It was supposed to be a certainty, Hillary Clinton’s inevitability as the Democratic nominee.
Joe Sudbay @ Americablog said months ago that there would be a Clinton collapse (so early on that people were laughing at him). However, even he didn’t have an idea that things would implode so badly, either from that unknown factor — the 2008 voter — or the known factor, an arrogant team that figured this was going to be a cruise to victory. Joe:
For the past year, we were led to believe that Clinton had built an incomparable campaign team. That’s proven not to be true. Top aide Mark Penn is a disaster (and according to Fineman, Penn is the one who wants to go really negative - good luck with that.) The Clinton team simply had no plan for any of the states after February 5th - they knew, and loudly told everyone who would listen, that they were going to win on Super Tuesday. Now that we’re far beyond Super Tuesday, with Hillary falling more and more behind (the AP tonight called her “fading”), her campaign’s bizarre response has been to dismiss any state won by Obama. Just this weekend, The Washington Post reported that the Clinton campaign just figured out the rules in Texas (the primary/caucus is only two weeks away). And, Clinton didn’t field a full slate of delegates for Pennsylvania. Those are supposed to be rookie mistakes.He echoes a comment I made last night in an post from Monday (”Bidenizing Obama“) in response to someone who claimed:Hillary Clinton deserves better than the campaign she’s had. But, Clinton put this campaign together. She owns it.
have you surrendered every brain cell and shred of fairness to the Obama Borg?
I haven’t endorsed Obama. I don’t think he’s a savior, particularly to the LGBT community, and I’ve blogged about his blunders of incredible magnitude (McClurkin), as well as his ability to address homophobia in the black community. I’ve defended Hillary Clinton against the misogyny of Chris Matthews and the talking heads at MSNBC, and I’ve been clear for years now, that I’ve never been a fan of Clinton.As you can see, I actually place less blame at Hillary Clinton’s door than Joe does. Yes, she picked her team, and one of the flaws she shares with the current president is loyalty to staff even when they are failing her and need to step (or be pushed) aside. That she does own, but it’s relevant that any campaign is more than just the candidate.It’s not my fault that the arrogance of the Clinton campaign staff has led their candidate down this path, not only to bush-league weak crap tactics, but they are now in a circular firing squad trying to blame everyone else for their failures. They wanted everyone to know that her nomination was an inevitability, and with loss after loss the excuses became more desperate (caucuses don’t count, states with high black voting pops don’t count, etc.), and it’s clear they didn’t even bother to pace themselves spending money because they just knew it would be over after Super Tuesday.
Having no game plan isn’t my fault or anyone else’s pointing out that campaign’s downward spiral. In fact, I’m actually kind of disappointed that her surrogates/campaign staff sent out to the MSM, such as Kiki McLean, are dodging actual policy questions. Isn’t this the campaign that wants to focus on the issues, to point out Obama’s an empty suit? That BS banter about mandated insurance was heinous. That won’t stand up to any GOP attack. If she’s vetted and ready (and presumably with a better health care reform plan in her arsenal), it sure didn’t look that way.
More after the jump.
For whatever reason, seven years of George W. Bush have so traumatized the average voter that they are willing to come out in unheard-of numbers in all demographics to vote for a candidate who represents, in their minds, a complete 180 on all fronts.
That’s Hillary’s real problem. She and her campaign reek of establishment entitlement, a history of being in Washington in bed with the same consultant class and advisers who wish to re-install themselves in power positions. These are people who obviously thought they were smarter strategists than anyone else in the room, and Clinton trusted that they had their finger on the pulse of the electorate.
What they had their finger on was a light switch connected to bad wiring. They campaigned like it was 1999, racking up the endorsements of establishment leaders of the various Dem constituencies, including the old-guard black leaders they were familiar with. The Clinton team rifled through their tattered rolodexes to do the same re: LGBTs, hispanics, women.
These folks, in many cases, are simply out of touch with younger voters and voters living in the real world who went to polls. Black leaders that Clinton counted on to “represent” didn’t deliver, and it’s clear those leaders didn’t know that they couldn’t deliver either. They are all breathing the same stale establishment air, air that goes to their brains and apparently limits, to a great extent, rational thinking to matters of preserving (and indeed, improving, with regime change) their positions of access and power.
It doesn’t help that the former president, Bill Clinton, has proven to be more of a liability than anyone could have predicted. I think voters see Hillary Clinton and simply cannot see “change.” Or at least change they would like to see.
