A review of Over 50 women, under 50000 dollar income white men voter psychology, Clinton camp tactics and underlying motives, political posturing for the nomination, and practical recommendations for the Obama Camp to win the nomination of the Democratic Party.
This commentary is written from a pure strategic point of view. The recommendations made are in not intended to be sexist.
Women over 50, white men making less than 50000 a year, and Older men and Women: The problem that Obama faces in this group is multi factorial. They do not do their own research. They respond to advertisements, theatrics, slogans, and simplistic understandable repetitive message. When thinking, why do I support a certain candidate? They need a repeatable, intelligent sounding, one word answer. For now they have bought the EXPERIENCE buzz word.
They tend to respond to fear, and are literally hopeless. The republicans have taken all their dreams away and they have nothing to look forward to. Women over 50 are tired, emotionally vulnerable, living beyond the evolutionary allotted time, their ovaries are burnt out, their hormones gone, and now the fear of cancer has taken away the replacements. Their kids are grown and gone. Their husbands do not have jobs and are dependent on them for financial support. Some of them are working 2 or 3 jobs. ( Please understand that these are generalizations and do not fit everyone, especially the 30 " 40 percent who are voting for obama already). They know the Clintons and find comfort in the familiar.
This is what they are saying right now. I like Hillary because she has experience. She has solutions. I do not know much about him, I do not trust him. Is he a Muslim? Is he a terrorist? And he is black. (20% of people in Ohio said race was a factor in their decision, hence gender card has to be used).He has words, Hillary has solutions. He has a lot of young people following him, and I do not trust them, what do they know. She is a woman and it is about time we have a woman president. He lied about NAFTA. I do not know the details, it was on TV. Hillary told us. Hillary knows all about health care. She can fix it.
She is attempting to demystify him and define him in the process. He has to define himself. One way to demonstrate trust is to blanket the airways with images of him with well known, trustworthy, well respected politicians and the Kennedys.
He would have to tear her experience line apart, redefine her foreign policy experience as nonexistent. Her ability to be commander in chief has to be challenged. The message has to be simple, black and white. Trust is at the psychological core of the voters, keeping fear at bay. Experience, justifies the intellectual need for explanation as to why. Keeping the reptilian brain theory in mind as discussed by Huffington yesterday, it is essential that the trust is shaken, doubt is introduced, and fear takes hold. The Hillary camp demonstrated this in the last few days. In my opinion, the Tax return issue does not shake the trust, and hence is a non issue. It is more effective for the republican electorate, as baseline mistrust already exists in their minds.
Just remember and understand that the issue of negative attacks is nothing but the creation of doubt. The negative attacks should be sudden, unexpected, and there should not be enough time to respond. The war room strategy of the Clinton campaign is based on this understanding. They respond without delay to any attack that creates doubt. Their kitchen sink strategy is to throw every slime, lie, any accusations they can come up with, to create doubt in a voters mind. The press is intimidated by all means with the intension of spreading the dirt quickly and preventing them from creating doubt against their candidate. The 24 hour cable network, and with robot like mindless pundits exemplified by Wolf Spitzer, who keep repeating a mantra without pause and thought, are the perfect instruments in their manipulative apparatus. The Obama campaign will have to come up with a war room. If they decide to stay away from creating doubts in the voters" minds, because of a principled stand against lying, throwing slime and false accusations, they will still need an army of well articulated spokesmen to respond to each accusation in the same news cycle. They also need to come up with a plan to up talk their wins, including Texas for the next 8-10 weeks and turn the big state losses to their advantage by emphasizing their inevitable win in these states. They need spokesmen with talking points on every news channel who keep repeating the same message all day long.
