It's 10:15 EST and the final Democratic debate just broke for commercial. I've been watching on and off. Each candidate has had good and bad moments but Clinton just made a huge unforced error.
Tim Russert asked a question tying Obama to Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan's antisemitic comments. Obama denounced Farrakhan's antisemitism and spoke of how the Jewish community has supported Obama and his campaign. Obama took no shots at Clinton, and Russert's continual demand that Obama reject Farrakhan's endorsement left Obama just a little weaker. Nevertheless, Clinton took the opportunity to respond, highlighting how she's better at denouncing antisemitism than Obama and insist he reject Farrakhan's statement.
This enabled Obama to end the segment with a witty quip that if Clinton insisted that reject is stronger than renounce then he would concede the point and agree to reject Farrakhan's statement. Here Clinton managed to turn a strength into a weakness. The more this campaign continues the more she looks like she is political tone deaf and not nearly the quality of candidate that many thought she would be. I really think the story of this debate is not how effective Obama's message has been (it has been successful) but how poorly a campaign Clinton has run. She has lost this campaign far more than Obama has won.
A few quick comments regarding Russert's question:
It's nice that Russert asks tough questions, but his smug gotcha style is emblematic of one of the problems with today's media. On to the question - I'm no Obama fan, but the question, and Russert's continuous pushing were unfair. Obama's prior public statements and his choices in policy advisers run totally counter to his statement tonight, and do not indicate he is a strong supporter of Israel. That said, there is no evidence that Obama is antisemitic and Russert's attempt at guilt by association does not provide clarity to the primary race, it just plays on prejudice.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Is the Clinton camp dilusional or is it just arrogance?
The saying goes: pride comes before the fall. However, the fall of the Clinton campaign hasn't seemed to rid its leaders of their arrogance.
In the Fix - his blog on WashingtonPost.com - Chris Cillizza details the Clinton campaign's latest blueprint for victory. In a conference call, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes - a major portion of the Clinton braintrust - outlined the following "strategies" that will even things up between Clinton and Barack Obama.
Hmmm, okay, where's the battle plan, is a single actual strategy in there? No! Instead it is a list of hopes for future events to occur that will somehow magically shift the race. Most likely this "strategy" was presented to keep Clinton supporters from jumping ship and to energize donors and volunteers going into last ditch effort to save the nomination in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
However, the lack of critical self-assessment and even remote change in direction should dishearten anyone thinking of giving their time, money, or support to this campaign. Essentially Clinton's campaign strategists are saying, "even though we've been losing, now that the primaries move to bigger states and Obama will face more media scrutiny, voters will realize we've been right all along."
It's too late in the game for a wholesale change in tactics. But, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would certainly appreciate an acknowledgment that the current campaign message isn't getting through and that change is coming.
In the Fix - his blog on WashingtonPost.com - Chris Cillizza details the Clinton campaign's latest blueprint for victory. In a conference call, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, and Harold Ickes - a major portion of the Clinton braintrust - outlined the following "strategies" that will even things up between Clinton and Barack Obama.
1. Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
2. Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.
3. Debates Matter.
4. Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.
5. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008.
6. Big States Matter More.
Hmmm, okay, where's the battle plan, is a single actual strategy in there? No! Instead it is a list of hopes for future events to occur that will somehow magically shift the race. Most likely this "strategy" was presented to keep Clinton supporters from jumping ship and to energize donors and volunteers going into last ditch effort to save the nomination in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
However, the lack of critical self-assessment and even remote change in direction should dishearten anyone thinking of giving their time, money, or support to this campaign. Essentially Clinton's campaign strategists are saying, "even though we've been losing, now that the primaries move to bigger states and Obama will face more media scrutiny, voters will realize we've been right all along."
