USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Anybody seen the new Clinton ad, upbraiding Obama for only having agreed to 2 more debates but not one in WI? (I gather that's the principal market for the ad, though I could be wrong.)

Again, my preference is no secret, here, but even so I'm moved to ask if this doesn't seem a rather audacious and dangerous move on her part, given that she's apparently not even campaigning in WI and he is, and given all the other smaller states where that situation also would apply and her comments about them not mattering and so forth.

I mean, has this not occurred to Clinton's people, despite all the added coverage on that point about her strategy (skipping these smaller states) lately, in the wake of his string of wins in them? Or are they banking on his more civil style to pre-empt a return volley of ads run in lots of non-giant states that turn the tables on them and ask why she won't visit them or says they don't matter?

Seems like if the Obama camp were so inclined (and I'm not saying they won't be, even if they haven't, yet), they could use the same script, just changing the state name appropriately, and therby even save a bundle on production in the bargain (not that he seems in need of saving a bundle, mind you, jus' sayin's all).

Please tell me if/how this logic does not follow through, because I feel a bit whacked that nobody else seems to be saying anything like this...

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by MWC

That was nicely done. I like the concluding paragraph.

Hey, I even liked what maxy samy(non-verified) said AFTER the article!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Hey, I even liked what maxy samy(non-verified) said AFTER the article!

Ha!

Actually I was just thinking the other day that there are some pretty funny (though I'm not sure very insightful) comments like that from readers that follow-up on many of these articles. Usually very sarcastic. I saw one the other day...

Here it is! Thank goodness they used a semi-unusual and memorable word like horrific or I don't think I would have found it again:

Holy cow! I just realized something.

Clinton offers solutions, but Obama only offers promises!

How could I have missed it so long!!

Thank you, Clinton campaign strategists! Thank you!

This puts her vote for the Iraq invasion and her horrific handling of healthcare in the 90's in a new perspective.

Can I and the millions of Obama supporters take back our votes now?

I'm sorry, I'll be happy to see such critical of Obama, too, humor of course being strictly non-partisan (or is that bipartisan? I'm never sure...).

Steve

[b]Edit[b]: In fact, why don't we have a little "funniest campaign commentary" run-off here or something? Past the best you find! I think George Will must be immediately disqualifed, ostracized (in the original sense of the word), due to his unfairly exceptional ability along these lines.

[MWC]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Anybody seen the new Clinton ad, upbraiding Obama for only having agreed to 2 more debates but not one in WI? (I gather that's the principal market for the ad, though I could be wrong.)

Again, my preference is no secret, here, but even so I'm moved to ask if this doesn't seem a rather audacious and dangerous move on her part, given that she's apparently not even campaigning in WI and he is, and given all the other smaller states where that situation also would apply and her comments about them not mattering and so forth.

I mean, has this not occurred to Clinton's people, despite all the added coverage on that point about her strategy (skipping these smaller states) lately, in the wake of his string of wins in them? Or are they banking on his more civil style to pre-empt a return volley of ads run in lots of non-giant states that turn the tables on them and ask why she won't visit them or says they don't matter?

Seems like if the Obama camp were so inclined (and I'm not saying they won't be, even if they haven't, yet), they could use the same script, just changing the state name appropriately, and therby even save a bundle on production in the bargain (not that he seems in need of saving a bundle, mind you, jus' sayin's all).

Please tell me if/how this logic does not follow through, because I feel a bit whacked that nobody else seems to be saying anything like this...

Steve

While Obama is acknowledged to be a better big-group orator, it is thought that Mrs. Clinton outshines him in the debate format, with her mastery of policy minutiae. That is why, immiediately after Super Tuesday, her camp suggested doing a debate a week for the remainder of the primary season ... a request the Obama camp promptly dismissed as overkill.

So it's not inaccurate what the ad is saying, and I'm sure the visuals set it up as Obama running from a fight.