An air of a winner has to be maintained and a nonstop message that Clinton Campaign is destroying the party has to be parroted. The democratic electorate has to be persistently reminded of the racial divisions and dirty politics of the Clinton campaign. The aim is to create and maintain momentum and favorable public and super delegate opinion for the Obama Campaign and not let the electorate forget about the evil character of the Clintons.( They will fire every stooge being used right now to appear kosher at the right time, hence blame has to stay with Hillary and no one else. The reason behind Bill Clinton being the bad guy is to keep her above the fray and electable at the convention. Obama has to make it clear he will not accept the vice president slot and has plans to serve his senate term to completion if not the nominee. He will on the other hand seriously consider Hillary as a vice presidential candidate to keep the party together. (Political pressure has to be maintained so as to avoid being put under the gun at the convention to keep the party intact. Most democrats seem to like the ticket; hence the Clintons are already working on this plan. He has to remind the public, NOW, that he might be younger but he has more legislative experience and he brings a lot more to the table, the new voters and the black vote in massive numbers, plus the west and the Midwest) and his unwillingness to be the sacrificial lamb to the Clintons: to get them into the white house while he suffers the fate of AL Gore. Posturing for the convention is starting now.)
A Strategic move at the end to counter the kitchen sink, accompanied by all the spokesmen standing behind it, with the self-righteousness of an opportunity for the Clinton campaign to respond now, before they have to face similar attacks from the republican Carl Rove machine, and be swift boated, has to be in place. The recommended plan is detailed below:
I recommend an advertisement showing her different postures: Honor to be with you, shame on you, the sky will open. Then show images after images of different sentiments: Do you want an out of control, emotional, unstable commander in chief? Think again before you decide to let her answer the phone at 3 am. What mood would she be in, do you wonder? Do you trust her to command our armed forces and unable be in control of her own moods? Too risky in this dangerous world. Show an atomic bomb exploding and lot of people dying.
I think it will work: a lot of women who are not supporting her seem to have this concern. They have experienced mood swings with their periods and the ones' going through menopause are miserable. They refuse to vote for a woman because of these concerns.
Any man who has lived with a woman will be reminded and will hesitate. One will lose feminist votes, but they are not going to vote for Obama anyway.
Blanket the air in Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, in case they are held together. Create the doubt: pull the ad.
Sunday Roundup
This was a very interesting week in terms of determining which outrageous comments warrant resignation and which do not. Let's review, shall we? Samantha Power calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" leads to a quick resignation. Howard Wolfson comparing the Obama campaign to Ken Starr does not. Then there is Republican congressman Steve King, who claimed that "the optics" of a Barack Obama presidency would encourage "the radical Islamists" - and that al-Qaeda "would be dancing in the streets" if Obama wins. Now, imbecility has never been a disqualifier for public office. But rank racism should be. If John McCain and the GOP hierarchy don't ask King to step down, the optics will be very, very clear indeed.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
For the first time in American history we have a viable African American candidate who has not made race his platform. Unlike Jesse Jackson, this candidate comes with the required accouterments. And yet....and yet there's still something that will prevent him from even hoping to become the President of the United States - a country of immigrants. His skin is not white and his name has African and Arabic origins. No matter that he has broaden the democratic voting base 10 fold, no matter that he has gotten people involved and excited in the process for the first time ever. No matter that he has the Harvard degree and the 11 years in public office.
The truth is that people like dcazal01 and others are afraid. They might call themselves democrats but they are not. Being a liberal means that you are favorable to progress or reform. Being a conservative means that you are afraid of change and favor the status quo. dcazal01 and others prefer the status quo.
They are happier stating what is, rather than what SHOULD BE. They are afraid to dare that we should actually BE THE AMERICA that offers liberty and justice FOR ALL. They would rather that folks like Steve King spout their racist remarks then hide behind some initial disclaimer of "regardless of your race" crap. However, what if King were right, what if the Islam extremist are dancing in the streets? THEN MAYBE WE COULD CATCH BIN LADEN ONCE AND FOR ALL-- out there dancing in the middle of the friggin street!! Because the sorry sacks of s*&%! that have been in office for the last 16 years INCLUDING CLINTON haven't been able to catch him. Maybe while Hillary was trying to snub Monica she should have been trying to convince her husband to zip up his pants and catch some bad guys.
Well i for one will NOT SETTLE FOR THE STATUS QUO, I will demand liberty, justice and opportunities for all. Because for too long the disenfranchised have been left out in the rain holding the bag of crap that we are supposed to be grateful for. Well I say no more! dcazal01 and King and the rest of the Limbaugh cohorts will have to answer for accepting the status quo for not fighting for what's right, for not fighting for the American dream for each and every American. As GW said, you're either with us or against us. Change or get the #(* out of the way.
