Clinton Snaps to Wake Democrats in Obama Trance
Campaign cites Barack ‘plagiarism’ as device to deprogram Democrats
Over the past week, lots and lots and lots of Hillary Clinton’s supporters have very publicly come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is all talk and no substance.
This is not a coincidence.
In the days leading up to the Wisconsin primary, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign e-mailed talking points to its top supporters and surrogates under the subject “Just Words,” and separately, Clinton staffers sent out a blog post likening Mr. Obama to his beleaguered ally, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. (“Deval Patrick and his good friend Barack Obama have much more in common than their prosaic words, the depth of the color of their skin, their Harvard backgrounds, and their female political opponents,” the post reads.)
The staffers also distributed—from their private e-mail addresses—a Boston Globe story suggesting that Massachusetts Democrats had voted against Mr. Obama in the primary because of the subpar administration of Mr. Patrick, an Obama ally who also ran on a platform of hope.
And the campaign has reinforced the talk-over-substance idea—multiple times—in conference calls with top supporters.
“It comes from the campaign,” explained one prominent Clinton fund-raiser who has received the talking-point e-mails as well as verbal briefings from members of staff saying the same thing. “People are saying, ‘Look. Spread this around. Talk about this with your donors, with members of the press on background. They are really pushing hard on this and [campaign manager] Maggie Williams did it on a conference call three times last week. She said, ‘Remember if Hillary is in the solutions business, Barack is in the promises business.’”
Another prominent fund-raiser to Mrs. Clinton, also speaking on background, referred to that line—delivered by Mrs. Clinton numerous times on the stump in recent days—as the campaign’s “mantra,” and said that members of the campaign’s finance committee and surrogates had also been inundated with negative talking points about Mr. Obama’s purported act of plagiarism, in which he delivered a portion of a speech nearly identical to a passage delivered in 2006 by Mr. Patrick.
“First there was an e-mail describing the situation, then there was a video clip showing the situation, then there were conference calls highlighting it,” said the fund-raiser. “It’s the biggest thing since the Zapruder film.”
This fund-raiser also said that the campaign had encouraged surrogates to disparage the nearly hysterical enthusiasm of some of Mr. Obama’s supporters, and to “cultivate the ‘another groupie for Obama’ thing.”
The attempts to turn Mr. Obama’s perceived strengths—his ability to deliver inspiring speeches, the intensity of his support—into weaknesses may well represent the Clinton campaign’s best opportunity to change the course of an election that has seemed to be getting away from them. Hence, Hillary Clinton’s frequent pronouncements that “there is a difference between speeches and solutions,” or Bill Clinton’s remark at a campaign event this week in Canton, Ohio that “you have the power of speeches against the promise of solutions by a world-class change-maker.”
But, as some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters publicly and privately attest, it’s a risky strategy, and one that invites a potentially damaging response.
“Bill Clinton’s first year was difficult,” said Bob Kerrey, a former senator and governor from Nebraska whose endorsement was proudly announced by the Clinton campaign in December. “I don’t know if The Boston Globe included his first year. That was a tough first year. And the low-water mark was October ’93.” (Mr. Kerrey was referring to the killing of American soldiers in Mogadishu, Somalia.)
As for the idea—which went viral in the national media after Super Tuesday, with the encouragement of the Clinton campaign—of Mr. Obama as a false Messiah to a frenzied, deluded flock, Mr. Kerrey was brutally dismissive.
“He is a natural talent with a set of experiences and an entire life story that makes him very inspirational—he’s the real thing,” said Mr. Kerrey, even as he reasserted his support for Mrs. Clinton. “He’s got plenty of experience, and he has surrounded himself with even more people who give you the indication that he can really do the job. One thing that I watch in any campaign is ‘Who do you hire?’ Well, he hired David Plouffe, and he hasn’t had to fire David Plouffe.” Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
Read Maureen Dowd today. Hillary lives in a glass house.
i just wish that she would concede and end it.
remember the chicago seven? if she persists, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and this goes to denver in august... we may have the denver 700,000.
this would tear the democratic party apart. it seems to me that winning, no matter what, is all that matters to the clintons.
************************************************
NO MORE CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. RTHAT'S THE MESSAGE.
************************************************
She is going to label it as a cult? And cant the same be applied to her and supporters. What makes her supporters different from Obama's? He has managed to siphon off some of her bases.
