obama's already -- which by very definition shows a part of their nature to be optimistic. This group does not respond well to turd-hurling and will now be permanently alienated -- even if she were the nominee come the general. Not to mention the increased likelihood of super-delegate defection as a response to trying to take the Party down with her. And if Obama's the nominee, she has clearly abandoned the possibilities of a spot in his administration, or preserving an honorable Senate career, or running for anything ever again.
Clinton's staff seems to have perfected the multi-tasking of the Titanic -- managing to re-arrange chairs, while playing in the band and stepping over women and children all at once. For anyone looking for prioritization - finding this photo is what her staff has been spending its time doing. This, after time and time again, the only negatives that rise when she goes negative are hers.
This apocalyptic scorch, slash and burn betrays a level of cynicism which astounds. If you accept my premise above regarding what her strategy should be, then what possible logic could reside in their approach except that she's taking the ball home?
Contrary to the idea that the Republicans are relishing the 'dirtying' up - I'd imagine that their strategists are quite annoyed at the fact that Clinton is using up all their potential ammunition for the general. And in the process, her campaign is giving Obama's an opportunity to further perfect its graceful deflect, defend and rise above moves. Whatever doesn't kill you...
Oh - I thought of another possible explanation for her strategy - which I credit to NY Daily News columnist Errol Lewis. His theory, offered early on, is downright Machiavellian. That since the Clinton camp benefits from lower voter turnout, it in fact aims to disgust the electorate enough to induce apathy. This was before we grasped the strength of Obama's campaign and its supporters' passion. And abandoning losing strategies does not seem to be Clinton's strong suit.
Always several steps behind the electorate, the Clintons missed the part where we chucked the smelly shoes - a lesson lost on them while they continue to wear theirs.
Once stenched it is damn near impossible to cleanse.
You know how when you step in some dog-poo -- you can try and try and try hard as you might -- but can never quite rid yourself of the smell -- short of obliterating your shoe?
Well, what will be the final, pathetic, Clinton campaign dirty-trick was the work of a staffer who missed Rove 101 but fancied themselves a master. Was plausible deniability a casualty of incompetence, obliviousness, arrogance or just plain suicidal tendencies?
As they have all along, her campaign once again seems to miss the point that whatever else you do, your fundamental mission should be to attract voters -- no matter how preordained you think your win should be. It seems so simple that presumably one should not have to explain this to professionals, but apparently we do.
The voters she needs to be attracting and re-attracting (not repelling) have either drifted from her camp or were in Obama's already -- which by very definition shows a part of their nature to be optimistic. This group does not respond well to turd-hurling and will now be permanently alienated -- even if she were the nominee come the general. Not to mention the increased likelihood of super-delegate defection as a response to trying to take the Party down with her. And if Obama's the nominee, she has clearly abandoned the possibilities of a spot in his administration, or preserving an honorable Senate career, or running for anything ever again.
Clinton's staff seems to have perfected the multi-tasking of the Titanic -- managing to re-arrange chairs, while playing in the band and stepping over women and children all at once. For anyone looking for prioritization - finding this photo is what her staff has been spending its time doing. This, after time and time again, the only negatives that rise when she goes negative are hers.
This apocalyptic scorch, slash and burn betrays a level of cynicism which astounds. If you accept my premise above regarding what her strategy should be, then what possible logic could reside in their approach except that she's taking the ball home?
Contrary to the idea that the Republicans are relishing the 'dirtying' up - I'd imagine that their strategists are quite annoyed at the fact that Clinton is using up all their potential ammunition for the general. And in the process, her campaign is giving Obama's an opportunity to further perfect its graceful deflect, defend and rise above moves. Whatever doesn't kill you...
Oh - I thought of another possible explanation for her strategy - which I credit to NY Daily News columnist Errol Lewis. His theory, offered early on, is downright Machiavellian. That since the Clinton camp benefits from lower voter turnout, it in fact aims to disgust the electorate enough to induce apathy. This was before we grasped the strength of Obama's campaign and its supporters' passion. And abandoning losing strategies does not seem to be Clinton's strong suit.
Always several steps behind the electorate, the Clintons missed the part where we chucked the smelly shoes - a lesson lost on them while they continue to wear theirs.
No Country For Whiny, Crusty, Self-Important Wannabes
By Courtney Goodloe
Well - Nader - again. Bill Murray should play him in a Groundhog Day sequel. Do you need a sequel or does the movie just spontaneously recreate itself? Jeez.
