Senator McCain’s campaign staff did not want to run a presidential campaign based on the issues. Instead, they wanted to focus on character believing a Vietnam veteran war hero would defeat a suspicious candidate like Senator Barack Obama.
The McCain campaign insinuated Senator Obama associates with domestic terrorists, supports infanticide, and is a socialist.
Character is an important issue. Senator McCain’s staff is correct. However, Mr. McCain failed the character test. Mr. Obama has demonstrated superior character, and that is why I will vote for Senator Obama on Election Day.
Issues are not important. Campaign promises do not matter. Once elected, presidents are unable or refuse to act on promises made during a presidential campaign. For example, in 1993, with a Democratic congress, President Clinton failed to enact the national single payer health care plan.
Instead of focusing on issues, I try to find the candidate’s tell. A “tell” is a subtle behavior trait that gives me a clue about an individual’s mindset.
Senator Obama set out to run a different type of presidential campaign. He wanted to rise above petty bickering and personal attacks. Mr. Obama often said, “We can disagree on issues without being disagreeable.”
Critics complained that Senator Obama was running his presidential campaign like a classroom exercise. He was not angry enough. He was not tough enough. He was mockingly called Obambi by the media.
Senator Obama refused to be baited into a negative campaign during the contested Democratic presidential primaries. He was tough when he needed to be, but he refused to engage in the same type of negative, divisive campaign tactics Senator Clinton used.
In the general election campaign, Senator Obama has not hesitated to acknowledge Senator McCain’s service as a Vietnam War veteran and contributions as a senator. Often, he has admonished members of the audience for booing the mentioning of Senator McCain.
During the presidential campaign, Senator Obama displayed restraint. Another candidate, Mayor Giuliani, would have erupted in anger at being accused of associating with domestic terrorists.
Mr. Obama did not raise his voice, or argue with Senator McCain over the issue of consorting with domestic terrorists during the third presidential debate. He calmly explained his tenuous connection with Bill Ayers. He calmly expressed his disappointment with Mr. McCain.
In the first presidential debate, Senator Obama agreed with Senator McCain on several issues. The media stated it was a mistake, but Mr. Obama demonstrated the importance of civility in a presidential campaign. Senator Obama does not believe it is a mortal sin to agree with an opponent.
In the general election campaign, Senator Obama managed to avoid several traps. When the media reported Governor Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter was pregnant, Senator Obama declared Mrs. Palin’s family issues should not be exploited for political purposes.
During the third presidential debate, Senator Obama was asked if Governor Palin was qualified to be president. Mr. Obama said it was an issue for the voters to decide, but Mr. Obama acknowledged Governor Palin’s selection excited the base of the Republican Party.
Strategically, Senator Obama has run a smart campaign. Senator Clinton wanted to secure the nomination by February. She was not prepared to campaign for the nomination after February. To defeat Senator Clinton, Mr. Obama understood he needed to run a fifty state campaign.
Senator Obama was able to transition smoothly from a primary campaign strategy into a fifty state general election strategy after he secured the nomination. Mr. Obama is campaigning in states that previous Democratic nominees ignored.
Senator Obama’s general election campaign is very disciplined. He is communicating the same message without deviation – we cannot afford four more years of Republican rule.
Senator Obama’s selection of a running mate reflects his good judgment and self-assurance. During the Democratic presidential debates, Senator Biden was asked if he thought Mr. Obama was ready to be president. With Mr. Obama by his side, Mr. Biden answered no; he was not ready to be president.
A lesser person, someone with a temper who holds a grudge, would have condemned Senator Biden to political purgatory. Mr. Obama proved he was not a petty man. He was not afraid of selecting someone who was critical of him.
Senator Obama is a gentleman. He is efficient, calm, organized, smart and disciplined.
In contrast, Senator McCain has run a terrible presidential campaign. Unstructured and undisciplined, Mr. McCain is trying to win the presidency by destroying Senator Obama’s character.
