‘Bout Damn Time
I hate to say I told you so, but hey, news flash, there is no “inevitability” to the Clinton nomination. It’s not a walk, a shoo-in, or a done deal. It’s a primary, folks, and lots of money is being donated AWAY from Hillary. Consider how much money she’s raised and from whom, and then look at how much money Obama and the rest of the contenders have drummed up. Taking into account the SOURCES of the money, you tell me, who’s got traction with the voters?
While I think Hillary is an able politician, I don’t think I’m alone in wanting, FERVENTLY, to get somebody in the Whitehouse who is something beyond that. We cannot break this ugly cycle with more of the same, and that, my friends, is the epitome of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Now the media is getting it. Slow and steady, etc.
This week’s stories, however, all in various ways highlighted what her strategists and independent analysts have recognized as a genuine challenge for her in 2008: overcoming perceptions that she is a politician so infused with ambition and artifice that she can not connect with ordinary voters. — The Politico
Perception? Not so much. She is a professional pol, and if that was what the country needed at this juncture, she’d win by a landslide. It’s just not the ability of the leader, it’s the problems we’re asking that leader to solve that matter, and right now, one of our problems IS the professional political structure.
It’s deforming our democracy.
Thank goodness the media stepped back from the Hillary schmooze fest. Perhaps the realization that the price for exposure, lapdogs vs. reporting, was too destructive to continue if their industry, and protected status as the eyes and ears of the people, was to survive. I want the media to tell me the facts; leave the art of perceiving — to me.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Unfortunately, there are enough non-critical-thinking Democrats (as there were Republicans) who are more comfortable following the (apparent) crowd and going with the media-hyped candidate; rather than thinking for themselves and accepting the possibility that listening to the talking heads (including many bloggers) is just plain wrong and/or misleading.
In 2000, I was a Republican and I tried to argue this point re: Chimp. But, sheep that many GOPers (and Americans) are, they were far better media-followers than self-thinkers. Call it peer-pressure, fitting in, whatever. It’s all the same. Many people don’t want (or don’t know how) to buck what they PERCEIVE is the trend/momentum.
What they fail to realize (or even consider) is that what they see as “momentum” is only a mirage that exists because they fail to see the facts; and consider that all of the so-called experts don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Yet, daring to question the “conventional wisdom” and to think outside-the-box is the only chance we have to repel the corporate-christened candidates.
If Hillary gets the nomination, it won’t be because of those in the grassroots who think for themselves. It will be because of the corporate donors, media shills and enough Dem-sheep to tip the balance in favor of the corporate-favored candidate. And, sadly, the same Dem-sheep will be whining and complaining when their “winning” candidate doesn’t address their issues when elected to the White House.
It’s the shame s**t over and over. The only thing that is different is the generation that gets duped.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 am
MK, just out of curiosity, who did you support in the GOP 2000 primaries?
October 1st, 2007 at 11:24 am
I don’t think Hillary can win the White House. I think the Dems are deluding themselves if they think she can.
JMJ
October 1st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Jet, excellent post. Elections come down to marketability. The Clinton campaign has the best political team available on the Dem side and this gives her a big advantage. She is less likely to make major mistakes than her rivals and IMO the MSM is squarely behind her, another major advantage. As a republican voter, it is her machine that I fear the most. Obama has star power and that may be enough to overcome Hil’s political prowess but I don’t think so. I am encouraged that the Dems that follow politics do not support her outright but I know that if she wins the primaries, you guys will come on board as, in national politics, party trumps person for most voters. There is the possibility that a third party (Nader?) might spoil the party but I don’t see Dems falling for that particular “banana up the tailpipe” again.
I wish we would get the president we need, however I fear we will get the president sold to us.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am
Another thing. I think her team thinks she has the primary locked up as her message has been moving back towards the middle lately. She has backed off of removal of troops in Iraq and her national health care proposal is very watered down. As a matter of fact, her proposal would benefit big insurance as well as big pharma. It is possible that they have miscalculated the base and have moved to far right to soon, but the poll numbers have her with double digit leads. It will be interesting to see if Obama and Edwards mount more vicious attacks as the primaries approach, however it looks as if they do not want to criticize too much for fear of giving ammo to the GOP in the general. I am not at all convinced that she cannot win in the generals as is JMJ, just hopeful.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
True ’nuff that Hillary is just the same old political animal we need to dispense with. I have never supported her bid for president precisely because she is cut from the same cloth as the power base of today. So while she may well offer a change in priorities that better fit my own desires, I actually think that if she were elected as president we’d be following pretty much the same path we are on now, with maybe a slight better edge towards social/domestic issues.
Would she be better than any of the GOP in place now? Perhaps. But that’s not what we need, as Jet points out. We need someone better, different…too bad they aren’t really there.
October 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
MK, I have to say that comparing Dems to Reps in terms of sheep tendencies is a bit off to me. Trying to get disparate Dems on the same page is a lot like herding cats. They don’t all think alike.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
God, manapp, I really hope Hillary does win the White House. I would laugh my friggin’ butt off for the next eight years! Given any option from the GOP, Hillary is clearly the best candidate, and certainly a higher calibre of person than most.
JMJ
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
> manapp99, on October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 am Said:
> MK, just out of curiosity, who did you support in the
> GOP 2000 primaries?
Actually, I don’t remember. I don’t even recall who the candidates were. It may have been McCain.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Jet Netwal, on October 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm Said:
> MK, I have to say that comparing Dems to Reps in
> terms of sheep tendencies is a bit off to me. Trying
> to get disparate Dems on the same page is a lot like
> herding cats. They don’t all think alike.
I was speaking to the tendency of people (regardless of party) to prefer to be on the side of popularity rather than siding with the best candidate. It is a self-fulfilling mindset that says we should back the most “winnable” candidate, failing to realize that “winnable” has been defined for us by a media that has chosen to play favorites for their own interests.
You only need to read a few more comments down in this thread to see my point in action:
“manapp99, on October 1st, 2007 at 11:27 am Said:
Elections come down to marketabilit y. The Clinton campaign has the best political team available on the Dem side and this gives her a big advantage. She is less likely to make major mistakes than her rivals and IMO the MSM is squarely behind her, another major advantage.”
I submit that this is not so much an acceptance of political reality as it is allowing oneself to be hoodwinked by a spin machine that tells us the MSM-favored candidate is the “winning” one. If enough people dare to challenge that “conventional wisdom” - and refuse to swallow the misinformation - we might actually get a candidate that matters.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 am
MK, I’d love nothing better than to see that happen.
October 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
One issue is that Hillary has a strong, certain, 20% to 30% of the Democratic vote in her pocket. These are her fans and fans of Bill Clinton who think having WJC back in the White House (even in his diminished capacity as First Husband) will bring back the roaring nineties, peace, prosperity and rainbows with pretty colors…
Unfortunately, None of the other Democratic candidates have such a loyal following that they will be assured that the will be able to overcome the votes lost to the other candidates in the primary to overtake the “Hillerinator” or whatever. I can see Obama and Edwards splitting up to 50-59% of the vote and Kuchinich, Biden and the rest taking just enough of the remaining to give the primaries to Clinton. This in spite of the fact that almost 70% may have wanted anyone BUT Hillary to represent and lead them.
Best bet for a Democrat to beat her in the primaries is to tag team her and have Edwards or Obama drop out and endorse the other. I lean towards Edwards right now but I prefer either to Hillary and with Edwards already taking public funds, Obama definetly has the advantage there.