Archive for August, 2007
August 19th, 2007
Karl Rove, soon to leave his role as President Bush’s key political advisor, enjoys near-mythic status as a political tactician. In a flurry of media appearances, he has expressed his viewpoint that Hillary Clinton is “fatally flawed” as a presidential candidate, due to her high negative ratings in polling data.
Many media pundits have speculated that Rove knows that Hillary Clinton will use his attacks upon her to solidify her support among the left-liberal base of the Democratic Party. Supposedly, that will help her achieve her goal of securing her party’s presidential nomination, a goal also sought by the Republicans, because they are said to believe that she would be the easiest Democrat to beat in November 2008.
I would like to offer an alternative interpretation. I think that Karl Rove actually knows that Hillary Clinton is the most formidable candidate the Democrats can field and that it is virtually certain the Republicans are going to lose the White House in 2008. What is at issue is preventing a total wipeout of G.O.P. seats in Congress. Hillary Clinton and her political machine are poised to inflict a severe defeat on Republican congressmen and senators that can perhaps be mitigated by the Democrats nominating a presidential candidate lacking the ruthlessness and resources of Hillary Clinton and her clique.
As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. It may be that Rove is making common cause with Obama, by butressing the arguments being made by some opponents of Hillary in the Democratic Party, claiming she is not electable, owing to her negatives in the polls. Will it work? Not a chance. The Clinton political machine is already preparing the attack ads that will use Karl Rove’s attacks on her for the benefit of Hillaryland. In effect, perhaps without realizing it, Karl Rove has just lent Hillary Clinton an endorsement that she can actually take to the bank. If Karl Rove were playing soccer, this would be described as an “own goal.” With Republican “opposition” as inept as this, Hillary and Bill Clinton are probably basking in bewilderment at how cooperative many Republicans are unwittingly proving to be in facilitating their own electoral destruction in 2008.
August 17th, 2007
A recent poll shows Hillary Clinton claiming about half of all Democrats in California. More importantly, her lead over Barack Obama has climbed to thirty percent as the prefered Democrat nominee. The flip side of the yin and yang is that New Age candidate Obama’s support has been dropping in California, while Senator Clinton keeps ascending.
The media told us all, through its so-called political experts and analysts, that Barack Obama would pose a critical threat to Hillary’s campaign. Those who have read my blog consistently know that I have been giving a completey different take. However, let’s go back to those media predictions. When Obama first announced his candidacy, several of these pundits were certain that Obama would match or pass Hillary Clinton in the polls by Memorial Day.
It should be clear that the media hasn’t a clue as to what is going on. Let me be clear, therefore. Barack Obama’s candidacy was a gift from the Gods to the Clinton political machine. He was their dream alternative candidate. Take an inexperienced novice in national politics, have the media construct a wildly exaggerated celebrity image of this supposed fresh face, in the process fool most anti-Hillary Democrats into lining up behind him, especially with their wallets and check books. In the process, derail and marginalize all of Hillary Clinton’s other Democratic competitors. Diabolical, but brilliant.
The Democratic nomination process is now down to a two person race. No one takes John Edwards seriously any more, and the other Democrats are viewed as irrelevant. In the comparisons now being made, Hillary Clinton can appear to be experienced-at least, when compared to neophyte Obama. And now, she is cleaning his clock.
In evaluating the unfolding 2008 presidential campaign, it should be apparent at this point that most of the self-appointed media experts don’t have a clue as to what is unfolding. The recent polling in California, golden news for the Clintons, does, however, provide a potent clue. The Clinton political machine’s scheme to engineer a second Clinton presidency in America is unfolding according to plan, with No-Bama playing his pivotal role in this political theatre of the absurd. Wasn’t it Andy Warhohl who once said that everyone is entitled to their fifteen minutes of fame? Barack Obama’s fame will last only a bit longer; expect his candidacy to vanish from the media spotlight by next February.
August 16th, 2007
Hillary Clinton arouses more hate than any other significant candidate running for president. This no doubt arises out of the polarizing emotions she has long afflicted on the American people. However, hatred is a negative force, and the cause of informing the electorate about the danger of a second Clinton presidency should not be diverted by such emotion.