Mr. McCain had the unique opportunity of conducting a presidential campaign based on the issues. Mr. Obama would not have run the same type of campaign President Bush ran in 2000.
The Bush campaign derailed Senator McCain’s nomination with a smear campaign in South Carolina, insinuating Mr. McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock.
Mr. McCain could have engaged Mr. Obama in a spirited contest over ideas. Which political philosophy is best for governing, conservative or liberal, free market or protectionist, more regulation or less?
Mr. McCain could have conducted a clean presidential campaign. Instead, Mr. McCain decided to run a negative campaign using distortions, falsehoods, rumor and innuendo.
Instead, the McCain campaign has conducted a dishonest campaign, not just accusing Senator Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” During the campaign, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama wants to establish a state run health care plan. Not true.
Senator McCain argues Mr. Obama should not be elected president because he will raise taxes and will increase spending.
Mr. McCain said Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals with incomes below $42,000 per year. Not true.
Mr. Obama made a comment about Mr. McCain’s economic plan. He said it was like putting lipstick on a pig. Mr. McCain accused Senator Obama insulting Governor Palin by calling her a pig. Not true.
The McCain campaign accused Senator Obama of interfering with an active investigation in Alaska. Governor Palin was accused of firing a state employee for personal reasons.
In the third debate, Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of being directly involved with ACORN, an organization under investigation for submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Not true.
Senator McCain has exhibited dishonesty about energy issues. Mr. McCain argues we should be drilling for oil in the United States. The result will be reduced gas prices. Also, we will import less oil from the Middle East.
Experts disagree with Senator McCain. Drilling for oil will not reduce current gas prices. It will take 10 years for oil drilled in the United States to reach consumers.
Senator McCain argues drilling for oil will have a psychological effect on gas prices. Oil companies will reduce gas prices in the present because in the future we will import less oil from the Middle East.
Senator McCain argues he has better judgment that Senator Obama. It is difficult to discern whether someone as dishonest as Mr. McCain possesses good, sound judgment.
In fact, Senator McCain’s judgment is questionable at best. Mr. McCain is regarded as experienced in foreign affairs. During the campaign, Senator McCain, on more than one occasion, said Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending terrorists back to Iraq. Once, on camera, Senator Lieberman corrected Senator McCain.
Iran is predominantly Shia. Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi sect that believes Shia are heretics and should be put to death. It is unlikely Iran is training its enemies to fight the United States.
Senator McCain boosts he is a maverick, someone who is independent, who will speak truth to power. The United States needed a maverick in late 2002.
The Bush Administration was determined to launch a war against Iraq. With dubious evidence, President Bush argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. The United States needed someone to stop President Bush from invading Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd argued against the Iraq War resolution.
The self-proclaimed maverick agreed with the Bush Administration’s assessment. In fact, during an interview with David Lettermen, Senator McCain claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the anthrax attacks in the United States.
During a speech in mid September, Senator McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The stock market plunged later in the day.
Senator McCain attempted to extricate himself from the gaffe by redefining the term fundamentals to mean the American workforce was the most productive in the world.
Senator McCain used poor judgment in declaring a strong economy. In addition, he was being dishonest when he redefined “fundamentals of the economy.”
Senator McCain’s poor judgment is most obvious in the selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. His first choice for vice president was Senator Joe Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman was a Democrat, but is currently an independent. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff argued selecting Senator Lieberman would cause dissention within the Republican Party.
Senator McCain’s second choice was former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Mr. Ridge was rejected because of his pro-choice position on abortion. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff did not want to alienate the Conservative Christians and the Right Wing who are vehemently opposed to abortion.
I do not believe Governor Palin was Senator McCain’s choice for vice president. He only met her once, “in February at a governors’ convention in Washington… The second time was at his Sedona, Arizona ranch on August 28, just four days before the GOP convention.”[i]
Conservatives never trusted Senator McCain. Mr. McCain needed to appease the Right Wing of the Republican Party even after a successful primary campaign. The Palin selection was like an arranged marriage. He needed an anti abortion, conservative, Christian on the ticket.