Our country’s issues with gender bias places everything Clinton does under a microscope (how she “manages” her husband, the “emotional moment” in NH, etc.), and that makes it a horrible uphill battle for a female candidate, given who rules the roost in the MSM. However, I would argue that gender may play less of a role in this race because of the broad demographic voting patterns we are seeing here. I think the problem is that the woman is Hillary Clinton — it’s quite possible that a woman could have faired better in this race, just not this one. She and her team cannot remake her to be someone else — an outsider. Apparently voters have been willing to gamble on “hope” and “change” when offered it as an alternative. Is that good or bad? I don’t have an answer, but it looks like we’re about to find out.
Back to the “empty suit” problem for those of you out there who feel Hillary’s experience and competence on the issues have been given short shrift because of the power of Obama’s connection (whatever pixie dust he has) with voters. Her supporters claim he’s unvetted, no one is looking at his policies, etc. People are examining them, certainly the GOP will pick them apart. I don’t think that translates, however, into an argument Clinton is the one who is more electable, something that her campaign has said repeatedly even as the demographics in the voting results pile up evidence to the contrary.
The problem isn’t the policy positions, I think the main dismay among the Clintonistas is that the voters are responding to something Obama has — charisma and a message that connects — that she cannot match, and that they don’t know how to successfully counter that.
Unfortunately it’s pretty hard to wag your finger at the American public and tell them not to be fooled, or that they are stupid for thinking with their hearts, not their heads. That doesn’t garner more votes, in fact it can cause blowback. That is a dilemma for a campaign ready to go on cruise control to the convention.
Last night Obama gave a speech in Texas that was both meant to inspire and inform, more wonky than the usual oratory. It’s clear he knows he has to win over people with more than the silver tongue.
Will Obama stand up to GOP attacks if he’s the nominee? Who knows, but the GOP will get down in the gutter through 527 orgs, of course, so McCain and the party keep their hands clean. Obama will face fury from the right, hate radio and the Little Green Footballs set that will be unprecedented. After all, Rush thinks it’s great fun to run “Barack, the Magic Negro.” I dread the thought of what new efforts in misogyny we would see if Clinton is the nominee and the GOP attack dogs are unleashed. One can only hope that the American people are finally ready to put a stake through the heart of these blood-sucking, fear-baiting, spirit-sapping media, “Christians,” moralists and bigots.
I welcome their continuing descent into the gutter; it will further marginalize their movement in a time where the people that pick our president are looking for positive change, not more gloom and doom — like 100, 1000, or 10,000 years in Iraq, as McCain plans to sell himself.
Given the rough and tumble of this primary and all the barbs tossed between Obama and Clinton supporters, it’s important to remind ourselves about total turnout and who really faces the uphill battle — McCain. A snapshot from Wisconsin:
Obama: 645,554
Clinton: 452,590
McCain: 224,122
Huckabee: 151,114
***
UPDATE: Oh, well, why wait for a McCain 527 — it looks like tapped-out big Clinton donors are going to hit the gutter first by forming one on behalf of Hillary:
Pro-Clinton 527 Prepares For Ohio, PA and TexasAllies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
They’re canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.
A Democrat who was briefed on the project said that Pennsylvania attorney William A. K. Titelman is leading the effort to solicit money. Titleman, who raised money for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign, has not contributed money to Clinton. He did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
By law, the 527 cannot coordinate its activities with the Clinton campaign, although at least one major Clinton donor with direct ties to the campaign said last night that the effort was an open secret among donors.
(Update: Per ABC’s Jake Tapper, the group is calling itself the “American Leadership Project” and is staffed by several veterans of the Clinton White House.)
A Clinton spokesman said he knew nothing about the 527.
55 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s real problem”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Well, when looking at those results, one has to keep in mind that on the Democrat side, it’s seen to matter a whole lot more than the GOP side. (However all the same, pretty much everywhere the Democratic turnout has been higher)
Clinton’s real problem is that her negatives are too high. She’s thrown far too many politically informed people under the bus in order to maintain a tight tie with 50%+1, that when new voters start coming out she has no way to repair those bridges.
Would it be different if she were a man? I suspect not. I think that if she were a man, she’d have the success/stances of Joe Biden. And we all know where THAT went. I think that being a woman helps her greatly politically. And I have nothing at all against that, or find it wrong or anything like that. I so want to see a woman president, in fact, I’d rather see women being made president.
My concern is that Clinton’s campaign, and prospective presidency doesn’t break down the glass ceiling as much as it reinforces it. And for me, that’s a very worrying thought.
On the other hand, I think that Obama’s campaign/movement, if it succeeds is a generational switch-over, politically, and will change radically the starting frames used when talking about government and society, including ones of gender and sexuality. Hopefully, the politicians will get the clue-by-four, and spend their time you know..providing health care and fixing the economy…rather than trying to cultivate 50%+1 via hate and fear.