Personally, I feel no animus towards Mrs. Clinton. However, I am convinced that Hillary is profoundly unqualified for the presidency, and her quest is driven by megalomania. Those who feel as I do must not fall into the trap of being painted as “haters” and extremists. To do so plays into the hands of the Clinton political machine, and undercuts the many powerful, logical and factual arguments that point to the unmitigated disaster that a Hillary presidency would bring to America.
The soon-to-be unemployed Karl Rove seems to be lining up for his next mission in life, by positioning himself as a number one Hillary-hater. In Hillaryland, they must be salivating. They can deconstruct all the valid and thoughtful reasons for voting against Hilalry Clinton in the general election, and portay them as all originating from the infamous and “hateful” hordes of the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The stakes are too high to allow Hillary Clinton such an easy victory.
Those who truly comprehend how dangerous another Clinton co-presidency will be for the nation must avoid the urgings of others to express their views in the form of personal hatred. The best and most honorable way of bringing people to their senses regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton and her agenda is through reason, not personal hatred. Hating Hillary is, in effect, lending ammunition to her campaign, as it seeks to silence all legitimate criticism as extremism. By avoiding personal attacks on Hillary Clinton as a human being, and focusing on her weaknesses, political expediency and poor grasp of the core issues facing the nation, we enhance the opportunities to inform and educate the American public regarding the record of Hillary Clinton, before it is too late.
August 15th, 2007
Unlike the Democratic presidential contest, where Hillary is the clear front-runner, the Republican search for a nominee remains wide open. However, Rudy Giuliani is a serious contender, and therefore we should begin assessing his viability in a fight with Hillaryland. In my opinion, it would not be much of a fight.
To begin with, Giulinai is the most socially liberal among Republican contenders. This means there are two deficits that go with this: inability to arouse passion for his candidacy from the social conservatives that form an important core within the Republican base, while also being unable to divert many social liberals to the G.O.P. who normally vote Democrat.
The three marriages and other personal baggage that go with Giuliani will marginalize the lingering radioactivity that still resonates from the Monica Lewinsky affair. In short, Giuliani’s personal history makes it implausible for the Republicans to bring up the past Clinton marital escapades as campaign ammunition.
There is only one thing left with Rudy that is seen as a big positive; a strong leadership image on national security stemming from Giuliani’s performance on 9/11. However, there is much less to this performance than meets the eye.
Living through the 9/11 horror as a resident of New York City, I can affirm that Mayor Giuliani displayed courageous leadership on that date, and the days following, which helped hold a frightened and wounded city together. However, he is not without flaws, even on the issue of 9/11. In the period before 9/11, Giuliani made a decision which added to the death toll on that terrible day. Against advice from experts, Rudy decided that the city’s new emergency command center would be built right underneath the World Trade Center, despite that location already having sustained a previous bombing, conduted by Al-Qaeda. You can imagine how much worse things were on 9/11 without a functioning emergency command center. In addition, standing beside Giulinai during the 9/11 aftermath was his police chief, a man he would later suggest to President Bush should head the Department of Homeland Security, until he ran into legal problems. It turns out that Guilinai’s record on picking key subordinates is not exactly fool-proof.
All this is well known to the Clinton political machine. To beat Rudy Guilinai in the general election, all Hillary needs to do is demolish his image of leadership based on 9/11. As tough as Guilinai is, my money is on Hillary being far more ruthless. All the vulnerabilities mentioned above will be the theme of vicious attack ads created by the Clinton political machine.
Rudy Guiliani, with all his warts, was a great mayor for New York City. But as a serious challenger to Hillary Clinton in November 2008, no way, Jose.
August 14th, 2007
The Clinton political machine has unveiled their first television ad, now running in Iowa. It is clever, portraying George W. Bush as an “invisible” president, at least to average American citizens who have need of a government that listens. Given the obtuseness and incompetence that many people now associate with the Bush administration, this is clearly an attractive campaign strategy for Hillary Clinton to pursue. It makes Bush the issue, while remaining silent on the record of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and on proof that would suggest her being more optically aware on the issues that matter.
When it came time to read the National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting in support of Bush’s planned Iraq war, Hillary chose to treat it as an invisible document, and let her staffers read it instead. When her husband engaged in sleazy behavior with a White House intern, Hillary Clinton chose to treat the evidence as invisible, and denounce the so-called “vast right-wing conspiracy,” that is until that famous stain on someone’s blue dress appeared, and could not be rendered invisible by even the most adroit Clintonian alchemy.
