Clinton to return $ 850, 000 raised by 15 year fugitive. - Page 3

xiggi · 09-12-2007, 02:20 PM

LMNOP, I understand. It does, however, not change much to the fact that Gore felt compelled to distance himself from the President. It was a calculated move, and with the loss came the idle speculation that Gore could have won with Clinton's support.

We can twist and churn it to death, but the fact remains that the immense popularity of Bill Clinton --and by extension-- of his partner also constitutes a liability in national elections. James Carville declared that it's not the job of the Democratic Party to bring forward candidates the Conservatives like; Nominating a candidate the other party despises with a passion might be more he bargains for!

Regarding the OP, the sale of our political process to unsavory characters transcends political lines, and no politician is immune to accepting money that can backfire. Fwiw, speaking about immunity and the impact of fundraising, the money raised by moveon.org does seem to buy the right to run innocuous and cutesy ads with the congressional support of one side of the aisle. General Betray US. What a classy group.

TheDad · 09-12-2007, 02:58 PM

Xiggi, do you really think that the GOP isn't in disarray & depression and that the Democrats aren't in the stratsophere? And do you really think that Independents haven't swung emphatically towards the Democrats since 2004?

Those Kerry signs in the garage may be worth money on e-Bay some day and they aren't taking up much room. Heck, I've still got my John Anderson staff pin, a couple of Secret Service pass-of-the-day pins. I'd like to nail the s.o.b. whole stole my original McKinley-Roosevelt button out of my desk at the Navy base when I was 18, however.... Just another example of Republican outrage in all likelihood.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

It does, however, not change much to the fact that Gore felt compelled to distance himself from the President. It was a calculated move, and with the loss came the idle speculation that Gore could have won with Clinton's support.

One of the early turning points in the 2000 campaign was when Clinton's pollster/strategist Mark Penn left the Gore campaign after Gore rejected his polling data showing that Bill Clinton would be a positive for Gore. Gore believed that he had to actively distance himself from Clinton and the Clinton administration.

Penn is, of course, Hillary Clinton's pollster/strategist. It is pretty obvious over the last two weeks that she isn't planning to make the same mistake Gore made. Bill Clinton has been all over the media in support of his wife's campaign, cleverly wrapped up in a book tour pitching his new bestseller, Giving.

Hindoo · 09-12-2007, 04:31 PM

"His (Obama's) problem is so obvious a school child could see it. He entered the race with an unprecedented lack of experience. In my lifetime, nobody has ever had the audacity to make a Presidential run just two years removed from a stint in the state legislature. He can't cross the "commander-in-chief" threshold."

Agreed, Obama does not have a long political resume--certainly not when compared to the many longtime political stalwarts who are lining up to be our next president. I'm not sure what's worse: no experience ... or experience. Hmmmm.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 04:56 PM

No, not just in comparison to this year's candidates. In comparison to any credible Presidential candidate in my lifetime. The next closest in lack of experience were Jimmy Carter, who had been elected to one term as Governor of Georgia and Bush, who had served 1.5 terms as Governor of Texas.

Hindoo · 09-12-2007, 05:33 PM

I see what you're saying. Still ... I'm willing to give Obama a chance. He's obviously very smart and eloquent--unlike the cretinous "decider" we've had these past 7 years, and he hasn't been around long enough to be completely soiled by the political process. Hillary Clinton's biggest problem is that too many people have rabidly despised her ever since her "baking cookies" remark all those years ago. At this point, I think Obama is the most electable Democrat.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

I'm willing to give Obama a chance.

I am, too....after he knuckles down for a few years in the Senate, gets the necessary experience against big league pitching, and invests the hard work to forge connections with the Democratic Party constituent groups such as Latinos, seniors, Jewish voters, etc.

Quote:

At this point, I think Obama is the most electable Democrat.

How can he be the most "electable" when he is not leading in a single state except his home state of Illinois?

Look at the new Qunnipiac polling for key battleground state Florida released today:

Democratic Primary

Clinton 42
Obama 13
Gore 12
Edwards 9
Richardson 1
Don't know 15

General Election:

Clinton 44 - Giuliani 44
Clinton 45 - McCain 40
Clinton 46 - Thompson 40
Clinton 48 - Romney 38

Obama 38 - Giuliani 47
Obama 39 - McCain 42
Obama 43 - Thompson 39
Obama 44 - Romney 36

Edwards 42 - Giuliani 46
Edwards 42 - McCain 39
Edwards 44 - Thompson 36
Edwards 47 - Romney 33

xiggi · 09-12-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Xiggi, do you really think that the GOP isn't in disarray & depression and that the Democrats aren't in the stratsophere? And do you really think that Independents haven't swung emphatically towards the Democrats since 2004?

TheDad, it's not hard to read the current polls. It's not hard to see that people are not happy with the current political climate, and especially with the War in Iraq. However, while they are obviously ticked off at the current leadership, it does not stop at the White House. What are the recent number of approval for Congress? Were those not supposed to be better with Madame Pelosi solidly at the reins?

My point, and the same I made when we start discussing the last elections is that it might be too early to predict. I know we do not really agree about the history of the rise of Bill Clinton when Bush Elder seemed invincible.

I simply happen to believe that much can change between now and election day, starting with the selection of the nominees. Currently, there are no real and definitive choices; just a bunch of names. From my vantage point, there won't be a whole lot to choose from, as it has been for a while, we'll elect the least unelectable candidate.

Politically, our country is as sad as it could be, and it won't change with the cast of unfits we'll have to send to the White House. I just do not understand what people cheer about.