Rather than label it as a cult she needs to put on her thinking cap and do the same thing to him that he has done to her. He has gone after her bases aggressively. She labeled him as a someone lacking substance just flowery rhetoric and he used meat and potatoes and went after her bases. Which just proves the substance argument was silly. If you are going to defeat someone at least know who they are. She knows this guy is not just rhetoric yet she continues to see him as such and he continues on with his brilliant campaign strategy. The mere fact that he has run such a great campaign should be proof that he is not just substance. You cannot win by continuing to underestimate your competition.
She needs to get back to basics like he has done. She needs to go after his bases particularly African American since I dont see her getting the young or college educated. Its like she just conceded them to him which is such a bad strategy. He is winning like 90% of the AA vote. Thats his strongest base and what is putting him over the top particularly in states with large urban areas. She should have been aggressively targeting them. I dont see her winning the nomination while losing the vote of one of the most loyal democratic group. She hasnt even made an effort to get that back and its bad strategy and also troubling. At the rate this is going he is going to rack up 95% of it by the time we get to Ohio and Texas.
Take Texas for example areas where AA is heavily populated get more delegates relative to Latino areas because they have higher turnout rates and she just found this out. And what is she doing about it nothing just conceding that she may not do as well in Texas. Why isnt she aggressively targeting them she is going to need them for the general election. The AA are who sent her husband to victory and she is just bypassing them like they are not worth her time.
Carol
I am in sales. One of the most important lessons I've ever learned is that how you sell is a free sample of how you deliver. Let's compare the two campaigns: Hillary is ego-centric and arrogant. She thought the whole thing would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. She had no plan for afterword. She believed all the press about inevitability. She surrounded herslef with sub-par people, to the extent that they have executed a brilliant campaign, were it only 1996. They missed opportunities in new media. She is poll and consultant-driven. She relies on big donors. Her claim to fame is long policy papers, that she will impliment with the same tactics as her failed healthcare plan. The Clintons (and don't be fooled, they are a twofer) are top-down managers, who will preside as top-down throat jammers in office. That doesn't usually work out well.Obama: his experience begins as a community organizer. He has surrounded himself with smart people who know how to run a modern campaign. Check out his web site. It's really smart. He gets zillions of small donors. From a policy and policy paper standpoint he is not much different from Hillary, really. But he will preside like he has campaigned. He is inspiring, so he gets other people to work for him too. He needs the inspiring speeches because how else can you get others to work, but for inspiring them? His administration will not be top-down management. It will be networked leadership -- the model for now and the furture. He doesn't need all the experience that he is being critiqued for lacking. Truth is, nothing prepares you for being president. The first two years of Clinton the First were a nightmare. Mogadishu, scandals, loss of congress. It took two years for him to get his footing. Clinton is grasping at straws. While she is a good person, probably, and candidate, she is on the wrong side of history. Hers would be a good candidacy even as late as 2004. But now is the time (as it has been said before) to pass the torch to a new generation.
Last month, after it became clear that it was a two horse race, if my candidate came second then I would have no problem voting for my less preferred Democratic candidate in the election for president.
However if my candidate is the clearly preferred by the majority of the people and some superdelegates change that "winner" then the Democratic party cannot even count on my vote ever again.
I'm a gray hair--OK I'm not really a gray hair though I would be without my bottle. I guess it might be better for me to say I'm a Female Baby Boomer like Hillary.
I have disliked Hillary for a number of years for a number of reasons. She consistently belittles those who do not agree with her and she believes that women will vote for her simply because we want a woman President.
She is so wrong on both counts!
Women are not as stupid as she seems to think we are. We do not vote for a candidate simply based on sex or race. We actually listen to what they say--look at how they treat people--look at their voting records if they have one--and vote for who we believe will best fulfill their agenda.
I have already told my Husband that I will find it almost impossible to vote for Hillary should she win the nomination--in fact--if she wins the nomination through the undemocratic use of "Superdelegates" I will NOT vote for her. I will hold my nose and vote for Mc Cain--even though I would hate to do so.
The condescending manner that both of the Clintons have treated the electorate is reprehensible.
Dean:I have nothing to add you've stated the obvious and stated it well. Thank you for imparting reason.
*sigh*
Hillary:
Try to understand.
