Clinton's "red herring" tactic.

[Raven]

One of the definitions of a red herring: "from the practice of drawing a herring across the trace in hunting to distract the hounds; something used to divert attention from the main issue."

So she knows that there are a lot of angry, bitter people out there and Obama has called attention to them. Rather than address the cause of the anger and bitterness, she goes after Obama's description...clever but it's a red herring, it stinks and it won't work.

[Median Democrat]

1. Hillary Is A Tactical Genius - Hillary In 2012!

I think Hillary understands that it will be very difficult for her to wrest the nomination from Barrack Obama in 2008. However, if she can weaken Obama enough before the general election, it will ensure a McCain victory. Consider the things that have been planted by Hillary:

1. 3 AM Ad with suggestions that Obama is not qualified.
2. Ferraro's Obama is an affirmative action beneficiary.
3. Gov. Rendell's reminders that many white voters may never vote for an African American.
4. Obama is an elitist.

These are typical Republican talking points that are being raised in the Democratic primaries, which is brilliant on the part of Hillary. Hillary has essentially started McCain's campaign for him, particularly since Hillary has not really gone after McCain, and McCain and Hillary's attacks on Obama are coordinated. This is why Hillary has not conceded, because she is not necessarily trying to win, but to prevent an Obama win in 2008.

Why do this? Because Hillary is taking the chance that McCain will simply continue the policies of the Rebublican party, which will lead to 4 more years of war and economic underperformance. This will pave the way for a Hillary victory in 2012.

So, Hillary supporters take heart. The end game is 2012, which is why Hillary will keep the pressure on Obama through August!

[Raven]

2. Unfortunately, you are probably right. All I can think of is SCOTUS

someone on that court will die or retire before 2012.

[City Lights]

6. Hillary has to have thought of the SC. She appears not to care though,

which is maddening.

[TheDoorbellRang]

3. Are you sure this is the right site for you?

You're advocating a strategy for Republicans to win in '08 so that Hillary has a better chance in '12?

[Raven]

4. Ah, the poster's not advocating the strategy, they are explaining

it and, unfortunately, it probably IS the strategy.

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. When they say "Hillary supporters take heart. The end game is 2012"

I have to assume they are advocating this. :shrug:

[Raven]

8. Sorry, sometimes I miss the nuances...wishful thinking on my part. n/t

[Yael]

11. I read it as tongue in cheek

:shrug:

[TheDoorbellRang]

13. If it is tongue in cheek

GD-P is the last place not to use a sarcasm tag right now.

[Median Democrat]

14. Its Not Sarcasm, Just A Bit Critical and Realistic

In writing the above, I was not being sarcastic. Just critical. Hillary wants to be president, yet she is patient. Now, if Obama wins, what is the likelihood that Hillary will ever be President? If Obama is elected as President, then Hillary's earliest chance is in 2016. However, if Obama loses to McCain for being too black, too elitist, and too young, and McCain continues the same policies that lead us into this mess, then Hillary can sing "I told you so" to the Presidency in 2012.

So, start from the assumption that Hillary wants to be President, though not necessarily in 2008.

Does anyone think that a strategy of weakening Obama regardless of her chances of winning the nomination does not make sense?

If Hillary can't win the nomination in 2008, then her best strategy is to weaken Obama as best she can, so that McCain wins. This is not a new idea, its been mentioned on other political blogs, and it makes sense to me.

Of course, you could argue that Penn is an egalitarian sort who never advocate such a strategy, but that would be naive. Hillary is very smart, and this is similar to burning the country side as you retreat. Yes, you sustain some losses in the near term, but the opponent is left weakened for your eventual counter-attack.

You may debate the ethics, but as someone else noted, its a pretty good long term strategy to win the Presidency. Remember how Republicans supported Ralph Nader to make it easier for Bush to win over Gore. This is the same in reverse. Hillary is supporting McCain, because it makes a Hillary win in 2012 more likely.