What a way to totally obliterate a legacy. Much respect for that by the way - but when you have to go back thirty years to reference your other-than-gadfly accomplishments - well either start adding to your resume or get off the stage.
On Meet the Press yesterday, he spoke of the 'right to run' - yeah well people have the right to make movies, write books, make music - and the public has the right to not buy a ticket - well, you get the point.
Like a lot of pols are learning this season - you missed your moment. And no amount of repeats are going to make you the Third Party messiah. He seems to have missed the lecture on movements - people actually have to follow you. The very premise of your run requires same - we haven't and we won't. He thinks he can piggy-back the surge in political participation which he nearly murdered.
Nader misses the true fount of our national resentment. More than his being an accomplice to the Gore mugging - more than the condescending tone - more than the uneasy feeling we get in any arena when someone keeps missing the graceful exit - America resents late-coming, bypass an entire process kinda candidates.
So now after the earliest starting Presidential primary processes ever - after we and the candidates have put in all the hard work, of dialogue (Nader you are not excused from this), volunteering, reading, Dante's seven levels of debate hell - oh yeah, and SURVIVING THE BUSH YEARS - he pops up now - much like the annoying latest-arriving party guest.
Sir, do you know why you come across as completely inauthentic and self-interested? It is because you have been remarkably muted over the last seven years of our country's near decimation. You'd seasonally stick your head out of the hole - much like Pennsylvania bellwether animal - just to remind us of your 'potential' to up-end the process.
No Sir, the last few years you did not spend that time actually building a movement or doing something valuable like having a shadow government - answering all the administration BS loud and clear at every turn. No - after you surface just to run - you go right back into your hole with no acknowledgment of the storm vortex you created - oh, but with the perfunctory, occasional gracing us with your presence.
For all of the bashing of our system - although admittedly, much of it deserved - at least the people you malign participate consistently. All the 'revolution' you tout - would actually require your hanging round for more than the blasts of attention you so seem to crave. Oh wait - definitely don't want to encourage your hanging 'round.
Go back into your hole, please.
Well - Nader - again. Bill Murray should play him in a Groundhog Day sequel. Do you need a sequel or does the movie just spontaneously recreate itself? Jeez.
What a way to totally obliterate a legacy. Much respect for that by the way - but when you have to go back thirty years to reference your other-than-gadfly accomplishments - well either start adding to your resume or get off the stage.
On Meet the Press yesterday, he spoke of the 'right to run' - yeah well people have the right to make movies, write books, make music - and the public has the right to not buy a ticket - well, you get the point.
Like a lot of pols are learning this season - you missed your moment. And no amount of repeats are going to make you the Third Party messiah. He seems to have missed the lecture on movements - people actually have to follow you. The very premise of your run requires same - we haven't and we won't. He thinks he can piggy-back the surge in political participation which he nearly murdered.
Nader misses the true fount of our national resentment. More than his being an accomplice to the Gore mugging - more than the condescending tone - more than the uneasy feeling we get in any arena when someone keeps missing the graceful exit - America resents late-coming, bypass an entire process kinda candidates.
So now after the earliest starting Presidential primary processes ever - after we and the candidates have put in all the hard work, of dialogue (Nader you are not excused from this), volunteering, reading, Dante's seven levels of debate hell - oh yeah, and SURVIVING THE BUSH YEARS - he pops up now - much like the annoying latest-arriving party guest.
Sir, do you know why you come across as completely inauthentic and self-interested? It is because you have been remarkably muted over the last seven years of our country's near decimation. You'd seasonally stick your head out of the hole - much like Pennsylvania bellwether animal - just to remind us of your 'potential' to up-end the process.
No Sir, the last few years you did not spend that time actually building a movement or doing something valuable like having a shadow government - answering all the administration BS loud and clear at every turn. No - after you surface just to run - you go right back into your hole with no acknowledgment of the storm vortex you created - oh, but with the perfunctory, occasional gracing us with your presence.
For all of the bashing of our system - although admittedly, much of it deserved - at least the people you malign participate consistently. All the 'revolution' you tout - would actually require your hanging round for more than the blasts of attention you so seem to crave. Oh wait - definitely don't want to encourage your hanging 'round.
Go back into your hole, please.