It's too late in the game for a wholesale change in tactics. But, if I were a Clinton supporter, I would certainly appreciate an acknowledgment that the current campaign message isn't getting through and that change is coming.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
How Hillary Clinton can beat Barack Obama - an amateur's guide to victory
What Hillary Clinton needs to do to get strong wins in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:
(1) The best defense is a smart offense:
Clinton needs to continue to attack Obama in order to bring down the messianic vision he has created of himself. Her problem so far has been that her campaign's attacks are more like blunt force trauma when they need to be precise, sharp, and to the point. Early attacks referenced Obama's admission of marijuana use many years ago and a kindergarten paper revealing his ambition to be president. These attacks were foolish and petty. They also made it easier to dismiss all future criticisms as desperate win-at-costs attacks from the Clinton machine.
Instead, she needs to offer direct, bite-sized criticisms challenging his rhetoric as empty and self-serving. Stay on the attack, but stick to attacks on his political substance and ability to govern and avoid cheap shots on his character.
(2) Highlight the difference between speaking and doing
Here again, Clinton's attempts have been botched and half baked. Minimizing the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. - whether intentional or not - when Clinton tried to claim that it took a president (LBJ) to pass the civil rights bill was poorly conceived, inaccurate, and just plain dumb. It alienated a lot of voters, sounded very arrogant, and minimized the accomplishments of an American icon. It also ceded Obama the role of MLK.
Instead, Senator Clinton needs to deny Obama that role. Martin Luther King wasn't simply a great speaker; his legacy is not simply defined by his speeches. Instead he acted - courageously and selflessly. He was wiling to suffer through police brutality and imprisonment in order to see his vision of a better society become a reality. Obama can borrow words from America's great leaders, but he has acted on any vision beyond his own ambition. Where is Obama's sacrifice? What is his vision of how to make America better, and what has he done / what is he willing to do to get there?
Obama talks about changing Washington? Clinton needs to get people asking what he's going to change it into, and most importantly, how is that change going to help Americans.
(3) Call out the difference between Obama's promises and what he will deliver
Building on (1) and (2), Clinton needs to challenge Obama on the difference between his actions and his rhetoric and challenge the gaps between his promises and what he will deliver. In doing this, Clinton must be careful to challenge what he will deliver and not claming he can't deliver. Democratic primary voters don't want to be told that their nominee can't get them what they want. Clinton won't win by scolding voters for being unrealistic. Instead, she needs to focus on the gaps between the ideas Obama talks about, and the actions he promises.
On health insurance for example, Obama promises "universal coverage" through a "build it and they will come" idealism. He claims, idealistically, that making health care cheaper will bring all Americans into the health insurance system - despite the fact that millions of uninsured Americans can afford health insurance, or qualify for government programs but aren't enrolled.
There's ammunition on other issues as well. Obama claims to be unaffected by money politics yet looks like he might go back on his decision to accept public funds in the general election.
Clinton should also agree to opt-in to public financing for the general election should she be the nominee - provided McCain does the same.
This will be hard for Clinton to do well. These criticisms need to be cordial and professional and avoid the personal negativity and fervor of her prior attacks. It will also be difficult because a lot of the difference between Obama's rhetoric and action lies in his partisanship. He claims he'll unite America and end partisanship yet he's consistently been one of the most liberal voices in Congress and is campaigning with Ted Kennedy a classic old-school liberal partisan. Clinton needs to find a way to claim bipartisan credentials without alienating too much of her party.
(4) Refine the message, use Obama's words against him
In a world of sound bites, Clinton's team has been very inept at using them. The most repeated sounds bites from her campaign so far are most likely those from President Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, and referencing Obama's message as a fairy tale. Neither was a positive step for the campaign.
Clinton needs to use Obama's words against him. She needs to refine her message and her criticisms. Talk about how America needs hope and that hope is a good thing, but that we hope and dream for a better America. Convince them that Obama is only hoping to be president. She needs to convince voters that she doesn't just hope to change Washington, but to change government to better provide Americans with health insurance, better jobs, and economic growth. Convince Americans that she's not only hoped for, and talked about change, but worked towards it.
Obama tries to insulate himself behind the rhetoric of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and FDR. Clinton shouldn't hide from this, she should use his words, his allusions, and remind voters that these men backed up their words with actions, that they dreamed of particular things - racial equality, and end to the depression, reaching the moon - and worked to get there.
