Clinton hits a homerun at the AFSCME forum

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Sen. Clinton joined the other Democratic candidates at the AFSCME union forum today, moderated by Chris Matthews. The exchange on Scooter Libby at the start of this video was the best political theater of the campaign so far:</p>

<p><a href=“http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=92c12a9d-3a7a-498e-b67b-8e8e28f45363&f=34&fg=rss[/url]”>http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=92c12a9d-3a7a-498e-b67b-8e8e28f45363&f=34&fg=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Clinton took total control of the situation. Great stuff for campaign junkies.</p>

2

<p>Yepsen: Clinton’s fine showing should help her in Iowa
By DAVID YEPSEN
REGISTER POLITICAL COLUMNIST</p>

<p>June 29, 2007
Add comment </p>

<p>Score one for Hillary Clinton.</p>

<p>The New York senator turned in the single most impressive performance during a debate among the Democratic presidential candidates Thursday night in Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>Clinton was crisp, cogent and methodical in her answers. She understood better than any of the other candidates the need for terse answers when so many candidates are given so little time in which to answer questions.</p>

<p>It’s more than just a debating skill. American presidents lead the nation through television appearances, and Clinton’s performance Thursday night suggests she can do that. She showed she has mastered the ability to put a lot of information into a few seconds on the tube.</p>

<p>She did that by talking more about solutions instead of yammering about how bad the problems are. Some of her opponents, who’ve had careers in the U.S. Senate or House, didn’t get to the point before their time was up.</p>

<p>Her performance Thursday night was so good it should help her cement her lead in polls of the race nationally. In Iowa, where she’s not been doing as well as she is across the country, it should help her break away from Barack Obama and try to overtake John Edwards.</p>

<p>Obama held his own, but at this stage in the race, he needed something more stellar to show he’s got some depth on issues. (His most memorable moment came when he made it clear he got his HIV test with his wife.)</p>

<p>A big disappointment was John Edwards’ performance. He let himself get lost in the shuffle.</p>

<p>Joe Biden was sometimes too angry and too hot for television. Chris Dodd looked and sounded presidential, as usual, but he was marginalized by being placed next to the loose cannon of the race, Mike Gravel. Gravel and the other minor candidate, Dennis Kucinich, are given no chance of winning the nomination and seem to be doing little in the campaign except showing up for these debates.</p>

<p>Thursday’s event was a refreshing change of pace from earlier forums. It dealt with issues such as education that often are eclipsed by discussions of terrorism and the war in Iraq. Also, all candidates got to answer the same question, which helps voters make comparisons.</p>

<p>And the nation got to get a look at some of the special problems facing African-Americans. Questions about AIDS, poverty, the high incarceration rates of blacks, Africa and racial discrimination aren’t often discussed in prime-time debates, and they got an airing Thursday night.</p>

<p>The debate was carried live by Iowa Public Television. The only downside was that it was held on a lovely summer evening. The lure of the back yard or the front porch may have overcome even the most ardent political activist’s need to watch yet another presidential debate.</p>

3

<p>David Gergen commented last night that Clinton’s performance was actually rather lackluster. Guess it depends on who is doing the viewing. :)</p>

4

<p>I didn’t watch the debate, but Clinton has real problems with potential voters.

<a href=“http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571[/url]”>http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

5

<p>I bet that Barack Obama and John Edwards wish they had Hillary’s problems in this race.</p>

<p>She maintains a solid (and perhaps strengthening) double digit lead in the polls and is set to suck all the oxygen out of the coming news cycles with the Hill and Bill show in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next two weeks.</p>

<p>Introducing Hill Cam:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrCiSZ64N1w[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrCiSZ64N1w&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

6

<p>The Wayne Dumond case illustrates that Republicans won’t think rationally about the Clintons even when lives depend on it.</p>

7

<p>I think Hillary Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States. Just look at the competition from both parties. Who will beat her? I am going to have to start paying attention.</p>

