Yesterday the string of defeats continued, and today we learn that supporters of Clinton's campaign are launching a "stealth 527." You remember those -- Swift Boat attacks and all? It isn't likely to work.
Back in my musician days we had a drummer who hardly ever spoke. He just sat on his stool at rehearsals, a cigarette in his lips, and played his instrument. But one day when we were talking about why some groups made it big and others didn't, he looked up and said:
"People don't let you into their lives unless you create a world they want to inhabit, one that's more exciting and attractive than their own."
He was right, and his observation holds for politicians, too -- especially presidential candidates. To paraphrase the Talmud, "whoever creates one campaign creates a world entire." Obama's 10-state sweep is a reflection of the very different worlds he and his opponent have created. She and her advisors clearly resent that fact, but she's a bear-trap situation now. The more she struggles against it, the more it works against her.
Oddly enough, McCain and his advisors seem to have a better sense of this than the Clinton team does. Take this piece, in which GOP operative Sara Taylor describes a potential McCain VP as "a conservative, rock-n-roll Republican." While the phrase "rock and roll Republican" may create snickers in some circles, she's showing that she understands the same simple truth that my old drummer pointed out: If your world doesn't seem like an uplifting or positive place, people won't let you into their lives.
The Clinton team, whose greatest strength was Bill's (aka "Elvis's") rock and roll sensibility, still doesn't get it. This time around their theme seems to be "recess is over." It's not working, and yet they show no inclination to change.
It didn't have to be that way. Hillary could have spoken of her dreams and aspirations throughout this campaign. Bill could have used his rhetorical skills to move people, rather than to take ineffective and counterproductive cheap shots. The campaign as a whole could have embraced and usurped the themes hope and idealism -- or at least tried -- rather than mocking and deriding the idea that a new generation could be stirred and uplifted.
The old crop of Democratic consultants she has used has been a disaster for Sen. Clinton. Their advice -- don't back down on your war vote, stay on the attack -- has only added to the voters' impression that her "world" is a dark and negative place.
And the hits just keep on coming. The vapid and counterproductive suggestions offered by these Democratic "experts" show why conventional Democratic Party wisdom is a dry well. Take Dan Gerstein, late of Joe Lieberman's last notorious campaign:
"She can't win by affirmatively making the case for herself ...The best thing she can do is either discredit Obama or raise doubts about him. I hate to say it, but in certain respects, it's using the Bush strategy against Kerry against Obama and raising doubts about his willingness to use force to keep the country safe."
Following advice like this is a great way to blow a commanding lead and wind up fighting for your political survival. And now Marc Ambinder reports that "allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania."
Ambinder adds that "... at least one major Clinton donor with direct ties to the campaign (emphasis mine) said last night that the effort was an open secret among donors," and cites Jake Tapper as sayng that "the group is calling itself the 'American Leadership Project' and is staffed by several veterans of the Clinton White House."
Can she recover from her free fall using negative tactics borrowed from the 2004 Republican playbook? It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely. Once again, it seems reminiscent of a world that Democratic voters and the electorate in general seem eager to escape. And should she somehow prevail this way, it will certainly give John McCain a great way to make the case that he's a more "honest politician" who's more likely to "change Washington." After all, he's opposed 527s since McCain/Feingold.
It's a shame. Sen. Clinton is a brilliant and gifted person. I've always assumed she would be a good president. But the calculations she has made in search of the presidency, starting with that war vote in 2002, undercut her chances and raised questions about her judgment.
Time will tell whether this latest strategem will work -- but so far, people have been less and less inclined to inhabit this campaign's increasingly dark world.
_______________
One last question: It seems almost surrealistic, but did Sen. Clinton actually lie ... about plagiarism? This article suggests that she did. That would be a falsehood about an arguably false accusation of falsehood. If it's true, then this election has gotten so 'meta,' so conceptually recursive, so drenched in cascading layers of embedded meaning, that it could drive a semiotician insane.
Paging Dr. Baudrillard ...
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
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
Which is worse? Bush's War in Iraq or Hillary's War on Obama. It's not a war guys but an election. Play fair.