Where Hillary's premeditated non-participation in the smaller states becomes a huge liability for her (in addition to at the ballot box ) is if and when she goes after the votes in Michigan and Florida under the guise of "how important Hillary thinks it is that every voter's vote ... counts" . Obama's camp could skewer her with the fact that she was perfectly content to leave lots of voters in smaller states behind.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by MWC

Where Hillary's premeditated non-participation in the smaller states becomes a huge liability for her (in addition to at the ballot box ) is if and when she goes after the votes in Michigan and Florida under the guise of "how important Hillary thinks it is that every voter's vote ... counts" . Obama's camp could skewer her with the fact that she was perfectly content to leave lots of voters in smaller states behind.

Oh... You are good!

We are not worthy, we are not worthy ...

Yes, I know that about the debates and all that. Also they help her a lot because of her campaign money mismanagement problems, now, as they don't cost like advertising.

My question is just whether pointing out the debate thing might not get her skewered given her very lack of presence in WI, right there with the people, or with her lack of presence in other states, right there with their people, and these seemingly insulting comments to those people that she's come out with. (Remember Sol's remark about her remarks about Idaho and others "not mattering" and the much greater presence of Obama and his people that she experienced there, for example?) Seems like they may be throwing matches at a big pool of gasoline, here...

Steve

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by MWC

While Obama is acknowledged to be a better big-group orator, it is thought that Mrs. Clinton outshines him in the debate format, with her mastery of policy minutiae. That is why, immiediately after Super Tuesday, her camp suggested doing a debate a week for the remainder of the primary season ... a request the Obama camp promptly dismissed as overkill.

So it's not inaccurate what the ad is saying, and I'm sure the visuals set it up as Obama running from a fight.

Where Hillary's premeditated non-participation in the smaller states becomes a huge liability for her (in addition to at the ballot box ) is if and when she goes after the votes in Michigan and Florida under the guise of "how important Hillary thinks it is that every voter's vote ... counts" . Obama's camp could skewer her with the fact that she was perfectly content to leave lots of voters in smaller states behind.

I am assuming that your choice of words which I have bolded is intentional. Clinton is the fighter here, ready to stand "toe to toe" with McCain.

I remember reading an article online I believe about Obama's response to Clinton's "shock" that Obama will not add additional debates. Obama wanted to concentrate on more of a town hall format with smaller groups of individuals in the areas he was campaigning. Obama also pointed out that there have already been numerous debates and there was no need to add more.

I have not seen the WI ads, but I am sure they continue along the them that Obama will whither under pressure because he is not tough enough.

I understand Clinton's position on ignoring the smaller states. I believe she feels that if she keeps the regular delegates close enough by winning the "biggies" she will take a majority of the super delegates and win the nomination. She is in this to win. Her team is focused on the short term win of the Democratic nomination. Once the nomination is won the team will turn their attention to the national picture where once again they will determine what states are a priority to campaign in and which states are not.

I understand this philosophy and while I may not agree with it, Clinton has determined that this is how she will win the nomination. Only time will tell if the strategy works out for Clinton.

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Oh... You are good!

We are not worthy, we are not worthy ...

Yes, I know that about the debates and all that. Also they help her a lot because of her campaign money mismanagement problems, now, as they don't cost like advertising.

My question is just whether pointing out the debate thing might not get her skewered given her very lack of presence in WI, right there with the people, or with her lack of presence in other states, right there with their people, and these seemingly insulting comments to those people that she's come out with. (Remember Sol's remark about her remarks about Idaho and others "not mattering" and the much greater presence of Obama and his people that she experienced there, for example?) Seems like they may be throwing matches at a big pool of gasoline, here...

Steve

But in Clinton's mind she would be there campaigning in a virtual world if Obama would agree to the debates. Than all the Wisconsites could turn on their TV's and see her campaigning. Clinton is just more technologically advanced than Obama. She can campaign in a virtual world.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

But in Clinton's mind she would be there campaigning in a virtual world if Obama would agree to the debates. Than all the Wisconsites could turn on their TV's and see her campaigning. Clinton is just more technologically advanced than Obama. She can campaign in a virtual world.