8

<p>I’m looking forward to seeing the advertising that Jimmy Siegel puts together for Hillary Clinton. </p>

<p>Here’s an example of his work – an ad for the Eleanor’s Legacy women’s vote group that Hillary founded in New York state:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nywomenvote.org/[/url]”>http://www.nywomenvote.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Guess so. In 1960, most people who watched the debates on television said Kennedy won. Those who listened on the radio mostly gave it to Nixon. Both of them later became President anyway.</p>

10

<p>Actually, Hillary is making some inroads into Republican circles. This week’s Hillary Clinton cover story in Fortune Magazine describes how she won the endorsement of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and his wife Christy. It was not an easy endorsement target for Clinton. Mack, a solid Republican, was one of George W. Bush’s “ranger” fund-raisers, contributing at least $200,000 to his campaign.</p>

<p><a href=“http://i.cnn.net/money/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/fortune_20070709.jpg[/url]”>http://i.cnn.net/money/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/07/09/100121742/fortune_20070709.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Which candidate is business betting on? - July 9, 2007”>Which candidate is business betting on? - July 9, 2007;

<p>She also won the endorsement of another lifelong Republican and top Citibank executive Jeffrey Volk. The opening for this was assistance Clinton’s Senate office provided when Volk, his wife, and Tulane freshman daughter were stranded in New Orleans during Katrina. That led to a meeting at a small social event so Volk could thank Clinton which led to a two hour economic policy discussion and an endorsement.</p>

<p>Of course, these kinds of endorsements are killing Clinton with the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party who view Clinton as a Republican.</p>

<p>Hmmm. Too liberal for Republicans. Too conservative for Democrats. Sounds like a pretty good briar patch to be thrown in for the general election.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>I think Guiliani would be the toughest candidate the Republicans could throw at Hillary. He doesn’t have the rabid right wing baggage for a battle that will be fought in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.</p>

<p>I don’t think the Republicans will nominate him, though. They go with Grandpa Fred and his trophy wife:</p>

<p><a href=“ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs;

12

<p>I think it would be really difficult for a Republican campaign to pull off the kind of past connections that could probably come out against Giuliani. Then again I might have said this about W. Bush. Then again he did lose when he wasn’t the incumbent.</p>

13

<p>Right you are. Going after his corruption and cronyism would be the number one way to attack Rudy. Kerik. The head of the development authority in NY who is sitting in prison for major corruption (son of a Rudy contributor). The pedophile Priest friend of Rudy’s who works for Guiliani Associates. And on and on and on and on.</p>

<p>The other way would be to highlight the fact that he’s a miserable SOB. Ideally, you’d love to provoke his nasty temper in a debate. Failing that, you’d have to go over his City Hall press conference in which he told his wife he was divorcing her, etc.</p>

<p>All things considered though, I’d rather run against someone who could be pushed way to the right of center. Somebody who has engaged in some Latino bashing on the immigration fight. Maybe doesn’t believe in evolution. Wants to nuke Iran.</p>

<p>From the polling trends, Guiliani’s support seems to be in a nosedive. It’s a little masked by the fact that McCain’s support has collapsed even more dramatically.</p>

<p>Thompson would be great for the Democrats. He is an utterly abysmal campaigner and a walking talking gaffe machine. I can’t believe that he called Cuban immigrants terrorists with suitcase bombs this week. Idiot. Cuban immigrants are the only Latino vote the Republicans have left. That’s gotta be worth a couple of points in a key swing state like…oh…Florida. It took the Clinton camp less than an hour after the AP story appeared to release a statement about Cubans fleeing the horrors of communism for decades and how wrong it is to compare them to terrorists.</p>