(5) Less is more, evolve and get out of your own way
This is perhaps the hardest, yet most important for Clinton to accomplish. Obama is all ideas. It was an asset as a challenger, but should be exploited as a weakness now that he's the frontrunner. Being all about ideas allows people to interpret Obama's ideals as encompassing their own. It creates a connection between Obama and the voters. People don't know exactly what he'll do, but they hope as president, Obama will accomplish what they want.
Conversely, everyone knows what Clinton has done and will do as president. She's all policy all the time. Now, she needs to move away from her comfort zone and switch rolls. She needs to press Obama about policy specifics while making people believe she has hopes and dreams that the voters can be a part of. Most voters already know her policies, they know how smart she is. Voters understand how much Clinton knows about healthcare, they just don't translate this cold intelligence into passion. This is why Obama is pulling even in polls as to which one them would best handle healthcare. Obama is passionate about changing healthcare. Voters don't really know how he'll change it, so they insert their own ideas.
Clinton needs to convert a 15 minute conversation about the specifics of her healthcare policy into a 5 minute narrative about how much she wants to make it work. At this point, she needs to use her past experience to show she believes in it more than Obama, not that she knows more about it. If she can do this across the board she can put Obama on the defensive, forcing him to provide specifics.
She n
Hillary Clinton will never excite voters the way Barack Obama does. He appeals to voter's hearts in a way that Clinton's personality prevents her from doing. However, she can soften her tone and invite people to join her, instead of telling them it's the only smart thing to do. This is not a battle between emotion and logic; hope and experience are not mutually exclusive. Clinton must convince voters that she has both, and that makes her the better candidate. She needs to show that Obama's actions - past and present - reveal his passion and promises to be a construct of good speech writing and oratory skills, and not core beliefs that will make him an effective champion of voters' ideals. Ultimately, she needs to convince voters that her experience and knowledge is not an alternative to Obama's passion, but is proof of her own.
(1) The best defense is a smart offense:
Clinton needs to continue to attack Obama in order to bring down the messianic vision he has created of himself. Her problem so far has been that her campaign's attacks are more like blunt force trauma when they need to be precise, sharp, and to the point. Early attacks referenced Obama's admission of marijuana use many years ago and a kindergarten paper revealing his ambition to be president. These attacks were foolish and petty. They also made it easier to dismiss all future criticisms as desperate win-at-costs attacks from the Clinton machine.
Instead, she needs to offer direct, bite-sized criticisms challenging his rhetoric as empty and self-serving. Stay on the attack, but stick to attacks on his political substance and ability to govern and avoid cheap shots on his character.
(2) Highlight the difference between speaking and doing
Here again, Clinton's attempts have been botched and half baked. Minimizing the accomplishments of Martin Luther King, Jr. - whether intentional or not - when Clinton tried to claim that it took a president (LBJ) to pass the civil rights bill was poorly conceived, inaccurate, and just plain dumb. It alienated a lot of voters, sounded very arrogant, and minimized the accomplishments of an American icon. It also ceded Obama the role of MLK.
Instead, Senator Clinton needs to deny Obama that role. Martin Luther King wasn't simply a great speaker; his legacy is not simply defined by his speeches. Instead he acted - courageously and selflessly. He was wiling to suffer through police brutality and imprisonment in order to see his vision of a better society become a reality. Obama can borrow words from America's great leaders, but he has acted on any vision beyond his own ambition. Where is Obama's sacrifice? What is his vision of how to make America better, and what has he done / what is he willing to do to get there?
Obama talks about changing Washington? Clinton needs to get people asking what he's going to change it into, and most importantly, how is that change going to help Americans.
(3) Call out the difference between Obama's promises and what he will deliver
Building on (1) and (2), Clinton needs to challenge Obama on the difference between his actions and his rhetoric and challenge the gaps between his promises and what he will deliver. In doing this, Clinton must be careful to challenge what he will deliver and not claming he can't deliver. Democratic primary voters don't want to be told that their nominee can't get them what they want. Clinton won't win by scolding voters for being unrealistic. Instead, she needs to focus on the gaps between the ideas Obama talks about, and the actions he promises.
