My Advice - Six Weeks Late - to Hillary Clinton

[Problem Child]

Personally I agree, but she's losing and she needs something to hang her hat on.

Her latest tirade/finger-wagging at Obama is a sign of her desperation. I think that one is going to backfire big time.

Obama tends to always keep his cool, while Hillary alternates between gushing over him and talking like she wants to rip his throat out. Not a good strategy.

 

[firespin]

Personally I agree, but she's losing and she needs something to hang her hat on.

Her latest tirade/finger-wagging at Obama is a sign of her desperation. I think that one is going to backfire big time.

She has no political street cred and will not do well trying to come from behind, the way Bill so famously did.

She's more of a figurehead / policy wonk for mainstream dems vs. an inspiring leader the way her hubby was and Obama is. An airline pilot more than the leading lady. A bunch of people were on her plane when it looked like it would get there first, not because they wanted her in particular. When Obama flight 2008 showed it had the wind at its back, they went for the more charismatic leader.

 

[zipman]

Obama tends to always keep his cool, while Hillary alternates between gushing over him and talking like she wants to rip his throat out. Not a good strategy.

Agreed, she comes across as Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Clinton. What it does is minimize any positive impact she may have gotten from her more "human" moments on the campaign trail by making them seem contrived.

 

[zipman]

She has no political street cred and will not do well trying to come from behind, the way Bill so famously did.

She's more of a figurehead / policy wonk for mainstream dems vs. an inspiring leader the way her hubby was and Obama is. An airline pilot more than the leading lady. A bunch of people were on her plane when it looked like it would get there first, not because they wanted her in particular. When Obama flight 2008 showed it had the wind at its back, they went for the more charismatic leader.

She has some from being a Senator from NY. She did do some good things during that time. However, in trying to create (or should I say fabricate) a greater distinction between her and Obama, she damages it.

 

[firespin]

She has some from being a Senator from NY. She did do some good things during that time. However, in trying to create (or should I say fabricate) a greater distinction between her and Obama, she damages it.

She needs a better to the question "why should I vote for you?" So far, she's been able to coast by answering, in effect, "because then I'll be in office". That was good enough to win a New York senate seat against little real competition, but as things get tougher here, she's highlighting quibbles about when she started being against her husband's signature trade deals, and whether it was OK for Obama to get uncredited speechwriting help from one of his campaign co-chairs. Those don't seem like winning strategies.

 

[Wrong Element]

Shen she said she had 35 years of experience driving change, she was referring to everything she has done since she graduated from law school.

I think she does count Bill's administration and truthfully, she probably was exposed to the workings of the white house (with regard to policy making and diplomacy) which could count as "experience" of some kind, although I think she is totally overemphasizing the role she played.

I think that's true, but it's implicit because if she explicitly says she was an equal partner in her husband's administration, it invites people to assume he will be an equal partner in hers. Even a lot of people who basically liked the Clinton presidency would balk at that.

I actually don't care for the 22nd Amendment, but as long as it's on the books, I don't believe in getting around it through the back door.

 

[zipman]

I think that's true, but it's implicit because if she explicitly says she was an equal partner in her husband's administration, it invites people to assume he will be an equal partner in hers. Even a lot of people who basically liked the Clinton presidency would balk at that.

I actually don't care for the 22nd Amendment, but as long as it's on the books, I don't believe in getting around it through the back door.

My point was more that since she has said that since she wants to take credit for his administration, that must include both the good and the bad. The one thing that we know she was directly responsible for during that period was the failed healthcare initiative which I don't think she has acknowledged as a personal failure since she started saying how she has been driving change for 35 years.

Your point is equally valid. I don't think people necessarily like the whole "dynasty" thing except for diehard Billary enthusiasts.

 

[Wrong Element]

My point was more that since she has said that since she wants to take credit for his administration, that must include both the good and the bad. The one thing that we know she was directly responsible for during that period was the failed healthcare initiative which I don't think she has acknowledged as a personal failure since she started saying how she has been driving change for 35 years.

Your point is equally valid. I don't think people necessarily like the whole "dynasty" thing except for diehard Billary enthusiasts.

I guess she could make an argument about already understanding the general experience of life in the White House, and the responsibility of occasionally representing the U.S. officially on international visits. These are things you can't really prepare for. I don't think it's the same as the responsibility of being President, though.

I think she made some mistakes on health care, but it's also true that once Clinton had become politically weakened, things were out of Hillary's hands because the Republicans didn't want to deal at all, to the point where Bob Dole wound up voting against compromises that he had originally co-sponsored.

 

[zipman]

I guess she could make an argument about already understanding the general experience of life in the White House, and the responsibility of occasionally representing the U.S. officially on international visits. These are things you can't really prepare for. I don't think it's the same as the responsibility of being President, though.

I think she made some mistakes on health care, but it's also true that once Clinton had become politically weakened, things were out of Hillary's hands because the Republicans didn't want to deal at all, to the point where Bob Dole wound up voting against compromises that he had originally co-sponsored.

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

In the second one, I think she deserves a bit more blame than you are giving her. Healthcare took a big hit because of the process she used to come up with it. That was even raised in the debates and she totally dodged answering that charge which was basically that she didn't go about it in an inclusive manner.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Some thoughts:
I think Richardson was the democratic candidate of experience, and yet he did poorly around the country.

I was originally for Richardson, he had the experience and the know-how.

but Dear God, did you ever hear the man speak?

He's by far the worst public speaker I've ever seen, and I've seen more than a few. I'm amazed that he ever got elected anywhere with his lack of speaking skills. I was cringing every time he tried to answer a question.