Hindoo · 09-12-2007, 05:59 PM

The polls have mystified me. Clinton's popularity among Democrats is obviously very high, though I'm not sure why. (I have a major problem with her war vote.) I'm not sure I believe the polls that show her winning the general election. She has somehow royally antagonized a significant portion of the electorate, right or wrong, and I'm convinced if she's the Democratic candidate, right-wingers, religious nuts, sexists, and morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote against her. Thus, I don't see her as electable, despite the polls. ... Obama's biggest problem in my opinion is not inexperience, but ethnicity. I'd like to think our country has moved beyond race as a factor in voting, but perhaps it hasn't. If not Obama, that leaves John Edwards--who will undoubtedly be crucified by the Republican slime machine for his ridiculous $400 haircut. That's about the level of what we as Americans care about and can comprehend these days.

xiggi · 09-12-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

She has somehow royally antagonized a significant portion of the electorate, right or wrong, and I'm convinced if she's the Democratic candidate, right-wingers, religious nuts, sexists, and morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote against her.

Well, don't you think the DNC places its hopes that enough morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote FOR her? If we place any credence in I-Dad optimistic polls, she represents the only chance to send the Republican packing.

Speak volumes about the quality of the choices, doesn't it? Of course, we can always count on morons to pick our elected officials. And even re-elect them to multiple terms.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 08:04 PM

Xiggi and Hindoo:

You two are both overlooking the fundamental truth of both sports and politics: the team with the best gameplan and best execution of that gameplan on the field usually wins.

Senator Clinton has run the best political campaign (at this stage of a Presidential cycle) I've ever seen -- a sentiment echoed by the pundits who have covered elections for decades. Even the best presidential campaigns (Reagan 80, Clinton 92) didn't execute at this level until the general election.

She started preparing her gameplan seven years ago, has put in the time assembling a team, and has been a truly superb candidate on the stump. Beyond that, she has been relentlessly disciplined in staying on message -- a message designed to address the real issues perceived by middle-class America.

It's just blocking, tackling, and the timing between a QB and the receivers on offense...combined, of course, with a female demographic split in the electorate that is highly favorable to her particular campaign.

xiggi · 09-12-2007, 08:21 PM

I-dad, even if I would agree with you with every one of your assertions, it would not change the fact that many won't ever consider casting a vote for HRH Clinton, even if she ran against Bozo the Hyper Clown. Of course, you probably can count on the vote of Hindoo, once Obama pulls out.

Feel free to see her as superb candidate with a perfect gameplan; others see the very different picture of a cynical individual obssessed by power at all cost. For all I know, you may be absolutely correct, and you might be extremely happy in November 2008. AFAIK, if she is the answer, it must be to a heck of a screwy question.

As I said earlier, there is nothing to cheer about.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

...others see a very different picture.

Of course. Nobody is predicting a 100% to 0% general election outcome. The key states in the electoral college will all be carried by 5 point margins or less. That's the nature of the beast.

Your vote (in either Texas or California) will be as meaningless as mine in Massachusetts as none of those states will likely be in play in November 2008.

Your vote is also offset by those of us would wouldn't vote for the Pope if he were the Republican candidate in 2008, simply on the basis that the Republicans have botched things so badly in the last seven years that they must be given a time-out on a stool in the corner with a dunce cap to think about their actions. Remember, I voted for Bush in 2004.

Hindoo · 09-12-2007, 11:20 PM

"Well, don't you think the DNC places its hopes that enough morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote FOR her?"

No Xiggi, I don't.

interesteddad · 09-12-2007, 11:59 PM

The DNC, starting with Howard Dean, hates Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Clintons' cat.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060807&s=edsall080706

Quote:

During a recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart asked Howard Dean about his controversial "50-state strategy," under which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is allocating significant resources to parties in red states as well as blue ones. How many states, Stewart wanted to know, do critics of Dean's strategy want the Democrats to focus on? Dean replied, "If they had their choice, probably one--New York."

If that was a shot at Hillary Clinton, consider it retaliation. Even before Dean took over the DNC in February 2005, Washington-based Democratic operatives, some aligned with Clinton's presidential campaign, tossed around the idea of trying to sideline Dean in 2008 by creating a position called "general chairman" and appointing Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell to fill it. The putsch was quickly abandoned--Dean had built too much loyalty among the DNC's 447 members to make the plan viable--but Clinton's backers remain determined to prevent a man they view as a loose cannon from undermining their bid for the White House.

The result? Dean and Clinton--the Democratic Party's two power centers--find themselves locked in a struggle for intraparty supremacy. Each camp considers the other's political strategy fundamentally flawed. Dean loyalists dislike Clinton's stance on Iraq and her cautious approach to leadership, and they also fear she is too polarizing a figure to win a general election. Meanwhile, Clinton partisans doubt Dean's competence in managing the DNC and believe him to be just the sort of antiwar, elitist, left-wing Democrat who will scare off white middle- and working-class voters.

The Clintons have no use whatsoever for Howard Dean and what they consider his (mis)management of the DNC. That's why they've spent the last four years building a campaign infrastructure to completely bypass the DNC -- voter database, fundraising, polling, grassroots organizing, get-out-the-vote.

Dean's fundraising problems support the Clintons view. While the DCCC (Van Hollen) and DSCC (Schumer) are way ahead of 2005 fundraising for the first six months, the DNC is not only way behind, but with only about $2 million cash on hand. Dean thought that he could turn the party organization into an extension of his blogosphere Presidential campaign...forgetting the mainstream base of the Democratic party, who do not do text messaging or drink lattes at Starbucks.

Think of it as analogous to the battle for the Republican party between the mainstream country-club Rockefeller Republicans and the fringe evangelicals. The Clintons want to compete for the middle ground in American politics and govern from the center. The Dean wing is all about ideological purity and the nonsensical belief that Democrats need to be much more liberal to compete nationally.