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.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Hillary talks about change but she and her husband threw change out of the window and used the old Rovian tactics of vicious attacks. Is this what her "experience" has taught us? She can keep that experience, we don't need it
DREAM TICKET NOW.
Obama will be destroyed by the republicans fear machine and no black will be president for a long time. I have seen that most democrats in south Florida, Cubans and non Cubans will vote Mc Cain and not Obama. As many Ohioans and Californians and even NYrs, demographics are complicated to get but if he is nominated he will lose and Hillary will be back in 4 years write it down because I am waiting to tell Arianna I TOLD YOU.
For what reason don't you believe they will do the same to Hillary?
Isn't there a lot more dirt on Hillary? I think it's the difference between a thimble and an ocean.
Wouldn't the Republicans be starting with a huge advantage against her, because the entire Republican party is rabid about her and her husband and have been for fifteen years?
On a personal level, I know several Republicans who say they'll vote for Obama, because they're sick of the war and they don't like McSame. I don't know any Republicans who would vote for Hillary, after the 90s.
Moreover, the worst thing Obama could do is offer Clinton the VP! They have some similarities in policy, but are QUITE different in regard to foreign policy! Hillary is a "closet neocon/hawk", and Obama has clearly stated that he wants "to change the MINDSET which got us into this war in the first place"! God knows, it does need changing! Furthermore, his stance for increased constructive diplomacy, attention to the CONDITIONS in the Middle East responsible for creating terrorists, against a permanent presence in Iraq, greater control/erradication of nuclear weapons, and adherence to international and Constitutional law stands in SHARP CONTRAST and STRENGTH compared to McCain's "victory or bust" philosophy! Certainly Hillary's foreign policies are much more similar to McCains!
The only way out is a dream ticket Hillary/Obama and it is on the best interest of Obama and the black community because after a bad lost by Obama he will be out for good and no other black candidate will be nominated in many years to come. If I were him I will wait.
Even the "kidding" added afterwards didn't make it funny. Not ready for prime time.
If we on the left were as tolerant of hysteria, lying, theatrics and bigotry as the right, Ms Powers would still have her job.