Then I saw Hillary today:
Does she really think a performance like this, with Ohio Gov. Strickland looking stricken behind her, kind of a poor man's version of John McCain's ancient stage partners, makes he somehow look more electable than this gentleman (in his rebuttal):
Talk about measured. And, of course, Presidential.
My thought is that this is her Howard Dean Scream, her coffin nail moment. I'm guessing that the mention of John Edwards is more than tangential, that she's reading the writing on the wall (with Obama's campaign manager sneaking into North Carolina last week) and is attempting a Hail Mary pass by smearing Obama on universal health coverage.
But what I'm wondering now is how far gone Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign really is, as in much farther than any of us realize. With the news this week that he's creeping up on her in the Texas and even Ohio polls, and even more telling that Obama's starting to win over those "super delegates" that her team somehow thinks they eke advantage on by suddenly calling them "automatic delegates" -- he gained 25 these past two week while she lost 2.
Frank Rich is particularly apt -- and merciless -- this week:
WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.It's all devastating, going over a lot of the errors covered in Nettertainment recently, comparing her further to Bush in terms of loyalty over competence, most damning:
It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.
This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.
What's really going on inside of Sen. Clinton's campaign? The Washington Post has the scoop:
Inside Clinton's inner circle on Friday, the feeling was that the Thursday night debate in Austin was unlikely to slow Obama's momentum from 11 straight primary and caucus victories. Some supporters said they had discussed how to raise with Clinton the subject of withdrawing from the race should she fail to win decisively on March 4. One option was to wait a day or two and then dispatch emissaries to former president Clinton to urge him to make the case.
One adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said Obama's 17-point Wisconsin victory on Tuesday had started to sink in as a decisive blow, given that the state had been viewed weeks earlier as a level playing field.
What's increasingly at stake:
"People who care about her are worried about her long-term future," the adviser said.That's right. Want to maybe land as VP or Senate Majority Leader under President and Democratic Party Leader Obama? Maybe don't burn every bridge on your way out. Think of Al Gore's concession speech in 2000 impressing the hell out of everybody and laying the foundation for his new role as master statesman.
But, at least for now, it doesn't seem that Sen. Clinton is looking at things that way, per Clinton supporter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, via a Political Wire reader who saw her speak last week:
"Townsend said she expects Sen. Barack Obama to win the Democratic presidential nomination and that Clinton is finished. She believed that the Wisconsin results demonstrated that Clinton's coalition (voters over the age of 50 and those earning less than $50,000) had fallen apart. When asked why the Clinton campaign had failed, Ms. Townsend had plenty of opinions and she placed significant blame on Bill Clinton and his racially tinged statements in South Carolina. She also felt that Clinton made a tactical error in making "experience and inevitability" her central campaign themes. Townsend argued that Clinton had little more experience than Obama and far less than candidates such as Senators Dodd and Biden. Additionally, making the inevitability claim hurt her when she lost Iowa... Townsend then lamented Clinton's decision to go negative and question Obama's readiness. She said that she called the Clinton campaign and advised that they 'go out on a high note' but her advice was politely dismissed."
Hillary's scold vs. Dean's scream. We don't elect scolds. Sooner or later they get ridiculed, and in this day and age, sooner:
I especially love that excerpt of her criticizing Edwards in one of the debates for his stance when he ran four years ago.
What a shame.
10 comments:
What is said off-screen should be as important as what is said on-screen. Or is that not a transparent enough thought?
We have had 7 years of a president who thought he was "right" on the first day. Of one who surrounded himself with expert advisors. That was a uniter, not a divider. A candidate who touted himself as the one person who could end the immigration issue. Who was going to leave no child behind. Who didn’t have much experience; but could rally the political base.
We now live in a country that exists in perpetual wrongs. Our standing in the world has gone down, and that has affected us economically and politically. Where we had advantages by pushing new trade agreements and having the ear of our allies, we have lost it all through arrogance. And not through the arrogance of the American people.
The experts were one-path experts. Only going down the road that they had pre-ordained as the correct track.
We are more divided than ever, in this county and the world politically, economically and socially.
Immigration is an issue of compassion, not just lines of demarcation. We have to take into consideration the virtual and actual duel-citizenship of those who live and work on the borders.
Our children are left behind in the very real sense and actual words of teachers that they had to make certain that our children could pass the required tests. And if all of our children can’t pass the tests, that’s OK; as long as enough do to get the federal funds needed.