Maybe I’m just a dreamer.
I think your analysis is pretty much on-the-nose, Pam.
My lone quibble is with the idea that some other woman would’ve done better in the campaign than Hillary has. I know she has very high negatives, and I don’t think I’ve ever been real fond of her, but I just can’t think of any other woman right now who could’ve taken a campaign as far as she has.
What gives me the most hope for the Democrats this year is the fact that, whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, the GOP won’t be able to keep their lizard brains from scaring off most voters. Remember when they let Pat Buchanan have the keynote address in ‘92, and he ended up running off all the moderates? Their whole convention is gonna end up sounding like that…
My own theory: Mark Penn is so used to busting up unions that he couldn’t stop himself when it came to his own campaign. How does he sleep at night? On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies*.
* PLAGIARISM ALERT! PLAGIARISM ALERT!
I think the problem with Clinton’s performance is a faulty campaign, and also entrenched sexism in this country. She is the only woman in the American political landscape who had a shot of being president. I can’t think of anyone else who can come as close as she has. So it’s very discouraging to hear and read the incredibly sexist commentaries on her and her candidacy in the media today. There are businesses set up to sell anti-Hilary T-Shirts. I haven’t seen the same for other candidates running. You know, stuff like “Life’s a Bitch, Why Would I Vote for One” with a picture of Hilary crossed out on front. It makes you realize just how difficult it will be for any woman to assume this position in such a sexist country as the U.S. If it happens during my lifetime I’m convinced it will be a woman like Condi Rice or some other conservative hawk like that.
I started to write a long post rationalizing my opposition to Clinton alongside all the bullshit pretenses that our sexist media has trotted out to get us to ignore the fact that many people oppose Clinton on the issues, but whatever. What Pam said.
I think you are pretty right about your analysis, at least from my point of view. I was so excited at the prospect of a woman running for president, hell even being president. I supported her and defended her. But something changed with her (or me) in the middle of this campaign. I didn’t like the “I’m due” attitude, the air of inevitability. I didn’t want the primary to be sewed up early because I felt we deserved more debate. Then the excuses started on why she was failing, it was everyone’s fault but her own, etc. and I got to thinking, this is President material? Maybe my expectations of her were way toohigh. She’s intelligent and formidable. I still think she would be an excellent choice for President and I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. The sexism is inevitable, just as the racism is. But both of them, no matter who wins the nomination, had better steel themselves for the onslaught. Sexism is entrenched in our society but if start calling the media on it, maybe something can change. I can hope, can’t I?
Best of both worlds: a Presidential candidate that can actually beat McCain, and the first female Senate Majority Leader with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Maybe even a female VP. At least look to the governors; there’s a little too much in the way of Senators around right now.
My lone quibble is with the idea that some other woman would’ve done better in the campaign than Hillary has.
I think another woman (we’re talking about a hypothetical one, not one currently holding office), with equivalent experience, but didn’t have a past president as a husband, but a spouse completely outside of politics would have fared better. Say the husband was a veterinarian or worked with a philanthropic endeavor helping starving children in Third World countries. A first spouse without “baggage.” That would have removed pressure from the candidate.
Bill Clinton’s presidency, the good and the bad, has cast a shadow on her campaign, but they obviously thought he was more help than harm. How voters feel about his and her roles both in the campaign and in retrospect, his presidency, cannot be discounted in the results we are seeing, along with gender bias.
It’s a bit of a quandary–did Bill help or hurt? We’ll never know if Hillary Clinton would have become the political force she is without having been married to Bill–it’s speculation at best, and not very fruitful. She is the former First Lady and that did have the effect of providing her a platform from which to launch her Senate bid, and then later, her presidential bid. And I certainly think that gave her a leg up in fund raising and name recognition that another female candidate wouldn’t have had.
I get the feeling, and this is only my gut talking here, that we as a nation had to have a Hillary Clinton before we could have a female president. Someone had to be the first to break the barrier of “serious contender” before the nation would accept an actual candidate. The next major female candidate may have it a little easier (and I focus on the little because misogyny is such a major problem in this country) because Clinton has gotten the voters used to the idea of a female front runner.
I have thought, as I watch the primary unfold, that gender bias is far more “acceptable” in the Traditional Media than racial bias is. I don’t think anyone will get fired in the near future for being a sexist pig (unfortunately), but a couple of prominent people have been put in a world of hurt for racist comments in the last few years.
