.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Dear Clinton supporter.......

I don't dislike Hillary Clinton. I think she'd make a great president, just like I think Obama would. It's her CAMPAIGN that has rightfully received my derision.

I don't think I've ever actually criticized Hillary Clinton or her positions on this blog. (Or really praised Obama as a person or his positions.)

I have written mainly about the campaigns, the events, and the strategy, and frankly, the Clinton campaign and strategy deserves heaps of criticism. The Clinton campaign has been outplayed, backwards and forwards, up and down.

They still have arguably the better candidate, but all they're talking about now is figuring out ways to take Obama down. They're not trying to figure out ways to lift Hillary Clinton up.

I'm sorry if I'm not criticizing Obama enough for your tastes, or reflecting the points you want made, but from the beginning, my focus has been more on the campaign than the candidates.

And when you really think about it, I don't think you can honestly tell me that the Clinton CAMPAIGN doesn't deserve to be pilloried.

posted by mikevotes at 7:41 AM

12 Comments:

  • Do the tactics of a campaign reveal anything about the character of the candidate? If they do, then I'd have to say that I DO have reservations with Hillary as president.

    I have serious concerns of how she would react to public opinion when it ran counter to her decisions (like Bush). She has shown a divide and conquer political stratagem that attempts to marginalize dissenters (like Bush). I have concerns with her twisting the truth to convey false impressions (like Bush).

    These are not merely bad campaign strategy, they are indicative of the candidates temperament.

    By Blogger -epm, at 9:00 AM  

  • I guess I have misunderstood you all along. I thought that what is important are the people behind the campaign - the candidates. You're free to write whatever you want and focus on whatever you chose - obviously. I worry that this pass we are giving to Obama AND his campaign may result in what you once mentioned as "buyer's remorse" I REALLY hope the man and his campaign are what they say they are and that they can stand up to the Republicans.

    I am not asking for you to criticize Obama, I am just asking you to look at his campaign with the same level of scrutiny that you are looking at Hillary's Does Hillary's campaign deserve to be pilloried? Given that she is behind and losing ground - then yes.

    By Blogger Ptelea, at 9:16 AM  

  • Interesting look at actual legislative work done by both Clinton and Obama in the past year. It's from a Dkos diarist, but there are plenty of references to Library of Congress and bills.

    One might say the media are giving Clinton a pass on the her claims of accomplishments. There are taking it on face value that Clinton has pertinent experience and that Obama does not. I would argue that Obama is being short changed.

    Legislatively, there's no difference between Clinton and Obama. I think both have worked hard to promote good legislation. I don't think it clear at all that the Clinton campaign has the better candidate: either on successfully passing legislation, or organizing coalitions, or inspiring others to act.

    During the Bush presidency what have the candidates done to roll back executive power grabs, attacks on the constitution, governmental secrecy, strengthen congressional ethics, fought for congressional oversight authority. These are the most fundamental pressing concerns I have. Much more than whether November 7, 2007 was declared "National Organic Wheat Germ Day"...

    By Blogger -epm, at 10:13 AM  

  • Ptelea, What exactly am I "supposed to be" posting?

    Am I supposed to be trying to convince people that one candidate (presumably your candidate) is awesome and the other one is horrible?

    I find that very tiresome when I read it elsewhere and I assume that everybody else does as well.

    .....

    You want me to print skepticism about Obama, should I also be printing all the anti-Clinton stuff that's bouncing around? I think that's a blogging black hole that will only lead to people spitting back and forth.

    So, I made the decision to focus on all the little campaign bits that reflect the strategy and horserace.

    I think that's interesting.

    ....

    I understand you don't like my characterization that Clinton is hanging by a thread, but Clinton IS hanging by a thread right now.

    I understand you don't like my characterization that the Clinton campaign has chosen to drag Obama down rather than lift their candidate up, but that's what her own campaign staff was saying just yesterday.

    ......

    I enjoy you coming by and enjoy your comments, but I'm printing more or less what I see.

    I definitely tilt Obama personally and that has seeped in, but, it's not like my coverage shapes or creates the situation in any way.

    Just treat it as a link site.

    ......

    EPM, I'm not really going down that sort of road. A case can be made either way, and I just don't want to fight about it.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 12:11 PM  

  • Mike, not trying to "fight" about it... though I'm sure you realize that.

    While not addressing you, personally, I'm just standing on my soapbox saying there's a presumption that Hillary has a record of substantive populist accomplishment and that Obama is, in Hillary's words, "all hat and no cattle." I think scrutiny will show they are much, much closer to being equally competent legislators, and that, perhaps, Hillary is more of a spotlight hound than she's willing to admit.

    So if there is but a shade of difference in their accomplishments, all that is left is their ability to rally people and lead a nation. And that's where I think Obama's strength lies.

    By Blogger -epm, at 12:17 PM  

  • I don't think you are reading what I have written - Clinton is not my candidate - I have reservations about both. I am just trying to figure out who would make the better choice: who is the better candidate and who has a better chance of beating the Republicans.

    I have always appreciated your site and what seemed like a balanced choice of links and commentary. I am sorry you find my comments tiresome but I, too am just expressing the way I see it. I was just trying to add a different perspective.

    By Blogger Ptelea, at 12:28 PM  

  • Here's a pretty awesome post complete with research behind many of the bills Obama and Hillary have either authored or sponsored.

    It's an interesting read.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:29 PM  

  • Ptelea, Sorry if I overreacted.

    There have just been a number of commenters over the last few months who felt that they knew what "I was supposed to write."

    It gets to me every damn time for some reason.

    I really enjoy your comments and the well mannered back and forth.

    I think I just cast you into a bucket you didn't belong in. Again, sorry.

