Senator Obama obliges us with a speech March 19 about the war. Read the prepared transcript at the link above.
Sadly, I am underwhelmed and concerned for the future of the country.
Are there any experienced adults who vet the speeches at all?
Some of the material is just embarrassing.
Do you really want to send foreign service officers and USAID staffers to posts where they may be killed?
Has NATO consulted with you about their positions before you chastised them for inadequate action?
Memo the the Senator: We get that you opposed the war in a 2002 speech; you do not have to make an issue of it every time you address the war.
What do we do now?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Reflections about Race
So, it's good that Obama talks about race.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Snake Oil
Some may ask: what is the problem with Obama anyway?
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Veeps Away
Here's the Dem problem: Hillary and Obama have voting blocs of about the same size, even though the blocs are very different.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Meet The Press: Rendell on why Hillary
GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. And in all four of those states--Pennsylvania hasn't voted yet, but I assume we're going to do real well--Hillary Clinton will have taken those states, if it--she takes Pennsylvania, and will have taken them by significant majorities. She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"..love is always a question of the ...lighting."
See what Germans think:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,539607,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,539607,00.html
Pissing War
Let's use our time of mutual disrespect to go after McCain.
OK, we get that both candidates need to attack each other. But, they can attack McCain as well. How about allocating half of the piss time to McCain??
There are lots of real issues out there besides Hillary's tax returns and Obama's unpreparedness for combat.
For example, Ahmadinejad recently announced that he would be happy to take over Iraq and the Iraq powers seemed happy to hear it.
What a great opportunity. Cut a deal where we get unlimited access to Iran's nuclear program and some control over Iraq operations, then let Iran take over and we can go home.
Maybe it works, maybe not. Sure is better to piss on McCain about his lack of creativity than it is to piss on each other.
How about it guys??
OK, we get that both candidates need to attack each other. But, they can attack McCain as well. How about allocating half of the piss time to McCain??
There are lots of real issues out there besides Hillary's tax returns and Obama's unpreparedness for combat.
For example, Ahmadinejad recently announced that he would be happy to take over Iraq and the Iraq powers seemed happy to hear it.
What a great opportunity. Cut a deal where we get unlimited access to Iran's nuclear program and some control over Iraq operations, then let Iran take over and we can go home.
Maybe it works, maybe not. Sure is better to piss on McCain about his lack of creativity than it is to piss on each other.
How about it guys??
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Hillary Joke
Not sure of source, possible: John Walker
Subject: Fw: FBI ASSASSIN
FBI ASSASSIN
The FBI had an opening for an assassin. After all the background checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3 finalists. Two men and a woman.
For the final test, the FBI agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun. "We must know that you will follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair.. Kill Her!!"
The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my wife." The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this job. Take your wife and go home."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man came out with tears in his eyes, " I tried, but I can't kill my wife. The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."
Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same instruction, to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow. "The gun is loaded with blanks" she said. "I had to beat him to death with the chair."
Moral:
Women are evil.
Don't mess with them
Subject: Fw: FBI ASSASSIN
FBI ASSASSIN
The FBI had an opening for an assassin. After all the background checks, interviews and testing were done, there were 3 finalists. Two men and a woman.
For the final test, the FBI agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun. "We must know that you will follow your instructions no matter what the circumstances. Inside the room you will find your wife sitting in a chair.. Kill Her!!"
The man said, "You can't be serious. I could never shoot my wife." The agent said, "Then you're not the right man for this job. Take your wife and go home."
The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about 5 minutes. The man came out with tears in his eyes, " I tried, but I can't kill my wife. The agent said, "You don't have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."
Finally, it was the woman's turn. She was given the same instruction, to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman, wiping the sweat from her brow. "The gun is loaded with blanks" she said. "I had to beat him to death with the chair."
Moral:
Women are evil.
Don't mess with them
Long Train Running
So, super delegates, here's the question: what are YOU going to do?
The nomination is up to you. It will be a statistical dead heat, regardless of who has a tenth of a percent more pledged delegates in August. That person, Hillary or Obama, cannot claim a victory with a statistical dead heat result. Otherwise, Gore would be President.
Should it run 'til August?
Best for the country is a Dem president.
So, who will be the best president? And, when is the best time to decide?
It's your call.
Run the process until August? Or, re-run Florida and Michigan? Or, count FL and MI as they lie? Or, ignore and punish them? Let McCain piss on us until August? Run it until Pennsylvania, then call it?
Come on guys, show us something.
The nomination is up to you. It will be a statistical dead heat, regardless of who has a tenth of a percent more pledged delegates in August. That person, Hillary or Obama, cannot claim a victory with a statistical dead heat result. Otherwise, Gore would be President.
Should it run 'til August?
Best for the country is a Dem president.
So, who will be the best president? And, when is the best time to decide?
It's your call.
Run the process until August? Or, re-run Florida and Michigan? Or, count FL and MI as they lie? Or, ignore and punish them? Let McCain piss on us until August? Run it until Pennsylvania, then call it?
Come on guys, show us something.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
It Ain't Over
Look at the math.
1. It is almost impossible to be sure of totals. Pundit BS aside, it is confusing.
2. Per demconwatch.blogspot.com HRC has 1274 committed including 241 supers, to BO's 1371 incl 183 supers.
3. Add 55% of Texas and Ohio to HRC/45% to BO changes totals to 1458 HRC and 1521 BO - Texas/Ohio no doubt critical here.
4. Add 50% of uncommitted supers AND Florida and Michigan totals to each brings totals to 1798 HRC to 1740 BO with some 677 delegates to come.
Conclusion: there is no clear winner here if HRC polls 55% in Texas and Ohio and Florida and Michigan are added; there are 677 more to come from PA/RI/WY/MS/GUAM/INDIANA/NC/WVA/KY/SoD/ AND PR.
Even reversing the math to give BO 55% of TX and OH and 45% to HRC gives a final total of 1764 for HRC to 1774 to BO.
THIS A DEAD HEAT
Clearly it is time for the adults to take over. We cannot give McCain a 90 day headstart while we bicker.
1. It is almost impossible to be sure of totals. Pundit BS aside, it is confusing.
2. Per demconwatch.blogspot.com HRC has 1274 committed including 241 supers, to BO's 1371 incl 183 supers.
3. Add 55% of Texas and Ohio to HRC/45% to BO changes totals to 1458 HRC and 1521 BO - Texas/Ohio no doubt critical here.
4. Add 50% of uncommitted supers AND Florida and Michigan totals to each brings totals to 1798 HRC to 1740 BO with some 677 delegates to come.
Conclusion: there is no clear winner here if HRC polls 55% in Texas and Ohio and Florida and Michigan are added; there are 677 more to come from PA/RI/WY/MS/GUAM/INDIANA/NC/WVA/KY/SoD/ AND PR.
Even reversing the math to give BO 55% of TX and OH and 45% to HRC gives a final total of 1764 for HRC to 1774 to BO.
THIS A DEAD HEAT
Clearly it is time for the adults to take over. We cannot give McCain a 90 day headstart while we bicker.
Hubris
It is hard to compete with a man who is convinced he is invincible and will not make a mistake, ever. With such a man one must simply lie and take advantage. This will happen.
Webster defines hubris as: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution".
Let us all pray that any such retribution comes when he is not the President of the United States of America.
Webster defines hubris as: "exaggerated pride or self-confidence often resulting in retribution".
