Two attack lines against Hillary Clinton 1. She's a bitch 2. She's being manipulated by others

[bklyncowgirl]

Frankly, as a woman I don't know which is more offensive--although I'd have to say that the notion she's an empty pantsuit who's being fed attack lines my Mark Penn bothers me considerably more than the notion that she's a hardass political player at heart. Anyone who wants to be president should be a political hardass--although I prefer my hardass cloaked in a smart package. The proverbial iron fist in a velvet glove, if you will. Bill Clinton is a master of this approach, a man who could stick a knife in your back and make you say thank you for the favor, although for this campaign he seems to have lost that velvet touch in a very big and damaging way.

Mind you, I like the softer Hillary. Moreover I think that this persona is more effective. When she goes on the attack against Obama--especially on trivial matters such as the plagerism thing--she inevetably gets hurt. Like it or not Obama has a thick coat of teflon--at least against the sort of charges she's bringing. It remains to be seen whether the attack lines the Republicans use on him will work. Hillary of course can't use these lines, lack of patriotism, radical wife, questions about his religion or his supposedly misspent youth because none of these things resonate with Democrats--in fact some of them are guaranteed to anger a sufficient percentage of voting Democrats--the very people she needs to reach right here right now.

I'm not an avid Obamamaniac or a Hillary Hater. Neither candidate was my first choice. I don't want to see a Republican in the White House. Therefore as a voter I have to go with the candidate most likely to win. For me that means the candidate who has been running the most effective campaign, building the largest coalition and getting new voters. From where I stand that's Barack Obama, hands down. The vaunted Clinton Machine seems to be falling apart--a wheel here--a gear there.

The central question here is who's in the driver's seat. Is it Hillary Clinton herself or is she a somewhat passive vessel for the men around her Mark Penn, Harold Wolfson and above all Bill Clinton. Which is the act, attack dog Hillary or the kinder gentler Hillary? Or are they both parts of a complex personality who is finding that something she believed should be hers may be beyond her grasp and is trying everything she can do to salvage it?

[cali]

1. She's neither, but she is clearly taking some bad advice

and sadly, she's reinforcing the "bitch" meme by episodes such as yesterday. That sucks, but neither a woman candidate or a black candidate can afford to come off as "angry".

[saltpoint]

2. Yet another extremely bright and insightful post. Thank you.

Agree that Obama is the candidate still standing who has the best chance to wear the longest coattails for us in November.

Agree also that "the vaunted Clinton machine" is falling to pieces bit by bit.

Agree also that the Big Dog appears to have lost some of the spin on the fastball.

So we're left with your hinge questions. If she's a tough customer who can take it, that's great, but the case isn't as strong as it might be, given that a national political race for president warrants a thick skin for boys or girls, either one. The media alone require a thick skin, or in the best case, they require the nearly flawless personal poise of John Kennedy.

There does seem to be some sort of internal management problem in the Clinton campaign. They set course for a february 5th blowout and when they had to share the headilnes with Obama the next morning, they were left buck naked in the lobby with no ride home. The Wisconsin campaign, day by day and county by county, was one of the worst political efforts of my lifetime and I've seen one or two campaigns. A bunch of hgh schoolers could have run it better and smarter.

Currently Sen. Clinton leads in TX narrowly and in RI and OH and PA. If she can hold on to three or so of those states I'm guessing she'll be nominated. If she doesn't, she's out of there. Someone has to take credit if she pulls it out and someone has to take blame if she doesn't.

[bklyncowgirl]

4. "Buck naked in the lobby with no ride home" that about sums it up

Remarkable isn't it. The ability to react to reality is one of the hallmarks of any military or political campaign. The Clintons despite getting blown out in South Carolina did not see it coming.

Maybe Bill believed his own rhetoric about dismissing Obama's winning South Carolina win because Jesse Jackson won the same state. They didn't see that his appeal would reach beyond people who were A. young and B. Black.

[saltpoint]

8. That's as good an assessment as we can have about Bill's comments in SC.

At the very least they did no good for his wife and at worst it motivated voters to support Obama in far greater numbers.

The plagiarism accusation didn't exactly turn things around in Wisconsin last Tuesday either.

[mkultra]

3. she was far more compelling when she

was a focused activist and defender of rights. Now shes starting to slide into the "standard politician" mode which is detracting from her appeal.


She is doing it of course to stem the tide of indies and undecideds that are following the "O"mentum. Its actually not a bad strategy from a political standpoint although it seems to lack ethics. In any case, all it does is start the acrimony which eventually enrages the base of both parties.

for this to work, she would need to have started much earlier so that she didnt have to do it for so long.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The argument that "She's being manipulated by others"

...is more of a sympathetic way of looking at her mistakes, than it is an attack.

[bklyncowgirl]

10. Do you want a president who's easily manupulated by others? I sure don't.

Like it or not being a bit of a bastard--or a bitch for that matter--when circumstances call for it is a necessary quality for a president. I've always thought that Jimmy Carter was too decent a man for the job.

The notion of the passive female figurehead who'd easily manipulated by the men around her is frankly offensive.

[K Gardner]

6. Yours is the $10 million dollar question. Unfortunately, the interpretation

of what, exactly, is behind Hillary's actions/reactions from day-to-day is left up to the perception of the individual voter. Most filter it through a lens of personal experience and often, it comes off in a negative light. It would have been much better for Hillary to have come into the race a known quantity/personality, instead of trying on different faces for each race or making videos about who she is or stating she had finally found her voice, which has changed again several times since she found it.

It leaves one with a somewhat uncomfortable feeling, that you never really know what to expect. This wishy-washy exterior is what gives people the perception that she is easily influenced and easily led by those around her. Also not a comfortable feeling to associate with Commander-in-Chief. It is a hard jump for me to make, given her performance over the past few months.

[davsand]

7. Clinton was facing an uphill roll from the start.

I admit freely that I am an Obama supporter and have been since his Senate Primary. Please don't discount this based on that alone--OK?

Sen Clinton had huge name recognition at the outset. She was a very public figure at a time when people felt pretty good about the state of our nation. She was also targeted heavily the entire time, and that resulted in some pretty high negatives at the outset of her campaign (rightly or wrongly--it was there for her.)

The meme on her (again--right or wrong--it doesn't matter) was that she was a bitch. She was seen by some as a negative, and her job in this election was to get past that perception that existed. Every campaign faces some of this, but in her case it was quantifiable and given the experience represented there I expected that they were prepared for it.

Instead there was a double whammy put on her by an opponent that used the ONE message that was gonna be difficult to counter without looking mean (How can you say change or hope is bad and not look like a jerk?) and by the fact that her campaign was split on tactics. She was either gonna end up living up to the negatives or else looking like some weak or frail candidate at a time when voters are looking for some sort of change from dubya and the other clowns.

She might have saved it had she cleaned house and unified her campaign earlier in the race--but that didn't happen. She might have saved it had she been able to craft a message that she could hit every time (like Edwards' populist message) but that didn't happen. She might have saved it had she been running against different candidates (I would have loved to see her matched against the candidates from 04, if you want the truth.)

I just think that this was not the right time for her to run...

I may be proved wrong, but I honestly think that whoever wins this time around faces a very real possibility that they will be a one term President. There is a lot of ugly shit out there right now both on the foreign and domestic fronts and I just don't think anyone is gonna be able to put out all the fires. I think we are looking a a major voter uprising this time around, and I expect it to continue for a couple more election cycles.


Regards!


Laura

[cooolandrew]

9. I stand strongly against the sexism I feel most male dems would but as a candidate she could.....

...she could damage the party as theGOP are seeing the unnecessary division and working their case against us.