Will Hillary’s Heaping Dose of Fear Pay Off?
MORE
Wise Guys
Hillary Clinton and her campaign clearly believe that they stemmed the mighty Obama tide on March 4 with a heaping dose of fear.
The fear that they stirred, best encapsulated in the sure-to-be-immortal “red phone” ad in Texas, supposedly worked on parallel tracks: Some voters simply bought into the notion that Mr. Obama is frighteningly ill-prepared to handle a crisis; others may not have agreed with that but grew fearful that their fellow citizens, in the face of a similar and concerted Republican assault in the fall, would.
And now that they believe they’ve got a hit on their hands, the Clinton forces are taking their strategy national, hoping to scare up some surprise wins in the late primary season and, ultimately, to make those pivotal superdelegates think long and hard before signing off on the nomination of someone as “risky” as Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton proclaimed that she has passed the “commander in chief” threshold and that John McCain “certainly” has done so as well. “You’ll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she added.
And early this week, her campaign arranged a conference call with a quartet of military and national security heavyweights, with an eye toward turning Mr. Obama’s apparent advantage on the issue of Iraq against him. Specifically, they played up the revelation that Samantha Power, Mr. Obama’s now-former national security adviser, had suggested in an interview that his plan to withdraw troops as president could be subject to change after consultation with military commanders.
“This is going to be a central test of presidential leadership,” Wesley Clark said during the call. “What I have heard from the Obama campaign is a matter of serious concern.”
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign realize that they won’t catch Mr. Obama in pledged delegates during the primary season, even with do-overs in Florida and Michigan. Surpassing him in the cumulative popular vote is a long shot, too.
But winning Pennsylvania and a handful of other states and finishing within a few inches of Mr. Obama in both categories? It’s certainly doable. Then, the challenge for Mrs. Clinton would be convincing a decisive majority of the uncommitted superdelegates to pick her over Mr. Obama.
Her game plan now is to spend the remaining months of the primary season inventing reasons and rationales for superdelegates to snub Mr. Obama and, by extension, the majority of primary voters and caucus-goers. Finishing the primary season on a winning streak and convincing the world that it’s the result of widespread panic at the prospect of an Obama nomination is key to this strategy.
But while the Clinton campaign thinks it has stumbled onto political gold with its attacks on Mr. Obama, history suggests a different phenomenon could be at play, and that we have simply entered the buyer’s-remorse phase of the primary cycle, which begins when a candidate who is new to the national scene first emerges as the likely Democratic nominee.
It’s something with which the Clintons themselves are intimately familiar. In 1992, Bill Clinton seemed to wrap up the Democratic nomination with a thorough rout of Paul Tsongas in the southern-dominated Super Tuesday, and then again a week later in Illinois and Michigan. Tsongas suspended his campaign, leaving the erratic Jerry Brown as Mr. Clinton’s sole remaining foe. Since Mr. Brown trailed by about 800 delegates, his candidacy was given up for dead by the press, which turned its focus to the impending Clinton-George H. W. Bush fall campaign.
And then, out of the blue, Mr. Brown won the Connecticut primary, still one of the most spectacular upsets in the modern primary era. The verdict was deemed a vote of no confidence in the scandal-scarred Mr. Clinton’s general-election viability, and the next primary, in New York, turned into a de facto referendum on whether Mr. Clinton was prepared to lead his party and to lead his country.
“So the question before the party as a whole,” Howell Raines wrote in The New York Times, “has less to do with arithmetic than with the more profound question of whether Democratic and independent voters are going to swallow Mr. Clinton as a viable candidate who can beat President Bush.”
When Mr. Clinton won New York, the issue was considered settled. The key for Mr. Clinton was simply keeping his cool and showing some toughness during the two-week New York campaign. His performance reassured Democrats, who had been inclined to back him all along but who had paused before fully committing themselves.
That’s about the spot Mr. Obama is now in, ahead in the delegate and popular-vote race but under intense assault from his opponent and the media. But as with Mr. Clinton 16 years ago, a majority of Democrats seem to like him more than his competition. Now he has to reassure them that their instincts aren’t wrong.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I am so tired of hearing about the “commander in chief” threshold that Hillary Clinton made up and the remarks that Powers had to say about Barack Obama's withdrawal plans would be subject to change after consultation with military commanders.
