Then and Now
Al From, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and pollster Mark Penn wrote a strategy memo to DLC supporters last week warning party leaders not to use Bush's problems as an invitation to call for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, or generally to steer a more liberal course that could alienate the middle-of-the-road voters the party needs. . . .That was December 2005. Penn is Hillary Clinton's pollster and one of her key political strategists. And now he's very upset that people might attack his candidate from the left on national security issues.From and Penn said the most defensible ground for Democrats is a middle path: rejecting deadlines for troop withdrawal but endorsing "clear benchmarks" to measure progress and hold Bush accountable for the results.
Comments
I suspect this course will not prove terribly productive for Clinton in the long run.
I suspect this course will not prove terribly productive for Clinton in the long run.
I agree. Clinton needs to (a) talk about why her position is right, and (b) talk about some other good things about Hillary Clinton. To spend the next nine months talking about how Barack Obama secretly took the same view on Iraq as she did is pointless.
"talk about some other good things about Hillary Clinton"
1) She is a woman - actually a significant good thing, given the Party and the Nation and our history;
2) She is married to Bill Clinton, a fairly successful President;
3) She is smart and talented;
4) She is widely reviled by many, and the vast majority of the public thinks of her as liberal, but she's actually moderate . . . which is good because . . .
You can see why she is focusing on other things.
You can see why she is focusing on other things.
Well, look, I'm not going to vote for her. I'm just saying that between today and late-January 2008 is a very long time to try to coast on a sense of inevitability and talking shit about her opponents. Her campaign doesn't even really seem to be grappling with the way that as they trade barbs with Team Obama they're actually John Edwards is winning in Iowa and they might want to do something about that.
Incidentally, I should say that I think the increasing focus on a two-way Clinton-Obama war this far from the primaries augurs very well for John Edwards since he's maintaining his "likeability," doing his thing in the early states, and is perennially well-positioned to sweep in at any moment and say "Hey! Look! A white male southerner with progressive views -- that's how you spell 'electable.'"
"I agree. Clinton needs to (a) talk about why her position is right, and (b) talk about some other good things about Hillary Clinton."
I disagree that that is what they'll do.
Team Clinton is going to re-run the '00 GOP nomination contest with HRC cast as Bush and Obama cast as McCain. In other words, they're going to do everything they can to shred up Obama in ways both fair and unfair. (And that strategic choice, of course, is why Edwards has a far better shot at the nomination than the current CW thinks.)
Edwards has a far better shot at the nomination than the current CW thinks
Didn't I just say that?
Matthew,
Please don't post what I'm about to post while I'm busy composing. It's rude.
Love,
-Petey
damn, matt, you had to give away Edwards' strategy, didn't you?
MY and Petey coming to the same conclusion? Hold me, I'm scared.
John Edwards is winning in Iowa and they might want to do something about that.
I don't think they want to see Edwards get any more media attention than he already is. So they're probably going to ignore him for a while.
"Hey! Look! A white male southerner with progressive views -- that's how you spell 'electable.'"
Absolutely. I'd also suggest that it's how you spell 'Universal Health Care in 2009'.
Unless Clinton unequivocally supports a withdrawal of most of our troops in Iraq, I don't think that I would vote for her. If she does this, then I am willing to consider her a candidate.
My problem with Edwards is that there were (possibly mistaken) reports during the 2004 election that he was not well versed in the nuances of policy. I like my elected officials to be policy wonks, and while experience may not be too big an issue with me, competence is. I worry about what would happen with him in the White House. I am not sure if I am justified in these views, and I was impressed with his health care plan.
Right now, Obama is looking great, and less realistically, but still a possibility, is Bill Richardson. Both seem competent and I have the feeling that Richardson is extremely well versed in the intricacies of everything from energy to foreign policy.
I always sort of knew that From, Frum, and Shrum were three different people, but I never really cared enough to sit down and work out the details.
Assume the Obama campaign is also smart enough to realize that this dynamic is advantageous to Edwards. What if anything, can they do to change it? What can they do to change it if they're constrained by a preference that a Democratic candidate, even one other than Obama, win the presidency in '08?