Governor Palin saw an opportunity to serve as vice president. As the vice president, she would be the favorite to secure the Republican presidential nomination in the future.
In selecting Governor Palin, Mr. McCain nullified his strongest argument against Senator Obama. Mr. Obama’s political opponents argued he was inexperienced. However, Senator McCain selected a vice presidential nominee with less experience than Mr. Obama.
The McCain campaign attempted to enhance Governor Palin’s political resume by arguing Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave Mrs. Palin foreign policy experience. Also, Governor Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is an oil producing state; therefore Governor Palin is an expert on energy issues. Energy policy is also a foreign policy and national security issue because the United States imports oil from the Middle East. Governor Palin has executive experience, having served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and two years as Governor.
Senator McCain constantly displays poor judgment, and is intellectually dishonest. Governor Palin is not prepared to be president of the United States.
The difference between Senator Obama and Governor Palin is that the former has been running for president since February 2007. Voters and the media have fully vetted Mr. Obama. Governor Palin is unknown. It is highly unlikely her candidacy would have survived the same grueling process Mr. Obama had to endure.
In selecting Governor Palin, Senator McCain pandered to the Right Wing of the Republican Party. He did not exhibit independence. His ambition to become the next president of the United States has clouded his judgment.
Conventional wisdom dictates that a candidate should attract voters from the base of the political party during the primaries. The winning candidate needs to attract independents and moderates after the nomination is secured.
Instead of attracting independents and moderates, Senator McCain has used time and resources to appease the conservatives in the Republican Party. Mr. McCain appeasement is a sign of insecurity. Maybe he believes conservatives will not vote for him on Election Day. That is the reason he continues to use campaign themes only conservatives would appreciate and understand.
Senator McCain does not like Barack Obama. This antipathy was on display during the presidential debates. Mr. McCain never looked at Mr. Obama during the first presidential debate, not even when they shook hands at the end of the debate. In the second debate, Mr. McCain referred to Senator Obama as “that one.”
There is wisdom in gangster movies. Michael Corleone warns his protégé about his temper in The Godfather III. “Never hate your enemies,” Mr. Corleone said. “It affects your judgment.”
Uncontrolled anger is a sign of weakness. It would be difficult for Mr. McCain to negotiate with out allies as well as our enemies if he is unable to control his anger.
In an interview, Mr. McCain said he would not speak with the prime minister from Spain. Mr. McCain may be holding a grudge against the Spanish government because the prime minister removed his troops from Iraq. Spain is a NATO ally.
Senator McCain has poor reading habits. During the current economic crisis, Senator McCain suspended his campaign in September in order to provide leadership in Congress regarding a proposed bailout package for financial institutions.
In an interview, Senator McCain admitted he did not read the Paulson bailout plan. Mr. McCain did not find the time to read a plan that was two and a half pages long.
During an economic disaster, Mr. McCain did not read a document containing the possible solution to the crisis.
President Bush also does not read. During his vacation in August 2001, he was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), “Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.” The PDB was a page and a half long.
President Bush did not interrupt his vacation. He did not having any meetings to discuss the implications of the PDB. I believe President Bush never read the PDB. Instead, someone was probably assigned to read it, and then report to the president. A month later 19 hijackers attacked from the United States.
We cannot accept a president who does not read important documents.
I once thought I could accept Mr. McCain as president of the United States. Dishonesty, insecurity, poor judgment, and anger. These are not qualities I am looking for in a president.
The next president of the United States will inherit two wars, a weakened economy and a divided country. Divided not just ideologically, but racially as well. There will be parts of our country that will not accept a black man as president, even if he is successful.
Senator McCain has contributed to the division in our country. He should not be rewarded with the presidency.