I don’t agree with the sentiments expressed in the TradMed, but that is the way I see the “state of play” right now, and I think it hurts Clinton and helps Obama (it’s easier to neutralize racist attacks in the TradMed than gender-based attacks). I would personally like it if we just judged candidates based on who was the best for the job, but that isn’t how the world currently works.
The problem with Clinton is that she loses even if we judge her based on “neutral territory.” I had some degree of sympathy for Clinton until her campaign seemed to lose its mind and start talking about using super-delegates to overcome a pledged delegate gap and win anyway…. what anti-democratic kind of crap is that?
I do hope that Obama can take out McCain in the general election, or we’ll be stuck with candidates like Clinton for the next 50 years as democrats… (i.e. kow-towing to every right-wing talking point and voting for more wars).
I just added this update to the post:
***
UPDATE: Oh, well, why wait for a McCain 527 — it looks like tapped-out big Clinton donors are going to hit the gutter first by forming one on behalf of Hillary:
Doctor Sudbay declared “Im not surprised to see you here
Youve got a nasty squeek from sneak attacks and campaigning with a sneer.
I dont know how you came to get the Betty Davis knees …
But worst of all Ms. Clinton you’ve got Babyboom Disease!”
He wrote her a prescription, saying “you may be the best
But your entitlement will never fill your campaign war chest”
Come back and see me later - next candidate, please.
Send in another victim of that Babyboom Disease.”
(with apologies to Dire Straits)
Good analysis, Pam. As much as I know that a campaign is more than just the candidate, it is the candidate that takes the credit or the blame for the campaign. When I hear Clinton make the claim that she’s got the experience to be ready to move forward with her agenda on day 1, I think of how poorly this campaign has been run and ask if that experience has done her any good?
I have not taken the Obama Kool-Aid and am not a fan of Clinton either. I’ll vote for either over McCain and be glad to do so.
Oh, and we’ll see how Obama handles the 527 groups before he gets to McCain. According to Marc Ambinder:
Read the rest here.
I’m of the mind that Sebelius would make a better presidential candidate than Clinton. Especially considering how impressive her support numbers are in a state that traditionally favors the Pubs.
“A Clinton spokesman said he knew nothing about the 527.”
Someone in a critical state for your campaign is out to raise 10 million dollars in direct support of you in under a week, and you’ve never heard of it.
And that is supposed to be a good thing? What does that say about the quality of your campaign, and the loyalty of the folks you have out in the trenches?
I know the current administration has tried to make “nobody told us” into a virtue, but come ON.
Whether the statement is true or not, either way, the campaign spokesman clearly assumes we’re all idiots.
How hard is it to say “The organization has no affiliation with the campaign?”
Whether the statement is true or not, either way, the campaign spokesman clearly assumes we’re all idiots.
Isn’t that the crux of the whole problem with the Clinton campaign? They DO think the American public is stupid, and worse, predictable, and now they are unnerved, desperate, and ready to take the party down with them.
Unfortunately, that part is predictable, given the arrogance we’ve seen coming out of that camp. Again, she surrounded herself with a real “winning” team.
Thing is, Peter, no one with any sense is going to believe either statement, so the point’s irrelevant. My guess is that the first statement is meant to put legal distance between the campaign and the 527, to stave off any potential FEC complaints–if you don’t know of its existence, then you can’t be accused of working with it, can you?
Some FEC links of interest:
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20071119mediafund.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html
527 groups are being formed. Hold on to your hat. This is going to be a bumpy ride. (the scorch earth/going nuclear type of bumpy ride)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/new-pro-clinton.html
As reported by Jack Tapper, a new Pro-Clinton 527 has organized to air ads against Obama in Ohio and possibly other key areas.
ALP has developed three ads aimed at tarnishing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as a talker and not a doer — the ads are called “If speeches could solve problems” — and they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care, and the mortgage crisis.
I’ve never really liked Hillary, placing her in the category of someone who would happily triangulate herself into non-existence, but am willing to vote for her if she becomes the candidate.
But this mess? If you’re going to run on a platform of wagging your finger at everyone about how “experienced” you are and “competent”, then you had bloody better run a competent campaign.
And yeah, the arrogance and assumption that she “deserves” the candidacy is what’s pissing off a lot of people.
And a lot of us are simply saying: c’mon, let’s NOT go back and refight the 60s, the cultural wars, the Vietnam war, the 1990s all over again. We’re bloody sick and tired of this. We want someone who inspires us, who gives us hope, who looks like he’s intelligent enough to get us out of this mess in Iraq, and who understands civil liberties. (Heck, I just want habeas corpus back.)
they will contrast Obama and Clinton on issues of importance to middle class voters, such as the economy, health care
Can’t wait to hear the Clinton camp’s explanation about mandated insurance and garnishing wages under her plan. Somehow I don’t think those ads will go there.