"My problem with Edwards is that there were (possibly mistaken) reports during the 2004 election that he was not well versed in the nuances of policy."
The line of attack on Edwards that he is pretty but a lightweight (aka the Breck Girl) will continue unabated since there is no other viable line of attack on him. But that doesn't mean that line of attack is true or actually effective.
If you have concerns about Edwards mastery of policy, I suggest you head over to his website and watch some of his speeches.
What can they do to change it if they're constrained by a preference that a Democratic candidate, even one other than Obama, win the presidency in '08?
Nice sentiment, but I am highly skeptical that this concern is very high on their list of priorities, and have little faith that it would remain so in the heat of a campaign. Seen Obama's 1984 ad yet?
Not knowing anyone involved with the Obama campaign, I have no reason to believe they hold such a preference other than hope. That said, from the evidence I've seen so far it's more likely than not that the campaign was not involved in producing the ad.
"A white male southerner with progressive views -- that's how you spell 'electable.'" (MY)
Couldn't even carry his home State (NC) in '04. Edwards has got loser written all over him. He's not shrewd, he's not tough, he's not attractive in a Presidential way.
Mark Penn is a known liar. I'm not exaggerating.
Back in the 90's Stan Greenberg did an analysis of Penn's DLC polls which showed that, Bush-like, Penn had indefensibly cherrypicked his data to buttress his preexisting political views.
Mark Penn is a known liar who should not be trusted.
Couldn't even carry his home State (NC) in '04.
Well, Edwards did have Kerry at the top of the ticket. And when's the last time a Democrat carried North Carolina?
Within the next few days, every presidential candidate in the House and Senate, except Kucinic, will give President Bush the funds he has requested to continue the indefinite, illegal occupation of Iraq and the killing of its citizens. It may be a 'wise centric policy' but it will put blood on the aye-voting hands.
These politicians always hide behind the slogan 'I must support the troops'. Fair enough but supporting the troops is also supporting what the troops do and in Iraq the troops kick in doors of civilian homes, throw handgranades into their living rooms, arrest innocent people, and lock them up in beastly jails.
When the voting is over, all presidential candidates except Kicinic will be fully equal with regards to the war in Iraq. What they said or did in the past will become totally irrelevant.
Meanwhile, Democratic timidity before the administration regarding the war is leading to a plummeting in the public's image of the new Congress.
To be clear, I'm not saying I endorse the case for John Edwards outined above. I think it's pretty clear from reading the blog as a whole that I like me some Obama. But the case for Edwards (who I also do like) has the advantage of being extremely straightforward (the liberalism you love, in the white southern male package voters crave) -- you could imagine 70 percent of Democrats coming to accept in en masse within a 48 hour period.
I could easily go another 50 years (or the end of my life, whichever comes first) without another Southerner in the White House. Why are they supposed to be so appealing again? Is it those incredibly annoying accents? Or the smug "authentic" sayings of theirs, like "that dog don't hunt"?
"Well, Edwards did have Kerry at the top of the ticket. And when's the last time a Democrat carried North Carolina?" (Clark)
Well, in '60 JFK picked LBJ and damn if Texas didn't go Democratic. The demographics have changed sufficiently enough in NC that a decent VP candidate from there should have brought home the bacon for his ticket. I think if Kerry had picked Wes Clark- they might have picked up a few border States and maybe a Southern State or two, i.e. they might have won. But, no Kerry didn't like Clark and he thought l'il Johnny Edwards was a pliable sort. If Kerry had half the brains of his idol JFK- he would've picked Clark. What's the point of picking a Southerner if he can't even carry his own home State?
Why are they supposed to be so appealing again?
They're supposed to be more appealing to culturally southern voters in northern Florida, southern Ohio, and rural Virginia making it easier for Democratic candidates to expand on their bases among African-Americans and cultural northerners elsewhere in those states and thereby gain electoral votes. They're not supposed to be appealing to you (or to me) except insofar as we're supposed to like candidates other people will like.