On health insurance for example, Obama promises "universal coverage" through a "build it and they will come" idealism. He claims, idealistically, that making health care cheaper will bring all Americans into the health insurance system - despite the fact that millions of uninsured Americans can afford health insurance, or qualify for government programs but aren't enrolled.
There's ammunition on other issues as well. Obama claims to be unaffected by money politics yet looks like he might go back on his decision to accept public funds in the general election.
Clinton should also agree to opt-in to public financing for the general election should she be the nominee - provided McCain does the same.
This will be hard for Clinton to do well. These criticisms need to be cordial and professional and avoid the personal negativity and fervor of her prior attacks. It will also be difficult because a lot of the difference between Obama's rhetoric and action lies in his partisanship. He claims he'll unite America and end partisanship yet he's consistently been one of the most liberal voices in Congress and is campaigning with Ted Kennedy a classic old-school liberal partisan. Clinton needs to find a way to claim bipartisan credentials without alienating too much of her party.
(4) Refine the message, use Obama's words against him
In a world of sound bites, Clinton's team has been very inept at using them. The most repeated sounds bites from her campaign so far are most likely those from President Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, and referencing Obama's message as a fairy tale. Neither was a positive step for the campaign.
Clinton needs to use Obama's words against him. She needs to refine her message and her criticisms. Talk about how America needs hope and that hope is a good thing, but that we hope and dream for a better America. Convince them that Obama is only hoping to be president. She needs to convince voters that she doesn't just hope to change Washington, but to change government to better provide Americans with health insurance, better jobs, and economic growth. Convince Americans that she's not only hoped for, and talked about change, but worked towards it.
Obama tries to insulate himself behind the rhetoric of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and FDR. Clinton shouldn't hide from this, she should use his words, his allusions, and remind voters that these men backed up their words with actions, that they dreamed of particular things - racial equality, and end to the depression, reaching the moon - and worked to get there.
(5) Less is more, evolve and get out of your own way
This is perhaps the hardest, yet most important for Clinton to accomplish. Obama is all ideas. It was an asset as a challenger, but should be exploited as a weakness now that he's the frontrunner. Being all about ideas allows people to interpret Obama's ideals as encompassing their own. It creates a connection between Obama and the voters. People don't know exactly what he'll do, but they hope as president, Obama will accomplish what they want.
Conversely, everyone knows what Clinton has done and will do as president. She's all policy all the time. Now, she needs to move away from her comfort zone and switch rolls. She needs to press Obama about policy specifics while making people believe she has hopes and dreams that the voters can be a part of. Most voters already know her policies, they know how smart she is. Voters understand how much Clinton knows about healthcare, they just don't translate this cold intelligence into passion. This is why Obama is pulling even in polls as to which one them would best handle healthcare. Obama is passionate about changing healthcare. Voters don't really know how he'll change it, so they insert their own ideas.
Clinton needs to convert a 15 minute conversation about the specifics of her healthcare policy into a 5 minute narrative about how much she wants to make it work. At this point, she needs to use her past experience to show she believes in it more than Obama, not that she knows more about it. If she can do this across the board she can put Obama on the defensive, forcing him to provide specifics.
She n
Hillary Clinton will never excite voters the way Barack Obama does. He appeals to voter's hearts in a way that Clinton's personality prevents her from doing. However, she can soften her tone and invite people to join her, instead of telling them it's the only smart thing to do. This is not a battle between emotion and logic; hope and experience are not mutually exclusive. Clinton must convince voters that she has both, and that makes her the better candidate. She needs to show that Obama's actions - past and present - reveal his passion and promises to be a construct of good speech writing and oratory skills, and not core beliefs that will make him an effective champion of voters' ideals. Ultimately, she needs to convince voters that her experience and knowledge is not an alternative to Obama's passion, but is proof of her own.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Obama Does Not Represent a New Generation of Ideas
This discussion on washingtonpost.com further exams the myth that Obama is the candidate of new ideas. People argue he represents new ideas which move the Democratic party out of the 60s and past the baby boomer generation.
