Archive for Bytch Factor

Clinton 2012

Posted by: Jason | August 27th, 2008 · 8:37 AM

James Carville called it “a bad night to be a Republican”. Candy Crowley checked down a long list of what Hillary Clinton needed to do, and did. David Gergen called it “a home run”. I call all that nonsense.

No one, the most hopeful Republicans included, expected Hillary Clinton to do anything short of go out on that stage last night, give a speech that was filled with Democrat themes, suggest her party needed unity, and charge that Barack Obama would be preferable to John McCain in the White House. But last night’s speech, in it’s minimal praise and maximum flaunting, was hardly a heartfelt endorsement of her old opponent’s candidacy.

Such mention of the name “Obama” was sparring. Clinton only mentioned the name Barack Obama 10 times throughout the speech, cushioned on either side by a laundry list of what she had accomplished and stood for in her life, making not a single reference to how Obama’s was equally as worthy. Make no mistake about this folks, this was a campaign speech for 2012.

Clinton relished in statements such as “this is why I ran for president”, over and over again, citing her character and reasoning for a life spent dedicated to certain principles. But never once, throughout the entire speech, did Clinton suggest the same of Obama’s resume.

Likewise, never once did she suggest his character was sound, or that his experience in life was relevant for the job he seeks. Never once did Clinton admit her recent opponent a better man than she had faced once, grown into a capable individual who would make a great president some day. Not… once.

No, Clinton rather stuck to generic themes of Democrat vs Republican, of how we can’t take another four years of Bush, and of mild criticism, at best, of her friend John McCain (the term, “friend”, was only extended to McCain of course).

Democrats will spin this, because they have to, because they have no other choice. Anything shy of a unified party would have been suicide for their party last night. So they’ll take the mere gesture of unity, the call for Democrats in the White House on the part of Clinton, without any real endorsement of Obama’s ability to lead as Commander In Chief. Virtually none of the worries of average American voters which are tied to Barack Obama were answered last night on the party of Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats know they have a problem with Clinton supporters who feel shafted from a scandalous, race-baiting Obama campaign, fueled by media bias at the expense of their golden girl. And that problem lives on in my opinion.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Clinton vs Obama: Which is an easier opponent?

Posted by: Jason | January 9th, 2008 · 11:39 AM

(image: abcnews)

So it’s all tied up, 1 to 1. As I dozed off yesterday evening, only to be awakened at 11pm by the confusing site of a Hillary Clinton victory speech, I realized immediately that the game had completely changed. Obama has the immediate edge as he enters a South Carolina race which features a half African American Democratic population, while Hillary continues her “national strategy”. But which Democratic opponent gives Republicans the edge this year, if any?

Let’s start with Barack Obama. Conventional wisdom suggests that Republicans would choose to run against the junior senator from Illinois. He’s barely a three-year guy in Washington, during which time he’s run for president nearly one full year. He hasn’t many accomplishments among his senatorial colleagues, is young and idealistic, and lacks the depth of knowledge and experience we often associate with a presidential candidate. To top it off, despite a rhetoric of bipartisanship that is often refreshing to those who despise hatred politics, he holds historically liberal positions. Obama voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortion in his state of Illinois, and likewise against a bill which would have protected children born alive from abortions. This is the extreme of the extreme in social terms, even for leftists. Likewise, he opposed the Iraq War when all intelligence suggested that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, a position which will hurt his national security credentials in a general election.

Yet Obama possesses something Hillary Clinton doesn’t, he’s likable. Say what you want about this quality, in at least one primary thus far, likability and inspiration have proved to be the winning message. Obama has an ability to inspire people in a way that Clinton could never, and will be seen as a guy that could “bring Washington back together” (ignore the fact that these promises are never delivered). Personal character is another quality of Obama. He doesn’t have the baggage of a Clinton, doesn’t seem someone who bows at the almighty alter of special interests. In the “year of change”, this could be just the sort of quality which could tip the scale in a voter’s mind against someone like Rudy Giuliani. Likewise, his lack of experience could prove an asset to some, showing himself as new and exciting, not merely a return to the Clinton years in the 90s.

