The Clintons Just Won’t Learn

[Woodmonkey]

The Clintons Just Won’t Learn

Whether one likes, dislikes, loves, hates, admires, fears, despises, or envies them, every Clinton watcher has this in common: They are dumbfounded both by the incompetence with which Hillary has run for president and her intransigence at sticking to a failed message. In a demonstration of inability and inflexibility reminiscent of her healthcare debacle of 1993-94, Mrs. Clinton seems destined to fulfill Voltaire's description of the Bourbon kings of France: "They learn nothing. They forget nothing."

Even now, with her back against the wall, fighting for her political career, Hillary, presumably with Bill's acquiescence, insists on making the same mistakes that landed her in the soup. No new tactics, no new strategy, no new message emerges.

Incredibly, both Clintons are harping, once more, on the theme of experience to carry the day. No matter that it hasn't worked since before Iowa; they repeat the same mantra endlessly — that Hillary can "hit the ground running" on "Day One." Will they ever realize that voters grasp two essential facts:

(a) That Hillary's experience is derivative of Bill's and her claims to his achievements are largely invented and spurious, and

(b) That the real edge she has in experience is her ability to repeat the strategies, tactics, message, fundraising models and campaign style of the 1990s, something modern voters reject emphatically?

Why, after losing 24 states, do Hillary and Bill fail to get these messages? Are they saving up these insights for their memoirs?

And why do the Clintons persist in running a negative campaign even when they can't find anything to be negative about? Alienating voters with their abrasive attacks without attracting them with their content, they throw pitty-pat punches accusing Obama one day of plagiarism for borrowing speech lines from his close and consenting friend and the next day for accurately describing Hillary's healthcare plan as requiring sanctions to make those who do not wish to sign up do so against their will (albeit for policies Mrs. Clinton deems to be "affordable").

If you are going to pay the price of going negative, throw real punches. Hit Obama with big negatives. You take the backlash for going negative in order to pass the lethal message on to the voters. But if you don't have any negatives to throw and your detectives have, indeed, come up empty, then stop trying to go negative. Stop alienating people to no purpose.

But as obvious as these observations are, they seem to be lost on Bill and Hillary and the geniuses who are running her campaign. Despite defeat after defeat, we still hear about experience and still get a daily dose of so-what attacks on Obama.

The deeper reality of this campaign is that Obama has shown, by his incredible skill in the way he is waging it, an ability to handle himself and a talent for the demands of center stage that show, experienced or not, he is better able to be president than the inept Hillary.

We are watching a grim re-enactment of all of the character traits that led Hillary to decompose in the healthcare debate of her husband's first term. The blind reliance on a guru-delivered strategy, the religious insistence on following the same rhetorical line even when it obviously isn't working, the inflexibility in adapting to one's opposition, and the inability to formulate new strategies or to improvise tactics when her pre-conceptions are found to be so obviously faulty — this is Hillary at her worst.

As citizens, we are entitled to watch Obama's skill, leadership style, and savvy sophistication and contrast it with Hillary's doctrinaire insistence on approaches that aren't working and to conclude that Hillary would be a disaster as president and that Obama would be pretty good. We can, at least, conclude that the same tenacity that led Johnson into Vietnam and may be inducing Bush to risk his party, his reputation and the attitudes of a generation in Iraq may be abundantly present in Hillary.

But we are driven to wonder: Does Hillary's rigidity stem from a false conviction or from an absence of sufficient imagination and creativity to formulate an alternative course?

The Source

[leobold1]

Since '92 Bill Clinton has been the standard bearer of the Democratic Party. He's been looked to for guidance and leadership since he took office.

There were some Dems who didn't get in the race because of Bill influence was thought to be insurmountable.

Then along came Barack Obama.

Bill's influence has been shown to be useless and his mouth is being blamed for the nose dive Hillary has taken, which is partly true. The other part is that Hillary is shooting herself in the foot.

Since McCain took off, the primaries have been low turnout on the Republican side, while the Dems have had records even higher than it was thought it would be. Obama tells of his supporters in the Republican Party and how they're for him.

I don't think so. Obama has courted Repubs, but Repubs and Independents want Hillary to lose so badly, even embarrass her in the process, that they're for Obama.

D.C.'s primary had just short of 6,000 voters on the Repub side. Dems had 117,000 voters. And of those, 75% went for Obama. In a city that was once home to both Clintons for 8 years, then another 8 for Hillary's job alone, while Obama has been there for just 3 years.

I have nothing to point to, but I believe that the Repubs have gone for Obama to kill Hillary's chances to even get in the General. McCain is treating Obama as the candidate, and Bill is down to standing on the tailgate of a pick-up truck where he once filled arenas.

And Obama's pretty liberal, so I don't see the Independents and Moderates going for Obama over McCain since McCain is so much closer to the middle than Obama is.

So, Repubs are going for Obama, just enough are going for McCain to keep him winning, and Hillary's going in the tank.

All because Hillary is married to Bill and Repubs (as well as most Independents) don't want another Clinton White House.

[Snowden]

Even now, with her back against the wall, fighting for her political career, Hillary, presumably with Bill's acquiescence, insists on making the same mistakes that landed her in the soup. No new tactics, no new strategy, no new message emerges.

I don't think she has any new message; she can't think of anything at all to say that is of interest to the voters. She's just displaying her lacks for us to see; now I think that's downright kind of her!

But we are driven to wonder: Does Hillary's rigidity stem from a false conviction or from an absence of sufficient imagination and creativity to formulate an alternative course?

I think both...

leobold1= So, Repubs are going for Obama, just enough are going for McCain to keep him winning, and Hillary's going in the tank.

All because Hillary is married to Bill and Repubs (as well as most Independents) don't want another Clinton White House.

Obama will win the primary, unless Hillary and Bill have bought enough of the superdelegates to win in spite of the people who have voted.

As an aside -- do you sometimes wonder if Bill isn't reluctant to have Hillary win the presidency? Could his ego stand her winning that? This way, especially if she loses badly, he has something to hold over her head. I think if any husband in the world needs that, it's Bill Clinton..

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Snowden

As an aside -- do you sometimes wonder if Bill isn't reluctant to have Hillary win the presidency? Could his ego stand her winning that? This way, especially if she loses badly, he has something to hold over her head. I think if any husband in the world needs that, it's Bill Clinton..

I think he wants her to win. He wants back in the White House with all its perks.

[ghostrider]

I hear both sides of the stories about Clinton and Obama. I am a Republican thank God so my choices are a lot simplier. They both have extremely strong points that they address, but the underlying question is can the victor, no matter what party, actually follow through on their promises. It's the question that's as old as the political races.

Side note, Hillary was in my town and actually ate lunch at the resturant across the street. Talk about a huge influx of people. I thought everyone in the entire county was there.