Hillary For President--Part V

It's pretty simple: Participation instills and cultivates party identity which is otherwise weak or non-existent in independent voters. But if you make people jump through hoops (like registering with a political party in order to vote in their primary) it makes independents more reluctant to participate.

 

It was controversial at the time and the Iranian hostage crisis ended up helping Carter outmaneuver Kennedy for the nomination.

It wasn't the greatest period economically either, so that may have caused Kennedy to go after Carter. And Kennedy had been waiting to run for president, foregoing 1972 and 1976 because of the Chappaquiddick incident. He probably felt ready to run.

 

Well, I thought we had all seen that horror film...heck, we're still seeing it.

Anyone who feels their views are closer to the Republican candidate's than to Hillary's should vote for the Republican candidate.

 

What if I think that it doesn't matter what their views are because as soon as they run for re-election they will consider going back on everything they said? What if I think that they'd rather make the other party look bad for stopping progress rather than making progress? What if I think they use the same consultants with the same polling methodology to persuade the same voters for the same reasons? What if I think that they think their only other alternative is firing up their base and divide us apart?

Nope, I don't have to vote for any of them or worse, the one some consultant has cast as closest to my opinion.

 

Then you think "wrong."

 

You understand that it's the shallowest of voters that are now driving policy, don't you? The consultants needs 'undecided' voters. When it's not close to 50/50, they have their "smarter" clients shift their positions to bing it close, ala Bill in '95. Integrity is for losers.

It prevents serious public discourse. We are given sound bites while the lobbyists are given the substance. Hillary, Delay and Romney answer to the same people.

 

I've always rejected the tweedle-dum tweedle-dee argument and will continue to focus on the profound differences.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if Americans need Aricept added to our drinking water.

 

From the previous thread:

That's rubbish. First, the assumption that the current Republican coalition is religious southerners and northeastern liberals is wrong; it hasn't been that for some time. Looking at the last election it becomes obvious that the Republicans abandoned the Northeast as a lost forward position. This makes sense for them on multiple levels - they no longer have to give serious effort in propogating the libertarian Republican mantra, for one. They can simply write it off as no longer part of the Republican base. Second, it makes sense demographically. It makes no sense to fight for Delaware and New Hampshire. They're gone, and their electoral votes are irrelevant. Whereas the South and the West continue to grow. Who is Obama going to unite? The citizens of New York or Massachusets? Even if he did, why bother?
The real Republican coalition is money and God. It works, and works well. Money has a drawback, however - it can't vote. So even if the very rich of, say, New York, support Republicans, they can't get that money to vote. However, money has no zip code. And a dollar raised in New York is well spent elsewhere. In a national campaign, the state by state breakdown is irrelevant, meaning that one doesn't have to stop being a Republican just because one's state is heavily blue. (The same is true for Democrats and more local politicians are always more amenable to money even if in the other party - see Schumer's defense of fund manager's or Lieberman's historic role as a colostamy bag for Hartford's insurance giants.)
Obama cannot break this machine. He has no chance, especially considering the race factor, which is the southern strategy. Someone like Clinton (of him a bit later) can, in fact, unite the country. And he was the last President to do so, largely because he's white. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a black candidate can break the racial cloud that the southern strategy has created. Its completely countersensible. Whom else can Obama unite? What, Florida? Florida is actually an interesting case, because as tension with Cuba dies down and illegal immigration becomes more of an issue, it begins to swing the traditionally dead set Republican Cuban vote into the air. If Fidel dies in the near future, its all up for grabs. It may take a generation, but its an interesting shift. What Obama could potentially do there is convince enough younger (and especially black) voters to vote for the first time, which would be great. But that's not unity. Obama has absolutely no chance of getting the northern part of Florida to suddenly see the Dems in a new light. And as far as him getting more people to vote - why can't he do that as a Veep? He and Hillary are a natural team, especially since he has exactly what she lacks (the sense that he's not being controlled by a stick embedded in his rectum) while she has experience, which he sorely lacks. (Seriously, what his this man does as a statesman. Anyone? (No, calling Kibaki and Odinga does not count.)) Hillary can send him to places like Louisiana and Florida that will almost certainly be in play this year.
Which brings us back to South Carolina - Clinton is absolutely right. Obama's win is effectively meaningless. He won a Democratic primary in a heavily Republican state by relying on almost 80% of the black vote. What's that say about the general election? Absolutely nothing. Moreso, if Clinton was able to barely play the race card at all and win so much of the white support now, what's going to happen in the general election? And don't for a second think that someone like McCain wouldn't stoop to this - this is the same man who made a public show of unity with cretins like Fallwell when he realized he needed them for his political aspirations. Sadly, race is still a factor in this race, and if anything, its interesting to see that the Clintons made this pointed. You'd think they've gone incredibly negative on Obama judging by some reactions here, whereas of course, compared to Republicans, they've been firing guns full of blanks. To put it into terms we can all understand, sure Landon dives sometimes; but he's not Mexican!
As for Clinton, I'm surprised by two things. One, as per my previous post, that he's been so ham handed. Perhaps that's ring rustiness. But two, the sudden turn poeple have made. Its as if people have forgotten who the man is. Which, to a large extent, they have. Democrats have a huge lacunae about Clinton for two reasons. First, that his term was the last time everything was groovy. For one, Bill didn't do too many stupid things, the economy hummed along and he was clever enough to make sure people liked us even when the US did stupid crap. The second, and far bigger reason, is that because the Democrats have defended Bill so ardently for years, they've forgotten what its like to criticize the man. This is largely because Republicans hate Clinton, and hate him with a passion. Far more than Democrats hate Bush, for example (Democrats think he's retarded, incompetent and hate his policies, which isn't the same thing), because Clinton keeps beating them. Bush and his Norquisitian and neo-conservative philosophies are already obviously in eclipse - its hard to think of a 2 term President whose administration looks like such an abysmal failure a year before he's even out of office. But Clinton kept winning, despite lying to the nation on camera. And because the Republicans hated him so much, Democrats defended him so hard. But lets not be under any illusiions here - Slick Willy earned that name for a reason. He's a slimy, manipulative and dirty bastard who's a fatally flawed leader. Now, he's our bastard, but lets try not to be shocked when acts in accordance with his nature. If he and Hillary wrote a true autobiography, it should be entitled "Will to Power". Bill will do what he thinks is necessary. He's just rusty at it. If anything, I'd expect more dirty tactics, just more below the radar and much better executed. The man's no fool.
Oh, and Obama absolutely cannot go negative. His whole campaign is predicated on daisies, sunshine, lollipops and a new age in American politics. The moment he starts to return fire he loses his mystique, and there's no way he's going to win a slinging match. He's going to have to try and endure, because his shining image is by far his biggest asset.

