Letters to the Editor
-
@debaser
What Clinton's campaign turning down that MI deal means is 3 things...
1. They don't want a resolution, not now, not ever. They want the SDs to swing it to her on the "argument" instead of it being decided on the facts.
2. They realize a 10 or even 18 seat margin is nothing, so they want their 55% and they want the rest to go "uncommitted" in the irrational hope that they can swing all of those to her as well.
3. Or, since they mentioned the number of votes when they declined the deal, they want any deal to come with the implicit agreement that the popular vote is the new metric by which this thing should be decided, and that, just like above, Obama gets none of the "uncommitted" votes.
It's craven and sad, but it's all they've got.
-
Who's the Demagogue?
To the writer who said Clinton did nothing wrong but lost to a demagogue (I guess that means Obama) - I think you need to examine the statements of the Clintons during the campaign for examples of demagoguery. THis last week she's been appealing to "hard working white voters." In South Carolina Bill likened Obama's win to Jesse Jackson's. Hillary is outraged by use of the word pimp; or that she's being ganged up on in debates; yet the James Carvilles of her campaign tell Obama he needs more cajones like Clinton. While there are a myriad of reasons Clinton might have lost the campaign, one that stands out is that she has never had a clear message. She votes for the war in Iraq; but she's against it; but she's for obliterating Iran; she wants a gas tax holiday; but she wants to use windfall profits for alternate fuel research. She agrees to the terms of the primarys for FLorida and Michigan. Then chides everyone for not changing the rules when they favor her. (Does anyone believe she'd be fighting to count votes for Obama or the other candidates?) The more OBama sticks to his message of change and hope, the more Clinton changes message and strategy to seem like she's at times just pandering to get any vote she can. The Clintons call OBama elite and inexperienced - yet it is Clinton who purports to have experience she doesn't (35 years? gunshots in Bosnia?) and acts surprised when people doubt her veracity. Now, even though she and Bill are millionaires hundreds times over, she stays in the race to ask for more money from those hard working people to pay back more money for a campaign she probably can't win. If Hillary Clinton wants to salvage her reputation then she needs to just be honest with the voters, tell Bill to stop lecturing voters like they can't read or understand what's going on and help Obama win the next election.
-
I pretty much agree with that analysis
I know people don't like it when we (obama supporters) say it, but she did run with too much inevitability early on. She got overconfident in her poll numbers and didn't really wake up after Iowa when she should have.
I think she really suffered from overconfidence and her campaign staff did too. It makes sense actually. Her last name is "Clinton". Name recognition goes a long way and her husband did leave a favorable impression on many democrat minds. Compared to the rest of the field, she just had to wait till they all withered and fell off.
That to me was the core of her problems and why she lost.
-
Gas Tax Holiday Pandering sealed it...
period.
-
Hillary's Epitaph: Pandering and inept
Wow, if she's rejecting MI's offer it's pretty amazing. But it frames her failure perfectly:
- her continued "fight" for MI is the essence of say-anything politics of convenience (called pandering)
- her refusal to make a deal, and cling to results of a non-election at the expense of the vast majority of Americans who've rejected her in primary after primary is cravenly self-serving
- her inability to resolve issues brings her ineptitude, and poor management skills to the fore.
Every day her campaign proves her unworthy of any sort of job that requires good judgement and competent management. Her skills are fine for the debating club known as the Senate, with no executive responsibilities. But she's run such a terrible campaign (the biggest thing she's ever managed) that she's proven herself to be incompetent manager with lousy judgement. You can't wash stink like that off with a shower...
She's helped shape the debate, and her fight has toughened the Democratic nominee to take on the Republicans, so I don't mind her taking a last lap to close it out. But the management and direction of her campaign from Day One prove she's not ready for the corner office at all.
-
What went right
I am hoping that Karen Tumulty does a parallel piece to this excellent article on the Clinton campaign's many blunders. I want a succinct analysis on what Obama did right. I think I would include the following:
1) identifying early the mood of the nation and sticking with the basic theme of his campaign despite pressure to shift; 2) enlisting a wide network of grassroots supporters and offering them basic training in community organizing that paid off in all 50 states; 3)running an extremely tight ship financially; 4)recruiting a top-notch group of staffers whose smarts and savvy paid off far beyond their salaries; 5) listening to his own inner voice and translating that into some of the most stirring speeches ever delivered in modern-day politics; 6)adhering to his conviction that dirty politics was out of style and ineffective; 7) speaking to the American people as adults capable of serious discourse on the touchiest subjects in our shared history; 8) having the emotional stamina and tempermental balance to withstand a typhoon of media-driven assaults against his character and patriotism; 9) having the graceful sense of humor to bowl gutterballs and laugh at himself, and 10) having the guts to refuse to embrace foolish or dangerous policy positions in order to pander to the uninformed views of potential voters.
In other words, I don't think that Sen. Clinton lost so much as Sen. Obama won. Now let's unleash him on McCain and get this nation turned in the right direction again.