Let us all pray that any such retribution comes when he is not the President of the United States of America.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dear Superdelegates:
I am a recently retired college economics teacher who has had the honor to act as a Hillary surrogate some 14 times.
Our country is at a crossroads where our fundamental values are under attack by some wrong headed Republicans.
The times are similar to the 1930's or the 1860's. Our next President will determine the future of the country.
Obama has raised doubts about his competence to govern at this critical time.
For example, he said in the Texas debate that universal health care is his goal; and yet acknowledged that his health care plan will not cover everyone and will require fines for parents who fail to insure their children.
This disconnect between goals and policies seems careless at best and incompetent at worst.
One more example: In that debate Obama also said that he believes in free markets and that he would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if he doesn't know that, it raises concerns.
If he favors free markets, he favors business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies he says he wants to change. But, if he favors children over business, he will be called a big government Democrat and lose business support.
His job is to 'parse' those positions and create a policy statement that will gain support from both groups. Until he can do that, he is not ready for prime time and McCain will eat his lunch.
I think you take my point by now.
The United States of America requires a President equal to the tasks we face.
Hillary is the only candidate equal to the tasks.
If Obama is elected he will require extensive hands on guidance from professional and competent advisors throughout his administration.
I hope that you will insist on that.
Our country is at a crossroads where our fundamental values are under attack by some wrong headed Republicans.
The times are similar to the 1930's or the 1860's. Our next President will determine the future of the country.
Obama has raised doubts about his competence to govern at this critical time.
For example, he said in the Texas debate that universal health care is his goal; and yet acknowledged that his health care plan will not cover everyone and will require fines for parents who fail to insure their children.
This disconnect between goals and policies seems careless at best and incompetent at worst.
One more example: In that debate Obama also said that he believes in free markets and that he would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if he doesn't know that, it raises concerns.
If he favors free markets, he favors business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies he says he wants to change. But, if he favors children over business, he will be called a big government Democrat and lose business support.
His job is to 'parse' those positions and create a policy statement that will gain support from both groups. Until he can do that, he is not ready for prime time and McCain will eat his lunch.
I think you take my point by now.
The United States of America requires a President equal to the tasks we face.
Hillary is the only candidate equal to the tasks.
If Obama is elected he will require extensive hands on guidance from professional and competent advisors throughout his administration.
I hope that you will insist on that.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Open Letter to Senator Obama
Dear Senator Obama:
After Wisconsin, the math seems insurmountable for Hillary.
I think that is a disappointment for the country since she is the best candidate in the race. I am hoping for a miracle.
But, as an old man I have seen many things and I don't believe in much, except this: we make our own future.
Somehow Hillary made her own future and now you will make yours.
I pray you do a good job.
I recall hearing a college commencement speech from years ago in which the speaker told the fresh faced grads this, more or less: "You know how you worked really hard on that big semester project. You stayed up late and asked your friends for help. You rewrote it several times and finally it was done. You felt good that you had completed the biggest job of your life and that it was the hardest you had ever worked.
Well, in the real world it is like that every day."
Welcome to the real world Senator. You worked real hard to win lots of delegates and your chances of winning the nomination are good. The real world starts when you face McCain.
Senator McCain is a better man than you are, Senator. As a politician, he prety much torpedoed Romney on a debate and it was over.
Read McCain's speech from yesterday to see what I mean. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19text-mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He has a clear vision for the country and has demonstrated the personal integrity and gravitas the country needs to lead us.
But, he has many weaknesses as well, most of which come from his Republican beliefs and baggage.
The country will be better served with you as a Democrat as President. But, that will happen only when you become a better man.
I think you can become that better man and we all hope fervently that you become one real soon.
Here's how to become one.
I am not asking that you suffer a great personal tragedy as an adult such as the loss of a child or a divorce. Either of those can temper a man.
But the country needs some things from you that I have not seen yet.
First, it needs the recognition that a President stands in the shoes of Washinton, Jefferson, both Adams, both Roosevelts, Truman, Clinton and both Bushes. That requires a little humility. Constant calls for change diminish the memory of our heritage. Sure, that heritage includes some bad stuff, but it has a lot of good in it. You need to acknowledge the good.
Start by wearing the flag on your lapel; take it back from the Reps.
Second, it needs a clear and consistent positive vision for the future. Where is that?
So far, your consistent vision is that you are black and you hope for change.
Well, maybe that gets you the nomination; but it won't get you the election.
The country is in an unusual place. Bush has created a machinery of repression and class warfare that has voters in an uproar. That's why a call for change resonates. But with Bush becoming quieter as his term closes, the calls for change will be yesterday's news very soon.
You need a positive vision. You don't have one yet. And a lot of that vision will center around economics, which is my field.
Here's an example of how you raise concerns: Yesterday you said that you believe in free markets and that you would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Well, Senator, those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if you don't know that, it raises concerns.
If you favor free markets, you favor business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies you say you want to change. But, if you favor children over business, you become a big government Democrat and lose business support.
Your job is to 'parse' those position and create a policy statement that will gain you support from both groups. Until you can do that, you are not ready for prime time and McCain will eat your lunch.
The reality part is this: you face the same problem on ALL the issues that face our country.
Here's a partial list of those problems:
Election fraud
Military/industrial/oil complex
Political corruption
Deficits and Taxes
Trade policy
National Security
I think you know the rest of the list.
In closing Senator, I hope that you will recognize the spirit in which these criticisms are offered and will take from them what you find useful. If so, I will be honored if you wish to continue the discussion in a form you find useful.
Regards,
Mike P.McKeever
PPS - Acording to KPFA radio February 20 on Flashpoints, your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzger who is directly involved in the bank which originated the sub prime mortgage bonds which are directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
Additionally, her bank received favorable treatment from the FDIC so that her family benefitted before the depositors in her failed bank.
It would seem that this, if true, might require a comment from you, especially since you are rightfully proud of your large number of contributors. But, a very wealthy, perhaps ethically challenged finance chair is not in the spirit of your 'new' politics.
After Wisconsin, the math seems insurmountable for Hillary.
I think that is a disappointment for the country since she is the best candidate in the race. I am hoping for a miracle.
But, as an old man I have seen many things and I don't believe in much, except this: we make our own future.
Somehow Hillary made her own future and now you will make yours.
I pray you do a good job.
I recall hearing a college commencement speech from years ago in which the speaker told the fresh faced grads this, more or less: "You know how you worked really hard on that big semester project. You stayed up late and asked your friends for help. You rewrote it several times and finally it was done. You felt good that you had completed the biggest job of your life and that it was the hardest you had ever worked.
Well, in the real world it is like that every day."
Welcome to the real world Senator. You worked real hard to win lots of delegates and your chances of winning the nomination are good. The real world starts when you face McCain.
Senator McCain is a better man than you are, Senator. As a politician, he prety much torpedoed Romney on a debate and it was over.
Read McCain's speech from yesterday to see what I mean. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19text-mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He has a clear vision for the country and has demonstrated the personal integrity and gravitas the country needs to lead us.
But, he has many weaknesses as well, most of which come from his Republican beliefs and baggage.
The country will be better served with you as a Democrat as President. But, that will happen only when you become a better man.
I think you can become that better man and we all hope fervently that you become one real soon.
Here's how to become one.
I am not asking that you suffer a great personal tragedy as an adult such as the loss of a child or a divorce. Either of those can temper a man.
But the country needs some things from you that I have not seen yet.