Obama is a greater speaker, who's message of hope and change certainly play well, especially among younger voters. However, this message is hollow. As this video shows, average voters struggle to name a single accomplishment he's had. As long as it's working, this is a good strategy. And of all the political sins, misdirection is hardly high on list. However far worse than hollow, his message of change and of bipartisanship is disingenuous.
A quick look at Obama's website clearly indicates that his stance on the issues - what should be the substance of a campaign - is straight out of the liberal 60s playbook. Obama proposes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq which appeals to the far-left liberals with romantic remembrances of the 60s antiwar movement. His stance on Social Security virtually ignores the inherent instability of the entire system, proposing a tax increase to cover upcoming shortfalls. On virtually every issue he proposes expanding the roll of the Federal Government and paying for it with tax increases. This is not a message of change and certainly not a break from the liberal ideology of the 60s, the baby boomers in government for the last 20 years, or the liberal establishment in Washington.
Obama is a greater speaker, who's message of hope and change certainly play well, especially among younger voters. However, this message is hollow. As this video shows, average voters struggle to name a single accomplishment he's had. As long as it's working, this is a good strategy. And of all the political sins, misdirection is hardly high on list. However far worse than hollow, his message of change and of bipartisanship is disingenuous.
A quick look at Obama's website clearly indicates that his stance on the issues - what should be the substance of a campaign - is straight out of the liberal 60s playbook. Obama proposes an immediate withdrawal from Iraq which appeals to the far-left liberals with romantic remembrances of the 60s antiwar movement. His stance on Social Security virtually ignores the inherent instability of the entire system, proposing a tax increase to cover upcoming shortfalls. On virtually every issue he proposes expanding the roll of the Federal Government and paying for it with tax increases. This is not a message of change and certainly not a break from the liberal ideology of the 60s, the baby boomers in government for the last 20 years, or the liberal establishment in Washington.
Is McCain's Ego Running his Campaign?
Anyone following the recent news from the Republican has seen McCain attacked from the right by Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson. While some of their noise is clearly designed to keep themselves relevant, the run up to Super Tuesday, and the election itself is telling some interesting stories as of 10:00 EST.
Starting things off, McCain campaigned in Massachusetts in the lead up to Tuesday's election. Beating Romney in (one of) his home state(s) would be a huge win. However campaigning there when Georgia and Missouri were in play and he would be a long shot to win in Mass. is foolish. It also looks like McCain made an emotional/angry decision to attack Romney in his home state.
This could be part of a larger strategy to leave Huckabee to win heavily conservative states like Missouri and Georgia, where as of 10pm EST, Huckabee is leading. McCain is in second so if that holds he'll have beaten Romney in both states so it may not matter.
However, there is some question about the general-election implications of McCain focusing so much on the NE, and relying on their delegates. These are states that are extremely unlikely to go Republican in November, even with a moderate like John McCain on the ticket.
Regardless of the final outcome tonight, one does have to wonder about McCain's temperament and how it will play in November should he be the nominee. One reason many conservatives (like Dobson) don't like McCain is not simply because they disagree on certain issues. McCain has a habit of not only disagreeing with people, but also demeaning his opponents position.
I believe many of McCain's more liberal positions could be forgiven by conservatives if he showed greater respect for those that disagreed with him. Instead, often mimicking Democratic talking point, he attacked his opponents.
I firmly believe that come November, the vast majority of Republicans will set aside their differences and come out to fight the Democratic nominee. However, if McCain wins the nomination on the strength of moderate Republican and Independent voters and thumbs his nose at the conservative base he may be in trouble come November. If he continues is arrogant stand-off with the base, core conservatives may conclude that it's better to stay at home come November and pick up this fight again in the 2010 midterms and 2012 elections than suffer through a Republican presidency that does little to support Republican values.
Starting things off, McCain campaigned in Massachusetts in the lead up to Tuesday's election. Beating Romney in (one of) his home state(s) would be a huge win. However campaigning there when Georgia and Missouri were in play and he would be a long shot to win in Mass. is foolish. It also looks like McCain made an emotional/angry decision to attack Romney in his home state.