While Al-Qaeda plotted to attack America during the first Clinton administration, Hillary joined with her husband in treating the threat as invisible, while pursuing other matters unencumbered by national security concerns. And now, with dangers pointing to possibly another Al-Qaeda attack on the nation, this threat remains largely invisible to Hillary Clinton, while she focuses on her YouTube appearances and campaign song contests.
Hillary Clinton is trying to convince the American electorate that she is different from Bush, and that their concerns will not be invisible to her. Based on her track record, should we really believe her?
August 13th, 2007
Paul Krugman is a columnist with The New York Times, who often critiques the G.O.P. from a liberal perspective. In today’s column, he lambasted two of the leading Republican presidential candidates, as well as the current White House occupant, as being narcissistic. Now, I don’t disagree with his critical comments on Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and George W.Bush. However, what Krugman left out of his column is that the Democratic Party is as saturated with narcissists as is the Republican Party. Foremost among these self-centered Democrats is Hillary Rodham Clinton, mirroring the values of husband William Jefferson Clinton.
What could be more self-centered than to mount a presidential campaign that claims one with no serious experience with international affairs or global economics is “the most qualified” to lead the United States? Krugman points out that none of Mitt Romney’s five sons has served in the military. However, he does not remind us that the husband of Hillary Clinton was a Vietnam-era draft evader.
In his column, Krugman comments on how cynical the Republican presidential front-runners are, by saying stupid things that they are smart enough to know are stupid, because they are trying to appeal to the dumbness factor that supposedly exists among American conservatives. But Paul Krugman has nothing to say in his column about the ridiculous Sopranos video stunt Hillary and Bill Clinton performed on YouTube, or Hillary’s official campaign song contest. Is that not an example of someone obviously intelligent, trying to dumb-down the liberal electorate? Or, if Hillary had actually done a video about her position on the war in Iraq, would that be more irrelevant?
Paul Krugman’s column in today’s edition of The New York Times betrays the disarray that characterizes American liberalism. While rightfully pointing out the poor quality of many candidates within Republican circles, he closes his eyes to the same dismal reality that permeates the Democratic Party.
The Clintons are the very embodiment of political narcissism. By focusing only on the Republicans, Krugamn is facilitating Hillary’s political goals, which will certainly not be any improvement over the current sad situation.
August 12th, 2007
Assuming the apocalypse has not arrived before November ‘08, Hillary Clinton’s chances of being elected America’s 44th president must be assessed as being very high. Many reasons can be advanced for this hypothesis, however, the primary explanation is often overlooked.
Of all of Hillary’s serious adversaries, both Republican and Democrat, none are as strategically focussed on winning as is Senator Clinton. She alone has crafted a plan to win both the nomination and general election, assembled with the help of her husband and mentor, Bill Clinton, and facilitated by the most skilled political operators and consultants in the business. In comparison, all of her opponents are acting tactically, often with error-prone improvisations. In comparison, the Clinton political machine just keeps humming along, executing its campaign plan with meticulous discipline.
Those who are victorious in wars can point to having a strategy that is superior to that of the opposition. Such is also true of political wars. Hillary Clinton has planned her presidential romp for years, laying in place the ingredients of victory with tremendous self-discipline. Hillary is also a ruthless, take-no-prisoners political warrior. She is prepared to go the limit in ensuring her electoral triumph in November 2008, and no possible opponent on the horizon can equal her zeal.
For those who doubt the importance of a well thought out strategy as being essential for victory, just look at how the Bushies went to war in Iraq. They had no strategy, just a naive belief that the U.S. Army would be greeted as liberators in Baghdad, and then could soon return home.
The Republicans may be repeating this error in the upcoming presidential election. Many serious Republicans seem to believe that all they need to do is to select a nominee who reminds the American voters of Ronald Reagan instead of George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton will be rejected in ‘08. This is wishful thinking, and no substitute for the serious strategic reflection that the G.O.P. must undergo if it is to have any chance of avoiding a debacle in the next general election. What is at stake for the Republican Party is not just retaining the White House; they are facing electoral annihilation in November 2008. Their only salvation is very deep and logical thinking, otherwise, they might as well place their bets on Hillary Clinton being sworn in as president in January 2009.