14

<p>I’d almost vote for Hillary to see if Bill ever says “We are the President”</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but the Republicans somehow manage to systematically overcome those things and spin them against their opponents. Whether I like to admit it or not, they run some good campaigns. Which is why I think they wouldn’t run Giuliani. He just doesn’t fit in with their style of campaigning (which has been very successful in the last 50 years or so) and he doesn’t really quite have the power to overcome that like Bush did. But the GOP does still have some of the great (and extremely experienced) political minds of our time on their side, which is sad for me, but basically reality. If you don’t care that it all means basically nothing, it’s kind of interesting to watch. Their presidential campaigns can be really masterful at times, if you overlook Bush #1 the second time around (Clinton’s charisma killed him at some crucial moments - they got kind of lazy here IMO, complacent maybe. Not as well managed as in the past), and Dole (incumbent election of a reasonably successful president is obviously difficult to overcome, particularly with an unremarkable candidate choice).</p>

<p>The interesting thing to see will be if the Republicans can maintain the critical support base that tipped the balance in their favor in 2004, the super-religious. Without that targeted campaigning in 2000, they essentially lost, and they knew that. There are some obvious problems with this, in that while these people are not going to vote for any of the Democratic candidates; and they probably aren’t going to vote for someone who isn’t in line with their religious beliefs (like Bush supposedly is). Giuliani is a problem here because of his background, and Mitt Romney being Mormon has been shown to be a problem. McCain is really making his best effort but at the same time, shooting himself in the foot for whoever respected him for his positions before, which isn’t really helpful. </p>

<p>The loss of this critical group has very apparent repercussions for the GOP - they essentially lost the midterm elections without it, as opposed to winning the presidency. This is partly by the virtue of their campaign style elevating their candidate and making it seem like he’ll just have everything covered. The same fear that is used to win the presidency (vote so that this man can save the country) then can’t be invoked at midterm time. Their campaigning also tend to lure swing voters who may not be as likely to vote in midterms. But they’re aware of all this, and while some people see the midterm loss as a sign of things to come, I disagree (for my reasoning above that doesn’t really affect their presidential campaign). I think that it’s more likely we see the Republican party come back with a vengeance. This could be their best campaign yet, for all we know. At either way, I would hate to see the midterm results inspire any complacency or apathy in political segments that admittedly just lost two elections that weren’t exactly against the most compelling of presidential candidates, as lovable as he may be. Thinking that the Republicans have no one to beat Democratic candidates (or, more aptly, that they have candidates anyone can beat) is probably the same confidence that has inspired lackluster campaigns along the lines of Kerry (who I personally believe could have been a really really compelling candidate with a more persuasive campaign. Everything got lost in translation there). The Republicans will find something. And it will be better than we expect.</p>

16

<p>A few points:</p>

<p>Bush I was a terrible campaigner. A friend of mine (who told them he was voting for Clinton) was hired as a speechwriter on the Bush campaign. He said the speechwriters used to joke that watching Bush I give a speech was like watching a two year old running around the edge of the swimming pool.</p>

<p>John Kerry was a terrible candidate. He was, is, and always will be a stiff. He’s my Senator and, to this day, I have never been aware of anything he has done, any appearances he has made in Massachusetts. He’s truly the invisible man. Horrible campaigner. Horrible campaign strategist. Like Gore in 2000, he held the entire Clinton braintrust at arms length and went with loser strategists like Bob Shrum. That makes a huge difference. I am in awe of the way Clinton’s campaign is running so far this year. Obama tried to take a shot last week with the Punjab memo and got totally decked. Within hours, Clinton got him hammered in the NY Times and turned the Indian American community strongly to her, including a $3 million fundraiser a week later. That is some serious rapid reponse. He’s gotta be gunshy after taking that kind of counterpunch.</p>

<p>The Republicans have pushed their veiled race-baiting Southern strategy too far. East of the Mississippi, they’ve basically been pushed back to literally their base: the deep South. That was very apparent in the mid terms. They are in deep electoral college do-do. Win the states Kerry won (and Clinton or Obama are infinitely better candidates to do that) and all the Dems have to do is win Ohio or Florida.</p>

<p>That’s before you start looking at other states that may be in play like New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and maybe even a long shot like Virginia.</p>