First, it needs the recognition that a President stands in the shoes of Washinton, Jefferson, both Adams, both Roosevelts, Truman, Clinton and both Bushes. That requires a little humility. Constant calls for change diminish the memory of our heritage. Sure, that heritage includes some bad stuff, but it has a lot of good in it. You need to acknowledge the good.
Start by wearing the flag on your lapel; take it back from the Reps.
Second, it needs a clear and consistent positive vision for the future. Where is that?
So far, your consistent vision is that you are black and you hope for change.
Well, maybe that gets you the nomination; but it won't get you the election.
The country is in an unusual place. Bush has created a machinery of repression and class warfare that has voters in an uproar. That's why a call for change resonates. But with Bush becoming quieter as his term closes, the calls for change will be yesterday's news very soon.
You need a positive vision. You don't have one yet. And a lot of that vision will center around economics, which is my field.
Here's an example of how you raise concerns: Yesterday you said that you believe in free markets and that you would make sure that our children did not have to play with toys that had lead filled paint on them.
Well, Senator, those positions are mutually inconsistent. And, if you don't know that, it raises concerns.
If you favor free markets, you favor business interests over children. That sounds just like the Bush policies you say you want to change. But, if you favor children over business, you become a big government Democrat and lose business support.
Your job is to 'parse' those position and create a policy statement that will gain you support from both groups. Until you can do that, you are not ready for prime time and McCain will eat your lunch.
The reality part is this: you face the same problem on ALL the issues that face our country.
Here's a partial list of those problems:
Election fraud
Military/industrial/oil complex
Political corruption
Deficits and Taxes
Trade policy
National Security
I think you know the rest of the list.
In closing Senator, I hope that you will recognize the spirit in which these criticisms are offered and will take from them what you find useful. If so, I will be honored if you wish to continue the discussion in a form you find useful.
Regards,
Mike P.McKeever
PPS - Acording to KPFA radio February 20 on Flashpoints, your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzger who is directly involved in the bank which originated the sub prime mortgage bonds which are directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
Additionally, her bank received favorable treatment from the FDIC so that her family benefitted before the depositors in her failed bank.
It would seem that this, if true, might require a comment from you, especially since you are rightfully proud of your large number of contributors. But, a very wealthy, perhaps ethically challenged finance chair is not in the spirit of your 'new' politics.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Demagogues and Primaries
Lots of primaries and many Obama wins. He seems to have momentum.
I have been trying to figure out why and the word demagogue keeps coming to mind. I tried to look it up but I couldn't spell it, so I used spell check to learn. Finally found it.
Webster defines a demagogue as 'leader championing the cause of the common people...' and ' a leader who makes use of common prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.
Pretty much every claim I have heard him make seems patently false and obviously appeals to common prejudices. For example, his claim that he was against the Iraq war seems to rest on one speech in 2002. But,it was not followed up with votes.
This is very disappointing since his policy positions are pretty sound.
So, why do the media and many voters accept his claims at face value?
Probably because no one challenges him on his statements. Seems an unchallenged statement is accepted.
Here we have a leading Democrat presidential candidate who is unchallenged on his claims.
Remarkable.
I do not think it will continue. Either Hillary will go after him as he has begun to do to her, or he will win the nomination and the Reps will tear him up.
Either way is bad for the country, but the least unfavorable alternative is for Hillary to school him. Hopefully the schooling will gain her the nomination, but, if not, then he will get practice for McCain at least.
What will happen?
Hillary must do very well in the Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania races to be in the running. Then they will be neck and neck.
But, the country cannot afford to give McCain a three month headstart while Hillary and Obama are feuding.
So I think Howard Dean is right, the Dems must broker a deal in April and not wait until August for a nominee..
Two possible deals:
1. One agrees to bow out.
2. They both agree to refrain from attacking each other and double team McCain.
While number 2 may be easier to negotiate, self interest will probably doom it in 30 days.
Logical choice is number 1.
Here's a method: Choose leader on popular votes plus delegates including Florida and Michigan. The other bows and retires or agrees to VP or some other consolation prize.
What a mess.
I have been trying to figure out why and the word demagogue keeps coming to mind. I tried to look it up but I couldn't spell it, so I used spell check to learn. Finally found it.
Webster defines a demagogue as 'leader championing the cause of the common people...' and ' a leader who makes use of common prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984.
Pretty much every claim I have heard him make seems patently false and obviously appeals to common prejudices. For example, his claim that he was against the Iraq war seems to rest on one speech in 2002. But,it was not followed up with votes.
This is very disappointing since his policy positions are pretty sound.
So, why do the media and many voters accept his claims at face value?
Probably because no one challenges him on his statements. Seems an unchallenged statement is accepted.
Here we have a leading Democrat presidential candidate who is unchallenged on his claims.
Remarkable.
I do not think it will continue. Either Hillary will go after him as he has begun to do to her, or he will win the nomination and the Reps will tear him up.
Either way is bad for the country, but the least unfavorable alternative is for Hillary to school him. Hopefully the schooling will gain her the nomination, but, if not, then he will get practice for McCain at least.
What will happen?
Hillary must do very well in the Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania races to be in the running. Then they will be neck and neck.
But, the country cannot afford to give McCain a three month headstart while Hillary and Obama are feuding.
So I think Howard Dean is right, the Dems must broker a deal in April and not wait until August for a nominee..
Two possible deals:
1. One agrees to bow out.
2. They both agree to refrain from attacking each other and double team McCain.
While number 2 may be easier to negotiate, self interest will probably doom it in 30 days.
Logical choice is number 1.
Here's a method: Choose leader on popular votes plus delegates including Florida and Michigan. The other bows and retires or agrees to VP or some other consolation prize.
What a mess.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Super Tuesday
As the race tightens and Obama makes some headway, it is easy to lose sight of the ball: Hillary will win.
Here's why:
1. Demographics. Obama won South Carolina by getting some 70% of the black voters and about 25% of the white voters. Among the white voters, he gained a lot of voters under 30. But the state is 50% black. A CNN analyst projected the South Carolina numbers nationally and found that Hillary has the edge from her winning a majority of white voters and about 25% of black voters.
2. Issues: When adults look seriously at Obama's issues, the issues' shallowness is apparent. See below. He has created a share of the population who really don't like on a visceral level to listen to him.
3. Momentum: He has some now because Hillary is giving him a pass on negative ads. It's time to bring up some troubling issues about him to slow his momentum. This time the issues should be from Hillary and not from The Bill.
[The following needs serious fact checking before going live.]
a. Iraq: "I voted for the senate resolution because I judged that it was the best thing for the United States of America based on the facts I had at the time. Most other senators agreed with me because it passed xx to xx.
Senator Obama made a speech condemning the war in 2002. I congratulate him for that speech. But, it is not enough to be right. Just being right doesn't help our great country if it is not followed by action. Senator Obama did not act on his conviction by voting against the bill. In fact he voted present/didn't show up. Then, he later voted in favor of two bills supporting the war. I ask you, do we want a man in the Oval Office who doesn't stand up for what he believes. I think we do not."
b. Old vs. New: Senator Obama has made a public pronouncement that it is time to throw out the old and install the new. What does that mean?
Does it mean that we need to forcibly retire older people? If so, how old does the senator think a person is when he or she is no longer useful? Is it 65? 75? 85? When does a person lose his or her right to contribute to America Senator?