Personally, I am amused when I hear that Obama supporters are "fanatics" driven only by slogans. We are told that Hillary is for solutions, not speeches.
OK. Then ask Hillary to stop giving speeches, and stop using her slogans of "experience" and :solutions"
Regarding solutions, war is a huge problem, and she helped create that problem. She is part of that problem. She has no credibility on the issue to be offering any solutions.
On all issues Obama has offered just as detailed plans as Hillary. For example, healthcare. One can debate the merits of Obama's plans against Hillary's, sure, but he is not lacking in detail.
Besides, detailed plans on each issue are quite meaningless at this point. Implementation of any plan would depend largely on what Congress they end up working with. What is important is to set goals and general guidelines. And Obama has done a better job in that than Hillary.
As for experience, sure, Hillary has spent many more years in politics than Obama. But that in itself doesn't qualify her more for President. What's important is accomplishments. And neither Obama nor Hillary have any spectacular accomplishments. And neither does McCain, other than getting shot down a few times, crashing a few airplanes, and getting captured in Vietnam. So, the accomplishment thing is a wash.
On most issues, Hillary and Obama are not very different. On the issue of war, Obama is the only one who made the right call before the war started. And he did it when it was not popular to do so. To me, that distinguishes him from the other two.
Sure, one can question why he has supported funding the war, but there is no question about Hillary. He has consistently sided with the NeoCons. Consistently.
No matter how you look at it, Obama is the best choice in this election.
And since I said this, I'm ready to be called an Obama cultist, because, as all can see, I paid no attention to issues, only to slogans.
We keep hearing about this big state myth. If Robert Creamer can dissect this simple misconception in 2 excellent articles her on HuffPo, why can't the mainstream pundits and HRC supporters get the memo and wrap their heads around it?
Most of the big states Hillary won are blue states anyway. Obama will win them as well. Some of the big states Hillary are red states that neither is likely to win in the general. They have each won some purple states; arguably, as Creamer has done, Obama has won more of these and stands to break new ground in the general.
What matters more is will there be a strong candidate standing after this endless kitchen sink battle, or will Hillary's pointless tenacity, praise for McCain and reckless belittling of Obama ruin the Party's chances of taking the White House in November, which until recently seemed certain.
Recent polls have show that, In just the past week, since Hillary tossed Obama under the Republican bus, the solid advantages she and Obama had in head-to-head matchups with McCain have evaporated. And yet you still hear Clinton and her surrogates saying a long nasty battle will be good for the Party. Doesn't ring true, but no doubt if they keep saying it, people will believe it. It works for Bush and Rove.
Maybe someone will listen to Hillary's critizism of the lightweight, I certainly hope he doesn't become the democratic president, after the hard time we got after the kind Jimmy Carter, we
won't win the White House ever again., If you dealth with Bush, McSame will be a piece of cake, and maybe the Democratic Senate and House will fight him tooth and nail, and just think Obama will still be part of the Senate, for a while anyway.
The only ones listening to 'Her Monsterness" are little old white ladies and racists.
You overestimate Hillary's power to change people's minds, the real problem is that Obama Is WEAK and very vulnerable to attack..
When does a refusal to play your mud-slinging game - stop being the high road, and start being weak. When I was younger, bullies from all colors wanted to jump on the half-breed(me), because I was different(in those days). Ran the guantlet of rednecks,gangs,those "bros. and sis.", who said I wasn't Black enough, as well as my father who told me I was born with a brain, use it. Took awhile, and many scars/wounds later - to understand you can't fight ignorance with same, like dealing with someone with lupus(or a drunk fool), overlooking those "deficiencies", continuing on......I would suggest all that think like you do, should not underestimate the man, or overestimate your viewpoint of him. In my world that gets you dead. I was in the Marines during Jimmy Carters term - and if you think they're similar, then I suggest you reread the statement above. Don't confuse stoicism for weakness. At my most silent, is when I'm at my most deadly. Sen. Clinton throws kitchen sinks, Obama sidesteps, slides icepicks between third and fourth ribs.......oops sorry old memories :)
If Hillary can change minds, it hasn't showed in the voting from state to state, you can't expect Obama to win every state, I am surprised he is winning any. WEAK, well he better get strong, he has deal with a lot of tough people, the Ameriucan peolpe expect a strong
leader, not a weak one..