Try keeping up to date. This guy has been resoundingly discredited. Really, old news once again rehashed on this site.
Re swift boating Obama. Hillary and Bill may be in for a suprise.
The landmark civil fraud suit, Paul v Clinton et al pending in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Clintons on and off since 2001 has been hidden from the public by the mainstream media for seven years. While the case was showcased in the documentary trailer for Hillary! Uncensored which made internet history with more than five million downloads in a few weeks in November, 2007, it has remained under the radar of the public consciousness as part of the greatest political scandal cover-up since Watergate.
On Thursday, February 21, 2008, a hearing before Judge Munoz will be held in Paul v Clinton with David Kendall representing the Clintons. A trial date will be set for late in 2008 and a discovery schedule will be created for sworn depositions to be taken of all principal witnesses.
The limited perception and understanding that exists of the case is that it is simply a business fraud suit by Clinton donor and erstwhile Clinton employer Peter Paul against Bill Clinton who was aided and abetted by Hillary in inducing Paul to spend more than $1.2 million to elect Hillary
But the prosecution of the first suit to haul a President and Senator into court for fraud and coercion has the potential of revealing through sworn testimony of the Clinton hierarchy of the Democratic Party the culture of corruption that permeates the party and egregious examples of party leaders including Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Terry McAuliffe as frauds and scofflaws.
The threat to the party as well as the Clintons that is posed by the discovery and trial in the suit is that it not only links the Clintons personally to felony violations of the law and obstructions of justice but it will also destroy the credibility of Clinton surrogates who control the party at a time when Obama will be looking to take over the Party with his people.
Someone going for his 15 minutes files a suit against the two biggest names in US. And I guess everything they claim in their suit must be true, right. Yeah, right.
I totally agree and have followed this case here in California. This case has a long reach and shadow, the video clips of the party are a perfect snap of the Clinton's mentality. This time the Clinton's will have to answer to the law.
Hillary needs to withdraw after tonight's debate.
She can only win by destroying Obama and misusing superdelegates (and cheating in Florida and Michigan). And what would that do to black voters-- whom the white Democratic establishment has often taken for granted?
It's not just about Obama's support among African Americans, because whites and Latinos can feel the same outrage about these tactics.
Yet there's a pattern throughout our history of black voters being shut out of the political process, and black leaders being called frauds. The "grandfather clause" in the Jim Crow laws, and the felony purge lists in Florida in 2000. The charges of plagiarism against Martin Luther King Jr. The charge of mail fraud against Marcus Garvey.
If Hillary stays in only to treat Obama like a high school graduate cutting and pasting other people's speeches, she will destroy her own reputation, and-- worse-- jeopardize the 90% support Democrats have among black voters. If they see their votes being nullified by old white men in the party with whom a single vote equals ten thousand votes-- if they see this respected statesman and author being dissected in a way no white politician ever has been (they all borrow words from other speeches), why would they vote for Hillary in November? Why would any Democrat?
Hillary is better than this campaign, and far better than this latest tactic of shoving superdelegates down our throats (see http://www.delegatehub.com/) and calling Obama a plagiarist with no solutions. She is giving the GOP more ammo every day, disgracing her own standing among Democrats, and potentially leading the party to alienate for decades the African American community, a community whose story of strife and quest for equality define the image of the Democratic Party.
I believe the author of this article said it best. Hillary's campaign (not necessarily Hillary) has consistently taken the low road, speaking out against hope. It was meant to counter Obama's campaign and undermine his rhetoric, but it leaves an impression of ugliness and bittereness.
Hillary was on a role up until her slip about illegal driver licenses in the debates. Since then her campaign has been spinning to recover and losing ground daily.
Instead of focusing on righting her own ship the tactic was to sink Barack's. That's what the public sees. It's about illusion and the suspension of disbelief. But Clinton made it about reality and the suspension of belief. The results are evident.