This could be part of a larger strategy to leave Huckabee to win heavily conservative states like Missouri and Georgia, where as of 10pm EST, Huckabee is leading. McCain is in second so if that holds he'll have beaten Romney in both states so it may not matter.
However, there is some question about the general-election implications of McCain focusing so much on the NE, and relying on their delegates. These are states that are extremely unlikely to go Republican in November, even with a moderate like John McCain on the ticket.
Regardless of the final outcome tonight, one does have to wonder about McCain's temperament and how it will play in November should he be the nominee. One reason many conservatives (like Dobson) don't like McCain is not simply because they disagree on certain issues. McCain has a habit of not only disagreeing with people, but also demeaning his opponents position.
I believe many of McCain's more liberal positions could be forgiven by conservatives if he showed greater respect for those that disagreed with him. Instead, often mimicking Democratic talking point, he attacked his opponents.
I firmly believe that come November, the vast majority of Republicans will set aside their differences and come out to fight the Democratic nominee. However, if McCain wins the nomination on the strength of moderate Republican and Independent voters and thumbs his nose at the conservative base he may be in trouble come November. If he continues is arrogant stand-off with the base, core conservatives may conclude that it's better to stay at home come November and pick up this fight again in the 2010 midterms and 2012 elections than suffer through a Republican presidency that does little to support Republican values.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Clinton Calculation
How can the media still not get it. Bill Clinton's South Carolina behavior was not an accident and more importantly, did not backfire. Clinton succeeded in making South Carolina about race, which provided the Clinton campaign an "excuse" for a primary they knew they would lose.
Furthermore, while there has been fallout, it's mostly focused among pundits and politicians and if the Clintons succeed in making the remaining primaries about race, the math indicates they'll come out ahead. This was certainly the goal of the Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" comment. He wanted white voters to think that Obama is the black candidate only running for the nomination of "black America" and therefore wouldn't represent "white America" of he won.
This is identity politics at its worst. Personally, I think this is reprehensible. It also says a lot about what the Clintons will do to win and sheds new light on some of the dislike Republicans have had for the Clintons over the last 16 years.
Regardless, despite the opinion of some columnists that is based more on "h the facts, Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Sen. Kennedy's endorsement was just a slap in the face, not a game changer at all. Clinton still has double digit leads in the polls in California, New York, and New Jersey.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Shocking: Congress Wastes Tax-Payer Dollars
The Washington Post has an article today questioning the value of carbon offsets purchased by the US House of Representatives billed to the American tax payer.
Is anyone really surprised that Congressional Democrats are giving away money in the name of liberal special interests?
Is it a shock that people like Al Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood are championing carbon offsets when they are the ones taking the money?
If climate change is truly the problem that so many "the sky is falling" alarmists claim it is, let's have an honest debate about honest solutions. The first inconvenient truth is that is cost everyone a lot of money. It's not just corporations, or the rich who will bear the burden, it's everyone. Gas prices that are already hurting lower income Americans will increase, as will heating costs from natural gas.
Once average Americans learn that it is their actions that need to change, and their wallets that will be impacted, and not just ExxonMobile and George Bush, they'll take a better look at how real the problem is and the debate will move past ideological consensus to actual science.
If Congressional Democrats are truly concerned with global warming, wouldn't you prefer they change their behavior and spend their money and not your
Is it a shock that people like Al Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood are championing carbon offsets when they are the ones taking the money?
If climate change is truly the problem that so many "the sky is falling" alarmists claim it is, let's have an honest debate about honest solutions. The first inconvenient truth is that is cost everyone a lot of money. It's not just corporations, or the rich who will bear the burden, it's everyone. Gas prices that are already hurting lower income Americans will increase, as will heating costs from natural gas.
Once average Americans learn that it is their actions that need to change, and their wallets that will be impacted, and not just ExxonMobile and George Bush, they'll take a better look at how real the problem is and the debate will move past ideological consensus to actual science.
If Congressional Democrats are truly concerned with global warming, wouldn't you prefer they change their behavior and spend their money and not your
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)