This stuff makes me sad and angry all at the same time.
« The Gospel According to Jon (Cohn) | Main | Markets and Journalism »
What Chris Bowers Said
17 Oct 2007 06:42 pm
Comments (21)
O'Hanlon pounds home what has become the core Clinton talking point on almost every topic: there is no difference between the Democratic candidates.
Seriously, has there ever been a weirder non-incumbent core message in the history of Presidential primaries? Vote Hillary, she's just like all of her competitors!
"Seriously, has there ever been a weirder non-incumbent core message in the history of Presidential primaries? Vote Hillary, she's just like all of her competitors!"
Just to note, it's not an altogether uncommon tactic.
Joe Lieberman's primary campaign against Ned Lamont was predicated on trying to blur all the differences between the candidates.
But what makes the Clinton campaign unusual is the concept of using the "we're all really the same" argument as a non-incumbent and also of using it at the Presidential level.
I'm still not sure what Clinton would actually do, policy-wise, upon winning the prize.
She seems to be playing every angle (for my money, overplaying militancy to the detriment of the rather large number of Democratic anti-war voters); personally I find her vague, tiresome and untrustworthy.
Clinton's trying to be all things to all people. Maybe her team should do some focus grouping.
O'Hanlon pounds home what has become the core Clinton talking point on almost every topic: there is no difference between the Democratic candidates.
This seems right, and not the sort of thing that blog posts--short and first cutty as they are--are well-suited to rebut. And the major media can't do it either. So make your peace with HRC, I guess. And in fairness to her, if neither Obama nor Edwards can take her, it's not clear that they are The Goods.
"But what makes the Clinton campaign unusual is the concept of using the "we're all really the same" argument as a non-incumbent"
And to further note, it's the very fact that the Clinton message is so non-affirmative that leaves her nomination vulnerable to early state losses.
Both Edwards and Obama are generally perceived as acceptable nominees to most of the Party. If Clinton loses early contests, and if she's spent months arguing that she's no different than Edwards and Obama, why should the Party faithful rally around her and against them once she gets knocked on her ass?
In 2000, the GOP faithful rallied around Bush after McCain had early wins because Bush was perceived as being different from McCain in ways that were important to the party faithful. But if Clinton is no different than her competitors...
In 2000, the GOP faithful rallied around Bush after McCain had early wins because Bush was perceived as being different from McCain in ways that were important to the party faithful.
That phrase--ways that were important to the party faithful--covers all manner of sins, doesn't it?
I don't put much past the Clintons, but I don't want to imagine they're capable of what the Bush campaign did to McCain in South Carolina.
This technique of talking to yourself in a comment thread is new to me - did I miss something?
"I don't put much past the Clintons, but I don't want to imagine they're capable of what the Bush campaign did to McCain in South Carolina."
The reason the Bush campaign was able to get away with SC 2000 was because a huge chunk of the GOP party faithful wanted someone to stop McCain.
If the 'inevitable' candidate's competitor is seen as unpalatable to the faithful, a party will want the 'inevitable' candidate to try to destroy them.
But Edwards and Obama don't fit that kind of McCain role of party heretic. And thus Team Clinton is going to be extremely constrained in her ability to suddenly differentiate herself from them if she falls behind in the race.
And this is how Clinton is running in the Democratic primary. Can you imagine how crappy this is going to get when Clinton is trying to appeal to some squishy centrists?
I won't vote for her in the primary or the general, that's for sure...
"This technique of talking to yourself in a comment thread is new to me - did I miss something?"
You've missed the sublime beauty of the phrase, "and to further note..."
Nova,
Unless Al or some other troll shows up, the comments section on this blog pretty much serves as Petey's personal blog unless the post in question A) concerns basketball - in those threads we have a cast of a dozen or so (even Al contributes!); or B) says something regarding Mideast politics which caused Peretz or one of his minions to send the howler monkeys this way...
"the comments section on this blog pretty much serves as Petey's personal blog"
Note to self, remember to pick up pears at the market.
Petey, who should I take with the 12th pick in my upcoming fantasy hoops draft?
And of course, as I've harped on before, this is precisely why the Dems actually COULD lose the 2008 elections - if - scratch that, when - Bush attacks Iran.
If you can't tell the difference between Bush and Hillary on Iraq OR Iran, why vote for a Democrat?
I mean, at least Bush isn't running this time, so the choice is between two "new comers". That will help the Democrat.
But if the Dem candidate sounds exactly like the Republican on the issue of the day - which the Iraq and Iran wars ARE - then how do you choose?
I wouldn't expect the LOCAL Dems to lose their elections against their Repug opponents. But I could easily see a male Republican chest-beating over Iran beating out a female Democrat TRYING to chest-beat over Iran on the national level.
Especially if the US media is trumpeting the war like they did before Iraq - and as they are doing now even before the Iran war starts.
Let's face it, a LOT of voters in the US are going to have problems with Clinton - her past, the mere fact that she's female, whatever. If she can't deal with Iran except by supporting the war, where is the "beef" - as it were?
The Dems are killing themselves with this. Josh Bolton said it last year, "The Dems will lose over Iran."
"Petey, who should I take with the 12th pick in my upcoming fantasy hoops draft?"
Awvee Storey.
Some facts:
- Hillary Clinton will win the Dem nomination.
- The vast majority of regualr MY readers (upwards of 90%) will vote for her in the general, albeit some more enthusiastically than others.
- She will win.
- And she will be much better than the Republican would have been.
Is there a disconnect between many of the commenters here whose grasp of politics is good on theory and the voters who will go to the polls? I have the impression that the Clinton people are getting at voters and may well gain traction there. They are not pandering to the thinkers, are they? Among the intelligensia there is a great deal of handwringing about Hillary, both hope and despair about Obama's inability (thus far) to move the debate his way, and some resignation about Edwards' inability to increase his numbers.Why is it that those who fill this section don't seem to be able to pick a winner? Saw some of it before Dean flamed out.
Unless Al or some other troll shows up, the comments section on this blog pretty much serves as Petey's personal blog unless...
Hmmm, how to interpret this?
I know - Pooh is saying that my comments in a thread serves to broaden the scope of commenters who will participate in said thread. Right, Pooh?
Al, the slimy slug is always there being a slimy disgusting slug. Spit and move on. Hi, Al Slimy Slug.
Hmmm, how to interpret this?
I know - Pooh is saying that my comments in a thread serves to broaden the scope of commenters who will participate in said thread. Right, Pooh?
My entire comment was tongue in cheek. But I stand by my opinion that in non basketball threads we get nothing from you we couldn't have ascertained by perusing the latest GOP release on a given topic.
Comments closed October 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Idon't know why you are sad or angry. Clinton, like O'Hanlon, and Pollack and Mark Penn, and her other advisers seems to want a wider war. I understand she has said things contrary to this. She has also supported Lieberman's amendment providing political support for bombing Iran and has refused to concede authorizing the war in 2002 was a mistake. The Democratic Party has a rot of corruption and sympathy with Bush policies that stinks to hell; Clinton, who refuses to talk plainly aboutessential issues, seems to be at the epicenter.
Posted by della Rovere | October 17, 2007 7:01 PM