Hillary Mis-steps

[imp]

What could Sen. Clinton possibly have been thinking when she remarked that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June while running for the Presidential nomination?? imp

[john5746]

hmmm... I don't know let's see.

 

Maybe she wants to shoot Obama.

 

Or

 

Maybe she was reminding people that the democratic race was still in contention when Robert Kennedy was assasinated in June.

 

You can decide.

[iNow]

She was likely thinking, "I'm relying on pure desperation now. All legitimate chances of winning the democratic primary, barring some major miracle or meltdown, have been squandered. I may as well put all my chips on black."

 

 

Racist rulette pun fully intended.

[antimatter]

Ha

I get it now

[ParanoiA]

hmmm... I don't know let's see.

 

Maybe she wants to shoot Obama.

 

Or

 

Maybe she was reminding people that the democratic race was still in contention when Robert Kennedy was assasinated in June.

 

You can decide.

 

Obviously she wants to shoot Obama.

[antimatter]

It's really the only logical step forward for Hillary now that she's essentially lost...

[Rev Blair]

She's grasping at straws. She's at the point of saying just about anything.

 

Every time I've seen her talk for the past few weeks, I get the impression that she's mentally ill, as well. I hope I'm wrong about that...I don't like her much, but I do think she's been a pretty effective politician for a long time.

 

Maybe one of you professional psychologist/psychiatrist types could give us their impressions on that.

 

She's been in the public eye for a very long time though, and is surrounded by some very professional politicians. She knows better than to say things like that, or in that way.

 

I started wondering when she made her sniper fire claims. She knew the press was following her everywhere on that trip...she was the first lady at the time. She had to know that somebody would dig up the tapes now that she's running for president and claiming to have been under sniper fire.

 

It wasn't a matter of mis-speaking, and it wasn't the kind of ambiguous claim that politicians often make, it was a bizarre statement that made no sense. It was almost as bad as Ed Muskie breaking down in tears in front of a crowd.

 

There have been a few things since then, the Kennedy one being the biggest, that have made kind of step back and think her wheels are slipping more than a little.

[john5746]

She's grasping at straws. She's at the point of saying just about anything.

 

And you don't think Obama or McCain will do the same? Yeah right.

[Rev Blair]

I don't think any experienced politician operating at that level would do it the way Hillary is doing it.

 

I don't think Hillary would be doing it if there wasn't something wrong either...she knows better than that.

[Pangloss]

John, I have to say I'm continually surprised that Hillary is willing to go to these lengths. I understand there is a strategic element there (the race being fairly close), but I don't think most politicians would have kept it going this long, no. This is telling us (or confirming for us) something about her character.

 

Just my two bits, of course.

[john5746]

I think it strange to stay in as well, but after seeing these big wins lately, why not, she already has spent the bank on this marathon and is almost at the finish line. I really think if it was Obama in this situation the media would be begging him to stay in and crying about the Clinton machine killing him and bringing up chart after chart of how vulnerable she would be in the general election and how black voters in Michigan and Florida were not counted, etc.

 

I doubt that Obama would go in debt like she has because he doesn't have an Ex President money machine at his side. Also, Clinton would select him as VP or be shot, so he would have no need to bargain his way in on the ticket. In short, Obama may have bowed out earlier than Clinton in the same situation, but I am not so sure it would have been due to character, but maybe due to money and strategy.

 

I think she should have bowed out, just as I think Huckabee should have as well. Huckabee had even less of a chance than Hillary, but the media was delighted with him staying in the race.

[Pangloss]

She does have something to lose, though. Politics is all about perception, and she stands to lose a great deal by remaining in the race too long. The potential reward seems to greatly outweigh the risk.

 

Of course I'm sure she and her people see it differently, but the number of outside political observers who see it that way is revealing. She could well be right, and maybe she's got some insight on certain variables that she's just not sharing. But that's not how it apears to the "conventional wisdom" at the moment.

 

But hey, that's why politics is so interesting to follow. If everyone always followed the conventional wisdom then nothing would ever change, and I think politics is a very fast-changing arena. As they say in baseball, "that's why they play the game".

 

In her favor, for example, is the innate, traditional defensiveness and superiority of New York voters, and the fact that her re-election to the senate is not until 2012.

[imp]

All of you have provided thoughtful insight.

 

Several angles I would never have thought of.

 

Thank you.

 

imp

[Rev Blair]

We (me and some fellow Canadians) were wondering about this today. Why is Obama so much more popular than Clinton outside of the US?

 

Their policies and records are the same until you do some digging, which most non-USians don't do. Their clips in the non-US media really aren't that different. Primaries usually don't garner much attention outside of the US.

 

So why is Obama so popular? It started before Hillary's mis-steps.

 

I'm hoping for some perspective on this...Americans watching Canadians watching Americans.

[iNow]

So why is Obama so popular? It started before Hillary's mis-steps.

In a word: Authenticity.

[john5746]

We (me and some fellow Canadians) were wondering about this today. Why is Obama so much more popular than Clinton outside of the US?

 

 

Well, inside the US:

 

Obama really hit into a movement that has occured since 2006, that is the want for change. Everything about him seems to follow this message as well. He is new to Washington, he is an African American, he spoke out against the war from the beginning(seeing the people he represented, not difficult to do.) He represents a new generation and has a dignified air about him, even when he attacks. He picked up on the remnents of Dean by going more grass roots and getting money from individuals via the web, instead of relying on the establishment, which Hillary dominated.

