Will Someone With Power Please Make It Stop?

I Share Your Frustration (4.00 / 1)

Remember, Dean, that we're the party that nominates soulless robots like John Kerry and Mike Dukakis.  We select candidates without regard to their ability to communicate or connect with voters on human terms.  And that is why we lose presidential elections, even when the majority of the country agrees with us.

Democrats operate under the false impression that we need to pick "the best President."  We parse the details of health care plans to which swing voters in Ohio and Florida pay no attention -- they're casting their ballots based for the guy with whom they'd like to share a plate of ribs, a "likability" impression formed from 30 second spots on Must See TV.

But we do it anyway.  We engage in masturbatory exercises to select the "best" Democrat, the one with whom we personally identify -- not the one with the ability to secure moderate Republican and Independent votes in November.  

It doesn't matter whether you agree with one Democrat 93% of the time and the other 95% of the time, especially when you're going up against a Republican whose views you share 5% of the time.  It's easy to be holier-than-thou about this and ignore the reality: Obama and Clinton would both make infinitely better Presidents than John McCain, so we need to select the candidate most likely to be victorious.  Period.  Case closed.  We're not picking a President.  We're marketing the product that offers us the best chance of success.

Hillary Clinton does not do that.  Poll after poll shows her fairing worse against McCain, and reflects a consistent total of ~45%-50% of general election voters in unshakeable opposition to her candidacy.  Memo to Hillary:  When Rush Limbaugh is shilling for you, it's time to get out.

Sen. Clinton pulls a traditional Democratic base and little more. And even that won't be there if she is able to secure the nomination with a minority of elected delegates.  African-American turnout will suffer, as will that of the new youth wind under our sails.  This could precipitate a collapse, one that will bring many good Members of Congress down with her.

I, too, like Hillary Clinton as a leader and a progressive.  I have defended her many times on Blue Hampshire.  But, in this election year, she is an albatross around the neck of our party.  She is an impediment to change.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 20:17:19 PM CST

If you lie down with dogs, (0.00 / 0)

you get fleas. Or worse.

After reading an article in the WaPo about Mark Penn and the conflict that surrounds him in the Clinton campaign, I looked up the firm he heads, Burson-Marsteller, an international public relations firm. I found an article written in the 90s by Carmelo Ruiz, a journalist and fellow at the Institute for Social Ecology over in Vermont.

Burson-Marsteller (B-M) is the world's largest PR firm, with 63 offices in 32 countries and almost $200 million in income in 1994. Although its name is unknown to most people-- even to many in activist circles-- B-M is fast becoming an increasingly important cog in the propaganda machine of the new world order.

Human Rights, Anyone?

On the human rights front, B-M has represented some of the worst violators of our age. These include:

   * The Nigerian government during the Biafran war, to discredit reports of genocide.

   * The fascist junta that ruled Argentina during the 70's and early 80's, to attract foreign investment.

   * The totalitarian regime of South Korea, to whitewash the human rights situation there during the 1988 Olympics.

   * The Indonesian government, which got into power through a CIA- sponsored bloodbath. (It should be pointed out, however, that B-M denies that it is handling the issue of genocide in East Timor)

   * Ideological barriers are no object. B-M also represented the late communist Romanian despot Nicolae Ceaucescu.

   * Other third world human rights violators that have been represented by B-M include the governments of Singapore and Sri Lanka.

Doesn't this bother the consciences of B-M's executives? Not at all. Commenting on his firm's work for Argentina's fascists, B-M founder Harold Burson said that "We regard ourselves as working in the business sector for clearcut business and economic objectives. So we had nothing to do with a lot of the things that one reads in the paper about Argentina as regards human rights and other activities".

More recent clients include Monsanto, creater and marketer of the hormones in our milk and dairy, Hydro-Quebec, the company that destroyed Native American lands, Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster, and in 2001, the government of Saudi Arabia, to assist with the "image damage" emanating from the fact that all 19 9/11 attackers hailed from that country. (Where, by the way, women are not allowed to drive, are stoned to death for "adultery", etc.)

