Watching the Democratic Primary I am reminded of a scene in "Primary Colors", which of course was loosely based on Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. Travolta's Jack Stanton character has just unleashed his research machine on rival Freddy Picker, and uncovered evidence of a homosexual affair. Travolta says to aide Henry Burton: don't you think its better this all comes out now rather than in the general election when Picker can take the whole Party down with him?
Which is why I have no qualms about Hillary's tactics so far in the campaign. What she has uncovered about Obama's past (slurping lattes with former member of the Weathermen), and his own campaign's mis-steps (the Che Guevara posters, the crack about bitter gun-toting hicks) have almost certainly doomed him in the general election, and its time the Democratic Party realized it. Unfortunately, their youth wing, the MoveOn crowd, has rocks in its teenage head and won't abandon him.
All the Dems need to do this cycle is pick an old white guy from the Conservative wing of the party to send the Republicans out for some much needed time in the political wilderness. As I've said a number of times before, Hillary is that old white guy.
10 comments:
"Which is why I have no qualms about Hillary's tactics so far in the campaign"
I laugh at the "playing dirty" accusation. Anyone who has followed these elections knows full well this is NOTHING. As a matter of fact, better to get all the skeltons out in the open now, rather than October, when the Republican smear machine reaches critical mass.
Clinton has to play dirty because that is all she has. The two problems are that there is no guarantee Clinton would beat McCain that handily, and a Clinton presidency is unlikely to deliver anything much in the way of positive change. Much like "Primary Colours" the idea is made that anything is justifiable to avoid the horror of a Republican administration, including electing an ethically bankrupt person who talks with lofty ideals and consistently fails to deliver.
You are assuming Obama will be the nominee; that is far from certain. He is starting to look rather ragged around the edges, and the media are turning on him....
I believe Clinton will claw her way into the nominee position, and actually become president.
It all boils down to the delegate count, and Clinton can only get the nomination if Obama totally self destructs in the remaining primaries (unlikely) or the superdelegates en masse shift to Clinton, which will split the party in two pretty bitter parts for a long time. The only thing Hillary can play for is inflicting enough damage on Obama and party unity that McCain has an easier time of it. Not a good strategy for a Democrat, but understandable if you are highly ambitious narcissist.
". . . the Republicans mounting a negative campaign against Obama . . . is not only a possibility but a likelihood."
It because of deep insights like this that I keep coming back to this website.
Paul Wells said it first, Paul S.
Unfortunately, their youth wing, the MoveOn crowd, has rocks in its teenage head and won't abandon him.
Such cynicism.
By the way, how's it feel to be on the same page as Bill Kristol? ;)
What is this "negative campaign" the hysterically politically correct Paul Wells speaks of, anyway?
The Canadian media has this perverse notion that criticizing politicians or political parties about anything is inherently negative. Bad. Evil.
Let's ask the guy who wrote the book on ass kicking in Canadian politics what he thinks:
"There’s nothing negative about criticizing the public record of an opponent in a democracy. That, in fact, is the right thing to do. In campaigns, you want to inform people and motivate them. If some critical communications — that are scrupulously accurate — help to get that job done, I say so be it.
So-called negative political communications are used by guys like me because, basically, they work. People remember them more. People find them more factual. And people are motivated by them to vote a certain way." - Warren Kinsella
http://www.randomhouse.ca/readmag/page44.htm
If Obama has said or done stupid stuff and gets called on it, that is not a negative thing, it is a democratic thing.
Like millions of people I was disgusted to see Obama throw his grandmother under the bus, and disgusted by his wife's hateful anti-American comments, and disgusted by Obama's characterization of white people as "bitter" and "clinging" to religion and guns, and therefore McCain and Hillary are entirely justified in highlighting these serious transgressions.
Math is a stubborn thing, Clinton would need to win 80% of the vote after Indiana and North Carolina if she wants to catch up, impossible.
Clinton supporters should realize that lobbying super delegates to overrule the democratic will of its membership is exactly what will loose them the election if that were to ever occur.
Sorry but this race has been over since Feb., its just a matter of time now.
At the moment the markets have Obama at 80% to win the Dem nod, and the Dems at 60% to win in November; the latter number is of course bound to move south if Obama secures the nomination.
Post a Comment