There is one thing that I am more tired of than anything else in this campaign. She voted for the war, he didn’t. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who voted for military force to back weapons inspectors that thought they were voting for a war; and particularly an immediate war with Iraq. Well, maybe if you voted for it in a secret ballot as a member of the executive branch. Since then, the records are the same.
When considering complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq (which is not the same comment as on his website) we should remember the lessons of history. Complete withdrawal without the necessary regional support, outlined redevelopment efforts and support of the Iraqi government equals the outcome of World War I – World War II. Germany was left to deal with the aftermath on their own; isolated in a hostile neighborhood. Vietnam and their neighbors got the killing fields. We’re still in Korea. However, after WWII we did better.
Throughout history leaders have always sent their delegates to less than friendly countries first to pre-negotiate and garner good-faith actions prior to an official state interaction. This allows them to avoid the Neville Chamberlain-affect.
What is different about the two candidates is the information you will find on their websites. (www.barackobama.com, www.hillaryclinton.com)
The difference is that on the Obama site, you will find sound-byte paragraphs on each of the topics. Click to read the full report, and you will find them in a different format without much more detail. On the Clinton site (although you do get directed to press releases) even the press releases have more detail and exact steps in the considered program; with further detail links at the bottom.
Five hundred dollars is not going to bring me relief when my taxes have gone up over fifteen hundred dollars. When my rent has gone up $500 a month in the last seven years. I went without insurance off and on over the last years because I could not afford insurance to cover just myself at $450 a month for the lowest end Blue Cross HMO. I still am in a tight spot with the new insurance my employer offered for $160 a month; and the only reason I can afford it is because of all the over-time. And the prescription coverage is below average to put it politely.
I’m sorry, I don’t wish to upset anyone; but I would like some experience, compassion and attention to detail – long and short-term in our next president.
Hillary looks like she is bi-polar. What magnifies this is the fact she was so gracious and friendly during the debate. She comes off as completely off her rocker.
As for the Governor, I'm sure the entire time he was thinking "what the hell am I doing standing behind this crazed witch?"
To still hopeful-experience preferred...
What experience does Hillary Clinton have? She FAILED at Healthcare Reform. She couldn't keep an eye on her philandering husband. She hid her Rose Law Firm files for years. She didn't author any significant legislation that I know of. She didn't write her own book. She supported the Iraq war up until Barack Obama announced he was running for President.
As Bill Clinton said in 1992, there is good experience and bad experience. Hillary has BAD experience. She hasn't demonstrated an ability to learn from her mistakes. We don't need her as President.
i think the debate about tactics that Hillary is requesting involves asking Obama for advice on how to generate crowds, inspire people and effectively organize a campaign in multiple states. Oh, and, of course, let's be sure to count the delegates in Florida and Michigan. This is exactly the kind of double standard that the Clintons have raised to a new level. But not to worry, she'll be on to a new strategy tomorrow.
It really looks like it's over to me, and Barack just has to hold onto the ball and not make a mistake as he runs out the clock.
I hope Hillary has a classy exit in mind.
"I hope Hillary has a classy exit in mind."
We can only hope it is as "classy" as her meltdown in Ohio. What a freakshow.
No one said it better than Dr. Seuss, "I do not like this one so well, all she (sic) does is yell, yell, yell."
-MoiB
I seem to recall John McCain railing against Karl Rove in similar fashion in South Carolina in 2000. Worked out for him.
Not sure what this says about her "experience" when she looks like a rank amateur. I can't imagine having to endure four years of this, much less eight.
Just the facts, Mam...
Republicans stated the 1993-1994 Health Care Plan as too complicated for the average American to understand. It’s a shame we didn’t get the chance to. That along with the ads paid for by the insurance industry sank the original proposal.
Don’t want to think about politicians and sex – don’t need the mental pictures. Are you sorry she didn’t add to the divorce statistics? Do you support the idea that all wives should divorce wandering husbands?
Why after years of investigation were there no charges brought on the multiple accusations against both Clintons outside of the midnight Republican passage of impeachment?
S.B.810 – Regulate Transmission of Personally Identifiable Information to Foreign Affiliates, S.B.816 – Establish Position of Northern Boarder Coordinator for Homeland Security, S.B.140 – Domestic Defense Fund for Homeland Security, S.B.211 – Nationwide telephone service for Human Resources and Volunteer Services, S.B.841 – Fair Labor Standards
“It Takes A Village” to create a lynch mob against writing books and the “little lady” not knowing her place was at home in the White House. (6 books.)
February 4, 2004 – Letter supporting weapons inspectors.
Senate speech – October 10, 2002
“The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.”
Post a Comment