<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a> </p>
<p>Interesting statements about a Hillary Clinton televised non-event that illustrates the depths to which her campaign has fallen.</p>
<p>Wow, that is a very powerful article. I’ve been following the NYT’s columnists, including Frank Rich, but he really lays it on the line this time. Thanks for posting the link, tokenadult.</p>
<p>I love Frank Rich. I discovered him several years ago when his column was appearing in the entertainment section. I believe that he had been exiled there at some point, but I don’t know the history. He came back to the op-ed page a couple of years ago, and I try never to miss his column.</p>
<p>Good Link, read this earlier this morning.</p>
<p>This paragraph sums up the next few weeks.</p>
<p>"The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. Thats why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasnt even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clintons assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didnt matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote is not going to count for anything.</p>
<p>I’m not on the HC bandwagon by any means but I found the article to be little more than a rant. In talking about the Hallmark telecast, Mr Rich described it thusly, “What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.” While Bill C dipped his toes into these waters several weeks back I fail to see how the broadcast could be characterized like this.</p>
<p>However after yesterdays results it seems that BO is on a major roll and it will be interesting to see if the gloves come off in the Clinton campaign and perhaps prove Mr Rich right. And it they do Obama might do well to take the high road, focus on McCain and appear Presidential. His MSM minions will be there to handle the dirty work.</p>
<p>We were contacted one day prior to the event by friends (the husband is a registered Republican but never mind) who, due to business reasons, need to be on Hillary’s good side. They had 6 ‘tickets’ to that event and we were asked if we wanted to go. We would get to sit right behind Hillary so we would form part of the background audience on TV. It seemed like they were having a hard time filling their studio audience. We politely declined. I did tune in to a few minutes of the show when it was airing. Some young kid asked a question like “How will you restore America’s prestige abroad?”, providing the cue for Hillary to launch into a long speech. The audience behind Hillary looked incredibly bored and uncomfortable. I wondered how many of them were Republicans and Obama supporters who just showed up because they needed to be on good terms with the Clintons. Phew, I thought, I’m glad I dodged that bullet.</p>
<p>Contrast that with the news reports of people waiting in long lines to get into Obama’s events.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1055704120080210[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1055704120080210</a></p>
<p>“Political analysts saw some irony in the idea that Clinton, who has been a household name since her husband, Bill Clinton, first ran for president in 1992, is pinning the label of “establishment” on her opponent.”</p>
<p>““He has increasingly relied on big endorsement and celebrities to sort of attach himself to, to get the kind of validation that comes from that sort of endorsement,” Clinton said when asked if she was now the “underdog” in the race against Obama.”</p>
<p>Interesting article, tokenparent (love your screen name).</p>
<p>I was struck by this description:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny how the voters are rejecting Hillary no matter how she tries to package herself - she has tried unsuccessfully to do what Obama HAS been able to do - provide a “blank slate” onto which the voters can project whatever they want. The voters look at Obama with stars in their eyes simply because the “slate” is new - Hillary’s has been erased & written over so many times that no one wants to look at it any more - no matter WHAT they can project onto it! I thnk/ hope voters will soon come to realize that Obama isn’t much better. A “blank slate” onto which everyone can post their own grafftiti is not the same as a roadmap.</p>
<p>Notice with McCain, the “writing is on the wall”. You KNOW what you’re getting with that guy (smaller government, lower taxes, better stewardship - no earmarks, strong military, constructionist judges & other good things!). Sorry to include all the McCain blurbs - it is important for everyone to understand the truth -and REALITY about our candidates & this election.</p>
<p>Aren’t most of Frank Rich’s commentaries rants? He was the theater critic for a number of years and is now doing political pieces. Also editorial chairman (I think we used to call him editor or president, memory failing) of the Harvard Crimson during the years I was there.</p>
<p>I didn’t watch the program, but I remember (since I am an Obama supporter) being worried about how much impact it would have on the voters. Not much, apparently!</p>
<p>Frank Rich’s columns are hardly rants. He is not afraid to express strong opinions, but they are well-reasoned and supported by facts.</p>
<p>Interesting story, vicariousparent. I’m surprised that the Clinton campaign had to resort to such strongarm measures to fill the audience. She does have plenty of supporters. She and Obama are nearly equal in terms of the popular vote since the beginning of the primaries, at least as of last week, and I can’t imagine those small states holding caucuses yesterday changed this much, even with the lopsided results. And she has raised $10M so far in February, from 100k supporters (implying an average donation of $100), so she is clearly bringing in some new small donors. </p>
<p>I am not supporting Clinton, and I believe that Obama will eventually be the nominee, but I don’t count her out. She has plenty of support.</p>
<p>Interesting that the Republican voters yesterday rejected McCain! I wonder whether Bloomberg is getting closer to a third-party run.</p>
<p>They didn’t “reject” McCain - they just did not “need” to vote. It’s just that the Huckabee supporters are still grasping at straws.</p>
<p>NYMomof2…don’t get me wrong. I like Frank Rich and he has and shares a lot of information that most people don’t have access to. And I am sure he is also brilliant. His politics are surely the same as mine. I have been reading him for years because he was a friend of one of my college roommates at Harvard.</p>
<p>It’s just that I cringe sometimes when I read his columns because I really do think that his polemical tone probably turns off more people who could be persuaded, than convinces them. Even though I think he is usually right :)</p>
<p>I watched a bunch of Sunday morning shows today and there was a lot of agreement that Obama would likely be the VP nominee, no matter what. Interesting thought processes.</p>
<p>Would Obama pick Hillary as VP if he wins? What are the pundits saying about that? ;)</p>
<p>"Would Obama pick Hillary as VP if he wins? What are the pundits saying about that? "</p>
<p>Well see that was my point. They’re not saying that. The pundits that I saw were offering comfort to democrats worried about a civil war within the party. I wonder what black voters would think of Hillary taking the nomination because Obama was taped on the shoulder by party insiders.</p>
<p>I understand, patient. My preference, though, is for blunt speaking.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the reasoning was behind the conclusion that Hillary would choose Obama as her VP, but I think it’s unlikely that she would ask him or that he would accept. If Hillary were to win the nomination, I think he would be more effective in the Senate. And there is no way he would ask her!</p>
<p>The “party insiders” would be the superdelegates. Those who are not yet committed are mostly state party chairs and ordinary people who are DNC members; these folks are loyal to Howard Dean. He will be scrupulously fair, but if he were to give preference to one candidate over another, it would be Obama, who came out of the new mold established by Howard Dean’s candidacy. The best hope is that by March or April one of the two candidates has a clear edge in pledged delegates and popular vote, and states won. Then the superdelegates would, presumably, commit to that person, given him or her the number of delegates needed for the nomination.</p>
<p>How much power do the Union leaders have regarding Hillary’s nomination? I know they raise incredible amounts of money for her but an article in the Times today said that their power was eroding.</p>
<p>Frank Rich’s style hasn’t changed much: <a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=354104[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=354104</a></p>
<p>I enjoy his pieces and they sure make more sense being on the editorial page than exiled with the theater pieces. But I’d agree they are still rants.</p>