With the way she has run her campaign, Hillary has shown herself to be INFLEXIBLE (continuing with the same strategy that has failed time and time again), UNCREATIVE (using a strategy that worked for Republicans rather than tailoring one specifically for her), POOR JUDGMENT (believing blacks would not be offended when Bill played the race card), and POOR LEADERSHIP SKILLS (no significant accomplishments in 7 years in the Senate; not firing her inept & incompetent campaign strategists). Who would want someone like that as president? Were it not for Obama's well-executed opposition, we might not have seen her lack of skills until it was too late. If she should somehow pull this off and become president, we'll be stuck with another Bush for 4 to 8 years. She may be smart, but she's not competent. I wish she'd come to her senses and bow out graciously. Retain some dignity and concede now, Hillary.
You people are out of your minds. It's a 527 and it's not Hillary's as the author of the article states -- It would be so obviously illegal that she'd be stupid to try and HRC is not stupid. It's the twisting of everything related to HRC that is disappointing and the hatred in these posts -- is that what BO has done to you? If someone dares to run against him you make it sound like he deserves it and anyone else is a crook, liar, evil, theif, murderer and worst of all -- A WOMAN!!!
What I think she doesn't get is that most Americans are so tired of the attack-style... negatively injected political strategies for the sake of blackballing your opponent because you are losing politics. We are so sick and tired of conflicts and scandals in this country hence the overwhelming draw to the uplifting tone of the Obama campaign.
By going negative Hillary cooked her own goose. If she continues along this path she will cook the goose of the Democratic party and risk the WH in November. Just goes to show, she's all about power and doesn't really give a crap about the USA. Kind of reminds of Cheney and GW. HILLARY GIVE IT UP, YOU'RE DONE.
Brings to mind the words of Ann Richards about Bush, "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple". HRC began this campaign standing on third base, has still failed to cross the plate. She now thinks that bringing in a coach to take a bat to Obama's head as he runs the third base line is the preferred strategy. She cannot stop herself from highlighting the essential strength of her opponent against her own failure. It's getting pathetic.
The Clinton supporters are amazing. They truely miss the point. They applaud Sen Clintons use of Republican tactic in a primary against a fellow Democrat. Mean spirited is an understatement. Some how you believe that by making a spirited contest into a nasty fight they will win the election. You may stop to consider that if your candidate continues to be this negative, and you some how win the nomination, you lose all the Obama supporters, the independants (not fond of negativity) and solidify the Republican base (they're still bitter about the first 8 years of Clinton). I'm at a loss as to what you are all so happy about. Let the hate mail against the mean, delusional Obama supporter commence.
Is this the first election you have been aware of? The "attacks" and other language of battle is something the media has cooked up. In all fights for nominations within a party there are these disagreements. By saying HRC is using "Republican" tactics you have proved yourself to be ignorant and disrespectful of a supremely qualified candidate. If you support Obama then support him without insulting his competition. You expect everyone to bow down before Obama? Are you nuts? You have drunk the kool-aid.
Her tactics against Obama has nothing to do with republicans as the Clinton's are very dirty on their own & always have been.
Considering the LIES that have been conveyed in Obama's ADS and the facts that he has been advertising them 4-1 seem to be working in the minds of some. Obama has been lying, distorting, and attacking Hillary since last October so I hope this 527 SLAUGHTERS Obama. They need to run this one too.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27060
Sleazy obama supporter msnbc and fox
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27047
I can predict TOO. MR RJ ESKOW That your most cherished --GREEN and UNEXPERIENCED OBAMA hero will still be in training if he even makes it to the finish line.
Millions of Americans STILL won't have healthcare because Obama doesn't believe in it ---and is still learning how to lead.
Its ones like YOU with a voice --who don't support the most talented in our country & like the 52% who thought GWB was the best thing to come along since apple pie---he's down to 19% now---that's how much the public knows about picking leaders.
First there was the GREENHORN GWB & now the superhero GREENIE OBAMA to follow.
At the end of the day there is not much difference between a 527 and a a 501(c)(4) which is what MoveOn is.
She have every right to do it and every right to a vigorous campaign.
Unless of course you are saying if the Clintons use it, then its wrong.
