Someone told me yesterday he’d seen more Barack Obama bumper stickers than ones for any other Democrat. He’s probably correct. I’ve seen a few of them, too, around the Atlanta area. But come to think of it, the only bumper stickers I saw in 2004 were for Howard Dean. So if bumperstickers are any indication of a candidate’s chances, I’m sure Hillary Clinton would gladly concede the bumper sticker primary to Obama.
But she will concede little else.
Readers of my blog (and their are dozens of you now!) know that I came this close to endorsing New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson a few months back. Quite frankly, though, he has failed to impress in the two Democratic debates so far. But I have been in awe of Hillary Clinton. Her command of issues and policy have surpassed that of John Edwards. Her charisma and oratory finesse have surpassed that of Barrack Obama. And I’m not alone in thinking that because post debate poll after post debate poll indicate the same thing: Clinton takes control of the debates and never backs down.
But while her debate performances appear to have kept her well ahead of the pack, it is her campaign strategy that has separated the (wo)men from the boys. Consider what Newsweek Magazine called her “California Strategy.” Knowing that she isn’t polling well in Iowa, a state that usually votes for the more liberal element in the party and creates momentum for the rest of the primaries, Team Clinton set a chain of events in motion in California to shift the momentum to her coming into Iowa.
First, they began organizing in California early and now have a comfortable lead in state polls. Next, they convinced state authorities there to move up their presidential primary to Feb. 5. And finally, as Newsweek stated, state law will require that absentee ballots be sent to voters by January 8, 2008. Within four days of that, by Jan. 12, tracking polls (by the Clinton campaign and, the campaign hopes, by independent news organizations) will yield the first evidence of who is winning the first actual votes in the ’08 race.
And those results will be available BEFORE Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina hold their pivotal primaries and caucuses.
Are your eyes glazing over yet? Snap out if it. There’s more.
You might recall various critiques of Clinton’s debate performance in New Hampshire in which pundits described Clinton as the “uniter” on stage. She pointed out that differences among the Democratic candidates are minor but differences between them and Republicans are major. She never attacked her opponents but stood quietly between Edwards and Obama as they bickered with each other.
Was that planned? You might think so. After pundits generally agreed Clinton won that debate, and post debate polls showed her numbers increasing over Obama and Edward’s numbers dropping even lower in New Hampshire, a spokesperson for USAElectionPolls stated, “Primary voters are very tentative to vote for the candidate that they see as playing politics within the party. They want a unified party. John Edwards should know that from his second place finish in Iowa in 2004 after voters rejected Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt for attacking each other.”
The weakness for Hillary, it seemed until this morning, was her poor polling numbers in general election match ups with Republican opponents. Now, even that appears to be shifting her way. In this morning’s new Quinnipiac poll, she bests the top three GOPers.
As they say, though, there’s still a long way to go. But with the money rolling in, poll numbers rising, major endorsements daily, a top notch political operation, and two trashy smear job books tanking sales wise, there doesn’t appear to be many obstacles on Clinton’s path to the White House.
(For centrist Democratic news and opinion, visit DonkeyDigest)
Loading ...
1 user commented in " It’s Hillary’s World. Everyone Else Is Just A Squirrel Trying To Get A Nut! "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackRichardson’s Idea on Boycotting the Olympics Deserves Further Consideration.
I am very glad that more and more people seem to recognize the importance of Richardson’s breakthrough regarding the Bush Adminstration’s abjectly failed Iraq policy. These failures have impacted almost every phase of American foreign policy, which has based more on military power than traditional diplomacy for the past six years. Richardson’s effectiveness is even clearer now, with Lieberman threatening to use nuclear weapons on Iran. I find this
posturing and blustering to be totally absurd and even dangerous; because of my extensive studies of the horrendous effects of nuclear weapons on the health of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, called “hibakusha” in Japanese.
I strongly agree with Richardson’s overall focus on diplomacy, and putting economic sanctions on Iran. I agree especially his innovative idea put forth during the New Hampshire debates. There has been a general silence among nations vis-à-vis China’s ghastly atrocities in the human rights realm, and not just about China and Darfur, but especially toward Tibetans. China has constructed in Tibet dozens of prisons which, for Tibetans, are exactly like Auschwitz and Dachau.
I posited the same idea in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, in correspondence to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and to many heads-of-state, that the moral indignation of the nations in the Olympics in Beijing in 2008 could be harnessed into at least the threat of a boycott. To be effective, this could be perhaps worded more diplomatically. During the debate, both Senator
Edwards and Senator Biden clearly agreed with this point by Richardson.
Make no mistake: this is probably the last chance in human history to do anything constructive about Tibet, to prevent henceforth the genocidal treatment of Tibetans remaining in Tibet, which has since 1959 seen 1.2 million Tibetans killed. This totals, roughly 20% of the entire population of Tibet. American political powers could decline to put to use what little
remains of our powers of moral suasion in the world at large, and we could to once again docilely capitulate to dim-witted politicians who say that the Olympics are only about sport, and not about politics, and such claptrap as “a boycott would unfairly punish the athletes.” Then we would be no better than the many nations who were oblivious to the growing obviousness of the genocide of Jews in Europe before and during World War II.
Actually, the USA was for many years totally oblivious in this regard, whether you blame Roosevelt or anti-Semitics in the State Department, all of which is thoroughly documented in Arthur Morse’s book, While Six Million Died. In that light, we think Richardson is on the right track! The case is even stronger, when you consider the dead pets and the poisoned cold
medicines and toothpaste from China. Those considerations are just not “about politics”: that was life and death for many, including at least 100 dead, mostly children, in Panama!
News: In what may be its most audacious Olympic act yet, China’s Ministry of Public Security has issued an incredible directive that lists 43 categories of “unwanteds” who are to be investigated and barred from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Pariah groups include: - eerily vague “key individuals in ideological fields” - “overseas hostile forces” - “counterrevolutionary” figures - the Dalai Lama and all affiliates - members of “religious entities not sanctioned by the state” (e.g., Roman Catholics) - “individuals who instigate discontentment toward the Chinese Communist Party through the
Internet,” - and even certain types of “disabled” persons. Members of the Falun Gong would be barred, as would be “family members of deceased persons” killed in “riots” — a euphemism for events such as the Tiananmen Massacre —
and Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, which the regime brands “national separatists.” Only at the very bottom of the directive does it identify “violent terrorists” and members of “illegal organizations” as targets for investigation and possible barring.
Respectfully,
Stephen Fox, stephen@santafefineart.com
Leave A Reply