We are not here to fufill YOUR ambitions.
You are here to fulfill OURS.
It is said that "arrogance" guarantees failure. Arrogance leads to mistakes, but admitting fault is a test of character. Ignoring the disasters that evolved from the hubristic thinking in Washington, especially during the past 7 years plus, is another lesson in futility. Unless we learn from our mistakes, make different choices the prevailing status quo will keep the nation locked in a cycle of inflexible thinking that breeds arrogance. Hope for tomorrow depends on changing that.
Running an arrogant campaign, based on the inevitability of entitlement, Hillary very well may have lost without understanding why.
The longer a politician campaigns the more transparent he/she becomes. After 7 years of the Bush administration's pattern of shifting the blame to deny personal responsibility and refusing to acknowledge defeat highlight the similarities apparent in Hillary.
For example relegating Obama's victories to the bin of irrelevance to distract attention from her losses by asserting the caucus is an undemocratic process (except for New Hampshire), winning states populated with higher percentages of African-Americans and/or independents are insignificant victories reflect poorly on her character. They are tactics straight out of the rovian-handbook of how to avoid accountability!
References to young voters as cult-like is not lost on the public either. Insulting the voters' intelligence is not a winning strategy.
In addition to the aforementioned Hillary is trying to change the rules in the middle of the election. Not leaving anything to chance votes other than the democrats Hillary wants excluded from the tally. She is encouraging the super delegates to elect the most "qualified" candidate regardless who has the most votes. After agreeing to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates for changing their primary dates Hillary wants to add the delegates because she "won" both states.
Winning at any cost trumps voter wishes. Breaking agreements by trying to change the rules says a lot about her character. However alienating voters is a sure bet any possibility of winning the general election is next to, if not completely, impossible.
Although Obama uses a variation of the adage "making the same decisions over and over expecting different results" is an exercise in futility he is correct by pointing out the obvious, sending the same people back to Washington expecting different results is ludicrous.
Rather than convincing voters she is the best candidate based on her merits Hillary chose to attack her opponent. Resorting to rovian-tactics, however, back-fired. Nevertheless what emerges is a pattern of behaviour that strongly illustrates an unwillingness to change. Thus the aforementioned principle applies.
No one is "entitled" to become president because of years of "experience". To believe otherwise is sheer arrogance.
While experience shapes our perceptions of the world it is not necessarily defined by wise decisions or sound judgment. Cheney's and Rumsfeld's decades of experience are prime examples. In the absence of foresight, forethought, common sense, reasoned logic and objectivity their decisions ultimately led to disaster after disaster.
The country is locked in a never-ending cycle because our leaders in Washington, despite evidence to the contrary, continue making the same decisions expecting different results. Like the current administration, Clinton and McCain are part of the problem because they refuse to or are incapable of changing how they think to approach situations that require solutions. Absent a change in thinking things will get worse as time passes.
After 7 long years of horror, the American people want to believe that hope for a brighter day ahead still exists. In tandem with the support of an engaged public changing the status quo necessitates voting for a leader willing to take bold steps and political risks.
This is not about McCain, Clinton or even Obama this is about hope for the future of a better world.
The voters have a choice between resigning to the status quo's blind arrogant exercises in futility or experiencing the flexibility of change that births hope for tomorrow.
I think this insulting of voters gets to a crucial differences between her and Obama.
Obama empowers voters. She disempowers them by appearing patriarchical. Obama makes it seem like the Presidency is a partnership between him and the American people. Hillary makes it seem like she is the parent who will take care of the children. These are crucial differences that when they look at the candidates they ignore as if they dont matter. But they do particularly when there is little difference in policies. If you listen to Obama and Hillary speeches and compare the two you see differences in the way the number of times the word "I" verses the word "We" is used. If you make people feel like they matter they will believe that they matter. It boggles my mind the Political pundits hasnt picked up on these kinds of differences. Speeches are not mere words its the kinds of words that you use. And the kind of words that Obama uses explain why he inspires people. I think its a fundamental difference in personality that comes from experiences. Hillary works for the people. Obama works with the people. He has gotten his hands dirty by seeing people at their worse and connecting with them individually in order to make their lives better. That is a skill that explains why he is running a successful campaign.