First - Hillary, there is no such a thing as a "commander in chief" threshold! If there were one, what are your credentials in having it? Just because you lived in the White House and took some trips, just like Jackie Kennedy and other wives did, with and without their husbands, and thought yourself to be co-president, wouldn't make you eligible to pass whatever the test for "your" threshold. By the way - in the United States, we have a President and a Vice President. WE DO NOT HAVE A CO-PRESIDENT. You haven't gotten this through your head since your husband's first year in office. You fit into "we" as husband and wife, NOT "we" as President of the United States.
Second - to embrace Wesley Clark's comment that he has serious concerns about a candidate who would consult with military advisors before making a decision is ridiculous. I wouldn't want anyone to make a unilateral decision such as this. Leadership means bringing in knowledgeable and bright people to advise. One person doesn't know EVERYTHING! Or, are you suggesting that YOU KNOW EVERYTHING AND CAN HANDLE EVERYTHING SINGLE-HANDEDLY!
Third - Lady, your blind ambition is scary. All of these promises that you are making will never fly. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
why dont hillary bring up what obama said in 1 of his speaches. he said we send our troups over there not enough bullets etc. gee does he think a soldier of ours is going to say to the enemy lend me your gun i need to shot you/lol he is not fit to run our Country. im a disabled nam vet.................i think obama should drop out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!not hillary................
Just imaginge how outraged Hillary would be if Barack Obama had virtually no chance to catch her in pledged delegates or the popular vote, but was claiming that if he could make it close, he could call that a victory. Just imagine the pressure CNN would be bringing down on Obama to drop out. But with Hillary, CNN and the rest of the press are breathlessly cheering her on each night as she falls further and further behind in the delegate count; buying her inane "Big State" strategy hook, line and sinker. Just look how she is LOOSING all of the democratic strongholds in every state (except new york), even in the "big states" she is winning: Houston (60-40), Dallas (60-40), Austin (65-35), Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, San Francisco, D.C... it is a very impressive list and I have just named a few here in her most crucial "wins". She is not carrying the Democratic strongholds in the big states she is carrying, so her argumant that she is the only one who can carry these states is pure crap.
The only thing more unbelievable than the whoppers Hillary and Bill spin is how the press falls for it every time and reprints it as if it has any merit. I think you guys suck. You don't do your homework or any analysis and just write down what each campaign spins as if it is true. And replay her racist red phone ad over, and over and over so she doesn't have to pay to air it. What will happen to my precious white baby girl if a black man is lurking around in the WHITEhouse at 3 am?
Sen. Clinton is a scary person who'd do and say anything to grab power. But then, it is now up to democratic voters in the remaining states to decide if they want to go with hope or fear.
Thousands have died in senseless wars. With each new president the hatred and the alienation grows ever more. I have no idea wheather Obama's strategy of withdrawing from Iraq will work, and weather he will be able to reach out to extremist countries seeking a long term peace. But I do know that the strategy do far has not worked, peace is but a sad memory.
Democracy: From the Greek Demos-Cratos. Or roughly translated "power of the poeple". Clinton calls herself a Democrat, and I would think that calling herself that means that she believes in democracy. What sort of democracy is this if she looses the popular vote and wins with the "superdelegates"?
If superdelegates choose Clinton, then they are looking at the interest of "the party" but not a party that ecompasses all of the citizens that have democratic beliefs, they have already spoken and said "Obama", no, they are looking after the interests of very few.
If hillary has any kind of integrity, if she has any convictions, if she believes in being a democrat, if she believes that a leader should be chosen by the people, if she believes any of the core principles of this country, she should withdraw from the race, a race that she has already lost and is looking to win based on some technicality.
Hillary needs to follow G. Ferraro to the back of the bus, wait her own "turn" several years from now when she can attack whoever is running. Of course, that would be by pointing out some demograph which might serve to show that she is a doddering old WHITE elephant who blew her chance at higher office. She can then refuse to apologize because she believes that she is entitled.
Oh, WAIT, she's already done that!
Her meanness of spirit will serve as her own defeat
Democrats have it backwards. Primaries are about who can win, not who will make a better president. It's the general election where voters decide who will make the better president.
There should be one and only one criteria for their primary vote; who has the best chance of winning the general election. Period. End of statement.
If the rank and file voters can't settle it, then the superdelegates should. I doubt they have the b**ls.
Obama is about as far left as Huckabee was right. HRC ain't much better. It looks to me as though the Democratic voters think either nominee is a shoe-in, so they're free to play their little 'What makes a better president experience or idealism' game while the opposition is lining up the big guns. They ought to be playing 'Who Can Get Elected'. It's my guess that it's too late and they're going to blow it. And we will end up with a spate of new, fresh, conservative Supreme Court Justices and the liberal cause will be history for a long time.
