before the first votes are cast in America's Heartland, Hillary is ahead in SuperDelegates - proving the Democratic establishment has gathered in the Clinton Corner.
According to ABC's survey the totals are:
DELEGATES
Clinton 158
Obama 89
Edwards 26
Richardson 20
Dodd 15
Biden 8
Kucinich 1
Gravel 0
Since these delegates are free to change their minds, it will be interesting to see if the voting in Iowa and New Hampshire alters these totals.
Showing posts with label Christopher Dodd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Dodd. Show all posts
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Team Hillary Does Damage Control
The fallout from Hillary Clinton's uncharacteristic stumble during her visit to the Dragons' (of Drexel U) lair on Tuesday night continues, with the media and her Democratic rivals seizing upon a perceived vulnerability: the desire to straddle multiple sides on difficult issues. Whether or not this is a big enough obstacle to derail the Hillary Nomination Locomotive is yet to be seen.
More troubling is the repercussions of this narrative taking hold and becoming the GOP battering ram in a general election battle throughout 2008. Will the "Clintonian straddle" become this cycle's version of the "Kerry flip-flop?" Clinton's ultimate success may rely on just how "sticky" this moniker becomes.
Prior to Tuesday evening, the traditionally fractious Democratic race was too placid and agreeable to feed the American appetite for -gossip- news. All the "action" appeared to be on the Republican side.
The media, whose sense of boredom with the Dem nomination battle was becoming palpable, has eagerly embraced the new dynamic and is delighted to be able to report on an "Obama surge" (if it materializes), a "re-energized Edwards," a suddenly "vulnerable Clinton" - ANY new storyline that helps them fill the ever-more-hungry and insatiable 24-7-365 news cycle. I've always believed the biggest obstacle to any Democratic presidential frontrunner in today's news environment is a bored (or pissed off) media.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Nancy Flores described the Clinton's straddle "downright excrutiating." Adam Nagourney over at the NY Times reports on Hillary's morning after damage control and how her team views the non-answer at the debate as her biggest mistake of the campaign that holds "long-term potential to undermine her candidacy."
Team Clinton's damage control was swift, but I'm not convinced it was entirely effective. The strategy was clear: divert, defend, and clarify.
The diversion was a big union endorsement. It was smart to roll out the AFSCME news. The government workers could provide a huge lift in the early states. Union leader Gerald McEntee provided the line of defense - clearly happy to be the surrogate rushing to Hillary's side - when he said:
“Six guys against Hillary,” he said. “I’d call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman.”
McEntee was picking up the campaign's talking point that Hillary was being ganged up on by her opponents. The WaPo reports "her advisers argued that the "pileing on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp."
I believe this is a somewhat risky move. Doesn't this defense undermine one of the tenets of the Clinton rationale? One of the foundations the campaign has built its frontrunning status upon is she has dealt with the right-wing smear campaigns for nearly two decades. She's tough. She knows how to handle attacks. Complaining about a relatively minor intraparty "pile-on" may garner sympathy but it also risks raising the question, "just how tough will she be next summer and fall?" It may help her win the nomination, but may ultimately weaken her in the general election. This victim card should only be used sparingly, and only by surrogates.
Lastly, her efforts at clarifying her position seems to have caused only more confusion. The Times' Nagourney writes:
“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them.
Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives. Among those opposing it were Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois supported it. (emphasis added)
One of the cardinal rules of presidential campaigns is making sure negative stories do not remain in the media spotlight over multiple news cycles. Providing a clear (even if unpopular) position would be the quickest way of achieving this goal. Team Clinton may have believed this is what they were doing, but if the NY Times is still unsure of where she stands on this contentious issue, you better believe her rivals for the nomination will keep pounding away at this theme on the campaign trail.
The charge of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" is easy to level when a candidate has her eye on both the primary and general elections. Sen. Clinton should focus on winning the nomination first. The nominee (whoever it is) will have ten solid months to focus on defeating the Republicans.
More troubling is the repercussions of this narrative taking hold and becoming the GOP battering ram in a general election battle throughout 2008. Will the "Clintonian straddle" become this cycle's version of the "Kerry flip-flop?" Clinton's ultimate success may rely on just how "sticky" this moniker becomes.
Prior to Tuesday evening, the traditionally fractious Democratic race was too placid and agreeable to feed the American appetite for -gossip- news. All the "action" appeared to be on the Republican side.