And Hillary wouldn't be attacked by Republicans? Have you been paying attention to what Republicans have said about her in the past? Are they suddenly going to go soft on Hillary?
Tell us on what basis you consider Obama "WEAK"? Apparently he has knoocked Hillary off the "inevitable nominee" padestal already. I don't think that is an indication that he is weak. That says that Hillary is weak.
Obama has won the black v ote with big populations, and the white quilty liberals who don't want to be labeled racists or feel quilty for the lack of opportunity given to black people. I guess a bunch of mislead generation X that know little about Clintons decided to demonize them, as the republicans do
who by the way usually vote republican but, hate Bush and anything like him, McSameMcCain, and the rest of that motley crew running. I guess you can say they are rebelling against the establishment, (it was done in the sixties, smoking grass and living in communes), I am quite surprised, because this group, has hardly protested the war in Iraq, marched for the civil rights for people who don't get Obama opportunities, or have gone into poor communities to help some of the 47 million people in this country living below the poverty line, after all Obama does get the elite vote, I wonder why they aren't helping, too selfish I guess, or busy going to Obama rallies yelling and screaming. Michael Jackson is going to come out of retirement so you all
know what real talent is, and he says more than change and hope, you should get real inspired..
Which is why he's been in the lead since the 1st primary?
NAZGUL,
HE'S IN THE LEAD BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN
MISLEAD.
Obama has no backbone, if you remember it was John Edwards who criticized Hillary Clinton for not being clear on her stance on the war, not Obama, he jumped in during the debates and the media gave the credit to Obama, when John Edwards should have gotten the credit but was demonized. John Edwards was the leader on every single issue and spoke up , Obama followed, trouble is he doesn't have any ideas of his own, so he is WEAK and since he takes money from the drug companies and Insurance companies, he will not give people universal health care, they will not give in to him, he owes them for his position and if anyone thinks differently, you are definately
not living in this world. All Obama has done is brainwash a lot of people
with word change and hope, along with Oprah telling people that Obama is the
the second coming of Christ. I can't wait until 2012, when again we can try to
get rid of Obama or McCain.
I read the piece here by Arianna. Couldn't agree more. Then I read many of the posted comments. Funny, but it appears that many of you are simply posting opinions randomly, regardless of what the piece above it says. Bizarre.
Why is saying that radical islamist who are not black will be dancing on the street a racist comment?
Huh? Is that your response to jstock ?
What's the difference with Bush lining up with Islamic countries or Obama? By alligning himself with the Saudis, Bush I, Bush II, and his cronies made billions on the backs of the middle class workers. If Obama gets the presidency, Muslim countries hopefully will see a different America.
.
If you think the Saudi's won't continue to take advantage of America under Obama, I've got a camel I want to sell you.
Bush, Obama and any other president should only align himself with America"s interest.
Why should we elect our president in the basis of others liking us?
Of course we shouldn't, but I don't think missionimpossible is saying that we should.
Traditionally, it is on the issues of defense (war) and foreign policy that the Congress has allowed the President maximum flexibility. On most domestic issues, while the leadership of the President can be important, it is not crucial. Therefore, war and foreign policy issues should weigh much more in the choice of Presidential candidates.
There is no question, based on facts, that the defense and foreign policies of the Republicans have been a disaster. Driven by the NeoCon (PNAC : http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html ) agenda, Bush and Cheney have given us the worst debacle in several decades. Some view the long-term consequences of this debacle direr than of any previous war.
It has devastated America"s moral authority abroad, increased the number of terrorists, caused massive death and suffering to millions, diminished America"s prestige by shameless acts such as torture, made the Middle East and the world a more dangerous place than ever before, set a shameless precedent for unprovoked (pre-emptive) war, caused death and injury to tens of thousand American soldiers, wasted over $1.5 trillion, contributed heavily to the decline of our economy, and all this to satisfy the depraved goal of a few ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ) seeking "benevolent hegemony" and world domination, while mutilating the long cherished American values of peaceful coexistence and justice.