Hillary said that Obama is having "a campaign about campaigns" The implication there is that he isnt running for President he is doing something else. I think he has more of the right skills and more of the right experiences than she does. He is better at raising money. He is better at using his money efficiently. He is better at reaching people. He is better at surrounding himself with the right people. These are not skills that we should be gliding over. These are skills should be required in a President.
Carol
I hope both go the convention so everyuone will see the total vacant lives liberals lead! There'll be name calling, cheating and hating like neve before, and we'll see who the real haters of blacks and minorities are.... just wait...
Bet you didn't know Al Gore's father voted against civil rights! Besides, Bill was our first black president!
It's Hilary's turn, she's earned it after surviving her husband's antics and you'all said she's the smartest woman i America! Just over a month ago all the media said she was a shoe-in! Give it up for Hilary! Stay the course!
I've spent some time reading all the comments.
This is Hillary's chance at the Whitehouse. However, it's my observation that she truly seems incapable of 'touching' people's innermost feelings; being able to empathize with all walks of life. Unfortunately for Hillary, she appears cold and sadly, Bill can't transfer his flamboyant personality to her. And even if she were more like he, the voters still might not want her.
I'm concerned about Obama on several issues. He does come from an upbringing of two worlds that are directly opposite one another: Islam and Christianity - and I wonder how that will influence his decision making, should he become president. Obama is a great speaker and he does have an energy about him that is contagious. However, the promises he continues to make are a concern, and he makes lots of them. We should all know by now that so-called promises made by any of the candidates are nothing more than hopeful 'goals' - bottom line.
This will be an historical election. I sincerely hope that each American will vote with their minds and not their emotions. Give each candidates' skills all the scrutiny possible and then vote based on your best evaluation. Every first time president in the history of our country had to learn on the job and they came with lots of great hopes and multiple failures, irrespective of their party affiliation.
Thank God, we live in the greatest country in the world!
Never fear, Hillary will be elected President next November.
Does anyone actually believe that during their eight years in the White House, they only looked a confidential FBI files on only republicans? They also pulled in the Democratic files too. So they know where the bodies are buried and why they are buried! So any Super-Delegate that hasn’t committed to Hillary by a couple of weeks before the convention will start to get calls, telling them to vote for Hillary or else that confidential information will comes out. So those Super Delegates that have children with women other than their wife’s, and those with a criminal event that they managed to cover up, will have to decide. Vote for Obama and get him into the White House, and then try and survive the firestorm that will erupt once that information comes out, or vote for Hillary.
Then comes the fun, at the Convention, how raw will it be? Make it raw enough, and perhaps, just perhaps, most of the elected delegates for Obama will walk out, just like a bunch of them did in 1972.
But it doesn’t matter that Hillary might lose the Black vote! She has a group that doesn’t show up on the polls that is waiting to vote for her, and best of all, this group doesn’t even know it! Young women, 18-40, most with children, most unmarried, mostly poor, and with all of them, no idea about anything political. Women that have never registered, nor voted and have no idea what is happening. People like Parris Hilton, who when asked “who are you voting for in the Primary”, replied, “what is a primary, no I really want to know”! They have no idea what is happening.
But put a women on the ballot and they will find out how to register and vote for her! This group is about 20 million strong! And they know that a women will do things for them that they want, since she is woman!
And then Hillary can start in on her Socialistic ideas.
However Hillary will have about three years to do something big for those women, otherwise they won’t ever vote again. They aren’t in it for the long haul, but they want results as soon as she gets into office, such as doubling the Welfare benefit, or raising up the minimum wage to $25 an hour, little things like that.
So relax, Hillary will get the nomination, no matter how many people that she has to hurt to get it!
As much as I dislike Hillary, Obama is purely about style over substance. All fluff and no stuff. Yes, I read his laundry list of NEW-AND-IMPROVED PROGRAMS.
They are the same-old, same-old from where I sit.
Sure, he sounds magnificent...just like the guy who sold me the Brooklyn Bridge, twice!
The first thing that Bar-ack wants to do is take 0.7% of our GNP and give it away to "poor" countries (aka Muslim countries).
His answer to Islamic terrorism is to (1) "open more dialogues with them" (like who, Al-Qaeda?), and (2) "give them more money."
Those are his words, not mine.
If HC was black, there would be no Obama. End of story. What? Did you really think that the reason most blacks said OJ was innocent had nothing whatsoever to do with his skin?