Excellent post.
One of the things I’ve wondered about though, is whether there has been an “Anybody But Clinton” aspect to the primaries, and now that it’s down to Clinton and Obama, Obama won the bulk of the people that were previously split between himself, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel.
“garnishing wages”
I watches several Hillary TV interview related to that. If there is anything, it’s Hillary evasiveness. If that is her plan, she should say it outloud and explain the “ugly” part.
Instead of dodging it, she has to come out and persuade people. But she didn’t.
This is the age of internet, she doesn’t even have to explain it herself on TV, she can print it on her web and point that lengthy explanation. She doesn’t trust the public will believe her explanation.
To me, it points to a problem where Hillary simply cannot leave politics to save her own program. Ultimately nothing will go through without somebody pulling her strings. .. which then comeback to she is not a bruiser and too beholden to the status quo.
I’m not entirely certain that I agree with the idea that another female candidate would have fared well enough for it to matter. Any actual viable female candidate is likely to come with a lot of the same baggage Clinton does simply because of the compromises often needed for a woman to reach that level of power. To not have that baggage, she would need to be a relative newcomer like Obama is, and that would more of a liability for a woman than for a minority.
Not because we are sexist more than we are racist, but because a the drawbacks of a young newcomer feeds better into sexist thinking than it does racist thinking because of the negative qualities that we associate with each group. A young minority newcomer is easier for people to treat as an exception, but a young female newcomer feeds right into the infantilizing and objectification of women.
That said, I very much agree with you that a lot of people are voting for Obama because they feel it is a vote for change and hope.
Assuming Obama gets elected as President, it will have taken 138 years from the time that Black men won the vote to the time a Black man was elected to our highest office. If that holds true for women, we can expect a female president sometime around 2058.
She and her campaign reek of establishment entitlement, a history of being in Washington in bed with the same consultant class and advisers who wish to re-install themselves in power positions.
My husband was talking about this just this morning. He has never really been engaged in the political process. Generally he votes the straight dem ticket because even though he thinks politicians are on the whole useless on the margins he’d rather have a mostly useless dem than a mostly useless republican. For all his voting life, he’s felt that politicians cannot accomplish anything because they spend more time point fingers at each other and explaining why they’re better than that other guy than they do actually trying to make the world a better place and that sort of divisiveness makes it impossible for people to work together even when its something really, really important.
So for him Obama represents the *possibility* [his word not mine] of a shift in the political dynamic. Less arguing more doing. For a candidate that represents that possibility, he’s willing to donate money, put on a bumper sticker, and even vote in a primary.
He specifically mentioned it this morning in response to the plagiarism attack yesterday as another example of the Clinton campaign using “establishment” attacks against a candidate rather than attacking him on the issues.
(Personally, I think it just irritates my husband to see people arguing over things he finds unimportant when the things he really cares about are being totally ignored….Mostly that’s duh…but he’s a PhD in philosophy so he must make a meta point.)
So maybe this whole anti-establishment thing is a bigger deal than I thought it was. I just thought Obama had her beat on the big issues (at least my big issues), but maybe this primary is more a referendum on the type of politics we want our politicians engaged in than on who is the more qualified candidate.
That’s a little disturbing when I put it that way…ugh.
I totally agree with Mickle. No woman could run for president as an outsider and have any chance of winning. Seriously. Does anybody dispute that? Does anybody think a woman promising (threatening) a whole new order would not scare the bejeezus out of the sexist mainstream? The line of rhetoric that has propelled Obama simply is not available to a woman.
I live in Iowa — I volunteered for Hillary, I caucused, I donated — and her campaign managers here were absolutely horrible. I cannot defend them. I did what I did (as did other volunteers I knew), in spite of them, with teeth clenched at their arrogance, their willful ignorance, and their poor treatment of us volunteers. Her campaign was the antithesis of a grassroots effort. Now, Obama’s people weren’t exactly gracious — they were mean-spirited, frankly, and arrogant in a different way — but they beat us fairly. I accept that.
But in terms of message, Hillary just didn’t have the options Obama did.
This is a really astute analysis, Pam.
I too have been frustrated by the tone of inevitability, the sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton campaign. That is perhaps less a function of misogyny in general, and a reaction to Clinton as a singular figure; at least I hope that this is true.
