more ‘obvious truths’ for ms. ferraro

by lestro

First, it is important to note that I do not think Geraldine Ferraro is a racist. Rather, it is just her old-world, has-been view of the world that is boxing her in and preventing her from seeing the whole story; another reason generational change is the only realistic solution.

Now, after doing her part and delivering the Clinton Campaign’s most recent bit of slash and burn race-based vitriol, which the candidate has apparently ‘rejected’ but not ‘denounced,’ Geraldine Ferraro – a then-unknown US Rep from New York who was plucked out of obscurity and placed on the 1984 Democratic presidential ticket because the nominee wanted to make a statement – is stepping down from her official role in the campaign.

Interesting to note though, that according to the Washington Post, a senior Clinton adviser said “Nobody told her to step down.” Nice, Hill. Demand that Samantha Powers be fired, but cling tight to Gerry. Well done.

Her campaign says they couldn’t fire her because she is not an adviser, but one has to imagine that nobody gets a title like “Honorary New York Leadership Council Chair” on the campaign finance committee without approval from the top.

Ferraro is still not backing down from saying “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept,” instead sticking by it and calling it an “obvious truth.”

well, then, since we’re on the topic of obvious truths, let’s look at a few others, shall we?

here’s one: Hillary Clinton is only in this race because she marries well. period. Hillary Clinton is a nobody unless she marries a future president.

Read more of this post

Advertisements

The superdelegates need to “get real” with the Clinton campaign

by lestro

And once again, the Clinton campaign has revamped its message.

After failing to get much traction by accusing her opponent of plagiarism (lifting two lines from a national campaign co-chair and long time friend and used in response to the Hillary’s fadeaway shots on Obama’s powerful oratory), the Hillary campaign is trying out some new material, according to CNN:

As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party’s front man…

“It is time to get real,” Clinton said, “to get real about how we actually win this election… It is time to move from good words to good works — from sound bites to sound solutions.”

As it increasingly looks as though neither candidate will get the requisite delegates necessary to lock up the nomination through primaries and caucuses, the focus in this race has turned to the superdelegates, the 795 party insiders and muckity-mucks who get to be delegates fro whomever they choose.

As (mostly) high-ranking party members, however, one would expect that the superdelegates would not only vote their conscience, but also have to think about what is best for the party and which candidate has the best chance of securing the White House for the Democrats.

And with that in mind, it is time for the delegates to take Mrs. Clinton’s advice and “get real” with each of the campaigns.

The first thing to remember is that if one candidate has more elected delegates, more popular vote and more states won, but party members select the other candidate, they will destroy the Democratic Party. After all, why should rank and file members of any political party stay with a group that overrides their votes and feelings?

There would be no viable explanation for such a move and it would turn off all of those voters who thought they could believe in the Dems to listen to their collective voices.

And smart money says it would lead to a landslide for John McCain.

But beyond all that, these two candidates have similar positions and neither has any real executive experience (despite what Hillary may tell us) so one of the best ways judge these matters is to look at the administration of their campaigns.

And by that measure, the choice is obvious: The Obama campaign has been run much, much better.

It didn’t always seem that way, but after the events of the past few weeks there can be no doubt.

The first real mistake the Clinton campaign made was underestimating their opponent and the general desire for change in the country, and not just a figurehead change, but a real, honest-to-god change of perspective and vision.

In failing to recognize that, the Clinton camp decided to run a fairly traditional Democratic campaign, focusing on a few early contests and then targeting the Big States, all of which she won.

But failing to learn the lessons of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, the Clintons mostly ignored what is commonly referred to as “flyover country,” barely, if ever, visiting states that Democrats do not tend to do well in and, just like Al Gore and John Kerry before her, failing to recognize that you don’t need to win NY and Cali to win.

So, while Hillary was stumping around a few select places, Obama set up organizations in every state and drummed up support in every corner of the country, even in Idaho, where he set attendance records at an arena in Boise. Acknowledging the turnout, he opened with the line “they told me there were no Democrats in Idaho,” at which the 15,000 or so in attendance exploded into applause.

We know whose strategy proved better.

Read more of this post

Bubba vs. Bubba

by lestro

The Clinton campaign continued the tired experience attack today, with the former president taking personal offense that he is not getting his due for his legacy as president:

Former President Clinton on Friday accused Sen. Barack Obama, his wife’s rival for the Democratic nomination, of trying to ignore any accomplishments they achieved during their years in the White House.

“You have one candidate who’s made the explicit argument that the only way we can change America is to move into a post-partisan future and therefore we have to eliminate from consideration for the presidency anybody who made good things happen in the ’90s or stopped bad things from happening in this decade,” said Clinton

Without mentioning Obama by name, Clinton said the Illinois senator was promoting a position that it’s “actually an advantage to not have any experience because you’ve not made anybody mad.”

But that’s a different tune than he was singing in the first debate of the 1992, when the topic of experience was the first issue they discussed, though nowadays, President Clinton sounds more like his former rival:

President Bush: Well, I think one thing that distinguishes is experience. I think we’ve dramatically changed the world. I’ll talk about that a little bit later, but the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Kids go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. And change for change’s sake isn’t enough. We saw that message in the late seventies when we heard a lot about change. And what happened? That “misery index” went right through the roof. […]

Mr. Lehrer: Governor Clinton, how do you respond to the President — you have 2 minutes — on the question of experience? He says that is what distinguishes him from the other two of you.

Governor Clinton: I believe experience counts, but it’s not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my State also should count for something. I’ve worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people. My State now ranks first in the country in job growth this year, fourth in income growth, fourth in the reduction of poverty, third in overall economic performance, according to a major news magazine. That’s because we believe in investing in education and in jobs.

We have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change.

Read more of this post