The Winds of Change
By Richard H Collins Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Bill Clinton | Democratic Primary | Hillary Clinton — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The great irony of the Democratic primary is that Hillary seems to have won the battle but lost the war. Voters believe she has the best experience to become president but she still can’t get a majority to vote for her. People may respect her accomplishments, or have fond memories of her husband, but that doesn’t mean they like her. Lacking a clear message or rationale for her campaign, and the charm and personality to connect with voters, Hillary now seems intent on winning by going ugly.
Thanks largely to the inexperience of her chief rivals, Hillary has amazingly sold voters on the idea that eight ineffective and scandal plagued years in the White House and seven bland pork barrel years in the Senate make her the most qualified candidate.
Her veteran and dedicated campaign staff, and her ability to raise outrageous amounts of money, led most in the media to anoint her the frontrunner. And she rode her husband’s popularity and her celebrity status to large national leads.
The media, however, failed to consider a few crucial issues: voter’s dissatisfaction with the status quo and Hillary’s utter lack of a compelling message or winning personality.
Read On.
Hillary’s strongest message has always been that she is the only one tough and tested enough to make it through both the primaries and the general election. Her “experience” argument really meant that she has been battling the “right-wing attack machine” for years and so would know how to fight back. She hoped to combine a liberal platform, strident promises to end the war she voted for, and a reputation as a fierce competitor to win over a liberal base leery of her perceived centrism and opportunism.
The problem, however, isn’t that voters don’t believe Hillary has enough experience; it is that she fails to inspire or excite them. Hillary spent months convincing people that she knew her way around Washington and only to find they were fed up with Washington.
This is where her experience has undermined her campaign. Over the years, Hillary’s private, almost secretive, nature and introverted personality has been magnified by the perceived slights and scars of her many battles. Her highly competitive nature has led to an instinctive reaction to fight hard and do whatever it takes to win.
But there is a reason campaign managers and staff doesn’t run for office. You need an inspirational leader as candidate; someone to put meaning into the campaign. It is this meaning that Hillary lacks. She has no central reason for running or a clearly communicable theme to her campaign. Her campaign is nothing more than personal ambition writ large.
When you combine this with her off-putting personality, and related reputation as an overly ambitious and calculating politician, the result is an inability to win the hearts of primary voters. For the last six weeks, Hillary has flailed about trying to find a tactic that could make up for this underlying deficiency.
Her first reaction was to try and play the victim as she did in parlaying Monica into a Senate seat. This was mostly ineffective as no one really believed that the clear national front runner was being attacked for her gender.
Her next reaction was to go negative but she bumbled this by focusing on issues that highlighted her own weaknesses. Was Hillary going to win a debate about who was overly ambitious in plotting to become president?
She recently moved from silly to ugly, however, when her New Hampshire co-chair Bill Shaheen raised the issue of Obama’s past drug use by claiming that Republican’s would use it against him. Hillary was quick to deny knowledge or involvement - and went so far as to offer a personal apology - and soon dumped Shaheen. But it is hard to believe someone as controlling and knowledgeable as Hillary, and someone as experienced as Shaheen, acted without any communication.
Hillary quickly returned to asking for sympathy, running ads with her daughter and mother in a desperate attempt to soften her image with female voters turned off by her negative attacks. This week the attempts at image softening continue with ads, web pages, and staged events.
Voters, however, seem to be realizing that Hillary offers little more than empty promises and the ugly politics of the past. Despite her claims of strength, when pushed she turns negative, ugly, and increasingly brittle. Despite her claims of experience, she has traded on the political success of her husband to attain what power she has and lacks a signature accomplishment of any kind.
There was a time when, despite all their faults and baggage, it was foolish to bet against the Clintons.
Recent events offer hope that this time is coming to an end.
Richard H. Collins is the founder of StopHerNow.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Hillary Clinton’s liberal record.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | MS-SEN: Rs Ahead In Likely Matchups — Comments (4) »
The Winds of Change 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
She reached her pinnacle a while back. She may end up being third in Iowa.
Hillary has to win one of the three early primaries and it all hinges on Iowa. Obama can slingshot into New Hampshire and South Carolina and if he does that he can knock her off the perch and then use his large fundraising war chest to compete in the big states.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I'd prefer to see the meltdown after she secures the Demo nomination.
For the Dem field. While the Republicans have several candidates with executive experience - Guiliani, Huckabee, Romney, the top three Dems in the race have little in comparison. Hillary actually has more experience than Edwards or Obama. That, of course, is not saying much.