Or maybe it means that our political process is too old and needs changing. Is that it Senator? Does our constitution need to be scrapped? Does our system of checks and balances that has served us well since 1789 need to be thrown out. What about it Senator Obama? What should we install to replace our Constitution?
c. Baby Boomer Issues: Senator Obama has said that it is time to stop fighting baby boomer issues and move on to something else. The last time I looked, Senator Obama at the age of 46 is in fact a baby boomer. OK, we will let him renounce his generation. I don't know why he wants to do that, but I suppose he can if he wants. Maybe he wants to be younger. Gee, Senator, I would like to be 30 again, but it is not going to happen.
So what are the 'Baby Boomer' issues he is tired of fighting? Is it the Vietnam War? Are you tired of dealing with Vietnam veterans issues Senator?
It is true; a lot of veterans from that war have serious problems. But, I for one do not think that we should turn our backs on them. To borrow a phrase from Governor Huckabee, we are a better nation that that, Senator.
Or maybe he is tired of dealing with Social Security and Medicare. Is that it, Senator? Would you prefer to not bother with those issues?
Well, Senator, the President does not get to choose the issues which challenge the country. She has to represent all the people in the country and deal with all the issues affecting the country. It is a hard job, Senator, as Bush found out. If you are having second thoughts about it, just let me know.
d. Washington DC: The Senator has said that the system in Washington is broken and needs to be fixed. We actually agree here and I have made several specific proposals on how to fix the system which you can read on my website www.hillaryclinton.com
But, Senator, there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans in Washington DC who have devoted their lives to making our country better by working within the political system. You disrespect them by saying that the entire system is broken and needs to be scrapped. I don't agree with many of the people in Washington, but I respect their patriotism and work with them to solve our country's issues every day.
Here's a question for you Senator: How can you bring our country together if you start by insulting the people you have to work with to change our country?
The only way that could work is if they recognize that your insults are just political rhetoric and do not hold it against you. So, how about it Senator, are your insults to people in DC just empty rhetoric?
e. Politics of Division: Senator Obama has said that his is a new politics of inclusiveness that rejects the old politics of personal attacks and divisiveness.
But, senator Obama, you have personally attacked me very frequently and you take great pains to set yourself apart from the existing system. Seems it seems to me that you are actively practicing the politics of division at the same time you are saying that you are not. I am confused Senator. Which is it?
f. Change: Senator Obama has argued that he is the best person to bring about change in government.
HELLO! I'm a WOMAN. I'll fire all of George Bush's political hacks and hire real, knowledgeble regulators to protect the American people first and corporations second. I'll implement my ten point plan to fight corruption within 90 days. I'll send normal American people to meet with foreign governments and restore our reputation in the world. And that's just a start; go to my website for my multi-faceted plan for change.
Here's why:
1. Demographics. Obama won South Carolina by getting some 70% of the black voters and about 25% of the white voters. Among the white voters, he gained a lot of voters under 30. But the state is 50% black. A CNN analyst projected the South Carolina numbers nationally and found that Hillary has the edge from her winning a majority of white voters and about 25% of black voters.
2. Issues: When adults look seriously at Obama's issues, the issues' shallowness is apparent. See below. He has created a share of the population who really don't like on a visceral level to listen to him.
3. Momentum: He has some now because Hillary is giving him a pass on negative ads. It's time to bring up some troubling issues about him to slow his momentum. This time the issues should be from Hillary and not from The Bill.
[The following needs serious fact checking before going live.]
a. Iraq: "I voted for the senate resolution because I judged that it was the best thing for the United States of America based on the facts I had at the time. Most other senators agreed with me because it passed xx to xx.
Senator Obama made a speech condemning the war in 2002. I congratulate him for that speech. But, it is not enough to be right. Just being right doesn't help our great country if it is not followed by action. Senator Obama did not act on his conviction by voting against the bill. In fact he voted present/didn't show up. Then, he later voted in favor of two bills supporting the war. I ask you, do we want a man in the Oval Office who doesn't stand up for what he believes. I think we do not."
b. Old vs. New: Senator Obama has made a public pronouncement that it is time to throw out the old and install the new. What does that mean?
Does it mean that we need to forcibly retire older people? If so, how old does the senator think a person is when he or she is no longer useful? Is it 65? 75? 85? When does a person lose his or her right to contribute to America Senator?
Or maybe it means that our political process is too old and needs changing. Is that it Senator? Does our constitution need to be scrapped? Does our system of checks and balances that has served us well since 1789 need to be thrown out. What about it Senator Obama? What should we install to replace our Constitution?
c. Baby Boomer Issues: Senator Obama has said that it is time to stop fighting baby boomer issues and move on to something else. The last time I looked, Senator Obama at the age of 46 is in fact a baby boomer. OK, we will let him renounce his generation. I don't know why he wants to do that, but I suppose he can if he wants. Maybe he wants to be younger. Gee, Senator, I would like to be 30 again, but it is not going to happen.
So what are the 'Baby Boomer' issues he is tired of fighting? Is it the Vietnam War? Are you tired of dealing with Vietnam veterans issues Senator?
It is true; a lot of veterans from that war have serious problems. But, I for one do not think that we should turn our backs on them. To borrow a phrase from Governor Huckabee, we are a better nation that that, Senator.
Or maybe he is tired of dealing with Social Security and Medicare. Is that it, Senator? Would you prefer to not bother with those issues?
Well, Senator, the President does not get to choose the issues which challenge the country. She has to represent all the people in the country and deal with all the issues affecting the country. It is a hard job, Senator, as Bush found out. If you are having second thoughts about it, just let me know.
d. Washington DC: The Senator has said that the system in Washington is broken and needs to be fixed. We actually agree here and I have made several specific proposals on how to fix the system which you can read on my website www.hillaryclinton.com
But, Senator, there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic Americans in Washington DC who have devoted their lives to making our country better by working within the political system. You disrespect them by saying that the entire system is broken and needs to be scrapped. I don't agree with many of the people in Washington, but I respect their patriotism and work with them to solve our country's issues every day.
Here's a question for you Senator: How can you bring our country together if you start by insulting the people you have to work with to change our country?
The only way that could work is if they recognize that your insults are just political rhetoric and do not hold it against you. So, how about it Senator, are your insults to people in DC just empty rhetoric?
e. Politics of Division: Senator Obama has said that his is a new politics of inclusiveness that rejects the old politics of personal attacks and divisiveness.
But, senator Obama, you have personally attacked me very frequently and you take great pains to set yourself apart from the existing system. Seems it seems to me that you are actively practicing the politics of division at the same time you are saying that you are not. I am confused Senator. Which is it?
f. Change: Senator Obama has argued that he is the best person to bring about change in government.
HELLO! I'm a WOMAN. I'll fire all of George Bush's political hacks and hire real, knowledgeble regulators to protect the American people first and corporations second. I'll implement my ten point plan to fight corruption within 90 days. I'll send normal American people to meet with foreign governments and restore our reputation in the world. And that's just a start; go to my website for my multi-faceted plan for change.
Friday, February 1, 2008
L.A. Debate
Question: "Who won?"
Answer: it wasn't about winning - it was about the base.
Hillary didn't offend her base and offered specific, competent policy proposals that will help our country.
Obama appealed to his base with vaguely threatening and opaque appeals to throw out the older people, bring in hope and trust him to give you whatever you want.
We'll see.
Answer: it wasn't about winning - it was about the base.