Trevor, in 1960, Texas was a solidly Democratic state.
It matters not how smart Hillary may be.....she can not win.
Someone with some clout needs to have a serious talk with her.
We need this presidential election........we need the support of the country.....
Hillary just is not it!!!!
She had obviously surrounded herself the same sort of yes-people that the dear president surrounds himself with....
I like Bill Richardson and John Edwards as a team (either as prez) becuase it covers international relations experience (Richardson) and a well developed domestic program (Edwards).
I like Obama, too, and have nothing against Hillary except I don't want to see anyone named Clinton or Bush in the White House until Chelsea and George P. are over 50.
Look, if you put John Kerry at the top of the ticket, you're going to lose every Southern state. There's not much you can do after that. But it's not that NC didn't like Edwards -- when they exit polled Edwards against the GOP Senate candidate, Richard Burr, Edwards came out ahead 53-47.
This time around, Edwards is the policy heavyweight. He's the first one with a detailed health care plan and an antipoverty policy. He just came out today with a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody is close, particularly Obama, who's basically trying to hover above the field in a cloud of mystery and not reveal his actual positions.
I joined Hillary's campaign the other day, just so I could tell her how I felt about those immoral gays,whom she "would leave to others to decide" and her half assed apology she proffered "after speaking to her friends." I got a robotic response from her prime blogger asking me to sign a petition to Hillary, asking her to fight to have Gonzilla fired. Or something. She wants to keep her troops doing something meaningless, like Hadrian in Britain, building a 5 foot wall to keep the Barbarians out. Busy work. I wrote back that if they'd really read what I said to them in my initial blog response (the only way into the "I love Hillary so much!" room) they wouldn't bother to ask me to do anything for her, she is the original Stepford Wife, a run-of-the-mill politician. She gives not a shit about me or you, she cares about the standard deviation. And I thanked her/them for allowing me to throw my support to Obama or Edwards,(Pres and VP, respectively, my bet), having shot herself in the foot early in her "exploratory" campaign. Poor freakin' New Yorkers, who thought they would get a couple years of work out of this 'savior of Rochester' (I just made that up but we can pretend it means NY is too busy to educate and elect a local.)
Huh. I liked her until they updated her. The way I hate Internet Explorer 7 over 6. Freezes up, just when I need it.
"Trevor, in 1960, Texas was a solidly Democratic state" (Clark)
Clark, it wasn't as solid as all that. The rest of the South was just as solidly Democratic too- but they voted for Nixon. Racialist voters knew they had to switch parties to keep the nigras down. LBJ forestalled that trend.
Correction: (Sorry, Clark) Misissippi, Alabama, and Florida voted for Nixon. Kennedy-LBJ did pick up the Carolinas, Georgia, and Louisiana. But, I think my point's still correct. Texas COULD HAVE gone Republican if JFK had picked a non-Southerner.(Sorr
Sure enough; Hillary Clinton is happily surrounded with warriors, not soldiers but warriors or bar stool warriors. I resent her and her advisers more and more and more. There we have the leading Democratic candidate pretending to be George Bush on Iraq. Reprehensible.
"...Obama, who's basically trying to hover above the field in a cloud of mystery..."
Cool. Hovering in a cloud of mystery. Now he's starting to sound like a superhero. Hillary and Edwards don't stand a chance.
Look, if you put John Kerry at the top of the ticket, you're going to lose every Southern state. There's not much you can do after that.
Well, with Ohio, Florida or Missouri you could win the Presidency. (Florida is only about half-Southern).
Why are they supposed to be so appealing again? Is it those incredibly annoying accents?
First of all, there is no unified southern accent except on televison.
Secondly, unless you're from California, Kansas, Ohio, or one of the more Urban parts of Canada, chances are you have an annoying accent too.
Trevor, it doesn't make much sense to blame Edwards for the fact that the trick that worked in 1960 didn't work in 2004. The relationship of the Democratic party to the South in 1960 was dramatically different than it was in 2004, 44 years later.
