The inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Senator Hillary Clinton is currently campaigning as the candidate with solutions. For her sake, the Senator should hope her math skills have not eroded because her biggest problem will be obtaining the necessary 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, and defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Barack Obama who is currently frontrunner for the presidential nomination. The path to the nomination is now a math problem.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Senator Obama’s delegate projection is 1,275. Senator Clinton’s delegate projection is 1,220. She trails the Illinois Senator by 55 delegates. The Illinois Senator needs 750 delegates to win the nomination. Obama needs to secure 57% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 805 delegates, or 61% of the outstanding delegates to win the nomination. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton surpassed the 55% margin six times, including American Samoa. Senator Obama has exceeded the 55% threshold 14 times.
Currently, Senator Clinton is mired in a prolonged slump, losing eight straight primaries/caucuses to Senator Obama. The Illinois Senator won 22 states. Clinton won 13 contests, however the Senator from New York argues most of the states Senator Obama has won are small and insignificant. Clinton chief campaign strategist Mark Penn argues, “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois.”[i] According to the Clinton campaign, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland are insignificant. Senator Clinton defeated her opponent in California and New York; therefore her victories are more valuable.
At their current pace, neither candidate will have the required 2,025 delegates needed to secure the presidential nomination, however Senator Obama will have a slim lead (1931 – 1876) over Senator Clinton, assuming the candidates split the delegates equally in the remaining contests. It is a generous calculation because the charismatic Senator from Illinois is beating the pantsuit off Senator Clinton. During his current winning streak, Senator Obama’s percentage of the vote routinely exceeded 55%. In the last 10 contests, Clinton surpassed 40% twice. It is a safe bet Senator Clinton will not win the nomination if she loses 30-35 states.
The Clinton campaign devised a new winning strategy. Just stay close to Senator Obama until the Democratic National Convention in August. President Clinton will attempt to seduce the undecided super delegates with his unique oratory skills. The super delegates will provide Senator Clinton with the margin of victory.
The concept of the super delegate is a creation of the Democratic Party establishment to correct a flaw in the nominating process. The flaw is the power of the voters to choose a satisfactory candidate who they believe is most likely to win the general election.
In 1968, the Democratic Party removed the party bosses from the process of selecting the nominee. The liberal, activist base of the Democratic Party seized control of the process. However, the party establishment became disenchanted with the nominees in 1972 and 1976. Blowout loses tend to create disenchantment. President Nixon trounced Senator McGovern. Ronald Reagan routed President Carter in 1980.
The super delegates were introduced in the 1984 campaign. Vice President Walter Mondale was the immediate beneficiary of the new process, defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Gary Hart. Super delegates are supposed to be a reliable method of preventing unelectable liberal candidates from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.
Depending on super delegates is not “Plan A.” The Clinton campaign was predicated on the notion that the nomination process would be completed by the Super Tuesday primaries. In December, Senator Clinton declared, “I have a campaign that’s poised and ready for the long term. We’re competing everywhere through February 5th… So I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll all be over by February 5th.”[ii] Senator Clinton was the odds on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. With President Bush’s disastrous presidential term coming to an appreciative end, she was practically planning what pantsuit to wear on Inauguration Day.
It was the Spanish poet, essayist, novelist, philosopher George Santayana who uttered the famous quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Senator Clinton adopted President Bush’s winning strategy in 2000, to have someone other than the voters decide the outcome of an election. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court. In 2008, it will be the “Super Delegates.”
Perhaps Ms Clinton was so obsessed with her own election to the United States Senate in 2000 that she forgot the repercussions of the Supreme Court selecting Governor Bush as president. Senator Clinton is risking the legitimacy of her candidacy by having the Democratic Party elite select the next presidential nominee. She is in danger of alienating new voters, African Americans, independents, moderate Republicans, and the liberal base of the party. The Democratic National Convention is in August. If she walks away with the nomination even though she lost the popular vote, the majority of the states, and is behind the delegate count, then will face a hostile electorate in November. Senator Clinton may not have enough time to repair the damage caused by usurping the will of the voters.
The Clinton perception of campaigns as adversarial, nasty, and brutal affects their political judgment. Their strategy is to win with 50% + 1 of the electorate. Just win with a simple majority, get elected, then govern with the same mindset. Work enough to just win, instead of trying to overwhelm the opposition. Politics is a constant struggle – a jihad to use another term. The Clintons approach to governing is the constant struggle between them and the opposition.
The Clinton War Room was based on the need to quickly respond to attacks from the Republican Party. Granted the Republican Party is prone to manufacturing controversies, but the War Room served another function. Bill Clinton is an accomplished politician, but a flawed human being. Allegations of womanizing were expected. The War Room served to counter the allegations of womanizing.
To the Clintons, landslide victories are anomalies. That is why Senator Clinton can blithely dismiss Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states with insignificant Electoral College votes because these states are unworthy of attention. Bigger states matter more than smaller states because the reward is greater. She would gladly concede these smaller states to the Republican Party as long as she can win the bigger states in the general election. Their primary concern is winning 270 electoral votes.
However, Senator Clinton does not understand the electorate. Voters expect more. It wants unity instead of constant struggle. Senator Obama is running a presidential campaign in all 50 states. Every vote matters to his candidacy. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can get votes anywhere. In contrast, the Clinton campaign opened offices in Texas and Ohio this past week.[iii] Their campaign methodology did not extend beyond Super Tuesday. This is a challenge the Clintons were not expecting and are not prepared to contest.