Hillary didn't offend her base and offered specific, competent policy proposals that will help our country.
Obama appealed to his base with vaguely threatening and opaque appeals to throw out the older people, bring in hope and trust him to give you whatever you want.
We'll see.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Florida
Big win for Hillary in Florida. Let's get the convention to accept the delegates from Florida and Michigan.
Good momentum for Super-Dooper Tuesday.
It's possible that Obama will get the nod - if Obama is the nominee I will volunteer to work hard for him by highlighting his apparent shortcomings so he may become a stronger candidate- any Dem is better than any Rep. Of course, he may very well suggest that when he wants my opinion he will give it to me. Que sera, que sera.
Obama creates a very negative impression among some voters that is not about his race. It seems to be about his oratorical style. It turns off many people. No idea about numbers or percentages - this is just an anecdotal impression.
Good momentum for Super-Dooper Tuesday.
It's possible that Obama will get the nod - if Obama is the nominee I will volunteer to work hard for him by highlighting his apparent shortcomings so he may become a stronger candidate- any Dem is better than any Rep. Of course, he may very well suggest that when he wants my opinion he will give it to me. Que sera, que sera.
Obama creates a very negative impression among some voters that is not about his race. It seems to be about his oratorical style. It turns off many people. No idea about numbers or percentages - this is just an anecdotal impression.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
South Carolina
Obama won a victory in South Carolina he needed and expected.
But, I have to confess that his passive aggresive attacks on Hillary are annoying - conducting business as usual while condemning business as usual.
For example, from his victory speech [see at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/?iref=hpmostpop]:
"......And in nine days, in nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington. We are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again.....
...It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay....
...So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington...."
Neat trick. Here's hoping voters will see through the denial.
My wife is Russian and his speech reminded her of a communist rally exhorting the troops to attack something.
It's a long campaign and it is not over.
But, I have to confess that his passive aggresive attacks on Hillary are annoying - conducting business as usual while condemning business as usual.
For example, from his victory speech [see at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/obama.transcript/?iref=hpmostpop]:
"......And in nine days, in nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington. We are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again.....
...It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay....
...So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington...."
Neat trick. Here's hoping voters will see through the denial.
My wife is Russian and his speech reminded her of a communist rally exhorting the troops to attack something.
It's a long campaign and it is not over.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Questions, Questions
Voters are taking this very seriously. As an occasional surrogate I hear the questions.
Questions are dead on the issues and very thoughtful.
The Bill [C] is right - people don't ask about the pundit BS. That's just on TV and in the newspapers.
I don't get it - how did such a thoughtful and skeptical nation stand for eight years of BushCo.
Maybe we'll never know; maybe Lincoln was right: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time....'.
But, eight years. C'mon Abe, enough already.
Questions are dead on the issues and very thoughtful.
The Bill [C] is right - people don't ask about the pundit BS. That's just on TV and in the newspapers.
I don't get it - how did such a thoughtful and skeptical nation stand for eight years of BushCo.
Maybe we'll never know; maybe Lincoln was right: 'You can fool all of the people some of the time....'.
But, eight years. C'mon Abe, enough already.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Las Vegas:
Watched the whole debate last night where all three were super polite.
Hillary nailed the policy discussions - no contest.
Obama is his own worst enemy in policy. So, steer discussion to policy and let him flounder.
Hillary's core supporters already get that he is weak in many areas and Obama's supporters don't want to hear any crticism, so further attacks on Obama will probably not convince anyone to change vote.
Best bet, focus on core support and get out vote.
Hillary nailed the policy discussions - no contest.
Obama is his own worst enemy in policy. So, steer discussion to policy and let him flounder.
Hillary's core supporters already get that he is weak in many areas and Obama's supporters don't want to hear any crticism, so further attacks on Obama will probably not convince anyone to change vote.
Best bet, focus on core support and get out vote.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Get In The Game
After New Hampshire:
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!!
GET IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A cliche, but very true on February 5.
This is the most important presidential election in 50 years. We need to be sure the winner is a democrat and that Hillary is that democrat.
From first hand experience - this is a real horse race. Lots of interest, lots of passion.
Hillary will need every vote she can get. And, your effort will make the difference. If you help we get Hillary. If you don't help we get Edwards or Obama. Pretty much that simple.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!!!!
GET IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A cliche, but very true on February 5.
This is the most important presidential election in 50 years. We need to be sure the winner is a democrat and that Hillary is that democrat.
From first hand experience - this is a real horse race. Lots of interest, lots of passion.
Hillary will need every vote she can get. And, your effort will make the difference. If you help we get Hillary. If you don't help we get Edwards or Obama. Pretty much that simple.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
New Hampshire??
At this writing the polls say that Hillary is second to Obama.
Where from here??
Re-position as
1. Positive and inclusive vision for future based on asking for help from all the people in policy strength areas. For example, "With your help, we will pass a health plan that will make sure that every American child has the best health care! I will need your help to call your congressmen and pass the health care law."
2. Appeal to proven, existing Democrat base as the responsible, adult alternative to Bush. Show Bush as implusive, naive which results in many disasters. By implication only as opposed to direct attacks, paint Obama and Edwards as also impulsive and naive and likely to end in a similar place.
Remember the delegate count: the nominee is chosen at the convention. Stay in the race until the delegates are counted.
Front runners may change. Only the shadow knows!!!!!!!!!!
Where from here??
Re-position as
1. Positive and inclusive vision for future based on asking for help from all the people in policy strength areas. For example, "With your help, we will pass a health plan that will make sure that every American child has the best health care! I will need your help to call your congressmen and pass the health care law."
2. Appeal to proven, existing Democrat base as the responsible, adult alternative to Bush. Show Bush as implusive, naive which results in many disasters. By implication only as opposed to direct attacks, paint Obama and Edwards as also impulsive and naive and likely to end in a similar place.
Remember the delegate count: the nominee is chosen at the convention. Stay in the race until the delegates are counted.
Front runners may change. Only the shadow knows!!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Iowa Lessons - 2
Good Washington Post article on campaign strategy here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404002.html
Hillary needs to go after the independents and younger voters as well as the core of older women.
What to do: my answer is the same as before.
1. Admit learning from Iowa that the country wants CHANGE. Very strongly.
"I know you voters need to hear that your candidate will make changes. Maybe I was not clear enough in Iowa. Make no mistake: I will deliver real change in Washington, not just promises. That's what this campaign has always been about. Republicans have taken our country in the wrong direction and I will put it back in the right direction."
2. Question Obama's ability to DELIVER change while acknowledging his oratorical ability to beg for it:
"Remember, folks, that the devil is in the details. I know from experience that it's easy to call for change with an inspiring speech. But, to use a mechanic's metaphor, it is entirely different to break out the wrenches, take off the valve covers and head gaskets and see which valves are burnt. That's hard work.
I am not here because I want to do the easy things. I am here because I want to do the hard things."
Also question Edward's abilities similarly:
"And, it's easy to complain about corporations and demand that they be stopped, but it's another thing entirely to fight them head on and win the battle."
3. Choose major themes of change and give a detailed, five minute breakdown on at least three at each speech.
"Here's some things that are broken in health care and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the law making process and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in environmental regulation and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the weapons procurement program and how I will fix them:"
4. Stem winding close:
"If you want empty promises of a bright. shiny future, I am not your woman. But, if you want real change that will make your daily life better.....if you want real change that will make your family healthier, if you want real change that will take power away from Halliburton and the oil companies, if you want real change that will GIVE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO US. Then I....AM....YOUR....WOMAN"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404002.html
Hillary needs to go after the independents and younger voters as well as the core of older women.