You may be right, John... You may be right... [Homer Simpson voice back off]

Kinda funny you catching that "running from a fight" bit, too.

Somewhere some commentator recently was saying something to the effect that Obama was running a national campaign. Your comments make me think of that.

Steve

[ryberg]

Oye, Alicia, the whole Solis Doyle - Williams affair is discussed a fair bit in this Time article that gives an overall view of the current situation, if you or anyone else is interested. It made me wonder (after seeing elsewhere the question of whether evident problems in managing campaign funds wasn't a red flag with respect to capacity to manage the government and its funds) if Clinton really might not get painted into a nasty corner on this: if somebody pushes that question, she may have a hard time defusing that potentially effective criticism or her managerial skills unless of course she more or less makes a scapegoat out of Solis Doyle, which of course might just exacerbate the Clinton connection with the Latino community even further, given what you've been saying on that...

The column Should Hillary Go Negative? covers the WI ad mentioned above and considers the question in the title, with more or less positive views on such a move. This was both interesting and funny, I thought:

Given the high-wire risk/reward elements of going negative, what can -- and should -- Clinton do? We put that to a number of unaffiliated strategists. One response in particular stood out.

One Democratic operative said she can win on contrast ads "if it's done correctly." The source added: "Think Mac vs PC ads. Huge attack ads, but make you smile and feel good."

Think Clinton's people have read that (yet)?

Barbara Ehrenreich's title, Unstoppable Obama, doesn't sound as naively optimistic as it might, given her neat 2-paragraph summary of why she doesn't think some new direction for Clinton and her message will make much difference:

Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise.

Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes - and many of them are admirable ones - but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words - "same old."

It sounds harsh but arguably quite accurate, in terms of what the public seems to be thinking...

And The Economist provides a view on the campaign at this point here, arguing that Clinton has 3 hole cards: the noted big-state primaries coming up, the superdelegate situation, and (perhaps surprisingly, given the primary schedule and the money situation), time:

Mr Obama's message of “change” and “hope” is becoming a little tiresome. As he becomes the front-runner, media scrutiny is bound to intensify. And Mrs Clinton will take every opportunity, not least in two forthcoming debates, to attack him on substance, particularly about national security and the economy.

Steve

[ryberg]

More about FL & MI here and here, too, I see.

Sorry for yet another sports analogy, but it has just occurred to me that perhaps the situation Dean et al may come to face in this regard could if nothing else be rightly seen as the position of a video replay judge in the NFL, where everything has to very clearly indicate that the decision on the field was wrong before you overturn it, and that if that's not the case, if it's marginal or unclear, you have to let that initial decision stand. The burden of proof in this aspect of the campaign really has to be on those arguing to change the already established decision, it seems.

Edit: Damn, even THAT didn't get us onto page 500 of this thread yet!

Steve

[jtm1631]

Originally Posted by ryberg

More about FL & MI here and here, too, I see.

Sorry for yet another sports analogy, but it has just occurred to me that perhaps the situation Dean et al may come to face in this regard could if nothing else be rightly seen as the position of a video replay judge in the NFL, where everything has to very clearly indicate that the decision on the field was wrong before you overturn it, and that if that's not the case, if it's marginal or unclear, you have to let that initial decision stand. The burden of proof in this aspect of the campaign really has to be on those arguing to change the already established decision, it seems.

Edit: Damn, even THAT didn't get us onto page 500 of this thread yet!

Steve

Maybe this will make 500.

EDIT: Nope!

[sctx]

Originally Posted by jtm1631

Maybe this will make 500.

EDIT: Nope!

I would like to start page 666 with a nice comment about hillary

[Lil G]

Originally Posted by sctx

I would like to start page 666 with a nice comment about hillary

I told you ten years ago, she had that number!

[ryberg]

Geez, and we're still not there!

Or are we...?

Let's just see now...

Steve


NOPE!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Geez, and we're still not there!

Or are we...?

Let's just see now...

Steve


NOPE!

I love the Glass Bar!....expensive, but worth it! (Did that do it?)