Senator Clinton’s journey to the White House has not been smooth. She lost the Iowa Caucuses, was almost reduced to tears in New Hampshire, then witnessed former President Clinton inject race into the South Carolina primary, and she lost in 22 insignificant states. Senator Obama wants to introduce a change in attitude in Washington DC. Senator Clinton is reduced to constantly changing campaign strategies.
Desperation leads to bad judgment. Senator Clinton is running an anti-hope campaign to counter Senator Obama’s positive campaign for change. Senator Clinton argues Senator Obama just sounds pretty, but does not propose solutions to our problems. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescription or do anything about the stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That’s the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions.”[iv]
Clinton campaign flack Howard Wolfson advanced a new negative tactic by labeling Obama a plagiarist in an attempt to tarnish the gifted Senator’s image. His candidacy is fundamentally premised on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises… So when he is found lifting the rhetoric from another politician, it calls into question the premise of the candidacy.”[v]
In addition, Senator Clinton argues that talk is cheap. Being married to President Clinton makes her an expert on politicians who like to talk and make promises. Remember, “I feel your pain?”
Senator Clinton ignores American history when she claims talk is cheap. President Roosevelt was not being a Pollyanna when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” President Kennedy was not being cynical when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can you do for you country.” The Reverend Martin Luther King was not being naive when he delivered the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. In his last speech as president, Eisenhower was not being an alarmist when he warned against the growing influence of the military industrial complex in the political process.
Speeches matter because it sets the tone of the debate. Ms Clinton argues she has 35 years of experience. She is ready to be president from day one. The Senator fails to understand that she is not interviewing for a job. She is campaigning for the presidency. Proclaiming, “I am ready” does not set a tone, or a mood. Leaders need to inspire.
Talk is cheap only when you are unable to enunciate an idea clearly, like Senator Clinton’s inability to create an effective campaign slogan. Even campaign flack Howard Wolfson agrees that Senator Clinton is rhetorically challenged. “Senator Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.”[vi]
Now she is the problem solver “because there’s a big difference between making speeches and offering solutions.”[vii] Offering solutions is the latest is a series of bumper sticker slogans the Clinton campaign has recited like “Big Challenges, Real Solutions,” or “Working for Change, Working for You” or “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead,” and lately “Solutions for America.”[viii]
Senator Clinton presidential campaign recently encountered financial difficulty. Maybe that is where the Clintons spent the money. Printing new bumper stickers and placards can be expensive.
Senator Clinton continues to make errors during the presidential campaign. She intends to make a valiant stand in the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. The Senator should consider a campaign rally in The Alamo for metaphorical effect.
Her strategy is flawed because she is ignoring Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. This error is not unprecedented. Mayor Giuliani thought he could start his presidential campaign in Florida after bypassing Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. This strategy did not work for America’s Mayor.
Attacking Senator Obama is another failed strategy. It started in December 2007 when the Clinton campaign attempted to argue Obama was disingenuous when he said he never planned to run for president. Through hard work, the Clinton campaign uncovered essays titled “I Want to be President” written by the precocious Barack Obama as a child in the third grade and in kindergarten.
Negative attacks make her campaign appear petty. Attacking Obama reinforces the notion that Senator Clinton is incapable of changing “politics as usual” in Washington. Recently she joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in attacking Obama. Both claim the Illinois Senator is changing his position regarding public funding during the general election. A Democratic candidate is coordinating attacks with the Republican nominee against her Democratic rival. According to Senator Clinton, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Senator Clinton needs to employ a different strategy. She should run a positive campaign, emphasizing the policy differences between Obama and herself. She needs to run competitive races in Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Ms Clinton cannot afford to concede the smaller states to Senator Obama. At best, Senator Clinton may secure 300 to 350 delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She will still need another 455 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama will win the nomination if Clinton disregards the remaining 962 delegates.
Senator Clinton overestimated her inevitability as a candidate. Inevitability has limits. She indubitably accepted the premise that the nomination was hers. The Clinton campaign took the process for granted. That was the biggest mistake, besides her inability to add.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, February 17, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[iv] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[v] Thomas DeFrank and Michael Saul, “Hillary Cries Plagiarism and Barack Sez She Has Borrowed Words From Him,” New York Daily News, February 19, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 18, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[viii] E.J. Dionne, “How Inevitable Got Outmaneuvered,” The Washington Post, February 15, 2008.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Because We Need The Eggs
Unfortunately the political evolutionary process triumphed by thinning the herd of Democratic Party presidential contenders before the primaries arrived to the great state of New York. Experienced and principled candidates such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards were forced to drop out of contention due to lack of support, but more importantly lack of campaign funds. Not only were these candidates the victim of a political form of evolution, but also by the “invisible hand” of the free market. Money, or lack thereof, talked. Free speech indeed.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Last Campaign of Mayor 9/11
America’s Mayor lackluster campaign for the Republican nomination for president ended after a disappointing third place finish in the Florida primaries. Just as famed Spanish Conquistador Juan Pone de Leon died while seeking the mystical Fountain of Youth in Florida, Rudolph Giuliani’s political campaign died a premature death in Florida in search of that elusive first victory in the 2008 Republican Presidential campaign.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