Your premise that Hillary has integrity or some measure of honesty is mistaken. I have been amazed during this entire primary election why the lurid and scandal plaqued past of Hill and Bill has been ignored. Oh sure, I believe Obama has character and integrity but the American people need to remember what low lives the Clintons really are. I hope Obama wins the Democratic primary so we can have two honest men in the general election. Obama and McCain will offer the U.S. with two honest candidates and Americans can choose their president based on honest debate about the issues and not abouts lies and misleading advertising.
None of you people out there seem to get it. The Media isn't
giving Billary free passes. They don't even care who wins the
nomination, even though most of them can't stand The Clintons.
But this catfight is the best thing that's ever happened to them. All the cable news outlet ratings are through the roof.
They want to keep this going as long as possible, even though
they all know Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell
of getting the nomination. They don't care. It's all about the
fodder for their daily newscasts. And the public waits with
bated breath for "what else" are The Clintons going to do today?
THAT'S why this is going on so long!
Once it becomes Barack and McCain, it'll revert back to just the
same old ho-hum political contest, all the melodrama will be gone.
It's just good old fashioned sleaze TV, enjoy it while you can.
I certainly am...
Ok, jtsnyo, lets say youre right. Youre still wrong. Go to Real Clear Politics and see the Election head to head poll, the truth is that Obama has a better chance at winning than Hillary does
The only thing that will come out of this election cycle with a more tarnished reputation than the Clintons (which really.... was nothing more than a pulling back of the thin vennier of a facade to expose the ugly muck within all along) is the supposed neutral mainstream media. Never has is it been more obvious that what masqueradades as an independent media is nothing but a bunch of toady sychophants propagandists for the elities and their choosen puppet presidential candidates: Hillary and McCain. GO OBAMA! We've much work to do to right this badly listing ship of a nation and you're the just man to lead the effort.
One way or another, the Clinton Machine will flatten Obama.
If we watch her actions closely we can tell that Sen Clinton and her staff have already admitted she cannot win this election through her experience and her stand on the issues.
That's exactly why they have resorted to all the "kitche-sink" strategy of throwing anything and everything at Obama hoping something will stick. Why else would her campaign have resorted to all these attacks now and not earlier?
What concerns me deeply is that it is possible that Senator Clinton believes so strongly that this nomination is supposed to be hers that she will make sure that any Democrat beside her who wins the nomination will lose the election.
The party leaders need to call in both candidates and tell them to lay off the attacks and Hillary's are much worse right now. Then reschedule do-overs for Florida and Michigan and, to make them fair to both candidates, make Florida a primary and Michigan a caucus state. Then tell the superdelegates as soon as these do-overs are finished in late June they need to get together and throw their support to the one who has the most pledged delegates at that time. Then get on with the campaign against Sen McCain. Waiting until after the convention to have a nominee with only two months to campaign will be a disaster.
Howard Dean and the party leaders need to show some backbone here.
And it is absurd the have Sen Clinton tendering an offer of the Vice Prsidential nomination to Sen Obama when she is trailing in states won, in pledged delegates, and in total popular vote. How can you come in 2nd in every category and declare yourself the leader?
If we watch her actions closely we can tell that Sen Clinton and her staff have already admitted she cannot win this election through her experience and her stand on the issues.
That's exactly why they have resorted to all the "kitche-sink" strategy of throwing anything and everything at Obama hoping something will stick. Why else would her campaign have resorted to all these attacks now and not earlier?
What concerns me deeply is that it is possible that Senator Clinton believes so strongly that this nomination is supposed to be hers that she will make sure that any Democrat beside her who wins the nomination will lose the election.
The party leaders need to call in both candidates and tell them to lay off the attacks and Hillary's are much worse right now. Then reschedule do-overs for Florida and Michigan and, to make them fair to both candidates, make Florida a primary and Michigan a caucus state. Then tell the superdelegates as soon as these do-overs are finished in late June they need to get together and throw their support to the one who has the most pledged delegates at that time. Then get on with the campaign against Sen McCain. Waiting until after the convention to have a nominee with only two months to campaign will be a disaster.
Howard Dean and the party leaders need to show some backbone here.
And it is absurd the have Sen Clinton tendering an offer of the Vice Prsidential nomination to Sen Obama when she is trailing in states won, in pledged delegates, and in total popular vote. How can you come in 2nd in every category and declare yourself the leader?