1960 is the last election before the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy and decided to become the party opposed to Civil Rights. In 1960, the swing vote bloc of racist white Southerners (a SUBSET of white Southern voters) would be reassured enough by a Southern VP that they'd vote for a Massachusetts Democrat for President. In 2004, precisely because they'd elected a Democratic Massachusetts President/Southern VP team who'd turned around and launched Civil Rights on them, they were not going to trust a similar team to understand "their values."
However, Southerners at the top of the ticket are a totally different matter. In fact, except for Carter's re-election, we've won every election where we had a Southern Democrat at the top of the ticket (yes, counting Gore as a win).
It's not a matter of understanding why Southern Democrats are supposed to be more appealing. The bottom line is that they are more appealing to the electorate. If you want to speculate why, that's a valuable and interesting pursuit, but even if you can't find a satisfactory explanation, it doesn't change the bottom fact. Looking at the past 44 years, you run a Southern Democrat for President, your candidate is probably gonna win. And if you run a Democrat from someplace else, your candidate is definitely going to lose.
Just what we don't need. Bill gave us Reagan II and now HRC is shooting for Reagan III. The DLC and Blue Dogs are killing the Dems. Latest Gallup has them tanking 10 pts in two months thanks to kissing Al From's butt.
"The line of attack on Edwards that he is pretty but a lightweight (aka the Breck Girl) will continue unabated since there is no other viable line of attack on him. But that doesn't mean that line of attack is true or actually effective."
Does this statement not seem obviously wrong to anyone else? First, this particular attack is clearly effective (it may or may not be true). As proof I direct you to this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
Second, there clearly are many other lines of attack on Edwards that are either effective, true, or both. A big one is his initial support for the War in Iraq. Or the apparent incosistencies between his positions and rhetoric circa 1998 or 2002 and now. Those are just two examples.
Be partisan, Petey, but don't be ridiculous.
"They're not supposed to be appealing to you (or to me) except insofar as we're supposed to like candidates other people will like."
They're supposed to be appealing to you (or to me) because we want to see our policy goals given the force of law.
OK... this is mostly tongue-in-cheek.
But
They're not supposed to be appealing to you (or to me) except insofar as we're supposed to like candidates other people will like.
and
They're supposed to be appealing to you (or to me) because we want to see our policy goals given the force of law
I keep forgetting that involving oneself early and often in partisan primaries means you don't get to choose the candidate you actually like, but the one someone/everyone else will like.
I think we'd all be much better off getting behind our own, personal guy or gal (if it's your 'thing' to support someone in the primary) - and hang "electable".
I'm not as anti-Kucinich as say... the great orange satan (as Atrios would say) -- but I can assure you that despite my likely extreme left positions, I wouldn't dream of voting Kucinich, nor would anyone I know.
Everyone was worred about 'electable' in 2004 - and we got John Kerry. John Kerry, in retrospect, was probably the least electable among the 04 primary players (and sure - he almost won).
Say what you will about "low info voters" - at least when it comes to President, they absolutely don't seem to vote 'resume'. They may vote other silly reasons - but resume just doesn't seem to be one of them.
I think everyone is better off selecting the most intelligent, the most forthright, the most courageous, the most authentic - the BEST candidate to support/vote for... THEN we figure out how to make him or her 'electable'.
'Looking at the past 44 years, you run a Southern Democrat for President, your candidate is probably gonna win. And if you run a Democrat from someplace else, your candidate is definitely going to lose." (anonymous)
I think Edwards is an anomalous Southern Democrat in that his shallowness (or perceived shallowness) cancels out the bacon and grits hardiness a Southerner supposedly offers. He doesn't seem remotely like Andy Griffith/Sheriff Taylor. It would be one thing if his "I Feel Pretty" ways had a Presley edge, but they don't- they're jejeune. I'm convinced he'd lose to McCain or Dracula (Rudy). Romney- he could beat but Romney ain't gonna be their nominee.
http://www.culturecloud.com/Articles/00002099/The_view_from_the_Gr.aspx?gclid=CLG0i6yzhIsCFRKXYAodAHNPGA
3/1/2007
I agree Trevor and if you can't get a warrior-scholar-wonk like Clark to run, then you gotta double up two effete Southern men like Clinton did when he picked Gore in 92.
