What is it with this large faction of the Democratic Party that are at best blinded by ideology and at worst are complete morons? This is the 3rd election in the row that the Democrats not only can win, but will win...if only they put up a candidate who a) has vision, b) isn't tied to a previous administration, and c) can pull the independents and centrist voters in.
Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton is actually in a position where she gets enough votes to steal the nomination (yes, steal) away from Barack Obama. Looking at the list above, she fails on all three points.
Are you people really that stupid?
Oh, so you think I'm being harsh or perhaps I just simply don’t see the magic or the significance of HRC. Ok, try this on for size: let's forget for a moment that the Republican in this race is John McCain. Let's pretend for a moment that it's Jeb Bush.
Tell me, Democrats, how that very idea turns your stomach. Tell me how determined you are to make sure that he doesn't get within sniffing distance of the White House. Tell me how much money you are willing to contribute to make sure that he loses, even more determined than you are to make sure that whatever Democrat is running wins.
Do you get the idea? Jeb might actually be the best politician and the most centric of the 3 Bushes. It doesn't matter; his name alone is polarizing and renders him unelectable. And yet, there are a large number of you out there who don't seem to understand just how much the name "Clinton" produces venom-laced saliva in this country. And no, they're not all right-wing wacko Republicans. Those of us in the center have absolutely NO desire to see anyone named Bush or Clinton hit the White House again. Ever. Not now, not in four years, not in eight years.
If Hillary is the nominee, you will in effect be electing a Republican yet again. Oh, I know you don’t think so. “She’s a fighter. She’s tough. The Republicans really don’t like John McCain, and the country is ready for a change.”
Don’t kid yourself. Because if you do, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot yet again. The only control you might have is which foot and how many toes you can blow off.
And quit any comments about the idiocy of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. You need to look in the mirror.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Thursday, March 29, 2007
WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE
There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...
...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:
"Randy, watch the belt buckle."
This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.
This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?
Watch the belt buckle.
In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.
We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.
We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.
I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.
So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.
Watch the belt buckle.
By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....
...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:
"Randy, watch the belt buckle."
This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.
This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?
Watch the belt buckle.
In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.
We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.
We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.
I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.
So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.
Watch the belt buckle.
By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mashing Up Hillary...or Who's Afraid of Barack?
So how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination? She's definitely making the news...as the butt of a very clever joke in the mashup of the 1984 Apple commercial...and it doesn't help her cause. (NOTE: For the 5 people in the country that may not have seen the ad, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo )
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.
This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.
The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.
Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."
Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.
So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?
(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)
Friday, January 26, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON - THE EASY ONE
Unelectable.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