The media, whose sense of boredom with the Dem nomination battle was becoming palpable, has eagerly embraced the new dynamic and is delighted to be able to report on an "Obama surge" (if it materializes), a "re-energized Edwards," a suddenly "vulnerable Clinton" - ANY new storyline that helps them fill the ever-more-hungry and insatiable 24-7-365 news cycle. I've always believed the biggest obstacle to any Democratic presidential frontrunner in today's news environment is a bored (or pissed off) media.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Nancy Flores described the Clinton's straddle "downright excrutiating." Adam Nagourney over at the NY Times reports on Hillary's morning after damage control and how her team views the non-answer at the debate as her biggest mistake of the campaign that holds "long-term potential to undermine her candidacy."
Team Clinton's damage control was swift, but I'm not convinced it was entirely effective. The strategy was clear: divert, defend, and clarify.
The diversion was a big union endorsement. It was smart to roll out the AFSCME news. The government workers could provide a huge lift in the early states. Union leader Gerald McEntee provided the line of defense - clearly happy to be the surrogate rushing to Hillary's side - when he said:
“Six guys against Hillary,” he said. “I’d call that a fair fight. This is one strong woman.”
McEntee was picking up the campaign's talking point that Hillary was being ganged up on by her opponents. The WaPo reports "her advisers argued that the "pileing on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp."
I believe this is a somewhat risky move. Doesn't this defense undermine one of the tenets of the Clinton rationale? One of the foundations the campaign has built its frontrunning status upon is she has dealt with the right-wing smear campaigns for nearly two decades. She's tough. She knows how to handle attacks. Complaining about a relatively minor intraparty "pile-on" may garner sympathy but it also risks raising the question, "just how tough will she be next summer and fall?" It may help her win the nomination, but may ultimately weaken her in the general election. This victim card should only be used sparingly, and only by surrogates.
Lastly, her efforts at clarifying her position seems to have caused only more confusion. The Times' Nagourney writes:
“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.
Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said that she had not studied either plan, and was not specifically endorsing either of them.
Still, the wording of the statement was murkier than what many of her opponents have said in either supporting or opposing Mr. Spitzer’s initiatives. Among those opposing it were Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut; Senator Barack Obama of Illinois supported it. (emphasis added)
One of the cardinal rules of presidential campaigns is making sure negative stories do not remain in the media spotlight over multiple news cycles. Providing a clear (even if unpopular) position would be the quickest way of achieving this goal. Team Clinton may have believed this is what they were doing, but if the NY Times is still unsure of where she stands on this contentious issue, you better believe her rivals for the nomination will keep pounding away at this theme on the campaign trail.
The charge of "talking out of both sides of your mouth" is easy to level when a candidate has her eye on both the primary and general elections. Sen. Clinton should focus on winning the nomination first. The nominee (whoever it is) will have ten solid months to focus on defeating the Republicans.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Dems' Smashup in Philly
Philadelphia - a city renowned for its raucous and demanding sports fanatics - showed Hillary Clinton what the Eagles and Phillies have known for decades: Brotherly Love is neither unconditional nor warm and fuzzy. Her Democratic rivals - led by John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama - entered the ring at Drexel University and served notice to the Clinton camp that the Democratic nomination battle is not over.
Last night's debate in Philly was the most energetic and combative of the gazillion gatherings the 2008 Democratic contenders have participated in thus far. The media buildup (ignited by the Obama camp) warned us there would be fireworks. With national polls showing Hillary running away with the nomination 65 days before the first votes are cast, there was a sense of urgency from the rival campaigns that this may be the last best chance to find that chink in Clinton's armor.
Judging from media reports this morning, it appears the relentless onslaught from her rivals (except for Gov. Richardson, who would best serve the Democratic Party by shifting his focus to winning the open NM Senate seat) eventually took its toll on the frontrunner. The Politico reported the Obama and Edwards campaigns succeeded in producing the message they wanted from the debate:
"Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says."
Did her opponents just link Hillary to the failed 2004 John "The Flip-Flopper" Kerry campaign? If so, they've sowed the seed of doubt, stalling the march of the inevitable - and robbing Hillary of one of her most powerful primary election tools.
ABC's The Note reinforces the message Hillary had a tough night as the national and local media deliver a similar verdict:
Last night's debate in Philly was the most energetic and combative of the gazillion gatherings the 2008 Democratic contenders have participated in thus far. The media buildup (ignited by the Obama camp) warned us there would be fireworks. With national polls showing Hillary running away with the nomination 65 days before the first votes are cast, there was a sense of urgency from the rival campaigns that this may be the last best chance to find that chink in Clinton's armor.