What to do: my answer is the same as before.
1. Admit learning from Iowa that the country wants CHANGE. Very strongly.
"I know you voters need to hear that your candidate will make changes. Maybe I was not clear enough in Iowa. Make no mistake: I will deliver real change in Washington, not just promises. That's what this campaign has always been about. Republicans have taken our country in the wrong direction and I will put it back in the right direction."
2. Question Obama's ability to DELIVER change while acknowledging his oratorical ability to beg for it:
"Remember, folks, that the devil is in the details. I know from experience that it's easy to call for change with an inspiring speech. But, to use a mechanic's metaphor, it is entirely different to break out the wrenches, take off the valve covers and head gaskets and see which valves are burnt. That's hard work.
I am not here because I want to do the easy things. I am here because I want to do the hard things."
Also question Edward's abilities similarly:
"And, it's easy to complain about corporations and demand that they be stopped, but it's another thing entirely to fight them head on and win the battle."
3. Choose major themes of change and give a detailed, five minute breakdown on at least three at each speech.
"Here's some things that are broken in health care and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the law making process and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in environmental regulation and how I will fix them:
Here are some things that are broken in the weapons procurement program and how I will fix them:"
4. Stem winding close:
"If you want empty promises of a bright. shiny future, I am not your woman. But, if you want real change that will make your daily life better.....if you want real change that will make your family healthier, if you want real change that will take power away from Halliburton and the oil companies, if you want real change that will GIVE OUR COUNTRY BACK TO US. Then I....AM....YOUR....WOMAN"
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa Lessons
Watched Iowa on MSNBC in a room with about 40 other Dems of varying loyalties.
My take on the results: Obama and Edwards tap into the need for an about face from BushCo.
Wrongly, Hillary may be seen as status quo.
So, explicitly acknowledge Iowa lessons of need for new direction for country.
Then, state a message of campaign refocus of existing themes to identify the new direction clearly.
Last, list the changes that will be coming:
Health care for all
Enforce environmental regs
Clean up elections
Competitive bidding for all contracts.
etc., etc.,
...................It ain't over.
My take on the results: Obama and Edwards tap into the need for an about face from BushCo.
Wrongly, Hillary may be seen as status quo.
So, explicitly acknowledge Iowa lessons of need for new direction for country.
Then, state a message of campaign refocus of existing themes to identify the new direction clearly.
Last, list the changes that will be coming:
Health care for all
Enforce environmental regs
Clean up elections
Competitive bidding for all contracts.
etc., etc.,
...................It ain't over.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Winning Iowa
What's the winning formula? Good question. I don't have a sure-fire answer, but I have some ideas.
As a volunteer, I have been a Hillary surrogate in two candidate forums with more scheduled in January.
People seem to like and respond with interest when policies and issues are treated in depth. It's not enough to say that she has a great health plan, people want to know what the health plan will do and what it will not do. Voters love to hear about her plan to reduce political corruption in DC. Just about everyone knows that she has taken money from Northrup.
Perhaps Hillary's speeches might be a little less off-the-cuff, broad brush and a little more formal presentation of a limited few policies.
Policies are her strength, so perhaps it is time to play up the strong points. Pick a few of the best policies for one speech, and then treat a few more policies the same way for another speech.
She appears to have established credentials as a tough negotiator and attacker. Maybe it's time to assume the electorate understands that and shift the discussion to her policies.
Then, when the rivals counter with their policies, they may be seen as 'me-tooing' it instead of serious candidates.
It might work.
As a volunteer, I have been a Hillary surrogate in two candidate forums with more scheduled in January.
People seem to like and respond with interest when policies and issues are treated in depth. It's not enough to say that she has a great health plan, people want to know what the health plan will do and what it will not do. Voters love to hear about her plan to reduce political corruption in DC. Just about everyone knows that she has taken money from Northrup.
Perhaps Hillary's speeches might be a little less off-the-cuff, broad brush and a little more formal presentation of a limited few policies.
Policies are her strength, so perhaps it is time to play up the strong points. Pick a few of the best policies for one speech, and then treat a few more policies the same way for another speech.
She appears to have established credentials as a tough negotiator and attacker. Maybe it's time to assume the electorate understands that and shift the discussion to her policies.
Then, when the rivals counter with their policies, they may be seen as 'me-tooing' it instead of serious candidates.
It might work.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Energy - Where Are We?
The recent energy bill is not good enough. Read Mark Morford on the bill here
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2007/12/19/notes121907.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2007/12/19/notes121907.DTL
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
True Grit
As a certified old guy, I can talk about 1969 movies and how they relate to today - it's a privilege and I respect it.
The 1969 John Wayne movie was about the baddest sheriff around - the one with enough 'grit' to outgun the bad guys and save the little girl.
Here's a quote:
"Little girl Mattie Ross: Who's the best Marshall they have?
Sheriff: Bill Waters is the best tracker. The meanest one is Rooster Cogburn, a pitiless man, double tough, fear don't enter into his thinking."
Who has more grit - Hillary or Obama?
For me it's a no brainer: Hillary, hands down. She went after the health insurance industry and lost the first round. But she is still on their trail and will bring them to justice. You go girl.
Obama - Where's the track record of tough fights? Would you want him or Hillary representing you when the chips are down and the stakes are high? These questions are not replays from the 1990's, they are always with us. It's the President's job to handle them for us.
So far, he is a great preacher and orator, but can he cover our back?
That's the question.
The 1969 John Wayne movie was about the baddest sheriff around - the one with enough 'grit' to outgun the bad guys and save the little girl.
Here's a quote:
"Little girl Mattie Ross: Who's the best Marshall they have?
Sheriff: Bill Waters is the best tracker. The meanest one is Rooster Cogburn, a pitiless man, double tough, fear don't enter into his thinking."
Who has more grit - Hillary or Obama?
For me it's a no brainer: Hillary, hands down. She went after the health insurance industry and lost the first round. But she is still on their trail and will bring them to justice. You go girl.
Obama - Where's the track record of tough fights? Would you want him or Hillary representing you when the chips are down and the stakes are high? These questions are not replays from the 1990's, they are always with us. It's the President's job to handle them for us.
So far, he is a great preacher and orator, but can he cover our back?
That's the question.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
What The Heck??
Edwards can attack Hillary directly and Obama can attack her obliquely with little or no comment but when Hillary attacks Obama - he whines and attacks her indirectly; then, he is called presidential for his efforts.
Something is screwy.
Was it a mistake to attack Obama? Emphatically not. Clumsily executed, perhaps, but overall good strategy.
Why?? Because it shows Obama's weak response when attacked. He retreats into a feel good, preacher like sermon that studiously avoides dealing with the issues.
C'mon Barack: stand up - when you are confronting people who really want you to lose, you have to fight them directly. You cannot retreat into a fantasy world of make believe where you control all the issues and can repeat your feel good mantras.
Debating or negotiating in that manner guarantees that you will lose, unless you have a superior force to back you up. That in turn will mean that if Obama becomes President, he stands a larger chance of creating a war as a result of a weak debating posture than a President who will stand up and argue face to face.