I also think that Obama doesn’t necessarily get credit for being a realist, as well as an idealist. Sure there’s a lot of rhetoric about hope, which is powerful, and which is more than just some cult-speak, despite what armchair-strategists (who also evidently take Americans to be stupid) think. But Obama is aiming to bring more people into the process, younger people into the process, and to elect a real Democractic majority along with him, so he can have an easier job advocating a legislative agenda. That’s just basic. In order to bring about the changes we need, we have to have electoral wins that are a little more than 51 percent.
I get tired of hearing conversations on the internets about how we just need a Dem who will do everything it takes to win, who hates Bush as much as I do, etc. Voters don’t care about your personal vendettas against the Republicans, except insofar as they want to banish the pain and fear of the last 8 years as much as anyone else does. But if it isn’t about something more than winning, then we lose.
I have always voted for the person I thought would do the greatest good or the least harm for the country. That includes social, economic, environmental, trade, international, and other factors. Sometimes its a demo, sometimes a repub, sometimes a green. IMHO Senator Clinton has never been the candidate capable of delivering the greatest good. The “It takes a Village” book was the deciding factor for me, in that the full implementation of all of the programs she proposes is just too much gov’t intervention in everything. Senator Obama may have the same ideas, but I haven’t seen the same level of intervention proposed. Nothing to do with gender or race.
I must have been missing some memo. Last year at this time, I don’t remember hearing that Clinton was the inevitable candidate (I do remember quite a lot of talk that she would have trouble because her negatives were so high). It wasn’t until polls came out showing her ahead, that the talk really started.
In terms of mandates, Clinton is in trouble no matter what she says. If she says exactly how she will deal with mandates then she’ll be told that (like the last time) she doesn’t seek input, while if she doesn’t say exactly how they’ll work she gets slammed because she doesn’t give the details. If you think that we should have mandates (and I do) then we should wait until next year to decide how and when to start mandates (this is the first year MA has fairly large penalties, so we’ll know how well they work and we’ll know how much we might expect in costs).
I asked this on the Althouse/Clinton thread:
Does anybody have any idea where the ridiculous meme, of how harsh/grating/unpleasant Hillary Clinton’s voice is supposed to be, came from?
I’m talking to my softening-but-still-rightwing father last night and he starts in on this, trying to quote what others have said about it (I cut him off before he could get too far - I’ve heard this rant from him many times before).
Adding this from a Digby quote: “He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader.”
She has a voice. A woman’s voice. Neither more melodious than most, nor more irritating. A perfectly average woman’s voice.
And yet, there are wingnuts falling all over themselves in an attempt to describe how incredibly awful her voice is.
Is it because she’s a Clinton? Or because she’s a she? Or what?…
candidates like Clinton for the next 50 years as democrats… (i.e. kow-towing to every right-wing talking point and voting for more wars).
IMHO Senator Clinton has never been the candidate capable of delivering the greatest good. The “It takes a Village” book was the deciding factor for me, in that the full implementation of all of the programs she proposes is just too much gov’t intervention in everything.
Isopluvial (the second person I quoted) has it right, although comes to the opposite conclusion I would. Hillary has taken positions decidedly to the left of Obama on just about every domestic economic issue. It completely baffles me that she is considered some Republican-lite triangulator by a lot of progressives.
Here’s a devastating article about how the two campaigns’ messages have been portrayed in the media.
Is it because she’s a Clinton? Or because she’s a she? Or what?…
I think it’s a little from Column A and a little from Column B.
The GOP has been demonizing the Clintons for over 15 years, and they tend to feel that any negative adjectives they can attach to them are fair game — the old “All rumors about the Clintons are true, including the false ones” gag.
On the other hand, you only ever hear this type of thing glued to Democratic women. Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan get incredibly negative adjectives attached to them by the GOP pundits, and those are immediately accepted by the corporate media. You never, ever hear the same thing about Condi Rice, Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin.
This is an email Charlie got this morning from the Clinton campaign:
So the problem isn’t anything other than money, Pam- or at least that’s the way they wanna spin it.
Crap; hit da button early again- I do hate premature blasphemations…
To continue- Hillary mentioned nothing of this “527″ of which you speak; she simply wants $5!!
“Isopluvial (the second person I quoted) has it right, although comes to the opposite conclusion I would. Hillary has taken positions decidedly to the left of Obama on just about every domestic economic issue. It completely baffles me that she is considered some Republican-lite triangulator by a lot of progressives. ”
I think the reasons for this “misperception” a three facts:
1) Bill Clinton was a triangulator, and since HRC is effectively running on his record (see: Experieicne meme) she get’s tarred by it as well as being boosted by it.