Hillary is a different horse altogether. On the negatives, she has many. No candidate in history has ever won the White House with above 50% negative ratings. Despite two terms in the White House as first lady, it’s become increasingly apparent that she had little to do with the major dealings of the Clinton Administration, other than friendly chats with world leaders and their wives. Clinton has played her senate terms well, showing herself as a moderate on her votes (whether this was all calculated or not is unknown), but will always be seen as a feminist of sorts, a character for which men are uncomfortable about supporting. She is divisive, and no theme is more a turnoff than division in this coming election.

Yet she is experienced, or at least lays claim to that brand against Obama. Hillary Clinton has been around for us to hate for years, but in turn, has been around for years. She shows herself a woman highly involved in her husband’s political machine, probably giving daily advise if we know the Clintons. Landing herself on the Armed Services Committee, she can at least lay claim to some foreign policy experience, coupled with diplomatic experience as first lady. Woman support her overwhelmingly, and proved the difference in last night’s New Hampshire shocker, Clinton carrying 50% of the woman vote. And while Obama seems idealistic in the mold of Bobby Kennedy, Clinton seems strong and willed, sort of a Margaret Thatcher type (without the charming eloquence).

What type of candidate do Republicans run better against in this general election? It’s a question I can’t figure out admittedly. To answer it fully requires a knowledge of which candidate becomes the Republican nominee. Each are different, each having their own qualities which compete well with certain elements of their Democratic rivals. A McCain does well with independents, but does he loose some of his own base running against Obama (if Hillary isn’t there to unite us)? A Huckabee does well in the “change” department, and could be the Obama alternative with more experience, but do his religious leanings hurt him in the west against a more moderate and secular (but Christian enough) Clinton? Rudy Giuliani does fine on security and management issues, but would his tough mannerisms look silly compared with Obama’s inspiration message?

Here is my quick overview by candidate. Mike Huckabee does well against Obama; I still believe that. Both having the same message of hope and change, the southern governor of 10 years wins out on experience against a three-year senator with no accomplishments. Huckabee and Clinton is a mystery to me. While Huckabee does well in likability (and experience I think vs the former first lady), Clinton’s moderate image could fair well against the governor in places which draw back from religious tones in their politics. Or, perhaps Hillary unites the base and independents to vote against her in that race (I believe Huckabee can win independents).

McCain and Obama is a strange matchup. Both change reformers, and with a war in Iraq going smoother, Obama’s younger and more vibrant message beats out the 73-year old McCain. McCain, a horribly boring speaker and potentially seen as a deflated old timer, would match up poorly against Obama, despite experience which wouldn’t play as much a role in the race. Or would it? McCain beats Clinton however, stealing most the independent votes due to Hillary’s likability problems. Because of his opponent, Giuliani, one of three candidates which I think can now win the nomination, competes with Clinton through the use of independents, but ultimately looses by not exciting his base by loosing them on the life issue. Giuliani looses even more to Barack Obama, running a 2004 campaign of fear against Obama’s politics of hope.

After all this analysis, I still can’t figure out which candidate is an easier opponent for the Republicans. If you believe that freshness and change will win the day, you say that Clinton is the easier nominee to beat. If you believe that experience and substance of the issues wins out, than Obama is your candidate to face. Approaching a now 2-man race within he Democratic Party, this political junkie still has a few more debates to watch before knowing the answer to my initial question.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Oxfords, Boots and Flats

Posted by: Ion | September 24th, 2007 · 3:11 PM

From Tom Harkin’s Iowa cookout, different worlds in footwear:

(Tom Harkin)

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

The New Rudy Ad Is Brilliant

Posted by: Jason | September 19th, 2007 · 10:26 AM

There’s nothing like deflating someone’s credibility as an anti-war advocate by playing old video clips of their speeches. That’s exactly what Rudy Giuliani’s team has done in this brilliant piece, targeting Hillary Clinton’s disgraceful flip flop on the Iraq War. To many conservatives, myself included, Rudy’s “attack dog” mentality is quickly causing his stock to rise as a leading VP candidate for Fred Thompson’s candidacy.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

50 Cent, Political Comedian

Posted by: Ion | September 18th, 2007 · 4:45 PM

(photo: Dameon James)

Jose Antonio Vargas clips an amusing quote out of this week’s Time:

Asked if the multi-platinum selling rapper is endorsing a presidential candidate in this week’s issue of Time, 50 Cent, aka Curtis Jackson, said: “No, but I like Hillary. I think she was already our President once.”
(The Trail)

Sadly, 50 Cent isn’t joking. Which is perhaps further proof that today’s opposition slander, eventually becomes the inherited praise of tomorrow.