[City Lights]

7. I won't support her in 2012 either.

:puke:

[PseudoIntellect]

9. GTFO for advocating GOP tactics.

[stellanoir]

10. ergo

She cares more about her eventual empowerment than she does about our country.

[thoughtcrime1984]

16. If it comes to that, the "ABC" will be in full effect in '12

There will be an organized effort to back one candidate to ensure that the Party wrecker will have no chance. I doubt the Party even would encourage her running ever again, though.

[futureliveshere]

23. Brilliant isn't the word I would use... No way!!

[C_U_L8R]

12. Hillary drinks CANADIAN whisky

what NAFTArious treachery.

[anonymous171]

15. Yep. She does that a lot before primaries (See: Shame On You incident.)

[knixphan]

17. It won't work. We're smarter.

Obama has the brains. And he has US.

This thing is over.

[Texas Hill Country]

18. As much as the Obama supporters want to pretend that this is not a big deal

it is a VERY big deal. It is a big deal because much of small town middle america thinks that the Democratic party DOES look at them as poor, ignorant, hillbilly, racist, gun toting, religious zealots.

Obama's irresponsible commentary just fed into the BIGGEST perception problem that the Dem Party has... that it is full of godless, amoral, "intellectually elitist", "San Francisco" liberals.


It was bad bad bad for the party.

[Median Democrat]

20. Democrats Are In Catch 22

The problem, of course, is when Democrats attack Republicans on similar grounds, i.e., that Republican politicians often lead lives of entitlement and are out of touch with American voters, then they fire back that Democrats are playing class-based politics.

The irony is that Barrack Obama is the poorest of the three candidates with McCain having about a 21 million net worth, and Hillary Clinton reporting over a 100 million in income over seven years. Thus, to be honest, Obama does not really compare to John Kerry, because Kerry was filthy rich, since he was married to Theresa Heinz.

Of course, rheteoric and perception are more important than reality in politics. One minute, Obama is attacked for being a sell out, then being too black, then being an elitist. Also, Clinton is working Obama by saying his words don't matter, then saying that the words reveal that he is an elitist.

Stephanie Miller said that in all likelihood, John McCain will win, and I agree. The media just tends to parrot back the latest talking points by Pundits are us, which is how we ended up in the Iraq War.

Hillary is a veteran at the soundbite wars, and I think she sees the big political picture. She isn't naive. McCain will be tough to beat this year after a bruising Democratic primary, so why not bloody Obama, and set herself up as the most logical Democratic candidate in 2012. Its a marathon, not a sprint. This is why she will stick it out to August. Does anyone think she will pull out even if she does not gain some serious momentum soon? Not likely.

Also, for those who say that Hillary is not the most logical candidate in 2012 if McCain wins over Obama, give me a break. Hillary is essentially running her Hillary in 2012 campaign right now.

[Texas Hill Country]

21. she is not saying HE is elitist, but that the remarks were. the problem is that he didnt say he was

wrong and apologize, rather he said he was right... a bad move.

[Median Democrat]

22. And the Distinction?

Hillary made a statement on MLK day that it took a president Lyndon Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act, which seemed to minimize the role that MLK played. Did she apologize for the fact that this came off as insensitive, since it appeared to take away from MLK's role? I recall that Hillary argued that she was right, then attacked folks pointing out that this was insensitive.

As for the bitter comment, I feel kind of bitter as a Democrat. If I didn't, and I was happy with the direction this country is taking, I'd be voting for McSame. That might sounds elitist and un-American. I have been accused of being un-patriotic for being against the Iraq war.

My take is that if Americans don't like what Obama or Clinton says, they will vote for McCain. There is a very real possibility that Americans are pretty happy with the course of the war and the economy. Otherwise, they might be bitter.

So, if people are going to make a choice based on Clinton's sniper comments, her MLK comments, McCain's anti-catholic endorser, Obama's former pastor and his bitter reference, then we as Americans deserve the President we get stuck with.

We got stuck with George Bush, and we deserve him, because we as a nation failed to wade through the bs shoveled by Punditry, Inc. and Fox News.

[knixphan]

19. The Clintons

are bad bad bad for the party.