Since I don't post very often anymore, I'll just add one more thing; to anyone suggesting that they'll switch to McCain if Team Clinton wins the primaries, you really deserve 4 more years of Bush. McCain is on record for wanting a permanent presence in Iraq (because success is eternally on the horizon), he has a really conservative voting record and remind me, what's his stance on the legality of back-alley coathanger assaults? I know, I know, McCain Finegold was a good idea and he says "gook" on the straight talk express, because that's where he does straight talk. But anyone that votes for him and wants real change is, I believe, clinically insane, because they want to do the same thing again but expect a different result.

This post brought to you by the timely English train service between Gatwick and Victoria - we had signaling problems and I had just finished my book.

 

Okay. Now you did it.

I'd rather lose without Landon than win. There.

I really can't stand that pus. He's an embarisment to the country.

 

You know, thinking about it, I'm trying to think of a soccer analogy to Hillary.

It's got to be someone who gamed the old boy network to stay long past his prime. Someone who has a vision set in stone and blames the people around him when that vision turns out to be wrong. Someone who is kind of a control freak and values loyalty over ability. Someone who has a position set up for them in New York and fails when they try to go back to DC. Hmmmmmmm.

 

So you're moving to Mexico?

 

That's a false choice. There's always Canada.

 

You quoted me right before this, but it's like you didn't read a thing I wrote, since this is all either beside the point (independents? Republicans?) or nothing I'd disagree with. I even capitalized SOME for you! How could you possibly read my post as saying party members give up freedom of choice?

 

Not exactly. In a heavily GOP state, the Dem primary outdrew the GOP primary by 20%. That's extraordinary and bodes ill for the GOP in general election turnout.

 

That's a fair point - its a solid commentary on the overall enthusiasm of the country for either candidate. However, this should be true of most states this year, making South Carolina nothing special.

 

The problem is that you and most pundits are looking at SC in a vacuum. There is plenty of good news in SC for Obama and the democrats, but in addition to that, why are we so quick to forget the results in the other four states?

Why are we so quick to forget what Obama has done in Illinois. Yes, he will draw the black vote everywhere he goes. That is policy first, personality second and skin color third. Alan Keyes doesn't win black vote. Al Sharpton didn't win SC. Black voters are not morons nor are they a block. They voted more like a block in SC this time because of those three things together made Obama a very attractive candidate.