Here's an indirect attack: "If other folks want to engage in those kinds of small-time tactics then that's their prerogative, but that's not what we're going to focus on." Quoted by Perry Bacon here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
If you try either with a Giuliani, a Romney or any other Rep, they will eat you alive.
And, if you try it with a well connected defense contractor or a terrorist state, God help us.
Conclusion - don't let Obama get away with indirect attacks and /or retreat into his own LaLa land of feel good rhetoric. The country cannot afford it.
Something is screwy.
Was it a mistake to attack Obama? Emphatically not. Clumsily executed, perhaps, but overall good strategy.
Why?? Because it shows Obama's weak response when attacked. He retreats into a feel good, preacher like sermon that studiously avoides dealing with the issues.
C'mon Barack: stand up - when you are confronting people who really want you to lose, you have to fight them directly. You cannot retreat into a fantasy world of make believe where you control all the issues and can repeat your feel good mantras.
Debating or negotiating in that manner guarantees that you will lose, unless you have a superior force to back you up. That in turn will mean that if Obama becomes President, he stands a larger chance of creating a war as a result of a weak debating posture than a President who will stand up and argue face to face.
Here's an indirect attack: "If other folks want to engage in those kinds of small-time tactics then that's their prerogative, but that's not what we're going to focus on." Quoted by Perry Bacon here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
If you try either with a Giuliani, a Romney or any other Rep, they will eat you alive.
And, if you try it with a well connected defense contractor or a terrorist state, God help us.
Conclusion - don't let Obama get away with indirect attacks and /or retreat into his own LaLa land of feel good rhetoric. The country cannot afford it.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Iowa Dead Heat?
Iowa Dead Heat?
News accounts show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
Maybe it is time to test a negative attack strategy as a rehearsal for the national campaign. The overall strategy seems vaild at this point - still no doubt that Hillary will have the nomination [based on polls that show Dems give her best shot at the eventual Rep as seen in the Wall Street Journal
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrAS9avYFvoccwNDiDFyW8E0_L1wD8TA1M4O0
A test could validate tactics with a small sample. Maybe poll a focus group in a controlled situation as they enter a room before a negative attack, then demonstrate some negative attacks.Then, poll again after the negative attack to calculate results.
Need at least 100 people and even then the probabilities will be hard to project, so maybe the idea is too lame. But maybe it is worth a shot.
Calling on the campaign gurus to look at it.
PPS: Seems that Obama is complaining about Hillary's negative campaigning in Iowa.
Good.
News accounts show a dead heat in Iowa between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.
Maybe it is time to test a negative attack strategy as a rehearsal for the national campaign. The overall strategy seems vaild at this point - still no doubt that Hillary will have the nomination [based on polls that show Dems give her best shot at the eventual Rep as seen in the Wall Street Journal
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrAS9avYFvoccwNDiDFyW8E0_L1wD8TA1M4O0
A test could validate tactics with a small sample. Maybe poll a focus group in a controlled situation as they enter a room before a negative attack, then demonstrate some negative attacks.Then, poll again after the negative attack to calculate results.
Need at least 100 people and even then the probabilities will be hard to project, so maybe the idea is too lame. But maybe it is worth a shot.
Calling on the campaign gurus to look at it.
PPS: Seems that Obama is complaining about Hillary's negative campaigning in Iowa.
Good.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Reps Dissin'
Didn't watch the debate last night since there would be no real issues discussed.
Looking briefly at the transcript shows one overwhelming fact: the national campaign will be ugly and personal from the start.
Hillary needs to prepare to fight in the streets, point by point. Sadly, rising above the ugliness to talk about real issues may be seen as weakness by voters.
Here's a short excerpt of the transcript [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/] from Romney and Giuliani to make the point:
Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?
Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.
And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.
And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.
For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.
There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.
Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...
Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.
(Laughter)
Giuliani: No ...
Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...
Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?
Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.
If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."
Is that what you're suggesting?
Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...
(Crosstalk)
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...
Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...
Romney: I'm not perfect.
Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.
(Applause}
Looking briefly at the transcript shows one overwhelming fact: the national campaign will be ugly and personal from the start.
Hillary needs to prepare to fight in the streets, point by point. Sadly, rising above the ugliness to talk about real issues may be seen as weakness by voters.
Here's a short excerpt of the transcript [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.transcript/] from Romney and Giuliani to make the point:
Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?
Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.
And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.
And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.
For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.
There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.
Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...
Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.
(Laughter)
Giuliani: No ...
Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...
Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?
Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.
If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."
Is that what you're suggesting?
Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...
(Crosstalk)
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...
Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...
Romney: I'm not perfect.
Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.
(Applause}
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Blatant Appeal for Money
Money is the mother's milk of politics and Hillary needs your contributions now for the primary season.
Contribute online here:
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=XB45
Thank you.
Contribute online here:
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=ac0&rc=XB45
Thank you.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Mother Clinton and the Boys
I remember the commercials - not even the product, just the commercials.
Remember the ad: a sweet, very feminine and motherly woman reacts to an affront with a certain, decisive act and says: "Remember, it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
So, in case Barack and John missed the commerercials, remember: it's not nice to fool with Mother Clinton.
Remember the ad: a sweet, very feminine and motherly woman reacts to an affront with a certain, decisive act and says: "Remember, it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
So, in case Barack and John missed the commerercials, remember: it's not nice to fool with Mother Clinton.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Huntington Clark - Reply
Mr.Clark:
Thank you for your comment and your identification.
My reasons for choosing Senator Clinton are enumerated in the earliest posts on this blog. It is my judgment that she offers the best combination of policies which will protect the country and electability.
Democrats and the country are fortunate to have several qualified candidates.
Any Dem in the race is better than any Rep.
Thank you for your comment and your identification.
My reasons for choosing Senator Clinton are enumerated in the earliest posts on this blog. It is my judgment that she offers the best combination of policies which will protect the country and electability.
Democrats and the country are fortunate to have several qualified candidates.
Any Dem in the race is better than any Rep.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Glassbooth
Glassbooth
Interesting website that lets you vote on a list of issues, then matches you with the candidates that most closely match your preferences based on the candidate's published positions.
Very interesting, with two caveats:
1. Makes no mention of electability or competence, and,
2. Issue list is very limited.
Regardless, I came out matched most closely with Kucinich with an 86% match while I matched Hillary with 73%.
Hillary is still the best bet for the country.
Interesting website that lets you vote on a list of issues, then matches you with the candidates that most closely match your preferences based on the candidate's published positions.
Very interesting, with two caveats:
1. Makes no mention of electability or competence, and,
2. Issue list is very limited.
Regardless, I came out matched most closely with Kucinich with an 86% match while I matched Hillary with 73%.
Hillary is still the best bet for the country.
The Full Rudy
'The Full Rudy', an article in The Nation by Jack Newfield, is one place that provides a balanced assessment of Giuliani.
At this writing it seems possible that he will become the Rep nominee.
In the writer's opinion, it will be a disaster for the United States if Rudy takes the presidency whether the win is legitimate or not.
In the event Rudy is the Rep nominee then the Dems need to do a full swiftboat on him - he should be buried so far that he has zero possibility of recovering. He has publicly appealed to the same anti-American, base instincts in the electorate that propel the Bush administration toward dictatorship. His record in New York is one of incompetence and vitriol.
Conventional wisdom is that negative campaigning works. If Rudy is the nominee, the Dems need to swallow their distaste for negativity and smear Rudy as hard as they can, IMHO.
At this writing it seems possible that he will become the Rep nominee.