2) Iraq, basically her foriegn policy hawkishness makes it hard for a lot of progressivies to view her as anything but GOP-lite
3) Her complete lack of political courage outside of the 1994 Healthcare proposal, basically in her Senate Career Hillary has yet to champion anything that could be described as politically risky.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23246977/
The number of voters you listed at the bottom of the post were only part of what’s happening, Pam- in January, McCain raised almost $11 million (my link). Compare that to Obama’s $32 million and there’s a clear picture that goes along with the number of voters.
And although I haven’t verified, I heard from Charlie yesterday that the Obama folks got the donation numbers wrong- it wasn’t $32 million, but 36!! Holy Hannah, that’s alot of dough.
It completely baffles me that she is considered some Republican-lite triangulator by a lot of progressives.
Like Socraticsilence said, it’s because of Bill Clinton’s record in the White House: he would take left positions (like getting rid of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) and then collapse when he met any resistance from Republicans.
Taking the position is easy — carrying out your promises is a lot harder, as we found out in 1992.
Bill Clinton brought a budget surplus. He stopped genocide in SE Europe without losing any in our military. Crime dropped under his presidency. Large natural disasters were handled efficiently by the feds. We had habeas corpus. There were perhaps double the jobs in America than now.
Only thing wrong with Bill — he was too good. And the Right despises anyone on the Left who’s that good. So they used every trick in the book to tar and feather him. And unlike us, the Right has the money to tar and feather anyone they please.
So why are they tar and feathering HRC and not Barack?
“He stopped genocide in SE Europe without losing any in our military. Crime dropped under his presidency. Large natural disasters were handled efficiently by the feds. We had habeas corpus. There were perhaps double the jobs in America than now.”
Bill Clinton - Best Republican president since Eisenhower (seriously)…
So why are they tar and feathering HRC and not Barack?
pointing to “the person with experience” who has so seriously mismanaged people and money in her campaign /= “tar and feathering”.
Charisma –> trust –> votes. Obama basically ran Bill’s campaign from 1992. Hillary led off with “Let the conversation begin!”
Great post, Pam: outstanding analysis.
I like AZ governor Janet Napolitano for VP, but they probably should get a Southern white man to appeal to the bigots.
Charisma –> trust –> votes. Obama basically ran Bill’s campaign from 1992.
I’m astounded no one has brought up the similarity of titles between “The Man From Hope” short film about Bill Clinton shown at the 1992 Democratic convention and Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. For Hillary Clinton’s campaign to now say that hope is stupid is kinda weird since it’s one of the things that helped her husband win the presidency (twice).
There are, by the way, a lot of female politicians who have a more impressive records of winning elections than HRC does. Olympia Snowe is a very popular Republican Senator in a blue state. Claire McCaskill beat a Republican incumbent in a red state without that Senator doing anything especially self-destructive as far as I know (arguably this was the most impressive win for the Democrats in 2006). There are lots of other examples. I don’t know particular women who I am certain are strong future Presidential candidates, but I also don’t know most Govs or Senators well enough to have a point of view on their Presidential prospects.
Remember, nobody in 2003 knew who Barack Obama was either. And nobody would have thought it likely that we could have a black President in the next few decades (there were no black Senators or Governors at the time, for one thing!) So it is probably not a good idea to be too sure about the future in this respect either. I do think that the pipeline is slowly getting better (seems like more of the younger Senators are female, though women are very, very poorly represented among the old guard).
“Remember, nobody in 2003 knew who Barack Obama was either. And nobody would have thought it likely that we could have a black President in the next few decade”
Of course, Obama got quite a bit of very positive exposure during that election year. His campaign for IL Senator got a lot of play for being a lock for the Dems, he spoke at the convention, and I distinctly remember people going around saying that he might have a good run for President later on in his career.
I’m a little concerned that the title of this post is “Clinton’s real problem.” Does that imply that any other problems aren’t real? Or that they’re less important? As previous commentators have reiterated, a lot of the sexist drivel surrounding politics and the media is why only women like Hillary get the national recognition and attention necessary for a serious presidential run. So I guess when you “argue that gender may play less of a role in this race because of the broad demographic voting patterns we are seeing here,” I guess I’d like to know what races you’re comparing them to.
Also, can we move this away from the “wagging finger” analysis? Because like JohnL, I didn’t notice Hillary selling herself as the inevitable nominee until I noticed that the media talking about it. Before that, I heard a lot of pundits saying the Hillary needed to sell herself/was going to sell herself as “more of the same” good times from Bill’s time as president and that she’d have a hard time and probably lose to McCain. I’m sure she can be arrogant and cocky, but then, aren’t all presidential candidates? I’m just not so sure that she or her campaign were trying to steamroller over everyone with the “I’m going to win anyway, because I’m owed it” truck- or that their actions are solely responsible for that meme.