The United States could remain divided after the election. However, other nations will respect the United States if we elect Mr. Obama. Our collective sin of racism is common knowledge. Electing Mr. Obama president would send a message to other nations that we are willing move forward as a country. Senator Obama’s candidacy represents our collective growth and maturity.
The American empire is in danger of deteriorating. We cannot sustain military superiority during a period of economic decline. We can no longer bully the rest of the world. If the United States has reached a level of parity with Europe, Russia, China and India, then we will need a president who will be able to see our allies and adversaries as equals. We need a president who understands the need to coexist in order to survive.
Senator McCain does not have the judgment, or the temperament to lead our country in this new era. Mr. Obama does.
Senator Obama displayed foresight during the presidential campaign. He seemed to understand that the country wanted unity, not division, problem solving instead of finger pointing.
If you listen to his speeches, Senator Obama blames President Bush for all of our problems, but he does not blame the Republican Party. Mr. Obama understands he will need moderate Republicans in order to implement his agenda.
In contrast, Mr. McCain and Governor Palin thrive in dividing the country in two. Small towns represent what is good about America, implying big cities are against America.
The Republicans mocked Senator Obama experience as a community organizer during the Republican National Convention. As a community organizer, Mr. Obama tried to bring different, competing groups together to solve problems in the community. He tried to reach consensus among competing interest groups.
Senator Obama’s experience as a community organizer represents his approach to governing. As president, he will use his this approach to governing to solve the multiple problems facing the United States. He understands the Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on solutions. He will reach out to Republicans. He will try to build consensus. He will put the country first, ahead of ideology.
Mr. Obama has run an honorable presidential campaign. He has earned the respect of voters in the United States and people throughout the world. Mr. Obama will usher a new era of hope and opportunity for millions of people. On November 4, I will proudly cast my vote for Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
[i] Kathleen Parker, “Something About Sarah,” Washington Post, October 24, 2008.
Showing posts with label Presidential politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
A Presidential Decision
The vice presidency is a fabric of our democracy mockingly derided as “not worth a bucket of dry spit.” However, the selection of a candidate for vice president is important because it is the first choice a presidential nominee makes. The selection is indicative of the judgment of the prospective president. A good choice can build momentum towards victory in the general election. A bad choice could sabotage a political campaign. A great choice can make history.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but the ticket was doomed to fail because this particular Democratic ticket could not agree on the right slogan for their bumper sticker. Senator Kerry campaign slogan was “Help is on the Way.” Senator Edwards was partial to “Hope is on the Way.”
In 2000, Vice President Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate was a bold choice, however the move backfired because, in southern Florida, elderly voters were unable to master the infamous butterfly ballot. Numerous votes were lost because the ballots were insufficiently perforated. Also, Senator Lieberman turned out to be a neo-conservative who is actively campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain.
In 1972, Senator George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However Mr. Eagleton removed himself from the ticket when newspapers reported Mr. Eagleton received electro-shock therapy.
Not all Democratic vice presidential nominees were losers. Governor Clinton’s selection of Senator Al Gore was an excellent choice. Breaking with tradition, Governor Clinton selected a fellow southerner who was a centrist like himself.
Senator Lloyd Bentsen overshadowed Democratic presidential nominee Governor Mike Dukakis. Vice President Walter Mondale courageously made history by selecting Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman who was nominated to be vice president. Governor Jimmy Carter chose an able running mate in Senator Walter Mondale.
But the best Democratic ticket of all time was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority leader.
Senator Barack Obama will become the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, despite the blowout loss in the West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party is fractured along racial, ethnic, gender, class and education fault lines.
Senator Clinton’s supporters changed their position regarding the Democratic ticket. Earlier, they argued Senator Obama should be the vice presidential nominee even though Senator Clinton lost the majority of the contests, was behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, Senator Clinton’s operatives hinted she would be receptive to the idea of becoming the vice presidential nominee.
The Mainstream Media joined the chorus, reporting the benefits of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton running together, indicating such a ticket would unify the Democrats after a divisive campaign.