His marketing was simple, effective and matched him perfectly. Yes we can change Washington. This is a message for the young and progressives, which tend to dominate the entertainment media. He had no history, which means no baggage and he appears to be a likeable person. * No history inside Washington and the national spotlight.

 

Outside of the US, I would imagine his anti-Bush stance and change in how America approaches others is welcome.

 

I listed several things, but the undercurrent is emotion. Obama gave people an emotional reason to support him. Not implying that all supporters are being emotional or irrational, just saying that emotion will get you passionate support.

Edited May 30, 2008 by john5746
explanation of no history

[ParanoiA]

Great analysis John. And I certainly do respect his position to be against the war from the very beginning.

[Pangloss]

We (me and some fellow Canadians) were wondering about this today. Why is Obama so much more popular than Clinton outside of the US?

 

Their policies and records are the same until you do some digging, which most non-USians don't do. Their clips in the non-US media really aren't that different. Primaries usually don't garner much attention outside of the US.

 

So why is Obama so popular? It started before Hillary's mis-steps.

 

I'm hoping for some perspective on this...Americans watching Canadians watching Americans.

 

It's an interesting question. I'd also like to hear from more of our non-US members on this.

[Rev Blair]

I listed several things, but the undercurrent is emotion. Obama gave people an emotional reason to support him. Not implying that all supporters are being emotional or irrational, just saying that emotion will get you passionate support.

 

I think you might be onto something there, John. Our current crop of Canadian politicians are about as inspiring as sawdust. Our Prime Minster and the leader of the official opposition are both policy wonks who are afraid to talk about their policies lest they cease to be all things to all people. The two smaller parties (the NDP and the Bloc) keep their leaders on a short leash for much the same reason.

 

It's kind of like watching a porn movie with all the dirty parts edited out.

 

Then Obama shows up on our TV sets and we see how politicians could be.

 

That's against a background of a current US president who is incredibly unpopular here, and the Clinton's who were well-liked enough here, but not very exciting either way.

[ParanoiA]

It's kind of like watching a porn movie with all the dirty parts edited out.

 

I really did laugh out loud when I read that. Awesome.

 

Then Obama shows up on our TV sets and we see how politicians could be.

 

I don't know man, I've seen his kind of politics over and over my whole damn life. Change, Bring The Country Together, Cross Party Lines, blah blah blah...

 

He's good at selling it. That's what Billy was good at too - salesmanship. I think John's post really hits the details on that - it has much to do with the climate this same ole rhetoric is used within. And I think we underestimate the real impact and value of zero experiential baggage coming with him.

 

Like my liberal buddy sitting next me keeps asking..."What has he done?"

[JohnB]

Selling it, that's exactly it.

 

Our last election was the same. Kevin promised beer for all, but nobody's seeing anything but the froth.

 

Hillary represents the establishment, she's been around a long time. The impression down here is that she feels it is her right to win, she is entitled to the nomination. We don't like arrogant little snots and are quite happy to se her fall on her arse.

 

Obama has similarities to our Kevin. Been in politics long enough to play the game but generally out of the publics eye so is perceived as "new".

 

"Yep, he's saying the same old things, but he's "new", maybe he means it. I'll give him a go."

 

No offence to you yanks, but Hillary scares the hell out of me. I don't know why but I think your military "Black Ops" budget would get a serious workout if she became "Mrs. President".

[ParanoiA]

Hillary represents the establishment, she's been around a long time. The impression down here is that she feels it is her right to win, she is entitled to the nomination. We don't like arrogant little snots and are quite happy to se her fall on her arse.

 

That's the impression here in the states too.

 

No offence to you yanks, but Hillary scares the hell out of me. I don't know why but I think your military "Black Ops" budget would get a serious workout if she became "Mrs. President".

 

I used to feel the same way, only I was concerned about her economic whimsical intents rather than any military exercises. I think she's a lot more cool headed and diplomatic than people give her credit for. Honestly, in a crisis with military action on the line, I would trust Hillary over Obama in a heartbeat.

 

This is totally speculative, but he comes across to me as the guy that will "pretend" he's being cool and collective while he panics internally, whereas Hillary gives me the impression that she'll handle it as if she knew it was coming all along.

[Rev Blair]

I don't know man, I've seen his kind of politics over and over my whole damn life. Change, Bring The Country Together, Cross Party Lines, blah blah blah...

 

He's good at selling it. That's what Billy was good at too - salesmanship. I think John's post really hits the details on that - it has much to do with the climate this same ole rhetoric is used within. And I think we underestimate the real impact and value of zero experiential baggage coming with him.

 

Like my liberal buddy sitting next me keeps asking..."What has he done?"

 

I dunno...he seems a little more honest than most of them, and more willing to deal with things head on.

 

Look at his speech on race, or his analysis of some voters becoming disenfranchised and bitter.

 

When I looked at his policies and his record, I found that he had some real depth and understanding there, too.

 

His views on the economy, trade and the environment...and you really have to look at them together...make more sense than those of Clinton. He is the presidential contender who can say he was right about Iraq.

 

None of that answers my question about why Canadians like him though. In fact his policies on trade would very likely be bad for Canada.

 

A friend of mine said that it might be because he reminds Canadians of Tommy Douglas. I don't know if that's true or not...there is a certain similarity to their speeches and their views, but not their solutions or policies.

 

For those of you who don't know, Tommy Douglas is basically the guy who brought social programs to Canada, although he did it without ever holding power federally. Douglas was also Keifer Sutherland's grandfather.