    For some reason, that you should think this or write that always gets up my rear and generates an assymetric reaction.

    .....

    To your broader point, as I've been saying all along, Obama is a bit more of a gamble. The downside would be if he can't work the levers of the Democratic Congress and ends up being either pushed/led around or worse, powerless.

    The potential upside for Obama is big. He could be a Democratic Reagan.

    All evidences seem to be that his judgment is pretty good on the people around him and his political "feel" seems pretty good.

    Clinton on the other hand is a more predictable quantity. She's going to work her levers in the Dem party, rankling some, and be able to generate incremental policy improvement.

    To my mind, it all comes down to whether you want to take that gamble. And only you can make that call.

    .....

    EPM, First, nobody in Texas says "all hat and no cattle" anymore. That's one of those things outsiders say to try and sound Texan. (I'm sure there's some New England equivalent.)

    And to repeat what I said above, I think her more relevant experience is in dealing with the bureaucracy and watching how the levers of power are exercised. Her particular issue experience I don't see as important as that.

    BUT, an Obama White House would likely bring in a Chief of Staff who knows their way around, so, you know.

    And I do see value in inspiration. Going back to Reagan, he couldn't have done all that he did without the ability to bring the American people along with his ideas.

    ....

    Jeff, Thanks. I'll take a look.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:34 PM  

  • Regarding "all hat and no cattle"...

    I saw video of Hillary at a TX event where she used that phrase in a swipe at Obama. That's why I said "in Hillary's words...".

    I'm not up on my Texas vernacular, but you do say things like "Plum loco" and "I wouldn't give a plug nickel..." and "Fool me once... I can't be fooled ag'in." Right? At least that what I see on the TV box. LOL

    By Blogger -epm, at 1:47 PM  

  • Clearly, yes, the Clinton campaign has made major strategic and tactical blunders--starting with allowing Michigan and Florida to slip out of her grasp. That kind of horse-race stuff is interesting and perhaps relevant to her abilities. And some of their comments have been tone-deaf at best.

    But that very fact, I think, negates the argument that she is so shrewd a politician that every little wiggle of her campaign is intentional. So in my opinion there has been too much weight given (not just here, but everywhere) to minor gaffes; and too much malevolence attributed to ordinary political spin.

    I wish Obama's campaign had been subject to the same level of critical evaluation (again, not just here, but everywhere). Just to repeat a few things I've pointed out along the way that I think were deserving of criticism but didn't get much--

    "Hope is never false"... Oh really? In that case I hope Hillary wins 99% of the remaining delegates...

    The video with no white people over 40 in it. Very sleazy branding IMO.

    The Scarlett Johansson robocall asking me to "join her and other YOUNG California voters..." Who's using wedge politics now?

    Obama's harsh and ungracious "victory" speech on Super Tuesday.

    I agree with you that either Clinton or Obama would make a good president; and I appreciate that you haven't been an Obama cheerleader in any major way. As far as what you include here or don't include, obviously that's a judgment call that only you can make. But I do think there are cracks in the Obama facade that would be very interesting to explore.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:09 PM  

  • When is any presidential election (other than voting in a second term) NOT a gamble?? HRC has a small window here over the next two weeks to gracefully help OB and set herself up as the most powerful senator for the next 8years. But if she draws this out, uses the 527s, has surrogates go all-negative then HRC will be labeled the sore loser and any cooperation between an OB oval office and her will be spotty.

    Dukakis could beat HRC with the campaign she is running.

    Everyone says "If OB has as much attention paid as HRC" -- don't you think the campaigns have tried? Don't you think the MSM would love to dig into his past now that he has all the mo? Why is it so hard to accept the REAL possibility that OB is a clean candidate; in-touch with the thirst for change; not just the right guy in the right place?

    100% of fault for the failure of HRC's campaign is on HRC! They have already said it's a fluke, states don't matter, i'm getting picked on, no one pays attention to OB policies, hell if it wasn't for the tears she would have lost NH!

    I am not a pie-in-the-sky/lets hope for a better day person, but OB has energized me to the point that I actually CARE about politics. That is his difference! He affects people in one way: he makes them CARE! Too much clinotn fatigue and the bill-ego machine causes a lot of soft dems and indies to not care. I know i didn't care until OB started to get some traction and attention paid to him.

    HRC's campaign will be studied for a 100 years as to how to lose a sure thing. My fear is she gets dragged out kicking and screaming and she loses her chance to be a truly great senator working with OB. The kind of senator where buildings are named after you. The great kind of senators that worked with FDR and created 46 years of demoratic achievements still talked of today.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:59 PM  

  • Tg, All the other ones I probably wouldn't post because they're a little below my normal level, however, the Wisconsin speech on top of hers I probably should have.

    I actually wrote a specific post on that and held it to see if we ever got more backstory before I posted so I could fill it out a bit. I figured there had to be some kind of twist in there that was really noteworthy, but nothing concrete was ever put to print.

    (The Obama campaign is frighteningly disciplined in their ability to shut down things they don't want out.)

    And, I've got one on "Hope" I'm sitting on right now, kind of a working theory of why his message has been so effective and bulletproof. I'll probably put it up tomorrow or Saturday depending on what else is going on.

    .....

    Anon, That's the challenge she faces, how much to go all in, because she does have things to lose if she comes out of it a villain. And the damage may also include a ding on the Clinton legacy as a whole if it gets really nasty.

    And, I really don't know how "clean" he is. Something may pop up, it may not. I just don't know. I'm not that wired into the gossip mill. Thus far, though, Rezco which is a pretty weak charge, seems to be the worst.

    I'm really glad to hear people excited about politics, that's always a good thing.

    And, Kerry 2004 goes in that textbook, too.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home