Judging from media reports this morning, it appears the relentless onslaught from her rivals (except for Gov. Richardson, who would best serve the Democratic Party by shifting his focus to winning the open NM Senate seat) eventually took its toll on the frontrunner. The Politico reported the Obama and Edwards campaigns succeeded in producing the message they wanted from the debate:
"Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says."
Did her opponents just link Hillary to the failed 2004 John "The Flip-Flopper" Kerry campaign? If so, they've sowed the seed of doubt, stalling the march of the inevitable - and robbing Hillary of one of her most powerful primary election tools.
ABC's The Note reinforces the message Hillary had a tough night as the national and local media deliver a similar verdict:
How's that for sibling rivalry?
Now we've got it straight. Sen. Hillary Clinton is a flip-flopping, record-sealing, war-in-Iran-voting, Social-Security-ducking, politically calculating, lobbyist-loving, polarizing and unelectable Democrat who acts like a Republican -- and a Clinton.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
What Will the Democrats Do About the Wizard of Wyoming?
Cross-posted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing.
The revelations in this week's WaPo series on -Vice- President Cheney finally reveal what many of us have believed all along. The nation should have been paying MUCH more attention to the little man behind the curtain. It turns out, unlike the one in Oz, the Wizard of Wyoming IS great and all powerful.
Now that the rest of America has been awakened to this sinister and unchecked "FourthBranch" (h/t to dday) operating within the federal government what are our Democratic presidential candidates going to do about it?
Glad you asked...let's take a look.
Sadly, there's been mostly silence from our would-be leaders.
A review of the candidates websites was resoundingly disappointing as I looked for substantial reactions from our Democratic Presidents-in-Waiting. To be fair, Sen. Obama did issue a press release yesterday saying:
Yes, Senator, fine and dandy. But, WTF are you going to do about the current situation?
Hillary? Silence. Someone on her web development team might want to make the site searchable, I couldn't find a Search function anywhere. Practically every press releaseis about endorsements and polls. (I've got lots to say about that, but I'll bite my tongue for now).
John Edwards? Quite a few policy statements discuss Cheney's role in energy and military policy, but nothing (at least that I could find) about the WaPo series. Biden has some press releases about Iraq & Employee Free Choice. Good, important stuff but nothing about Cheney. Over at Richardson's website it was more of the same. The deafening silence continued on Sen. Gravel's and Dodd's websites.
I thought for sure Kucinich, the sponsor of impeachment articles, would have something to say but the most recent press release is from June 8 - and it's about new campaign television ads. A "search" for Cheney brings up four press releases on the Cheney articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed in the House, but the most recent is from mid-April. NOTE TO HILLARY - even Kucinich's website has a "search function."
I'm on practically every campaign's email list - and I don't recall seeing any of them mention this - yet. I understand this is the last week of the fundraising quarter and they're focused on the money race, but come on folks. Perhaps the candidates are out on the campaign trail discussing this, but I have a hunch they're not. [of course, if someone has information I've overlooked, please let me know and I'll revise the post]
I wonder to myself, what's missing? Intelligence? Passion? Courage?
Is it intelligence? Perhaps the Democrats don't grasp the seriousness of Cheney's outside the rule of law, behind the scenes manipulations? When Harry Reid said a while back, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," he revealed the depth of the Democrats ignorance regarding Cheney. They think it's a popularity contest.
Don't they see? Fourthbranch wanted (and needed) the Democrats to dismiss him as a result of his abysmal approval ratings. While the Dems were telling jokes about his hunting expeditions, Dick was hard at work dismantling our constitutional system of checks and balances, redefining the powers of the executive branch, destroying our military and endorsing -torture- creative interrogation techniques. Now we know what Dick's been smirking about all these years.
The time for "name-calling" has long since past, Senator Reid. Even Dorothy's Scarecrow could understand that. And he didn't have a brain.
Could the silence be due to a lack of passion? The Democratic base is more engaged, enraged and committed than it has been in years - perhaps ever. This has translated into huge gains for the Democratic Party across the nation. But it's unclear (to this observer) that this passion is understood (or shared) by our elected leaders. Like the Tin Man, it might be time to find out if the DC Democrats have a heart.
Or have our "leaders" chosen to remain silent because by acknowledging what's gone on in this administration may lead them to the inevitable conclusion - the Vice President's actions demand impeachment hearings? Clearly, we've got ourselves a pride of Cowardly Lions roaming the halls of Congress and the presidential campaign trail.
We all know how Dorothy and her pals eventually discover their "missing" qualities residing within. And, I'm going to hold out hope the Democrats can find theirs, too.