In a weak field, Hillary is struggling, which doesn't bode well for her ambition to be president.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
After 8 years of relentless pounding on his son, I think it is shameful for Bill Clinton to suggest as he did in a speech yesterday that GHWB will be an emmissary for a Hillary administration,
One complaint I have always had about the Bushes as leaders of my party is that they are just too damned decent for the rough and tumble. Both of them have just kind of stood there and took it when the other side attacks, attacks, attacks.
Well, enough is enough. I think Clinton(Bill) is losing it. I mean literally losing it. I hope this over the top invoking of President Bush 1 gets everyone to see it.
but that's Bill and Hillary. Hill should be careful, more questions might be raised on the foreign bribery stuff, keeping it all in the family but with a lot more cause. What did she know and when did she as co-president know it. Is that what counts as experience?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Former senator and Clinton sycophant Bob Kerrey's wink and a nod toward relgious and racial bigotry in statements he made to "praise" Obama were the nastiest moments of this election cycle. Kerrey went so far as to mention Obama attended a "secular madrassa," although no such thing exists and the Arabic word wouldn't even be used to describe a school in Indonesia. Kerrey, for the second day in a row, pointed out Obama's race and his family's Muslim heritage repeatedly, and the point wasn't to help the senator.
I can envision no circumstances under which I would vote for Obama but they are related solely to his policies; he is a decent person. As you pointed out, Sen. Clinton is a failure even on the second point.
Even if it means the weakest Democrat won't get the nomination, it will be the end of a long national nightmare when the Clintons exit the stage.
Didn't Bob Kerry at one time describe both Clintons as "liars"?
Now he's supporting her for president? I guess his standards in leaders aren't too high.
I was over on the Kos site yesterday and to their credit they were rightly calling out the Clinton campaign for Kerry's remarks. I think the lefties have tired of the Clintn's, as well.
All they have left is the Dem party hacks.
To paraphrase, Kerrey notably said that while Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily good liar while Gore was a particularly bad one. And this same man is now race-baiting for Hillary. It makes absolutely no sense.
Why do liberal politicians, especially the Clintons, continually babble about change when all they offer is more of the same?
Bill the Assaulter recently called the Mrs the greatest "change agent". Is she running for cashier in a casino? Usually short on definitions it plays well only with the low IQ crowd but there is the dismal possibility that the Clintons are erratic enough to believe such tripe.
The sympathy thing mentioned above is sadly a factor. The NY Times has done a front page piece on the "scars" [do you believe it] that Hillary bears, needless to say, bravely and nobly. A similar piece on Biden, which Democrat next?
This is democracy at it's most debauched, a slobbering appeal to people who think with their lower glands and enough to make one yearn for disenfranchisement.
If Hillary continues with her slime attacks followed up with the unauthorized statement and resignation routine, her staff may be reduced to microscopic levels by convention time.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 12/18/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Is drudge just chasing a false lead? I'm still pushing for a battle...well, really, an annihilation...against Hillary in the general, and if this knocks Edwards down a bit now, then Hillary will be in better shape.
an unshakeable fact in the 2008 race.
And Hillary just doesn't have the political skills Bill has to pull off triangulation successfully, and I doubt it works with war issues anyway.
But you have to admit, it has certainly taken a very sharp turn from the cocky tone of "inevitablility". I have no clue how this will turn out; I tend to try and read thru all the noise and ascertain whether the electorate is truly gullible enough to give Mrs. Clinton the nod. As I said, this is a long way from being over, and she will not ride into the sunset without a fight. Having said that, there's a couple of things that I note with interest. I'm still stunned that anyone believes this woman has the leadership experience to lead this country. From what, may I ask, has this evolved from? Her time as a low level bureaucrat? First lady of Arkansas? First lady of the US? Rose Law Firm? Reforming education in Arkansas or healthcare in America? The answer is she has no leadership experience; it's an absolute fallacy. Name anything of substance she accomplished in 35 years that brought change to her constituency - Arkansas, the US, or in NY. Whatever happens will happen. But should she succeed, it will be the most startling example of the dumbing down of America that we would elect such an unqualified and undeserving person to lead us, simply because we're mesmerized by the perceived attributes of her husband and think they automatically transcend to her. Mrs. Clinton is counting on the gullibility of the American people, as well as the thread thin split of red/blue America, to give her the Presidency. However bleak those prospects may look today, it is still a very strong possibility as an outcome. And one more thing, if you haven't noticed. Make no mistake about this, both Mr. & Mrs. Clinton firmly believe they are owed this opportunity, regardless of it's merits. That's would be the worst reason to give them the opportunity.