The temptation to select Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential nominee is strong. Senator Obama should resist that temptation.
Senator Clinton should not be the vice presidential nominee because she is responsible for the division in the Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a tough, negative campaign against the Illinois senator.
It was President Clinton who attempted to diminish Senator Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina by declaring unprompted that another African American presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson) also won the South Carolina primaries in 1984 and 1988.
Also during the South Carolina primary campaign, Senator Clinton said the Reverend Martin Luther King (a black man) made great speeches, but it was President Lyndon Johnson (a white man) who passed the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, Clinton operatives argued a black man could not win the presidency.
Senator Clinton has mocked Senator Obama’s impressive oratory skills. She diminished Mr. Obama’s political resume to simply delivering a great speech. His supporters are portrayed as delusional. The Clinton campaign labeled Obama’s supporters as “Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.” Her operatives dismissed the states Senator Obama won during the primaries calling these states insignificant.
Senator Clinton argued the super delegates should overrule the will of the voters, and give her the nomination because she has a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Obama. The voters made a mistake in supporting Senator Obama.
Her campaign “leaked” the picture of Barack Obama wearing African garb to the media. The picture reinforced the mistaken perception that Senator Obama is a Muslim.
The Clinton campaign attempted to exploit the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The controversy over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention was manufactured by the Clinton campaign mostly because she won two contests that were not sanctioned by the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton argued the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, is more qualified to be commander in chief than Senator Obama.
Choosing Senator Clinton as a running mate would be a mistake because she voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. The ticket should reflect Senator Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. The Democratic ticket should be an antiwar ticket.
It was Senator Clinton who divided the party and significantly damaged the Democratic Party’s chances of capturing the presidency. She created the problem; therefore she cannot be the solution.
Furthermore, an Obama-Clinton ticket is flawed. A presidential ticket needs ideological balance; therefore the Democratic Party should not have two liberals with identical voting records on the ticket.
Senator Obama is a basketball fan. He should use the 1997 NBA draft as a guide to selecting his running mate. Wake Forest center Tim Duncan was the first player selected in the draft. The talent gap between the first and second pick (Keith Van Horn) was huge. In fact, the 1997 draft only produced three All Stars: Duncan, Chauncey Billups and Tracy McGrady.
The talent gap between the first person who should be considered for vice president and the other contenders is also vast. There is truly only one viable Democratic vice presidential candidate: Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The credentials of any other nominee would pale in comparison.
Like Senator Obama, Mr. Webb is a published author. He wrote eight books, six are best selling novels. He has worked as a screenwriter and Hollywood producer. Mr. Webb won an Emmy award for the PBS coverage of the US Marines in Beirut.
Senator Webb adds military credentials to the ticket. Mr. Webb graduated from the Navel Academy in 1968. He received the Superintendent’s Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions.
Mr. Webb graduated first in his class at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico. He served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam. Senator Webb served in Vietnam with honor and distinction. He was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.
Senator Webb’s service in Vietnam counteracts Senator McCain’s service in Vietnam. In fact, Mr. Webb is a sharp contrast from current Vice President Dick Cheney who did not serve because he had other priorities during the Vietnam War.
Senator Webb’s service in the Marine Corps demonstrated strong leadership skills. Mr. Webb served as a platoon commander. He was an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. He served on the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff before he left the Marine Corps in 1972.
After the Vietnam War, Mr. Webb attended Georgetown University Law and graduated with a law degree in 1975. Mr. Webb was a staff member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Webb established his credentials regarding veteran’s issues. During this period, he represented veteran’s pro-bono.
Mr. Webb served, during the Reagan Administration, as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He became the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as Secretary of the Navy In 1987.
Democrats are portrayed as weak regarding national security issues. Selecting a marine who served in Vietnam, and was the Secretary of the Navy under conservative icon Ronald Reagan would counter that argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Webb is qualified to assume the presidency in the event of an emergency.