<p>The other problem the Republicans have: the Justice Department scandals have brought Rove’s voter registration attacks on minority voters into clear focus.</p>

17

<p>All of your points are good ones, if you were talking about a supposed “centrist” Democrat male without any baggage. But you are forgetting one thing:</p>

<p>47% of women
60% of independents
56% of men </p>

<p>would not consider voting for Hillary.</p>

<p>I don’t think, in the final analysis, that she’ll be able to fool voters with all her “centrist” talk, especially when the differences are laid out clearly in the final round of debates.</p>

<p>The Democrats haven’t been making a very great showing since the mid-term elections. In fact, the approval rating of Congress is lower than Bush’s. The public didn’t exactly support the immigration bill, obviously. Pelosi and Reid are not the best poster children for the Democrats, imo, and unfortunately their faces are on tv each and every day. Hmmm…new terror attacks in London- each and every one of these benefit the Republican’s stance on the war on terror. Edwards had better get his bumper sticker out.</p>

18

<p>The anti-Clinton folk (Dems and Repubs) sure are hanging onto one poll from the little known “Mason-Dixon” outfit like it’s the holy grail.</p>

<p>I tend to look at the broader universe of polling to avoid the pitfalls of single outlier polls – for example, the one poll out of dozens and dozens in the last several months that shows Obama with a lead.</p>

<p>You have to be very careful in comparing favorable and unfavorable numbers because the big difference in candidates is whether they have a large number of “never heard of” or “not sure” responses (responses which aren’t exactly great news for a Presidential candidate).</p>

<p>You can see this clearly from the most recent USA Today/Gallup numbers from May:</p>

<p>Clinton:
50% favorable
47% unfavorable
0% never heard of
3% not sure</p>

<p>Gore:
49% favorable
43% unfavorable
0% never heard of
8% not sure</p>

<p>Obama:
50% favorable
24% unfavorable
13% never heard of
12% not sure</p>

<p>BTW, I’m not sure that terror attacks necessarily benefit the Republicans “position”. The Democratic frontrunners’ position is that the United States has taken its eye off the ball on the fight against terrorism by squandering resources in Iraq. After all, this week’s London bomb plots are occuring on the Republicans’ watch.</p>

<p>Congressional approval rose sharply from January through April. It turned hard the other way the day President Bush veto’d the get out of Iraq supplemental spending bill and the electorate realized that Congress couldn’t end the war in Iraq. If you think the Republicans benefit from that, knock yourself out. You better hope that’s the case since all of the Republicans have surgically attached themselves to the surge strategy and “staying in Iraq for as long as it takes to win”.</p>

19

<p>The anti Clinton bandwagon is a little disturbing. I know a lot of people my age who think they hate her, sadly they have no actual knowledge of anything she’s done/proposes to do, and ironically often the most vocal among them are probably the closest to her politically. An interesting exercise in the group mentality. I don’t really understand it myself but the fact that people hate her for really no reason at all isn’t an excellent sign. Where she has potential though, is that she would become a lot more present as time goes on, views come to the forefront, and it would be harder for some people who really have no objective reason to hate her to sustain those feelings. She needs more people to have a sense of “Hilary Clinton” greater than just an emblem of cultural mockery. Then, the tide could turn. There are, of course, people who disagree politically with her and seem to hate her with a fiery passion. That can’t really change. This may or may not be a death wish. It sure wasn’t for Bush.</p>

20

<p>I’m not too worried about it. Most of America has never seen Senator Clinton in action as a living, breathing candidate. It’s sixteen months before the '08 election. If I recall, both Reagan and Bush II had negative fav/neg ratios just a month before their election wins. That’s a very transient poll measure.</p>

<p>Right now, you’ve got all of the Republicans and all of the non-Hillary Democrats landing in the “won’t vote for” category. Hillary is generating as much, if no more, fear from the left-wing fringe of the Democratic party as she is from the right-wing. The Weekly Standard and The Nation are printing almost identical smear pieces. What an alliance: socialists and neocons.</p>