Caught With Her Pantsuit Down
By Courtney Goodloe
The Clinton scold heard yesterday 'round the world was 'shockingly' not about direct mail or tactics or anything but the defensive posture of someone whose central character and resume point has been so thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked as myth.
The irony is that we have all been chasing the 'authenticity' story as it relates to Obama. But as this campaign wanes, win or lose, whose persona appears to be deflated here and whose currency has risen?
The self-described (other-described) uber-prepared and hardest working pol in the biz has been shown to be exactly, well, not. In fact, so unprepared and apparently outworked so as to confound. If you could not summon these traits from the opening shot - then hmmm.
Is Clinton now actually more vulnerable to the infamous 'talking vs. doing' contrast than her opponent. It seems that while she was 'talking' about being prepared and working hard -- he was 'doing' just that.
I need not recount every single Clinton campaign mis-step here as they have now become legion -- as has a closer analysis of "ready on day one..." But the mind-bending whoppers -- choice of personnel, money mismanagement, lack of ground-operations in key places, forfeiting caucuses, playing catch-up in understanding the TX delegate process -- show a candidate who was anything but ready.
Interestingly, what it speaks to is one of two possible explanations (perhaps both). Either very Bush-like -- over-delegating and just 'stepping in' after blindly accepting what was offered by staff -- without keeping some degree of a personal handle on things, OR, as many others have floated -- having staff so unwilling or unable to speak truth to her that things fell apart while she was being told otherwise. Either scenario is troubling because they illustrate a lack of competence that is quite frankly, stunning.
In my mind, more telling than yesterday's cringe-inducing "shame on you..." was Clinton saying, "enough with the speeches and rallies..." Really, do you mean essentially, enough with campaigning??? Seriously?
Next, was the bizarre line about, "Let's start having some elections and seeing the results..." I don't know where Clinton has been since February 5th - but the last ten contests qualify as results - unless she's confusing her zero wins with meaning 'nothing' happened.
Every Clinton campaign negative gambit, tactic, ploy, response, attack -- reveals a certain level of tone-deafness and a drifting ever farther away from an accurate reading of the national mood. This inability to 'see' and to 'hear' does not bode well for adjustment.
What is the definition of insanity -- repeating the same... well, you know the rest.
The Clinton scold heard yesterday 'round the world was 'shockingly' not about direct mail or tactics or anything but the defensive posture of someone whose central character and resume point has been so thoroughly and embarrassingly debunked as myth.
The irony is that we have all been chasing the 'authenticity' story as it relates to Obama. But as this campaign wanes, win or lose, whose persona appears to be deflated here and whose currency has risen?
The self-described (other-described) uber-prepared and hardest working pol in the biz has been shown to be exactly, well, not. In fact, so unprepared and apparently outworked so as to confound. If you could not summon these traits from the opening shot - then hmmm.
Is Clinton now actually more vulnerable to the infamous 'talking vs. doing' contrast than her opponent. It seems that while she was 'talking' about being prepared and working hard -- he was 'doing' just that.
I need not recount every single Clinton campaign mis-step here as they have now become legion -- as has a closer analysis of "ready on day one..." But the mind-bending whoppers -- choice of personnel, money mismanagement, lack of ground-operations in key places, forfeiting caucuses, playing catch-up in understanding the TX delegate process -- show a candidate who was anything but ready.
Interestingly, what it speaks to is one of two possible explanations (perhaps both). Either very Bush-like -- over-delegating and just 'stepping in' after blindly accepting what was offered by staff -- without keeping some degree of a personal handle on things, OR, as many others have floated -- having staff so unwilling or unable to speak truth to her that things fell apart while she was being told otherwise. Either scenario is troubling because they illustrate a lack of competence that is quite frankly, stunning.
In my mind, more telling than yesterday's cringe-inducing "shame on you..." was Clinton saying, "enough with the speeches and rallies..." Really, do you mean essentially, enough with campaigning??? Seriously?
Next, was the bizarre line about, "Let's start having some elections and seeing the results..." I don't know where Clinton has been since February 5th - but the last ten contests qualify as results - unless she's confusing her zero wins with meaning 'nothing' happened.
Every Clinton campaign negative gambit, tactic, ploy, response, attack -- reveals a certain level of tone-deafness and a drifting ever farther away from an accurate reading of the national mood. This inability to 'see' and to 'hear' does not bode well for adjustment.
What is the definition of insanity -- repeating the same... well, you know the rest.
Advertisement
