I Really Don't Get The Clinton Campaign
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Politics Of Personal Destruction — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Once a well-oiled machine that seemed to be able to do no wrong, it now demonstrates that it has a remarkable and bizarre instinct for the capillaries. I mean, honestly; who cares if Obama voted "Present" a bunch of times as an Illinois state legislator. Does the Clinton campaign really want to get into that? Because I can promise you that there have been more than a few occasions where Senator Clinton herself has voted "Present" on legislation. Does she really think that voters are going to base their choices on who took cover at what time under the umbrella of Robert's Rules of Order or other authorities concerning parliamentary procedure?
Just watch: After the Obama campaign responds to this, we will have a "Whatever happened to the 'politics of hope'?" emission from the Clinton machine. Because, of course, when Barack Obama started using the word "hope" in campaigns, what he really meant was "I'm going to drop my fists to my sides and let my political opponents use me as a punching bag. God knows, it's the only honorable thing to do."
By the way, for those of you too young to remember, this is indirect evidence demonstrating just how terrible George Herbert Walker Bush's re-election campaign was in 1992. Weren't the Clintons supposed to get better at campaigning as time went by?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Huck Supporter Says Rush Is A Mind Numbed Automaton — Comments (73) »
I Really Don't Get The Clinton Campaign 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I mean, honestly; who cares if Obama voted "Present" a bunch of times as an Illinois state legislator.
The Romney campaign will certainly try and get people to care in June, if Obama is the nominee...
Non-votes are a big ho-hum to voters.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
George HW Bush had already crippled his re-election campaign by shattering his 'Read my lips, no new taxes' promise. The Clintons in 1992 were running against a campaign that had already shattered both feet with self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
The media seems to have turned on her a little bit. I also, think that with the former Presidents' "help" she is having a hard time following what her staff is doing and what her husband is saying.
The media finding out who is sending out made up information about the other candidates, just shows that she is not in control of the media as she and her husband once was.
One has to think the Clinton camp has a bunch of high school pranksters stirring up the Obama pot; are these people serious. Going back to kindergarten; bringing up drugs not once, but twice and using the GOP as there reason for concern; Kerrey playing the muslim card when, in fact, he's a Christian; now he voted present while in the Illinois legislature. Well hell, considering some of the shenanigans that go on in that state, that might very well have been a pretty smart move. Oh please; grow up.
For what its worth - and it aint worth that much...but...I've been asking many people I run into here in central Iowa and many are supporting Hillary. When I ask why they often tell me that they're voting for Bill - seriously.
Obama seems to be very popular with students but (and this may be a big but), the Iowa caucus happens while students are all at home for xmass break. I'm not sure, but I think that means fewer will actually go to their local caucus.
The other side of that coin may be the fact that younger voters are under-represented in the polling because they tend to not have land lines, but rather cell phones. So Obama may be much bigger than he appears now in the polls.
Past votes: Given that both BH Obama and Hillary voted against the war funding bill earlier this year (that ended up passing), they each technically voted against the increase in the federal minimum wage, which was also in the bill, and became law with that bill. Interesting, don't you think?
Present vote: My small Illinois college alma mater has had these commencement speakers over the last three years: Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama, and William Jefferson Clinton. My money is now going to Fred's campaign instead. The college alumni fundraisers know why I stopped giving, and I'm not the only one who stopped donating for this reason.
-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Saving baby whales and baby trees, but killing baby humans. Huh?
-- imwithfred --
I have faith in the ability of Hillary to stoop as low as needed for her to win. The Clinton machine does that well, so give her time and she will win the primary but with enough battle scars for us to finish the job.
The question is who can finish the job, because we really need someone like Mitt (ok, or maybe Fred) who can pull together the straying groups, like the hardline fiscal guys who are running away from the hardline social guys. The Clintons probably have enough Arkansas dirt to bury Huckabee unfortunately. I usually don't think Fred would really reach out to the different groups as much as Mitt would try to, but I think everyone would rally around Fred almost as much as Mitt.
Hillary is running a back-looking campaign. Hillary wants to return to the 90's. She wants to look at everyone's past, including Obama's Kindergarten essays. As I predicted on LFR, Hillary won't be the Democratic nominee.
The other good news is that Fred Thompson is finally getting himself noticed for his well-thought out positions on the most important issues of the day. If conservatives are smart, which I know they are, they'll vote Fred because he's the real conservative/Federalist/libertarian in this race.