 

[Lasher]

In the second one, I think she deserves a bit more blame than you are giving her. Healthcare took a big hit because of the process she used to come up with it. That was even raised in the debates and she totally dodged answering that charge which was basically that she didn't go about it in an inclusive manner.

Ya know, when you start reading about how poorly her presidential and senate campaigns have been run, you really have to wonder.

Frank Rich has a great column in todays NYTimes comparing her presidential campaign to Dubbaya's Iraqi campaign.

 

[Azwed]

This thread is way to cordial for a political themed thread and that disturbs me.

 

[Lasher]

This thread is way to cordial for a political themed thread and that disturbs me.

The "Libertarians" are in mourning.

 

[zipman]

I was originally for Richardson, he had the experience and the know-how.

but Dear God, did you ever hear the man speak?

He's by far the worst public speaker I've ever seen, and I've seen more than a few. I'm amazed that he ever got elected anywhere with his lack of speaking skills. I was cringing every time he tried to answer a question.

Agreed. His speaking skills were extremely poor which killed his ability to get his message out there. Still worthy of being considered for a vice-presidential nominee though. It would diminish the experience question in a general election and he wouldn't have to "say" much.

 

[Wrong Element]

Agreed. His speaking skills were extremely poor which killed his ability to get his message out there. Still worthy of being considered for a vice-presidential nominee though. It would diminish the experience question in a general election and he wouldn't have to "say" much.

Problems with Richardson as a VP nominee:

1) the New Mexico caucuses were a clusterfuck, and he's getting blamed rightly or wrongly.

2) the first rule of a VP nominee is to do no harm, and it's questionable if he could go 3 months without saying something dumb.

He's perfectly qualified, but compared with recent presidential candidates-turned-VP nominees like Bush I, Edwards, and even Gore (1988), the voters just didn't respond to him. I think about Jack Kemp as Dole's VP nominee in 1996. He had a great resume too, but when he ran for president in 1988 he got swamped.

 

[Ishmael]

I know they are. The mind part with Obama is that I want to fucking win this election and I think he'll wipe the floor with McCain - double digit victory. Obama is poised with the rhetoric he has used so far in the primaries to easily bat down all of McCain's criticisms. It's going to be so easy. Don't be surprised if we aren't reminded nonstop about the Keating scandal in the national debates, this NYTimes story is bigger for what it reminds us about the hypocrisy of McCain's lobbyist and special interest stance than it is about any ridiculous alleged affair.

When was the last time McCain inspired anyone - the 80s? Early 90s?

Clinton - I think it's a woman thing, which sounds terrible, I know. I hear the criticisms and realize they are criticisms that I have heard my whole life, whether it be from my bosses, my peers, opposing counsel in the court room, people who have critiqued me in public speaking etc. Women have to walk a fine line between being emotional vs. too aggressive; too soft vs. too calculating; too motherly vs. too robotic.

Hillary Clinton is cast as the young girl in the class room who always raises her hand higher and says "me! me! I know the answer."

I guess there's an understanding there that is difficult to convey and people will just dismiss it as me voting for her because she is a woman. I think I understand her flaws better and can justify them. And I just have a thing for the policy wonk!

Disagree Lavy.

Right now I'd have to agree that Obama will win the election, but I think you'll see the election a lot closer than you're calling it. He certainly has the charisma and the rhetoric. But he's on the wrong side of some issues that spread deeply into the democrat party base, like illegal immigration. His plans to raise taxes is going to raise some eyebrows as well, particularly his statement re. the payroll taxes.

McCain has some problems too, especially in his own party. He's just not going over well with the conservatives. I suspect, in the end, many will hold their nose and vote for McCain anyway.

This is a case where Obamas never having done anything as a legislator works in his favor. He has no iron tail to drag around. No controversial votes or initiatives to defend. McCain is certainly at a deficit here. (This fact was a prime factor in JFK's decision to run in 1960.)

Should be an interesting campaign though.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Problems with Richardson as a VP nominee:

1) the New Mexico caucuses were a clusterfuck, and he's getting blamed rightly or wrongly.

2) the first rule of a VP nominee is to do no harm, and it's questionable if he could go 3 months without saying something dumb.

He's perfectly qualified, but compared with recent presidential candidates-turned-VP nominees like Bush I, Edwards, and even Gore (1988), the voters just didn't respond to him. I think about Jack Kemp as Dole's VP nominee in 1996. He had a great resume too, but when he ran for president in 1988 he got swamped.

I doubt he would (or should for that matter) get the VP nod.

I also didn't think he said that many stupid things as much as I think he didn't make himself seem articulate and smart.

 

[albertaboy]

Hillary can't connect to human beings because she isn't one. She's a power hungry freak of personal ambition.

The only thing that she has ever been totally responsible for was the Bill Clinton administration complete failure to implement a national unversal health care strategy. She even pissed off her fellow democrats who were running the house and senate at the time.

She can't win a national election because more people hate her than love her, with Hillary all opinion's are either or, there is nobody in between.

 

[JazzManJim]

To JazzManJim, Obama and Clinton are stunningly similar in policy. Personally I prefer Obama on trade and Healthcare as I find his stance more workable with Congress than Clintons. The similarity of their policy is part of the reason why so much energy has been focused on personality and looking presidential.

I don't think they're terribly similar, except at the very core, in most of their policies. I believe that the majority of Americans think they are because the Democrats have largely not debated policy, nor have they been forced to do so. That seems to me an essential difference between the parties this election.