The Mexican government hired B-M to sell NAFTA, which it successfully did.

More recently B-M represented Blackwater.

Does anybody else have a problem with this? How can anyone put the level of sleaze and dirty tricks the same for Hillary's campaign and Obama's? Hillary is in another league all together.
From the WaPo article:

But there is a Penn camp, however small, that believes in his message of strength, experience, and fear of recession and crisis -- and its most important members are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Three times, campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and senior adviser Harold Ickes tried to hire another national pollster so Penn would not be the one to test his own message, campaign sources said, and three times they were rejected.

The SUSA poll confirmed what I already thought. If Hillary is the nominee, McCain will win NH and it will have an effect down ticket. Hillary will stop at nothing to gain the nomination, even if it means destroying the Democratic party for a generation. She is even triangulating with John McCain against Obama.

She is "winning" primaries by resorting to PR, smear and fear. She associates with CEOs of amoral companies, and if she wins, she'll owe them, big time. Is this what we want?

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:24:18 AM CST

The connection with Blackwater, of which I was unaware before reading your post, really disturbs me. (0.00 / 0)

As I recently wrote, I find that the Blackwater story, which I've never seen or heard brought full circle outside my diary on the subject, represents the culmination most things that are wrong with the Bush era, and personally, if I were an adviser to our Presidential nominee, I would strongly encourage that this be a major pillar of his/her stump speech in the general election against McCain.  Hell, every Democratic candidate for federal office, every Democratic activist in the nation should be shouting this from the rooftops.

I guess my point is: go read this.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Enter Gore? (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure if anyone really has the clout to force Obama and Clinton to "make nice" at this point.  

What Gore - and probably Gore alone - CAN do is function as a surrogate for the eventual nominee and starting "running" a race against McCain.  He's probably the only unaligned figure who can re-focus the media's attention a little and help the Democrats keep their eye on the ball.  

---

by: johnkfrisbee @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM CST

Washington Post article (0.00 / 0)

I read the same Washington Post article and had a different take on it. The Clinton campaign seems genuinely conflictual.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

It's a fascinating piece, I highly recommend it.

But I will add, it's worth recalling comments like these the next time someone says Obama is "running to her right" because his healthcare plan doesn't include a mandate.

 

---

by: JimC @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM CST

Thank you for posting the link. (0.00 / 0)

WaPo online wouldn't let me do it. I'm agreeing with you that the campaign is conflicted. I'm uncomfortable with that. I'm also uncomfortable with Mark Penn, his company, and its clients. Will these types of clients have access in a Clinton White House? This question needs to be asked. Also, I am uncomfortable with issues surrounding the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. It was bad enough having Bush pere and fils, but at least the elder didn't move back into the White House!

Also, Hillary  may have won Ohio on a lie. It was her campaign that gave the wink and the nod about NAFTA in Canada, and that was not reported until after the primary election. Judging by Penn's company's past work on behalf of NAFTA in the 90s, one has to wonder.

And it turns out Hillary didn't win Texas at all. A caller to The Diane Rehm Show from San Antonio reported many Republicans crossing over to Dem to vote for Hillary per instructions from Rush Limbaugh.In San Antonio, the primary vote was 50-50. Five hundred people showed up to caucus, with Obama winning that vote two to one. Interesting.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:46:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I said "conflictual" (0.00 / 0)

One of Clinton's favorite books is "Team of Rivals," Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet, and she assembled her own team of advisers knowing their mutual enmity in the belief that good ideas come from vigorous discussion. But while many campaigns are beset by backbiting and power struggles, dozens of interviews indicate that the internal problems endured by the Clinton team have been especially corrosive.

Though I considered "conflicted." The campaign seems at war between its better instincts and its not-so-good instincts.