August 10th, 2007
Give the devil her due. Hilllary Clinton knows how to get endorsements. Not just from fellow Democratic political careerists, now lining up to pledge their oath of allegiance to Hillaryland Inc. The big boys with the big dough are also jumping aboard the Hillary express, making sure they have smooth sailing in a future Hillary Clinton administration by placing their bets right now. Not a few of these tycoons are Republicans, past contributors to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush. As Bob Dylan once said, “The times are a changing.”
Relying on big money, Hillary Clinton has clearly established a formidable political fundraising machine. Though the media has fixated on Barack Obama’s impressive fundraising numbers, moderately ahead of Hillary’s in the last financial quarter, Senator Clinton is miles ahead of all her other challengers, both Democrats and Republicans. In no small part, her success is due to Obama’s fundraising machine sucking up the money that would otherwise have gone to more seasoned opponents of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party. However, with her political infrastructure now well established, and positioned to take advantage of the front-loaded primary season that will soon be underway, there are signs that Hillary now wishes to achieve financial dominance over Senator Obama.
The Clinton political machine, already boasting a powerful fundraising apparatus, has recently added some new hires, strengthening its ability to compete with Obama among his core contributors, who for the most part are modest donors. No doubt, Hillary’s success in trivializing Obama in the various candidate forums has tarnished Barack’s once glowing image. The Clinton people probably now see an opportunity to push their candidate’s fundraising performance ahead of Obama’s during the fall. Not that they need the money. However, should they overcome the last remaining achievment from the overblown Obama bandwagon, the wounds inflicted on Barack may prove politically terminal.
August 8th, 2007
A major financial crisis is underway, in which the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage industry is negatively impacting the U.S. housing market. Hillary Clinton, silent as a church mouse while these problems were well underway months, even years ago, suddenly is vocal on this matter. She has issued, in the name of her presidential campaign, a pledge to assist citizens at risk of losing thier homes to foreclosure, while threatening fire and brimstone upon any sub-prime lender who acted improperly.
It should be clear to anyone not asleep that this is typical Clintonian verbiage. It is only for reasons of political expediency that Hillary Clinton is now vocal on the sub-prime crisis. What was issued by Hillary’s campaign was a well crafted public relations document, not a thoughtful policy reflecting someone who had studied the issue for many years. Since there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton ever did immerse herself in the intricacies of the housing market and mortgage industry, we must assume that this is just another moment of opportunity for the Clinton political machine.
It must be conceded that Hillary Clinton and her accolytes are demonstrating a commanding mastery over their opponents for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Clinton is quick to seize on an issue that is topical, and has constructed a capable PR machine to come out with the appropriate press releases.
When it comes to substance on the housing crisis, however, don’t expect much from Hillary Rodham Clinton. She will deliver a performance that will bring the house down, but not in a manner that will be beneficial to the American economy and homeowners facing ballooning mortgage payments.
August 7th, 2007
A Gallup/USA Today poll, just released, mirrors another recent one showing Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama has widened to more than 20 percentage points. As this blog had pointed out before, the vaunted Obama threat to Hillary Clinton’s “coronation” at next summer’s Democratic National Convention was pure media hype. These recent polls confirm that Barack is No-Bama as a threat to the Clinton political machine.
While Hillary’s national poll numbers have grown, she has been primarily building up her campaign infrastructure and collecting pivotal political endorsements. Once she officially announces her presidential candidiacy (she remains currently in the “exploratory” phase), Hillary Clinton will kick into high gear, and begin to focus on the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. These two events mark the first electoral contests in the 2008 presidential election. Her goal will be to transfer her national lead in the polls to these two states, which are currently viewed as competitive. Should Hillary Clinton win convincingly in Iowa and New Hampshire, the ballgame is over, at least as far as the Democratic nomination is concerned. Statrting is September, expect to see both Hillary and Bill Clinton intensely visible in both these states, live and on television and the Internet courtesy of YouTube.
At this point, the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s to lose. As her record shows, Mrs. Clinton is not for losing. As she said when first announcing her “exploratory” candidacy, she’s “in it to win it.”
Next Posts
Previous Posts
