Wednesday, February 20, 2008

A Tale of ThreeTwo Speeches

Here's a short video put together by TPM showing the speeches from the three contenders last night. Check it out.



I submit that there is little to no difference between Clinton's and McCain's speeches, and that if this is to be her comeback strategy, she is finished. The back and forth between those two speeches is revealing in a way that even Obama, with all his skill, cannot illustrate more clearly—Hillary is more of the same, just like McCain. Yeah, it's a different "same" but it sure as hell ain't change.

Here’s a serious query…

Looking over the race, how much of Obama’s criticism of Clinton have been of the nature that would harm her and the party’s chances in the general election? I seriously cannot think of any.

While everything—EVERYTHING—coming out from the Clinton camp is stuff that can be picked up and used by the Republicans in one way or another or is designed to damage him as a candidate going forward as much, if not more, than it impacts him now…

Seriously. I know I am biased, but I really am having a hard time thinking of the worst stuff he’s been thrown at Hillary. There've been some less-than-clean mailers, but they've still been honest, and won't serve as ammo for Republicans...what else?

He seems to have stuck more or less to contrasting the two of them before Democrats, while she goes on stage last night and rather than concede Wisconsin, she pretends it never happened and claims he’s not ready to be President.

Hillary Clinton is willing to sow defeat in November for (at this point) futile points in February. Her campaign is going from pathetic to loathsome, and she cannot get eliminated fast enough. There is not going to be anymore "healthy debate" on the Democrat's side, all that can happen going forward is detrimental to the party now, in November and for potentially years to come.

18 comments:

Toast said...

I'm not nearly as worried about Hillary's "same ol', same ol'" speech (although if I hear one more time that she's "ready to lead from day one" I might puncture my eardrums out of self defense). I am, however, horrified at her campaign's efforts to get MI and FL seated without doing a re-vote. Absolutely fucking horrified. I've got a post coming on this later this morning. What I find most alarming about it? It's not just her campaign backing this manifestly unfair strategy, it's her rank-and-file supporters. I'm just blown away.

Toast said...

Regarding the video, I'm not really seeing the big deal here. Hillary, obviously, is running against Obama, and McCain is increasingly reorienting his campaign towards Obama as his opponent. I'm not surprised that they're using many of the same rhetorical gambits, especially since they're both going after him almost exclusively on style and tone rather than policy.

Mr Furious said...

Yes, but can you answer my question? And as a more neutral observer, I'm particularly curious to hear from the likes of you, Mike, the Howards, etc.

I'm becoming less and less worried about superdelegates and MI and FL because I don;t think it's going to end up being that close...

I'm becoming much more annoyed at Hillary salting the fucking ground so that NOBODY beats McCain in the fall.

She should be trying to beat Obama, but not from the same angle as McCain.

Toast said...

She should be trying to beat Obama, but not from the same angle as McCain.

I hear you, but what other angle does she have? Their policy differences are too few and too subtle. All she's left with is the (bogus) experience argument and attacking his one obvious strength: His ability to move people with his speaking. Besides giving up (which would be nice at this point) I don't see what else she can do.

In any event, Glenn Greenwald has this cheery observation for you:

The most interesting and potentially most significant aspect of Obama's convincing win last night is that it came after a week in which -- really for the first time -- he was targeted from all political and media corners with a relentless stream of the strain of petty though toxic trash which has dominated our political discourse and elections for decades now. And it didn't really seem to have any impact at all.

Indeed.

Mr Furious said...

Matthew Yglesias just posted this:

Right-Wing Talking Points

I'm looking forward to Paul Krugman's condemnation of this. More generally, one thing Hillary Clinton's supporters need to consider at this moment is the extent to which she and John McCain are reading from the same sheet of talking points.

If you genuinely believe in your heart that Obama is too green to be president, and that the person with more Beltway experience belongs in the White House, then by all means keep saying that stuff but if you would prefer Obama over McCain if Clinton can't get the nomination then you do need to consider what the impact of having high-profile Democrats going on record claiming that the likely Democratic nominee can't do the job is going to be. That's a different kind of thing than hitting him on his health care plan, or pointing to his sometimes off-base environmental record in the Senate.