Republicans used to knock themselves out trying to prove that Calvin Coolidge was actually deeply involved in his presidency, even as Silent Cal said he wasn’t. Now we tend to look back reverentially on his disengaged lack of interest in his office, as having done the country an unusual stretch of good.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Clinton Fundraising

Posted by: Ion | August 28th, 2007 · 10:26 PM

While we’ve been preoccupied with Quranic literalism, exploding washing machines and the nature and political consequences of homosexuality, the rest of the blog world has been feasting on the WSJ piece about Hillary Clinton’s unlikely financiers. Yes, it appears that the Clinton campaign’s fundraising is….well, Clintonian.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.

[…]

It isn’t obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple’s grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to “attendance liaison” at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.

The Paws’ political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money-raising events.
(The Discerning Texan)

In a word, it looks pretty ugly for our girl. Like Hsi Lai Temple ugly…only worse and in San Francisco. Come to think of it, given the sums involved, this may turn out to be a scandal which will acquire its own coveted “gate” suffix. Paw-gate? Hsu-gate? Postman-gate? We’ll have to see. The total intake:

On four separate dates this year, the Paw family, Mr. Hsu and five of his associates gave Mrs. Clinton a total of $47,500. In all, the family, Mr. Hsu and his associates have given Mrs. Clinton $133,000 since 2005 and a total of nearly $720,000 to all Democratic candidates.
(WSJ)

Yep, I’d have to say that’s more than a little suspicious.

Looking for Hillary defenses, I haven’t found much so far. For what little there is, Opinionated Geek’s reaction is perhaps somewhat representative:

You know, I look at this story and I cannot help, but wonder… Is the right THAT desperate to keep a Democrat out of the White House, that they would use the Right Wing Propaganda machine, that is now the Wall Street Journal, to keep Hillary out of Office? It boggles my mind.
(Oppinionated Geek)

Ugh. That’s going to need some work.

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati

Matt Drudge on Hillary & David All on Shays

Posted by: Ion | August 27th, 2007 · 3:06 AM

Earlier tonight I was going out for take-out and Drudge’s weekly talkshow was on the radio. When I turned it on, he was mocking Christopher Shays’ refusal to answer questions from leftbloggers (video recap).

In the midst of that, he told an amusing little anecdote about an encounter he had with Hillary Clinton on blogs and the internet more broadly. Rather typically, Hillary looked at the issue from an equalitarian perspective. She said she was concerned about the growth of blogs for the opportunities in certain sites monopolizing traffic. Drudge, the monopoly unto himself, clearly wasn’t impressed this line of thinking. He had a fierce quote: “I thought, you squirrelie little bitch, you can’t control it.” He then went on to say one essentially had to work with the net, instead of against it.

Which reminds me of something else. David All had a post yesterday about the very same Shays episode, in which he was equally dismissive. If you’re familiar with David’s evangelism on the merits and necessities of new media political marketing, that should come as no surprise. But he made a particularly interesting point that due to the web video’s likely small traffic footprint, the political effect would ultimately be local:

The bad news is that it’s the beginning of a narrative that Shays is perhaps not the bipartisan figure which he claims to be. Trust me, the influential people in CT that make important decisions about politics have or will see this video. They’ll start talking. And in a Congressional District that George W. Bush lost by four points, the key to success involves getting Dems to cross party lines to vote for him because he’s an “independent” thinker.

The Shays video reminds me that Republicans — and politicians in general — still haven’t learned from the macaca moment. Just as George Allen did, Shays thought he was only talking to the small group of people in the room. Thanks to YouTube, he was actually talking to an international audience. And as we reported in May, liberal netroots activists are going to be on the trail from here on out.
(David All Group)

Add us: Digg | Del.icio.us | Technorati