Which makes sense, because the Kathy Sullivans and Jim Splaines of the world see those better instincts, and respond to them.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:17:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction (0.00 / 0)

First--conflicted and conflictual. I think both words are apt.

Above, I said the Hillary Clinton campaign's lie about NAFTA may have won her the Ohio primary.

According to Mark Penn, it did.

The chief campaign strategist for Obama's Democratic rival, Clinton, has acknowledged that the memo was a big factor in Clinton's victory in the Ohio primary.

"It had a significant impact," Mark Penn said during a conference call with reporters early Thursday. "I think it is going to be a serious issue moving forward in this campaign. It raised serious questions about Obama."

What about the questions it raises about Clinton? Oh that anti- Hillary MSM...

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:06:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Another point of view (0.00 / 0)

The thought of two well funded and thoughtful campaigns competing hard in general election swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania makes me smile. They are building lists, identifying precinct captains, talking about Democratic issues, holding events, inspiring first time donors, airing commercials, waking up political reporters, locating good sign locations...etc.

When we win in November, this will be why. And if Democrats win GOP leaning congressional districts in 2010 and 2012, this years primary will be why.

Although the policy differences between our two candidates is at times distinct for committed and active Democrats,all the November swing voter in PA is hearing today is Democrats talking about ending the war, strengthening our economy, providing universal health care etc..They are hearing McCain talk about how he doesn't understand economics and wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. If they are hearing him at all.

There is certainly a very bright side to this continued contest.  

NH Democratic Party Staff

---

by: Pia Carusone @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:47:40 PM CST

I'd love to be able to agree with you, but (0.00 / 0)

Gary Hart had this to say in the Huffington Post:

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.

Political Science Professor David Michael Green is even more pessimistic than I am. Or optimistic as he's hoping a third party will come from this discord.

He writes:

Only Democrats could lose the White House in 2008. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm favoring their decisive, landslide victory. This should be 1932 redux, and then some. There's a reviled incumbent from the opposite party, already past his expiration date four years ago when he stole a second election. There's a new nominee from that same party joined to him at the hip on the most important issues, and stupid enough to be seen as such publicly. There's the economy heading into a recession after years of lethargy for the middle class. An extremely unpopular war based on lies. A massive national debt. A housing crisis. An environmental crisis. Gas at well over three bucks a gallon. Oil over $100 a barrel. The dollar at record lows and plummeting. Pension stocks falling and cities falling apart - when they're not literally drowning. Scandals everywhere in the Republican Party. Three-fourths of the country believing America to be on the wrong track. And more. Put it all together and it's an amazing scenario! It's like some poli-sci professor somewhere was tinkering around with a real-life statistical model, setting all the variables at max to see how big a blow-out is theoretically possible. "Hey, I wonder what happens if...?"

Hillary would be the Democrats' worst hope.

She would go into the general election with all sorts of pre-existing baggage and negatives. She would get smashed to pieces by McCain on the very voter selection criteria she herself has articulated for use against Obama: experience and national security. McCain could virtually take her 3:00 a.m. ad, pull her out and drop himself in, and use it against her. And he will. Her candidacy is already ugly to contemplate, and she hasn't even released her tax filings yet.

He goes on to paint a very negative scenario of Clinton getting the nomination through some kind of means other than outright winning it...

Anyway, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have turned me off.  I wanted to like her enough to imagine  my"enthusiastic support for the sake of the party", but you know, I don't see her enthusiastic support for the Democratic Party. It only seems to be for herself.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:31:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Supers (0.00 / 0)

I had hopes that Obama would continue to roll out the super delegates that have recently committed to him. There were two yesterday but none today.

It would lessen the pain of the daily Hillary barrage if we could see her advantage in super delegates dwindle daily.

Anyone heard anything about this except for the Brokaw comment that there were 50 supers waiting in the wings? The Obama camp disputed that.

---

by: cjfb @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 20:27:00 PM CST