The link he references is fucking crazy, but par for the course. Hillary's opening act is a rabid attack dog more akin to Sean Hannity than any good Democrat.

Mr Furious said...

Sure that part was cheery, but the rest made me vomit in my mouth...

It will be ugly.

John Howard said...

It's an interesting point. I haven't thought much about it since I pretty much ignore everything they say about each other in the primaries anyway. I'm sure Clinton supporters can find things that Obama has said that they think will hurt her in a general election, so I don't know if I really agree with your point. However, I do think Hilary sounds pretty pathetic at this point. As Toast said, the repetition of being ready to lead on day one is horrendously annoying, even more so since it's just a completely manufactured thing.

Anyway, I'm not terribly worried about it, I really don't think McCain can beat Obama.

Mr Furious said...

I'm sure Clinton supporters can find things that Obama has said that they think will hurt her in a general election

Where is Michelline when you need her?

John Howard said...

I didn't want to mention this, because it sounds silly, but it annoys me everytime I come here, so I'm pointing out that you have our blog name spelled wrong.

Mr Furious said...

Fixed. I had Olbermann's name spelled wrong too.

Chris Howard said...

I think you're being overly generous to Obama here. The fact that McCain can't use Obama's arguments against Clinton is just chance. He's as much a part of the Washington establishment as she is. I doubt that the Obama campaign is looking at their strategy and blunting their criticisms for the good of the party. I like Obama, but I doubt he's quite that self-sacrificing.

Rickey Henderson said...

If anyone's interested, there's some serious comedy gold in the NYTimes McCain article comments section coming from self righteous & undereducated conservatives who are all up in arms and whatnot over this alleged scandal.

See if you can spot Rickey's insightful comment! It's comment #1296 which suggests that McCain has a propensity for banging women who resemble elois!

Smitty said...

how much of Obama’s criticism of Clinton have been of the nature that would harm her and the party’s chances in the general election? I seriously cannot think of any.

I'm actually with you on this. On the state level, politicians largely seem to recognize this. Dems or Republicans certainly seem to try to outdo one another but are able to do so without providing the other side with ready-made talking points. Too bad this can't be mirrored on the federal level.

At worst, HRC is victorious, but her victory is pyhrric and McCain uses all her talking points against her. And all the Independents leave to vote for him (or at least most). Best case at this point: Obama wins anyway, and has to respond to the same allegations from McCain that he had to endure from HRC. The difference is that if you say things enough, they start to stick.

Deb said...

"I doubt that the Obama campaign is looking at their strategy and blunting their criticisms for the good of the party. I like Obama, but I doubt he's quite that self-sacrificing."

Actually, the way I suspect those discussions go is something like, "If we do it this way, we'll be clean in November. It's a win for us and a win for the party." Self-sacrificing, no. But strategically smart, both for the candidate and the party? That I buy.

Mr Furious said...

McCain has a propensity for banging women who resemble elois!

I was thinking Vanilla Ice.

Mr Furious said...

Maybe Dolph Lundgren...

Mr Furious said...

The fact that McCain can't use Obama's arguments against Clinton is just chance.

LOL. You're right McCain can just take Hillary's own selling points and trump them. Experience? I've got more. Foriegn Policy? More. Etc...

--

My point is that Clinton poor planning has left her in a position where she HAS to go negative and try to bring down Obama, and his viability to be POTUS is on the table. That is regrettable because he is likely to be the nominee and she is hurting the party's chances.

Obama's in a better position and can train his sights on McCain rather than Hillary, but that's due to his more successful strategy and results.

The general election nature of her attacks on Obama coupled with her talk of superdelgates, pledged delegates, MI and FL, etc all are indications to me that she is more than willing to burn the village in order to save it.

That's a fucking problem for me.

Heather said...

This has nothing to do with politics: methinks I forgot to comment back after you left a nice comment on Team Hansen a few weeks back. Pregnancy Brain strikes again. My apologies.