Hillary's Using A 'Scorched Earth', Not 'Kitchen Sink' Strategy

I've been in a, "Don't blame me I voted for Edwards" kind of mode. Since he's left the race, I've felt like an observer.

I've written some blogs recently but they have been neutral, mostly noting that the real enemy in this election year is Sen. John McCain. But, being the political junky that I am, I have been watching everything and here are some of my observations.

Long before the latest version of the red phone ad, I was concerned with Sen. Barack Obama's lack of national experience. He's done a lot of organizing and neighborhood work and he has been successful at consensus building so that does count for something. And, if you count his state office terms he has been in elected office longer than Sen. Hillary Clinton.

With regard to his national and international skills, he has collected up an impressive array of highly experienced politicians and I'm going to assume that they know more about Mr. Obama than I do. I will defer, for now, to Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry.

With regard to his primary opponent, you can frame it and parse it any way you like, the bottom line is that a vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton is a vote for a third term for Bill. And, his first two terms almost destroyed the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton is an impeached president who lost his license to practice law.

As has been pointed out in a recent memo, the ex-president committed perjury and then settled with Paula Jones for the full amount of her lawsuit. I personally do remember the scandal when the Clintons' bags were searched while leaving the White House and they had to return historic artifacts and gifts. I, too, want to see her White House emails. I want to know who the fat cat donors to the Clinton Foundation are.

Sen. Clinton has been highly touting 35 years of experience but it just doesn't wash. The news agencies have finally been taking a close look at those claims for the past week or so and have found well-aged Swiss cheese size holes.

Another serious problem is that her "kitchen sink" strategy is actually a "scorched earth" strategy. I remember reading about Sherman's march to the sea towards the end of the American Civil War. He wanted southerners to understand that "war is hell" and he cut a wide swath of destruction. The machinations of the Clinton campaign are doing exactly the same thing and for me, they have reached the point where enough is enough.

This year it truly is a question of change versus the same old stuff and Sen. Clinton's double standards have done her in with me. She and her husband truly do represent business as usual every bit as much as Sen. McCain does.

I have switched to Sen. Obama in the hope that he will deliver as much of his vision as Washington will let him. And, of course, the alternative is a third term for "Dubya" or a third term for "Bubba." Neither of those choices are viable.

Ah yes, it feels much better to not have those pointy things sticking me any more.

Comments

[davg]

Scorched Earth, but for a purpose. Her goal hasn't really changed all that much over time. That goal is to get the White House ASAP. Even she knows that it won't be this year, this election. So she's looking to 2012. She won't have a shot at it in 2012 if that pesky Obama is already there running for re-election. But Mac is a different matter. He's old and has health problems and is, after all, a republican. Also, if Obama loses to Mac this November, he would return in 2012 as a loser trying to take another bite at the proverbial apple.

[S1m0n]

Actually no, Bill Clinton did NOT commit perjury.

If you can't get a fact as central as this correctly, you have been listening to way too much of the wrong kind of radio.

[Nationalist]

This really is the crux of this nomination process:

Status Quo vs. High Risk/High Reward.

Either candidate will do what is my #1 priority, that being to end this war as quickly as possible, so both get my vote there. The remaining issues then become the deciding factor, i.e. will politics change in Washington...will there be more of a voice for the majority?...will we have a domestic fiscal plan that rewards the majority of Americans?...will our declining world super-power reputation be restored?...will I, as a proud American be happy to proclaim when visiting other nations that I am indeed, a Proud American and not have to worry about the unbelievable contempt I now see on foreigners faces.

Given this criterion, I support the High Risk/High Reward Candidate: Barack Obama

[chasgoose]

First of all, comments like Hillary Clinton's election would essentially be a third term for Bill is exactly the sort of thing that makes Geraldine Ferraro's argument (the race-baiting aspects of her comments are ridiculous, but her points about how Clinton gets unfair treatment because she is a woman has some merit) that Hillary has a harder road than Obama because she is a woman. It's completely offensive to suggest that Bill would be the power behind Hillary if she got elected. Why wouldn't that also apply to Michelle Obama? Furthermore, if Bill and Hillary would be running the country together if she gets elected, shouldn't that mean that she was just as involved in his presidency as he would be in hers? You can't say that Hillary's term as First Lady does not count in terms of her political experience and then argue that when Bill Clinton is the First Husband that he would be in charge.

[gcg737]

Yes, Hillary's election WILL BE a third term for Bill Clinton. This has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary is a woman. It has everything to do with the fact that she's chosen to link her experience, her accomplishments, and her presidential bona fides to the years she spent in the White House with Bill Clinton.

Hillary does not have a "harder road than Obama because she is a woman." Hilllary has a harder road than Obama because she is Hillary. There are too many women in governorships, the House (Pelosi / House Speaker) and the Senate for the argument of sexism to wash. This is not about the glass ceiling. It is about the woman attempting to break thru the ceiling and the power lust and ugly energy she's willing to generate to do so.

Michelle Obama, "as far as I know" (to quote Hillary) has never been President of the United States. As such she cannot be perceived as a likely co-President with her husband. She also does not seem to have the lust for power and hunger for high office demonstrated by Hillary by her Senate run and her current campaign.

Finally, I don't see what Hillary's doing as being particularly "feminine." She seems to be running an excellent "old boys" campaign. So, if she wants to be one of the boys, then don't trot our her female side when she's losing. It's unbecoming to her strong, male presence in this race.

[JXB]

Why would it not also apply to Michelle Obama? I don't know, maybe because she is not a former President of the United States?