Very apt analysis.
But Obama needs to show that his tough.
More specifically, he needs to smack down Hillary Clinton with appearing mean or vicious like Hillary. There are two ways:
1. He should calmly but firmly point out that Hillary Clinton is DISLOYAL. Never has a major candidate in either party denounced another as "unqualified." It is quite different from criticizing some policy or vote and is completely out of bounds. It attacks Obama AND the intelligence and integrity of high ranking Democrats like Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, Dodd, and Leahy -- all of whom have vastly MORE experience in government than Hillary. Incredibly, it discredits Hillary herself -- by her reasoning any sane person should vote for McCain over Hillary AND Obama. Hillary is putting herself above her party in a way that NO other politician has ever done--fouling her own nest in a fit of anger and blind ambition.
2. He should also point out that Hillary's relationship with Bill is going to be a big problem in the general election for voters who believe that Presidential relatives should not seek or hold that office. This is based on rotation in office, the same principal which underlies the 22nd Amendment.
Indeed, I would hope that the next Congress proposes an Amendment banning any spouse, child, sibling or parent of a President from seeking or holding that officeand that the Amendment is speedily ratified.
Sen. Clinton's strategy is becoming clear. She cannot win the nomination in 2008, and after the nomination is made official in the convention she has to support the candidacy of Sen Obama or be tossed out of the Party. Her only opportunity to wound him effectively is while she is competing for the nomination, and the wounds have to be deep enough so that they guarantee that he will lose the general election in November. Obama has pledged that he will never run again if he loses this time, so she will wait for four years and then be finally annointed in 2012 as the savior of the Party, to run against a McCain successor since McCain will only be serving one term. She is only 60, so she will still be of prime Presidential age in 4 years. She will claim all innocence of this strategy, stating, if Obama loses, that she was obviously correct that he couldn't stand up to Republican attacts, and accepting no blame for his loss, despite appearing in countless Republican attact ads in the Fall with her statements about Obama not being ready. And if Obama wins in November, she will claim that it was her attacts that made him tough enough to win. So she figures this is a win-win-win strategy for her - a) she gets the nomination, or b) she doesn't but Obama loses in Nov, or c) she gets the credit for Obam's win in November.
Billary needs to go. I'm tired of this divisive and dirty politics. Not even Romney complimented the democrats over McCain, and their fight was ugly. I'm an active duty member in the military and I wouldn't stand her as my commander in chief. She has no experience!! Absolutely none. What's worst is she uses all this crap while being First Lady like the speech she gave in china and taking credit for Northern Ireland when people over there say she has nothing or did nothing. I'm upset how she manipulates the media and is taking control of them of what she wants to portray or its subjects. Meanwhile she whines and cries when it doesn't happen, and also I blame the Obama campaign for not being as aggressive when this lady has so much dirt underneath her rug.
As an independent my vote and support is currently with Obama but if his nominations is stolen my vote will go for McCain.
I despise Clinton's actions enough that, if she ends up stealing the Democratic nomination, I'll cross lines and vote for McCain in the general.
About Clinton:
Being first lady does not qualify one for being commander in chief any more than being married to a surgeon qualifies one to operate.
Her foreign policy "experience" amounts to a bunch of negligible trips and maybe one minor "accomplishment." Senator Obama, on the other hand, is head of the foreign relations committee. Pretty good for a junior senator.
Second, if you look back on her "experience," I think quality ought to be considered. She tried to get universal health care for 8 years as first lady and FAILED, then again for 7 years as a senator and FAILED, all the while dodging financial scandals (Whitewater, Wal-Mart board) and standing behind her husband while he lied under oath to the entire country.
Now she wants to change the rules of the election, calling for Florida and Michigan to be seating even though back in January she said they shouldn't be? She loaned her campaign $5 million, first lied about it, and then came out when her top advisor found out second-hand? She mismanages her campaign so badly (like spending for a helicopter in Iowa and shelling out $100,000 for snacks, exorbitant sums for hotels and staff. She's flip-flopped on so many issues, attitudes, strategies, and outright dodged others. And the worst part is she doesn't even acknowledge Obama's wins and still contends she is the front-runner and has a big chance at winning. Sorry, we already had one president with a chronic case of DENIAL.
Is this the kind of person you want running the country?
Be afraid! All our enemies are hoping for Obama first, Hillary second and dreading McCain. Remember how our enemies played Jimmy Carter like a fiddle? Then Iran released the hostages the day Reagan took office.