On Thursday night, all eight of the candidates will gather at Howard University at a PBS-sponsored debate moderated by Tavis Smiley. I'm interested to hear what our candidates have to say about the WaPo revelations.
Now that the Fourth Estate has finally done it's job, it's time for our democratic leaders to do theirs.
The revelations in this week's WaPo series on -Vice- President Cheney finally reveal what many of us have believed all along. The nation should have been paying MUCH more attention to the little man behind the curtain. It turns out, unlike the one in Oz, the Wizard of Wyoming IS great and all powerful.
Now that the rest of America has been awakened to this sinister and unchecked "FourthBranch" (h/t to dday) operating within the federal government what are our Democratic presidential candidates going to do about it?
Glad you asked...let's take a look.
Sadly, there's been mostly silence from our would-be leaders.
A review of the candidates websites was resoundingly disappointing as I looked for substantial reactions from our Democratic Presidents-in-Waiting. To be fair, Sen. Obama did issue a press release yesterday saying:
Chicago, IL June 25, 2007
Chicago, IL-Senator Obama today released the following statement on Vice President Cheney's attempts to prevent public scrutiny of his office.
"Throughout this administration, Vice President Cheney has consistently sought to operate in secrecy and thwart rules designed to ensure the public's right to know how their business is being done. I believe strongly that democracy works best when it does its work in the daylight. In an Obama Administration, we will launch the most sweeping ethics reform in history so that we can restore an open, honest government that finally makes real progress on the challenges facing the American people."
Yes, Senator, fine and dandy. But, WTF are you going to do about the current situation?
Hillary? Silence. Someone on her web development team might want to make the site searchable, I couldn't find a Search function anywhere. Practically every press releaseis about endorsements and polls. (I've got lots to say about that, but I'll bite my tongue for now).
John Edwards? Quite a few policy statements discuss Cheney's role in energy and military policy, but nothing (at least that I could find) about the WaPo series. Biden has some press releases about Iraq & Employee Free Choice. Good, important stuff but nothing about Cheney. Over at Richardson's website it was more of the same. The deafening silence continued on Sen. Gravel's and Dodd's websites.
I thought for sure Kucinich, the sponsor of impeachment articles, would have something to say but the most recent press release is from June 8 - and it's about new campaign television ads. A "search" for Cheney brings up four press releases on the Cheney articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed in the House, but the most recent is from mid-April. NOTE TO HILLARY - even Kucinich's website has a "search function."
I'm on practically every campaign's email list - and I don't recall seeing any of them mention this - yet. I understand this is the last week of the fundraising quarter and they're focused on the money race, but come on folks. Perhaps the candidates are out on the campaign trail discussing this, but I have a hunch they're not. [of course, if someone has information I've overlooked, please let me know and I'll revise the post]
I wonder to myself, what's missing? Intelligence? Passion? Courage?
Is it intelligence? Perhaps the Democrats don't grasp the seriousness of Cheney's outside the rule of law, behind the scenes manipulations? When Harry Reid said a while back, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating," he revealed the depth of the Democrats ignorance regarding Cheney. They think it's a popularity contest.
Don't they see? Fourthbranch wanted (and needed) the Democrats to dismiss him as a result of his abysmal approval ratings. While the Dems were telling jokes about his hunting expeditions, Dick was hard at work dismantling our constitutional system of checks and balances, redefining the powers of the executive branch, destroying our military and endorsing -torture- creative interrogation techniques. Now we know what Dick's been smirking about all these years.
The time for "name-calling" has long since past, Senator Reid. Even Dorothy's Scarecrow could understand that. And he didn't have a brain.
Could the silence be due to a lack of passion? The Democratic base is more engaged, enraged and committed than it has been in years - perhaps ever. This has translated into huge gains for the Democratic Party across the nation. But it's unclear (to this observer) that this passion is understood (or shared) by our elected leaders. Like the Tin Man, it might be time to find out if the DC Democrats have a heart.
Or have our "leaders" chosen to remain silent because by acknowledging what's gone on in this administration may lead them to the inevitable conclusion - the Vice President's actions demand impeachment hearings? Clearly, we've got ourselves a pride of Cowardly Lions roaming the halls of Congress and the presidential campaign trail.
We all know how Dorothy and her pals eventually discover their "missing" qualities residing within. And, I'm going to hold out hope the Democrats can find theirs, too.
On Thursday night, all eight of the candidates will gather at Howard University at a PBS-sponsored debate moderated by Tavis Smiley. I'm interested to hear what our candidates have to say about the WaPo revelations.
Now that the Fourth Estate has finally done it's job, it's time for our democratic leaders to do theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