Obama does great in downstate Illinois that is mostly white and very conservative. He did very well in rural mostly white areas of Nevada and Iowa. He does very well across all other categories when looking at voters 40 and under.

You talked about how the two are a natural fit. To that end, I heard some talking heads over the weekend talking about whether Obama would take the vp slot on a clinton ticket. One said yes, because it is the best path to president. The other said no.

I would be shocked and disappointed if he ran with Hillary. He is sincere in his message about real change and I don't think he will enable another Clinton presidency. He will play the good soldier and bury the hatchet, but much like Hillary did in 2004 when she said she would vigorously campaign for Kerry and then didn't. I don't think Obama will go out of his way to help her raise money or win votes. The difference is that he will support her but he won't say that he will be a workhorse for her the way she misrepresented her commitment to Kerry.

Finally, all of this talk about having to support the party and deserving four more years of bush is bullshit. I supported the democratic party in 2006 midterms and what the hell has it gotten me. The surge? Failure to do anything to take bush off his game? A legislative record by a party that controls both houses that is less than meager?

Simply telling me that I am a democrat and a traitor if I don't vote for Hillary ain't going to cut it. Not this time. The party has done nothing -- NOTHING -- to earn my undying loyalty over the past eight years.

I have not yet ruled out a vote for hillary in the general election. I need to see who her opponent would be and then evaluate all options (including third parties). Having said that, it would be the most depressing, sickening presidential vote I would ever cast.

To say that any Republican would be like four more years of bush is wrong. Even though they all (except Paul) support staying in Iraq, there is a very, very big difference between virtually all of the candidates and bush. All of them are more competent. All of them have a more open mind to listen to military experts. All of them will have more trouble sleeping at night than dubya as they control the military.

I aggresively disagree with all of them at the moment, but you know what? I'm not 100% convinced that hillary wouldn't do a u-turn on Iraq when she gets in either.

You have hit on Obama's central message and you have done it with pessimism. In a way, he is not talking about a brand new direction, but a return to a time when there were democrats and republicans who had different philosophies but who could work together on common interests. When there was some civility between parties.

Think about some of the great legislative achievements in this country -- whether you agree with the substance or not. Do you honestly think that the current climate would pass new deal legislation? How about the 1964 civil rights Act? The tension of the two parties is a good thing up until a point. It encourages discussion and compromise. When partisanship begins to force representatives to vote against their actual beliefs and their constituents best interests because it is the other sides ideas, then our government is broken.

I am more optimistic in you in that I do see significant numbers of republicans who are tired of the sharp divides and who are buying into Obama's message. Even if they are not buying in enough to vote for him, they won't despise him from "day one."

 

Where is the outrage indeed:

Like her rivals, Clinton has agreed to a pledge imposed by national party leaders not to publicly campaign in the state. But after South Carolina, Clinton was skating up against the edge of that agreement and trying to lend some credibility to the outcome Tuesday.
She arrived in Florida on Sunday for two events — both closed fundraisers, in keeping with the pledge not to campaign. She clearly winked at that pledge with her arrival, joking about the warm weather and positioning herself so photographers had a palm tree for a backdrop.
"It is absolutely glorious," said Clinton. "It is a perfect day here in Florida."
Earlier, Clinton said there's intense interest in the campaign in Florida, where early voting is heavy.
"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," Clinton said. She will campaign in the state on Tuesday, but only after the polls have closed.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD8UEPH0O0

When asked about this questionable campaign tactic on Sunday, Obama said that he - like clinton and Edwards - signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida and you can take him at his word.

Hillary, of course, plays along the margins and is actively trying to gain a political advvantage out of the Florida primary. This is the same campaign that last week complained because Obama ran a general election like ad on CNN and MSNBC that in no way was targeted at Florida but, you know, those Florida people have CNN.

She is exhibiting the sleaze that supports Obama's strongest argument. I hope it back fires and I am glad to see that Obama and Edwards are not rushing off to Florida to try to counter this.

 

Just to clarify...Robert Kennedy didn't begin running until LBJ announced he was dropping out.

Yep, as weird as it sounds now, 40 years ago, Robert Kennedy hadn't yet even cranked up his campaign!

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that Obama has a chance to turn the Mountain West blue; it's trending that way now. He has a chance to turn Ohio and Missouri blue and Indiana purple. Etc.