Senator Webb is a Reagan Democrat. He could attract other Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic Party as Senator Obama’s running mate. Furthermore, Mr. Webb balances the ticket ideologically. Mr. Webb is a conservative Democrat, thus strengthening Mr. Obama’s argument about unifying the country.
The Iraq War will be a major issue in the presidential campaign. Choosing a running mate who supported the war at its inception, but later changed his mind would encourage the Republican Party to attack the vice presidential nominee, labeling him a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry became a target in 2004 when he was unable to clearly explain his position on the war in Iraq.
Mr. Webb displayed leadership prior to the Iraq War. He wrote an article published in the Washington Post arguing against an invasion of Iraq before the Bush Administration initiated the public relations campaign to launch the war. His analysis demonstrated discerning insight. “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay… Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime, but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.”[i]
Mr. Webb had a better understanding of the politics in the Middle East than the Bush Administration. “The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.”[ii]
Mr. Webb’s foreign policy goals would correspond with Senator Obama’s. “Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.”[iii]
Senator Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq over the period of 16 months. He will need someone with a strong military background to counter the arguments from the neo-conservatives who will have a platform to make their accusations on cable talk shows and talk radio.
Selecting Senator Webb would demonstrate Senator Obama is not insecure or intimidated about choosing a running mate with stature and prestige, unlike former President George H.W. Bush who was criticized for selecting Dan Quayle, a political lightweight, as his running mate.
Race will be an issue in the general election. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,” said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.[iv] He was correct.
However, Senator Webb should be able to inoculate Senator Obama from white voters who would not consider voting for a black man. Mr. Webb could nullify the racist elements from the presidential campaign. In effect, Mr. Webb will vouch for Senator Obama’s character.
The Democratic Party is perceived as antimilitary. Senator Webb said he became a Republican after the Vietnam War because of the Democratic Party’s position during the war. Selecting Mr. Webb could repair the damage.
Senator Webb introduced a new GI Bill to provide military personnel with “comprehensive educational benefits.” An Obama-Webb ticket could make the new GI Bill a major issue in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, the Democrats should make the care of veterans a central issue in the campaign, to provide better healthcare, more services, and shelter to all veterans who proudly served in the military.
Politically, enhancing services to veterans will expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who claim to support the troops, but refuse to fund programs for veterans. Senator McCain is against the new GI Bill. Furthermore, Mr. McCain “voted to kill an amendment that would have increased veteran medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006… Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid by closing corporate tax loopholes.”[v]
Senator Obama is on the verge of making history by becoming our nation’s first African American president. It will be an accomplishment that will echo throughout the world. Our country will recover a measure of respect. Senator James Webb from Virginia is an excellent vice presidential candidate who will greatly contribute to Senator Obama’s historic achievement.
Please visit http://webb.senate.gov/ for more information about Senator Jim Webb. The website was an invaluable source for this article.
[i] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[ii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[v] Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets,” The Nation, June 2, 2008.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but the ticket was doomed to fail because this particular Democratic ticket could not agree on the right slogan for their bumper sticker. Senator Kerry campaign slogan was “Help is on the Way.” Senator Edwards was partial to “Hope is on the Way.”
In 2000, Vice President Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate was a bold choice, however the move backfired because, in southern Florida, elderly voters were unable to master the infamous butterfly ballot. Numerous votes were lost because the ballots were insufficiently perforated. Also, Senator Lieberman turned out to be a neo-conservative who is actively campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain.
In 1972, Senator George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However Mr. Eagleton removed himself from the ticket when newspapers reported Mr. Eagleton received electro-shock therapy.
Not all Democratic vice presidential nominees were losers. Governor Clinton’s selection of Senator Al Gore was an excellent choice. Breaking with tradition, Governor Clinton selected a fellow southerner who was a centrist like himself.
Senator Lloyd Bentsen overshadowed Democratic presidential nominee Governor Mike Dukakis. Vice President Walter Mondale courageously made history by selecting Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman who was nominated to be vice president. Governor Jimmy Carter chose an able running mate in Senator Walter Mondale.