Yeah, right, and cookies really are made by elves.
When it comes down to experience, I think Bubba beats Michele by a mile.
Had Dubya's father not been President, neither would he.
Why is there no focus in this article or elsewhere on the blatant racism of the Clinton campaign, as quoted in the beginning of the article:
"Clinton staffers sent out a blog post likening Mr. Obama to his beleaguered ally, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. (“Deval Patrick and his good friend Barack Obama have much more in common than their prosaic words, the depth of the color of their skin, ..."
"the depth of the color of their skin?!!" This is disgraceful!
Observing Bill Clinton's almost daily petulant temper tantrums when an audience member expresses support for the Obama candidacy suggests that Slick is very close to loosing it. The "serial groper" is unable to accept the fact that he's trying to peddle a defective product; i.e. Hillary. This is a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as "Madam" for Bill's White House Brothel. So what possibly is there that qualifies Bill's official "Bimbo Containment Chief" for the Presidency? Further, Hillary's increasingly frequent crying jags raises a legitimate concern about her mental stability. But, having meticulously planned their coveted return to the White House for several years now, the Clintons will certainly not exit the scene with grace or dignity. This is the political duo that honed "The Politics Of Personal Destruction" into an artform; and, most certainly will not tolerate, who is in their mind, the "upstart Obama" to derail Hillary's pre-choreographed coronation. Greg Neubeck
Hillary's tears are as real as any Hollywood actresses! Look back at all that happened while they were in the white house and recall one instance of her crying at a sad story, there weren't any!
She thinks that crying on camera will show that she is a nice person, and for that reason she should get votes!
However how many of her possible new voters would really want a President that cries when negotiating with someone. Crying is a position of strength, it is a position of weakness!
Quote: "this would tear the democratic party apart."
You say that like it's a bad thing...
I totally agree...
There is an alternative to Billary and Obama . . .
It's John McCain! He can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans and he may very well get my vote!
Who would have ever thought the democrats would be able to nominate someone even worse than Hillary for president? When I hear people at these Obama concerts talk, they sound like their minds have been erased and replaced with the same sound bite. "Obama represents hope and change for America." No he doesn't, he represents the same crap we've had the past 60 years only on a much larger scale. Obama is ramped up Socialism. Obama will destroy the economy. Obama will weaken our Armed Forces and make up completely open to terrorists attacks. Obama means millions more Illegals from Mexico over running our borders and putting a strain on our national finances. Obama will force our wealthiest citizens and biggest corporations to leave the US for lower taxes and fewer regulations. They'll take millions of jobs with them. Obama will bring change alright, the US will be another third world nation when he's done. There will be the wealthy elite democrats who control and live off the peasants with nothing in between. If this sounds good to you vote for the democrat in November.
Neither one is qualified in any way to be president. For that matter neither is McCain.
Take away Obama's skin color and you have John Edwards. Obama's speeches are unoriginal, uninspiring and devoid of any substance. His speeches sound more like commencement speeches at the Karl Marx School of (Bad) Government.
His disdain for our Constitution is dressed up more nicely that Hillary is able to pull off. The swooners don't even feel his hand reaching into their paychecks and their lives. Hillary is much more blatant about wanting to control our lives from cradle to grave.
Both want to destroy health care in the US. Neither one believe in equal opportunity because it has never guaranteed equal outcome. Thye both claim they can defy history and make forced redistribution of wealth "work." Yet both are quite wealthy because we have a society that rewards hard work and accomplishment. The so-called "great society" programs he wants bring back and expand trapped generations in poverty because they rewards bad behavior and punished good behavior.
There is absolutely a cult developed around Barack (Worship ME or else!) Obama. The scary part is: he actually believes all the hype.
The only thing that Obama empowers people to do is to worship him.
Slick Willy's got nothing on this guy.
WHAT ABOUT THE LAWSUIT THAT A MINNESOTA MAN HAS FILED AGAINST OBAMA AND THE DNC? GLOBE MAGAZINE STORY, VIDEO ON YOUTUBE, ARTICLE IN CLEVELAND LEADER, ARTICLE AT WORLD NET DAILY AND WHITEHOUSE.COM. VOTERS DESERVE TO HEAR THE ALLEGATIONS OF COCAINE USE BY OBAMA IN 1999.