I didn’t notice Hillary selling herself as the inevitable nominee until I noticed that the media talking about it.
I think the 27 phone calls and rallies at the local and state level leading up to Feb 5, wherby she was pronounced the penultimate candidate ready for her close-up - unless you were a brainless trollip trying to impress your boyfriend - were far louder than media around here.
While not a particular fan of Senator Clinton, I have to agree that I heard far more Republicans talking, and talking very clearly about Hillary as the inevitable nominee - ever since she started running for the Senate seat, and the certain candidate once she started this campaign. If one only listened to the Republican talking heads, Obama didn’t show up in the race until, oh, about two weeks ago.
Still, I also have to agree that her campaign has been run as though she felt that the nomination was a given, and an entitlement.
It still grates on me every time she talks about how she speaks about Bill’s campaigns and elections, and term of office, as though they were her own. Certainly, she was intimately involved in those campaigns, but to claim that she has run against stiff opposition, etc. bothers me. Her main claim is that she has experience, but she gets really fuzzy on just whose experience it is.
Ms Kate-
Pronounced the penultimate candidate by who? Perhaps you were more in tune to what was going on than I was, but I still don’t see how her behavior was somehow different from what any other candidate might have done in her position, or really, from what any candidate ahead in the polls does. Most presidential candidates research their chances before announcing, attempt to stir up a little interest before they announce, and if they know they have strong support in some areas or they suspect the media will present their candidacy as illegitimate in some way, act in a way that discourages anyone from questioning their legitimacy. Which isn’t to say that Clinton’s run a good campaign- clearly she hasn’t- but the inevitability explanation doesn’t explain enough for me.
But thanks for calling me a “brainless trollip trying to impress [my] boyfriend!” It’s little things like that which make me feel all special and womanly inside.
Hillary’s only real problem was her failure to contest South Carolina. She’d won New Hampshire, then Nevada, but rather than go to South Carolina and fight Obama there, too, she skipped it.
It wouldn’t have been easy for her to win, but she might have; she beat the odds in both New Hampshire and Nevada. In any case, she would have narrowed Obama’s margin of victory, which would have dulled his momentum going into Super Tuesday - and more importantly, she would have been able to improve her tarnished image among black voters.
But she didn’t, and I think it was a fateful decision. Since then, she’s done it again and again, and that’s why she’s in second place. She ceded too much to Obama.
I don’t like her message, and I think the status of her campaign undermines it - if she has so much experience, why is she losing to a rookie? - but I don’t think that’s why she’s losing; clearly, it was a winning message in New Hampshire and Nevada, and plenty of voters still find it appealing.
Napthia, reading comprehension is an art. Learn it. Are simple sentences easier for you?
So you voted for Obama too? The local Clinton Machine Nasty around here considered me a brainless trolip trying to impress my boyfriend or the like. Google Terese Murray for more information.
Does that make it more clear to you? Or did you miss the part about 27 robocalls saying essentially that my vote was owned by Clinton because I was a registered democrat female?
Ms Kate: I accept that you meant no offense. Your sentence is still confusing to people who aren’t mind-readers, so may I assume that what you meant to say was that “there were many rallies at the local and state level, plus the 27 robocalls I received leading up to Feb 5, when Hillary was pronounced the penultimate candidate and every woman who disagreed was smeared as a brainless trollip trying to impress her boyfriend. These things were far louder around me than the media was”?
Before I respond to the content of your post, can I ask what the substance of those robocalls was? And not their essential meaning, but what exactly was said or done that seemed like her campaign was acting as if she was entitled to your vote?
Ahhh, fuck it. Ignore the last part of my post, I don’t want to argue about this. Your experience was as it was, my experience was as it was, and there’s really no point arguing about which experience disproves the other, especially since I doubt we’re even in the same state. I’d rather concentrate on debunking the narratives surrounding both candidates than on arguing with someone whom I probably agree with more than not.
Also a factor:
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/20/the-secret-of-obamas-success-and-why-hell-keep-winning-%e2%80%94-he-listens-to-george-lakoff/
When the water cooler conversations turn to politics, most of the conservative mid-Westerners here express a visceral dislike for HRC. Their comments generally center on how the Clinton’s are crooks or worse. My usual response is to remind them that a busload of special investigators pissing away over $170 Million dollars couldn’t find any real dirt on the Clintons. For too many of these folks, their reality is a fabrication of Fox News and conservative talk-radio.