But the best Democratic ticket of all time was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority leader.
Senator Barack Obama will become the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, despite the blowout loss in the West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party is fractured along racial, ethnic, gender, class and education fault lines.
Senator Clinton’s supporters changed their position regarding the Democratic ticket. Earlier, they argued Senator Obama should be the vice presidential nominee even though Senator Clinton lost the majority of the contests, was behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, Senator Clinton’s operatives hinted she would be receptive to the idea of becoming the vice presidential nominee.
The Mainstream Media joined the chorus, reporting the benefits of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton running together, indicating such a ticket would unify the Democrats after a divisive campaign.
The temptation to select Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential nominee is strong. Senator Obama should resist that temptation.
Senator Clinton should not be the vice presidential nominee because she is responsible for the division in the Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a tough, negative campaign against the Illinois senator.
It was President Clinton who attempted to diminish Senator Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina by declaring unprompted that another African American presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson) also won the South Carolina primaries in 1984 and 1988.
Also during the South Carolina primary campaign, Senator Clinton said the Reverend Martin Luther King (a black man) made great speeches, but it was President Lyndon Johnson (a white man) who passed the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, Clinton operatives argued a black man could not win the presidency.
Senator Clinton has mocked Senator Obama’s impressive oratory skills. She diminished Mr. Obama’s political resume to simply delivering a great speech. His supporters are portrayed as delusional. The Clinton campaign labeled Obama’s supporters as “Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.” Her operatives dismissed the states Senator Obama won during the primaries calling these states insignificant.
Senator Clinton argued the super delegates should overrule the will of the voters, and give her the nomination because she has a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Obama. The voters made a mistake in supporting Senator Obama.
Her campaign “leaked” the picture of Barack Obama wearing African garb to the media. The picture reinforced the mistaken perception that Senator Obama is a Muslim.
The Clinton campaign attempted to exploit the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The controversy over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention was manufactured by the Clinton campaign mostly because she won two contests that were not sanctioned by the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton argued the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, is more qualified to be commander in chief than Senator Obama.
Choosing Senator Clinton as a running mate would be a mistake because she voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. The ticket should reflect Senator Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. The Democratic ticket should be an antiwar ticket.
It was Senator Clinton who divided the party and significantly damaged the Democratic Party’s chances of capturing the presidency. She created the problem; therefore she cannot be the solution.
Furthermore, an Obama-Clinton ticket is flawed. A presidential ticket needs ideological balance; therefore the Democratic Party should not have two liberals with identical voting records on the ticket.
Senator Obama is a basketball fan. He should use the 1997 NBA draft as a guide to selecting his running mate. Wake Forest center Tim Duncan was the first player selected in the draft. The talent gap between the first and second pick (Keith Van Horn) was huge. In fact, the 1997 draft only produced three All Stars: Duncan, Chauncey Billups and Tracy McGrady.
The talent gap between the first person who should be considered for vice president and the other contenders is also vast. There is truly only one viable Democratic vice presidential candidate: Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The credentials of any other nominee would pale in comparison.
Like Senator Obama, Mr. Webb is a published author. He wrote eight books, six are best selling novels. He has worked as a screenwriter and Hollywood producer. Mr. Webb won an Emmy award for the PBS coverage of the US Marines in Beirut.
Senator Webb adds military credentials to the ticket. Mr. Webb graduated from the Navel Academy in 1968. He received the Superintendent’s Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions.
Mr. Webb graduated first in his class at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico. He served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam. Senator Webb served in Vietnam with honor and distinction. He was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.
Senator Webb’s service in Vietnam counteracts Senator McCain’s service in Vietnam. In fact, Mr. Webb is a sharp contrast from current Vice President Dick Cheney who did not serve because he had other priorities during the Vietnam War.