Democrats do not like when Democrats act like Republicans. That's why Bill's actions in the beginning of the campaign hurt her more than it helped.
RJ is right. Hillary has only tried to appeal to the voters' head not their heart. You need to appeal to both. If her campaign launches a Swift-boat-like attack on Obama it's going to backfire on her. It will only fire up his base and turn off potential voters.
Hillary"s negatives are baked in so she would still win the general against McCain. Obama has issues with the general but that is another topic. The Clinton campaign would be smart to while drawing contrast between her and Barack that the media neglects to cover.
Right now, the media has given Obama a free pass, especially whenever Obama uses code words to make any comment racial. In addition, every time the Clinton campaign makes a contrast the media bash the style of the comment repeatedly without addressing the real issue.
Here is what they should do; I had too much time the other day and discovered where some of the Obama plans came from. Lobbyists and big business! The theme is, Don"t see much change and all the plans are derivative of big business lobbyists.
1. Health Plans: Obama"s is a windfall for the insurance companies. The rhetoric Obama uses is directly from the Health Care lobby talking points, Harry and Louise ad campaign they did and the I will not be forced to pay for insurance, it is my right to be uninsured Rhetoric. Health Cares costs every American 7K somehow and 30 percent goes to administration, united Health Care, WellPoint et al win. Obama does not attack those costs.
2. Obama"s Ethanol plan is directly from the Farm Lobby and all those that understand the issue know that it won"t lower gas prices and will keep accelerating food prices. Archer Daniels Midland wins.
3. Obama"s alternative energy plan and the 10B that goes along with it looks like GE"s strategy for the world. GE wins here.
This is what she should start out with. Don"t see much change and all the plans are derivative of big business lobbyists.
Maybe they all will learn a lesson this year, that the negative BS has got to get out of Politics. It really shows their character and Integrity, by using the negative playbook, rather than helping them.
We as a Nation are tired of it, may Obama go all the way, so that "We are what we've been waiting for," can get busy changing things we have been waiting for.
After Texas and Ohio, if she doesn't make a comeback, the she should leave the race gracefully. Maybe just maybe, she isn't as experienced as she claims to be and she would be the "Roll of the Dice." Better to find out now than have another Bushco disaster.
Just because it is a 527 doesn't automatically mean it will be negative. It could be a call to women to unite behind the the first viable wooman candiate in our history.
You may not love Hillary, but let her open the door for better female candidates in the future.
Barack is just another man. Girls who vote for him are just trying to impress their stupid boyfriends.
how about all the republican women who have voted for mccain, romney, huckabee, et. al. are they just trying to impress their boyfriends? why do all the hillary supporters automatically assume that all women are going to flock to hillary this fall? hillary, has, at most, a minority hardcore support of democratic women who are older than their younger sisters who seem to like obama just fine.
No, they are just parotting their husbands.
Not sure if you've read much about the formation of this particular 527 - but its express purpose is to defame Obama.
I too have supported Hillary and would love to see a woman President. But I've come to the conclusion that she isn't the right person for the job at this defining moment in our history. So have many other feminists. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to cast my ballot for a Barbara Boxer (or Lee) in 8 years.
Those 'feminists' who don't support Hillary are no feminists.
Hillary certainly wasn't concerned about opening doors for other female candidates when she asked a qualified, female, NY State resident to step aside so that she could run for Senate in 2000.
If Hillary is so concerned about opening doors for women, why didn't she go to another state and ask a male candidate to step aside instead?
Hillary only uses her feminist credentials when it's convenient for her. As a woman, I will vote for someone who is consistent in their actions and words, and this person is NOT Hillary Clinton.
The carpetbagger slam works for Obama too. He was born in Hawaii.
"Barack is just another man. Girls who vote for him are just trying to impress their stupid boyfriends."
What makes you qualified to pass such sweeping judgment? And why do you have to belittle women supporting Obama by calling them "girls"?
Because only girls would be stupid enough and immature enough to fall for it.
thanks for opening our eyes.
Don't mention it.
Posted February 20, 2008 | 02:07 PM (EST)