It is in this context that we must make our choices in this election. This election is unlike any in at least fifty years. It is imperative that we, the American electorate, make the right choice in this election.
It is based on these issues, more than any other, that we must evaluate candidates.
Between Obama and Hillary, one finds that the biggest difference between the two is in foreign policy and war. On most other major issues, they are quite similar.
Do your own research, and make your judgments as to which of the two candidates is better. A good place to start is: "Spotlight on the Candidates"( http://www.fpif.org/fpifinfo/4809 ). What you are most likely to conclude is that Hillary has consistently sided with the NeoCons.
I did my research and concluded that Obama is the better of the two candidates. It was an easy decision.
Siding with Neo-cons isn't that the Obama plan, uniting republicans and democrats one party one world order, I believe that his reaching across the table. WAKE UP.
Consistently excellent comments, HumeSkeptic!
Good points.
I would add that, Hillary's free-pass to McCain on the Commander-In-Chief demonstrates quite clearly this myopia of establishing credentials based on being there. Yeah, McCain's been there. In War and in D.C. For a long time. Depite that, he's categorically wrong on every aspect of the war. It would be like a hiring a bank President who's had 50 years in the industry but feels that the best approach is to take the money out of the vaults overnight. I'd rather take a chance on the guy with 20 years of experience who knows what the vaults are for. Ditto for Hillary.
Hey, get it through your head Obama hasn't got 20 years of experience to be President a dog catcher, maybe..,
Every new international crisis will have a new twist to it. One can count on it. To deal with it, what would matter is clear thinking and judgment, not so much past experience. Our military leaders have the necessary experience to execute what the President decides. It is the judgment and decision that makes all the difference.
I think Obama made the right call on Iraq war, and I think hie approach of negotiating with our adversaries without pre-conditions is the right approcah. This approach has served us well in the past, and it will in the future.
Hillary's approach of pre-conditions before meeting with foreign leaders is the NeoCon position : divide the world into good and evil, and refuse to talk to the evil.
Personally, I think we have had enough of NeoCons. No more.
I am not that sure. In war it sometime easier to get peace from a strong position. Carter and Chamberlein are historical examples of the fact that wanting peace openly is very often a sure way to bring war.
Well, look at the results. As I stated above, the NeoCon policy thus far has yielded the following:
"It has devastated America"s moral authority abroad, increased the number of terrorists, caused massive death and suffering to millions, diminished America"s prestige by shameless acts such as torture, made the Middle East and the world a more dangerous place than ever before, set a shameless precedent for unprovoked (pre-emptive) war, caused death and injury to tens of thousand American soldiers, wasted over $1.5 trillion, contributed heavily to the decline of our economy, and all this to satisfy the depraved goal of a few ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ) seeking "benevolent hegemony" and world domination, while mutilating the long cherished American values of peaceful coexistence and justice."
Do we wish to continue on this path? When do we say that enough is enough?
Bush legalizing the Iraqi war instead of capturing his friend Osama, has
caused additional acts of terror and will continue to. They will lie low for a while and then attack when we least expect, remember what happen to the World Trade center. Keeping men in Iraq will not help and did not help, bring the troops home, we need them here to guard the borders against illegal immigrants that are overrunning this country. We need the money to pay
for domestic infrastructure, health care and social security.
I do not want to continue this path but I am not going to follow any other path unless it is clearly explained to me. There are more than one way to do stupid things and only few smart ways. Get it?
All the talk of Hillary winning Ohio by double digits makes me sick. I remember staying up late in 2004 to see which way Ohio would go. It went for George Bush. It went for Ronal Reagon with the "Reagon Democrarts". This week the media focused on the "real' democrats that are Ohio. They say the rest of the coming states will take notice what these "old time" democrats think.
Give me a frick - frackin break. These lunch pail carrying, white men with no college education, gave us Reagon and Bush. They have no education because they have no brains. All the smart people left with the jobs. If anything the rest us should always vote in opposition to these fools.
Hey First Avenue
You are still here, why haven't you left.
Posted March 8, 2008 | 01:59 PM (EST)