In the writer's opinion, it will be a disaster for the United States if Rudy takes the presidency whether the win is legitimate or not.
In the event Rudy is the Rep nominee then the Dems need to do a full swiftboat on him - he should be buried so far that he has zero possibility of recovering. He has publicly appealed to the same anti-American, base instincts in the electorate that propel the Bush administration toward dictatorship. His record in New York is one of incompetence and vitriol.
Conventional wisdom is that negative campaigning works. If Rudy is the nominee, the Dems need to swallow their distaste for negativity and smear Rudy as hard as they can, IMHO.
God Help Us
Listened to Dr.Peter Phillips, Director of the Project Censored program of Sonoma State University last night.
Following are some impressions of his talk - the impressions are mine alone, so complain to me if they are not correct.
Based on exit polls, the most reliable poll possible according to polling experts, Kerry lost 10 million votes in 13 states in the 04 election. Bush's offical margin was 3 million votes. The election was stolen.
Phillips reinforced strongly the idea that Bush has created in the United States
the infrastructure for a police state similar to Stalinist Russia or Pinochet's Chile.
The right of habeus corpus is now suspended. The President can name any person, citizen or not, as a terrorist and have them arrested and held without trail or bail.
If you interefere with the business or profits of any animal oriented business such as conducting a boycott or strike against a grocery store, you can be named as a terrorist and arrested without trial or bail.
Recently, under Attorney General Gonzalez, 9,000 state and local police were federalized in three sweeps and arrests of 30,000 people were conducted under Federal control.
There has been no accounting of the fate of those arrested nor release of names and/or charges filed.
The Posse Comitas act, which has prevented federal troops from conducting police operations since the Civil War, is suspended.
Halliburton Corp, was given a contract to build a series of detention centers across the country that are able to hold thousands of people.
Writing and publishing this piece probably qualifies me as a terrorist and may make me a target for arrest. As an American, it is my duty to speak out when the government acts against the Constitution. I have in the past taken an oath to defend the Constitution and I am doing so now. If I am arrested, so be it.
A Democratic Presidential administration seems to be the only remaining hope to prevent the United States of America from becoming a military dictatorship.
It is time for Hillary and the others to declare that they will reverse this dangerous course of American domestic policy.
Following are some impressions of his talk - the impressions are mine alone, so complain to me if they are not correct.
Based on exit polls, the most reliable poll possible according to polling experts, Kerry lost 10 million votes in 13 states in the 04 election. Bush's offical margin was 3 million votes. The election was stolen.
Phillips reinforced strongly the idea that Bush has created in the United States
the infrastructure for a police state similar to Stalinist Russia or Pinochet's Chile.
The right of habeus corpus is now suspended. The President can name any person, citizen or not, as a terrorist and have them arrested and held without trail or bail.
If you interefere with the business or profits of any animal oriented business such as conducting a boycott or strike against a grocery store, you can be named as a terrorist and arrested without trial or bail.
Recently, under Attorney General Gonzalez, 9,000 state and local police were federalized in three sweeps and arrests of 30,000 people were conducted under Federal control.
There has been no accounting of the fate of those arrested nor release of names and/or charges filed.
The Posse Comitas act, which has prevented federal troops from conducting police operations since the Civil War, is suspended.
Halliburton Corp, was given a contract to build a series of detention centers across the country that are able to hold thousands of people.
Writing and publishing this piece probably qualifies me as a terrorist and may make me a target for arrest. As an American, it is my duty to speak out when the government acts against the Constitution. I have in the past taken an oath to defend the Constitution and I am doing so now. If I am arrested, so be it.
A Democratic Presidential administration seems to be the only remaining hope to prevent the United States of America from becoming a military dictatorship.
It is time for Hillary and the others to declare that they will reverse this dangerous course of American domestic policy.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Driving Mr. Edwards
Watched the debate the other night and the Edwards commercial that replayed Hillary's answers to the question of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
Maybe the mistake was trying to have an answer to every question all the time. Being a responsible leader means taking the time to think through a question and it was obvious she had not done so for this question. The American people will understand that she cannot shoot from the hip on serious questions.
Maybe this would have worked:
"You know Chris, this is a serious question and frankly I have not been able to think through all the implications here. I think the American people want a responsible leader who will take the time to give serious, responsible thought to difficult national issues. I will do that for this issue and get back to you in a week.
As you know I am called on to answer literally hundreds of questions about national and local policy every day. My goal is to give serious answers to serious questions instead of shooting from the hip or making flip, overly simplified responses on the spur of the moment.
While some may see that as 'parsing', the fact of the matter is that national policy questions demand thorough analysis before coming to a conclusion.
Illegal immigration is a serious national policy question that Bush and the Republican congress have failed to answer. In the meantime, illegal immigrants will drive cars illegally and somehow we need to control that.
So, it's a big question and I will get back to you."
Maybe the mistake was trying to have an answer to every question all the time. Being a responsible leader means taking the time to think through a question and it was obvious she had not done so for this question. The American people will understand that she cannot shoot from the hip on serious questions.
Maybe this would have worked:
"You know Chris, this is a serious question and frankly I have not been able to think through all the implications here. I think the American people want a responsible leader who will take the time to give serious, responsible thought to difficult national issues. I will do that for this issue and get back to you in a week.
As you know I am called on to answer literally hundreds of questions about national and local policy every day. My goal is to give serious answers to serious questions instead of shooting from the hip or making flip, overly simplified responses on the spur of the moment.
While some may see that as 'parsing', the fact of the matter is that national policy questions demand thorough analysis before coming to a conclusion.
Illegal immigration is a serious national policy question that Bush and the Republican congress have failed to answer. In the meantime, illegal immigrants will drive cars illegally and somehow we need to control that.
So, it's a big question and I will get back to you."
Monday, November 5, 2007
ABC News Poll - Good News?
Here'e what the poll says:
"On Iraq, 63 percent of Americans continue to say the war was not worth
fighting. And at home, nearly two-thirds rate the economy negatively, with nearly seven in 10 seeing some likelihood of a recession in the year
ahead."
Here's what the possible problem is:
The Fed always supports the incumbents so there will probably be good economic news in 2008. Election years always see good numbers.
SO: Don't count our chickens - keep up the pressure.
"On Iraq, 63 percent of Americans continue to say the war was not worth
fighting. And at home, nearly two-thirds rate the economy negatively, with nearly seven in 10 seeing some likelihood of a recession in the year
ahead."
Here's what the possible problem is:
The Fed always supports the incumbents so there will probably be good economic news in 2008. Election years always see good numbers.
SO: Don't count our chickens - keep up the pressure.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Republicans - Love that Torture
News reports are that all the Reps except McCain support torture - even more than Bush.
Perfect campaign material:
If you like torture vote Republican.
If you like freedom and dignity vote for Hillary.
[OK,in case you missed the memo:
Torture hurts American national security:
1.It is illegal under US law
2. It is against American values.
3. Tortured people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear to make the pain stop, so the information is false
4. The military may act on false information and waste time and lives
5. It gives our enemies license to torture our troops.]
Perfect campaign material:
If you like torture vote Republican.
If you like freedom and dignity vote for Hillary.
[OK,in case you missed the memo:
Torture hurts American national security:
1.It is illegal under US law
2. It is against American values.
3. Tortured people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear to make the pain stop, so the information is false
4. The military may act on false information and waste time and lives
5. It gives our enemies license to torture our troops.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