Any speculation out there why Iran kidnapped our embassy people and held them for 444 days under Carter and then gave them up in less than 24 hrs under Reagan?
We face a similar situation here. Obama will make Carter look like a genius. Hillary will be slightly better but will still be a train wreck both militarily and economically. Get ready for $6-$7 / gal. gas under either Democrat.
Be afraid America, be afraid!
Hope vs. Fear - you decide.
Well, the Democrats have already shot themselves in the foot with their racial and sexual Identity Politics. The timing of Mississippi was ironic because the racial demographics of the vote lined up racially - exactly with what Ferraro said! Problem for Obama is, there is no growth margin in those southern states that Obama has piled up; he's just not getting enough white votes. And he hasn't won a big state except for his home state. Even though I don't care for McCain, I'm realistic enough to see that he is well-positioned to grab a lot of white and Hispanic and Catholic and Jewish Democrats who just won't vote for Obama. Those superdelegates are smart enough to see that Obama v. McCain puts a lot of "blue states" into play for McCain, and tilts swing states to McCain too, but really doesn't imperil "red states" since the black vote Obama relies on always goes overwhelmingly Democrat anyway. So it will be funny if Obama manages to save the nomination from Billary, only to be on the wrong side of an historic landslide in November...
The millions who have already voted for Obama are not ignorent. He has won 30 states so far and will continue to win more. Realising that she will not win the nomination, Hillary has set out to destroy Obama so that he will eventually lose the general election even if he wins the democratic nomination. This allows her to then run again in 2012.
The problem with your comment, Tony, is that BEFORE CONGRESS the Generals testified since Senator Obama made that statement that it was true. If you doubt me, then you need to go to the Congressional Record and do some reading.
"that's exactly why they have resorted to all the "kitche-sink" strategy of throwing anything and everything at Obama"
if obama camp is so naive to think a single 3am phone call is the kitchen sink and can't even defend against it (loses in OH/TX/RI), then maybe he's not ready to face the 527s and swift-boating that comes along later.
It goes to show just how dumb some in the Democratic Party are that they would actually buy this strategy of the Clintons. Just exactly what qualifies Hillary for the job of CinC escapes me. It boggles the mind that her campaign has come up with some kind of "test" for readiness, decided that she has passed it but Obama has not, and then convinced a bunch of idiot Democratic voters that Obama has failed her test.
Meanwhile, this is the same candidate that now wants Obama as her VP choice. We now have a new definition of Chutzpah. The old definition was the child who killed both of his parents and then plead to the court for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan. Now the definition is its the presidential candidate who is behind in pledged delegates, behind in the popular vote, and has only won half of the number of states that her opponent has won who asks his rival to be the vice-presidential candidate.
The Clintons only get away with this nonsense because the democratic primary voters are so gullible.
"Hope vs. Fear - you decide."
You mean blind hope versus real and actual fears of the war, the recession, the lack of truly universal healthcare, or offshoring of jobs to India and China?
Hope of what? More affirmative action? More channels like BET? Or more Oprah magazines?
The intersection of his voter base - the young, the black, and the male - are in the most trouble. They're dropping out of high school, engaging in gang activity, getting incarcerated, fathering kids out of wedlock, and a downspiral from there. If his "hope" includes no concrete plans for how to even solve the problems of his base, I dunno how his "hope" can solve world problems.
Hey Saturday Night Live
Now that you guys have done a number on Obama how about a skit next week call "Commander in Chief"
Its a game show between contestants Obama and Clinton - it highlights lack of access to evidence, wee bit silly comments from Ireland, and of course Sinbad...
Then the week after I suggest a parody over vetting - let's get back into this commodities futures trading and the 10,000 percent profit.
Oh sorry. Hillary does have some experience that qualifies her for the job of CinC. When she was first lady, she chose the menus for visiting dignitaries. Go Hillary go.
Oh but she has been vetted. It seems she is well qualified to:
1. coordinate the handling of "bimbo eruptions" resulting from her husband's infidelities and at the same time claim the mantle of a "feminist".
2. accept credit for accomplishments that she had nothing to do with (Irish peace accords).
3. turn the absolute failure of her health care initiative during the Clinton administration into evidence of her experience in this "signature" issue.
4. have documents removed from the office of a dead man.
5. and on and on and on
The next thing you know she will claim to be the "law and order" candidate based on her experience dealing with grand juries.