Senator Webb’s service in the Marine Corps demonstrated strong leadership skills. Mr. Webb served as a platoon commander. He was an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. He served on the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff before he left the Marine Corps in 1972.
After the Vietnam War, Mr. Webb attended Georgetown University Law and graduated with a law degree in 1975. Mr. Webb was a staff member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Webb established his credentials regarding veteran’s issues. During this period, he represented veteran’s pro-bono.
Mr. Webb served, during the Reagan Administration, as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He became the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as Secretary of the Navy In 1987.
Democrats are portrayed as weak regarding national security issues. Selecting a marine who served in Vietnam, and was the Secretary of the Navy under conservative icon Ronald Reagan would counter that argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Webb is qualified to assume the presidency in the event of an emergency.
Senator Webb is a Reagan Democrat. He could attract other Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic Party as Senator Obama’s running mate. Furthermore, Mr. Webb balances the ticket ideologically. Mr. Webb is a conservative Democrat, thus strengthening Mr. Obama’s argument about unifying the country.
The Iraq War will be a major issue in the presidential campaign. Choosing a running mate who supported the war at its inception, but later changed his mind would encourage the Republican Party to attack the vice presidential nominee, labeling him a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry became a target in 2004 when he was unable to clearly explain his position on the war in Iraq.
Mr. Webb displayed leadership prior to the Iraq War. He wrote an article published in the Washington Post arguing against an invasion of Iraq before the Bush Administration initiated the public relations campaign to launch the war. His analysis demonstrated discerning insight. “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay… Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime, but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.”[i]
Mr. Webb had a better understanding of the politics in the Middle East than the Bush Administration. “The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.”[ii]
Mr. Webb’s foreign policy goals would correspond with Senator Obama’s. “Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.”[iii]
Senator Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq over the period of 16 months. He will need someone with a strong military background to counter the arguments from the neo-conservatives who will have a platform to make their accusations on cable talk shows and talk radio.
Selecting Senator Webb would demonstrate Senator Obama is not insecure or intimidated about choosing a running mate with stature and prestige, unlike former President George H.W. Bush who was criticized for selecting Dan Quayle, a political lightweight, as his running mate.
Race will be an issue in the general election. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,” said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.[iv] He was correct.
However, Senator Webb should be able to inoculate Senator Obama from white voters who would not consider voting for a black man. Mr. Webb could nullify the racist elements from the presidential campaign. In effect, Mr. Webb will vouch for Senator Obama’s character.
The Democratic Party is perceived as antimilitary. Senator Webb said he became a Republican after the Vietnam War because of the Democratic Party’s position during the war. Selecting Mr. Webb could repair the damage.
Senator Webb introduced a new GI Bill to provide military personnel with “comprehensive educational benefits.” An Obama-Webb ticket could make the new GI Bill a major issue in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, the Democrats should make the care of veterans a central issue in the campaign, to provide better healthcare, more services, and shelter to all veterans who proudly served in the military.
Politically, enhancing services to veterans will expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who claim to support the troops, but refuse to fund programs for veterans. Senator McCain is against the new GI Bill. Furthermore, Mr. McCain “voted to kill an amendment that would have increased veteran medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006… Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid by closing corporate tax loopholes.”[v]
Senator Obama is on the verge of making history by becoming our nation’s first African American president. It will be an accomplishment that will echo throughout the world. Our country will recover a measure of respect. Senator James Webb from Virginia is an excellent vice presidential candidate who will greatly contribute to Senator Obama’s historic achievement.
Please visit http://webb.senate.gov/ for more information about Senator Jim Webb. The website was an invaluable source for this article.
[i] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[ii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[v] Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets,” The Nation, June 2, 2008.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A Process Compromised
When asked during the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success in recent Democratic primaries, Fox News pollster, conservative political consultant, and Republican loyalist Frank Luntz indicated there were fives reasons accounting for Senator Obama’s accomplishment. Mr. Luntz cleverly called the reasons “The 5 M’s.”[i]
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Inevitable Loss
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