Seriously, I tend to agree with anonymous. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We've been pretty successful with Southern white men in Presidential elections and completely unsuccessful with anyone else in the last almost 50 years.
So why are we now choosing between Hillary and Obama? It's pretty surreal watching us make the same mistakes over and over and then wonder why we keep losing. If all are equally qualified to be President, then let's pick one that has a little bit of crossover appeal. When progressives are 70% of the voting bloc, we can elect Ralph Nader or Ted Kennedy or Gloria Steinem.
But Edwards is a better and more electable candidate than Clinton. Fuck centerism.
I think that there's more anti-South sentiment than people seem to think. Suddenly I come across it more than I did even a few months ago. And there is some connection in many minds between populism and the South, so I can imagine anti-populist people trying very hard to hobble Edwards.
Anyway, lots of time. If Obama looks viable to enough white people, it's hard for me to imagine him not having a mortal lock on the black vote. I don't know if that's enough, but it seems like a substantial leg up. Edwards looks viable. HRC makes me gag, and the people she'll drag along with her are only just better than the Republicans, I suspect, but they are better than the Republicans. And I don't think any of them are clear losers against amu Republican nominee.
It's all academic at this point, but I don't think Edwards has any "crossover appeal". Bush had more of it than him. Hillary doesn't have it either. Neither does Joe "I love AIPAC" Biden. Richardson- I doubt he's got any and not just because of his bloodline. The only one I see with the potential for crossover appeal is the male Oprah. And, if he picked Wes Clark as his VP- I'd give it a better than even chance of winning. Maybe I'm prejudiced against Edwards because I think he's such a pud. But, I don't think he's a good pol either- he's just transparently phony.
There was a picture of G.W. in Africa hugging a young girl orphaned by AIDS- and the man was in the moment. He looked real- like he didn't even know the cameras were there. Then, post-Katrina - there was a picture of Edwards greeting two young New Orleans black girls on bended knee smiling ear to ear and he looked like a two-bit con man. If that's the dude you believe in- we're fucked.
Which costume was Bush wearing? Was it the flight jumpsuit? Because he looks so authentic when he plays dress up and does photo-ops.
"It would be one thing if his "I Feel Pretty" ways had a Presley edge"
Like I said above, Edwards' enemies, (both within and without the party), will continue trying the Breck Girl line of attack indefinitely, since it's the only real opening they can see. If you're only holding the two of clubs, the two of clubs is the card you play.
But Breck Girl didn't really work in 1998, Breck Girl didn't really work in 2004, and Breck Girl isn't likely to really work this time around either. It's a charge that is very easy to parry simply by presenting Edwards exhibiting his mastery of and commitment to the issues.
And the least effective lines of attacks are those that voters can easily disprove for themselves without needing additional, external means of disproval. Folks tend to trust their own lyin' eyes over spin.
See this piece today from Melinda Henneberger about how students in SC who saw Edwards talk aren't falling for it.
Attacking Edwards for being "cute" is like attacking Bill Clinton for eating too much junk food. It's like lobbing Nerf™ balls at someone to try to hurt them. And there's no rush to get the shots in. You'll be able to keep making those attacks from now, to the Democratic convention, to the general election, and then all the way until the candidate takes the oath of office. Nerf™ balls don't slow folks down.
-----
What I can't wait for is during the general election campaign where some bright Republican tries to use the ambulance chaser line of attack on Edwards, and the whole GOP gets Veronica Lakey shoved right up their asses in return.
Like Bush, she bristles at the notion of accountability. The Bush/Clinton dynasties enjoy special entitlements. They have all been surrounded by sycophants for too long.
If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm
than you
thak uyou
thankx
thx
I am interested in the topics discussed but have been feeling a little intimidated by the thought of the work. I wish I would've known about this sooner.
thanks
Thanks for a lot mén
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
iddaa sonucları
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
seks shop
hikaye
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
Post A Comment