Mistakes made, lessons learned in the 2008 Campaign . . .
Karen [a friend]: At one point in the JustSayNoDeal atmosphere I gave a ringing endorsement to Sarah Palin. I was told by a Hillaryite that by praising Sarah Palin so highly I had upset her because, by comparison, I'd made HRC look bad. Actually, I said nothing about Hillary Clinton, whom I admit I don't believe is in the same league as Sarah Palin.
Let me be frank: HRC is obviously a Party first person. Sarah Palin is country first. Your comment about the "maverick" (i.e., naive) political participants is accurate. Frankly, the hundreds of thousands of hours spent on "Denver" and on wild flailing at Obama were a gigantic waste of time and money. The time expended on Denver should have been spent organizing -- and raising money -- to defeat Obama.
Sen. Clinton and her husband, both labelled racists (and worse) by Obama, have been out campaigning for their tormentor. The excuse given is that Sen. Clinton "has to do what she has to do." I compare that to Dosteoevsky's comment that, "If God is dead, everything is permitted." As long as someone like HRC is held to no standards, she "lives up" to that just fine.
One reason I like Sarah Palin so much is that she is not -- and will never become -- a Washington insider. She is incorruptible and totally fearless. The Hillary Supporters who have faced up to reality (and it is horrifying to say the least) will be great allies. The ones who remain in fantasy land would be no help to us.
You raise a point that Chris, Katie, and I have not discussed; the crying need for political training -- basically, to acquaint people with what works and what doesn't. Also, we need to inform people about how to build small organizations into large ones.
As for bloggers, they can be great assets. At times, however, we sounded like the second coming of the Tower of Babel. At our worst, we were all trying to produce a "knockout" (one more juicy expose) but generally didn't lay a glove on BHO. The birth-certificate non-issue was a classic case. I doubt 1% of the voters can identify the name "Raila Odinga." Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is of interest to almost no one.
What are Americans interested in? And of even more importance, what are they NOT interested in? I asked people many time to be brutally realistic with themselves, but that message didn't get across to many.
We also need to coalesce around a specific candidate. I've said I hope that will be Sarah Palin, but I'm open to other names (if there are some).
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Polls Show McCain-Obama Close
Okay, Zogby has Obama ahead by two points (as did Diageo, which has been in the tank for Obama), and Hotline has it at one point. I've written recently about what we should do (fight like h--l) "when we take the lead again." I said I thought that would happen sometime around the beginning of the third week of October but perhaps as late as early November. Obama all through the primaries "over-polled" and "under-performed in the voting booth."
In the PA Primary (April 22), Wolf Blitzer and others said the race was "tightening" and we even heard their favorite cliche ("too close to call"). I said that Hillary Clinton would win by 10 percentage points. On April 23, it was at 10 points, although it fell to 9.2% by the end of the day. I do know PA voters (ornery!).
I also predicted Clinton could win OH, TX and IN, in all of which Obama "over-polled." Sen. Clinton won all three.
In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from the far-Left for having "too many Republicans" in its survey template. Like terrified rabbits, Gallup changed its legendary template ("the gold standard"). As a result, it got both the national and the state races wrong.
It said in early November, 2004 that Bush would win PA by two points and Kerry would win Ohio by two points. I told the editor of the Pittsburgh daily that maybe Gallup had gotten the states confused. Kerry won PA by three points, and Bush won Ohio by two points. Gallup also predicted that Kerry could win FL, which he lost by hundreds of thousands of votes.
There has been a lot of talk about "the Bradley Effect," referring to the fact that voters tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man -- and then don't. It does exist in this campaign, and there are a (very) few people trying to figure out its effect on this year's election. Why do people tell pollsters "fibs?" Because they think (correctly) that's what the pollsters want to hear.
One great caller in Beaver County, PA (Audrey) is so sweet and friendly that when she asks voters if they support John and Sarah, EVERYBODY SAYS YES!
Gallup's "internal numbers" have had McCain ahead as recently as last week (45-39), but it's buying the heavy "new" (Black mostly) vote theory, so it put McCain behind. Say what?? In the PA primary, Obama lost approximately 60 counties out of 67. He won some suburban Philly counties by relatively narrow margins. He won Philly (big), Pittsburgh (city), Harrisburg, and downtown Lancaster. Otherwise, he didn't win squat. His support in PA is very soft.
Beware the polls (especially CNN), my friends. I love those polls of course, but I don't really believe them on a day-to-day basis.
In the PA Primary (April 22), Wolf Blitzer and others said the race was "tightening" and we even heard their favorite cliche ("too close to call"). I said that Hillary Clinton would win by 10 percentage points. On April 23, it was at 10 points, although it fell to 9.2% by the end of the day. I do know PA voters (ornery!).
I also predicted Clinton could win OH, TX and IN, in all of which Obama "over-polled." Sen. Clinton won all three.
In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from the far-Left for having "too many Republicans" in its survey template. Like terrified rabbits, Gallup changed its legendary template ("the gold standard"). As a result, it got both the national and the state races wrong.
It said in early November, 2004 that Bush would win PA by two points and Kerry would win Ohio by two points. I told the editor of the Pittsburgh daily that maybe Gallup had gotten the states confused. Kerry won PA by three points, and Bush won Ohio by two points. Gallup also predicted that Kerry could win FL, which he lost by hundreds of thousands of votes.
There has been a lot of talk about "the Bradley Effect," referring to the fact that voters tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man -- and then don't. It does exist in this campaign, and there are a (very) few people trying to figure out its effect on this year's election. Why do people tell pollsters "fibs?" Because they think (correctly) that's what the pollsters want to hear.
One great caller in Beaver County, PA (Audrey) is so sweet and friendly that when she asks voters if they support John and Sarah, EVERYBODY SAYS YES!
Gallup's "internal numbers" have had McCain ahead as recently as last week (45-39), but it's buying the heavy "new" (Black mostly) vote theory, so it put McCain behind. Say what?? In the PA primary, Obama lost approximately 60 counties out of 67. He won some suburban Philly counties by relatively narrow margins. He won Philly (big), Pittsburgh (city), Harrisburg, and downtown Lancaster. Otherwise, he didn't win squat. His support in PA is very soft.
Beware the polls (especially CNN), my friends. I love those polls of course, but I don't really believe them on a day-to-day basis.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama Naming Hillary V-P Candidate
One down (Biden) . . . and two (Barack and Hillary) to go. Sarah the Giant-Slayer . . . who has turned American politics on its pointy head . . .Hillary Clinton to be named Obama's V-P candidate . . . "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) This piece is NOT copyrighted.
MoveOn.Org on the Move Away from Biden?
Bulletin at 10:30 ET: One of my fact-checkers just provided the following: She's a Hillaryite converted to Sarah Adoration. She's working to verify what she sent. "I just was told that MoveOn.org has pulled their Obama/Biden ads on facebook and replaced them with just a simple "Obama" ad.I can't find the sticker ad on my ad-board, I usually get it."
We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this within the next hours -- and days. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, he hasn't grown any more qualified in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a female to the ticket."
What the new campaign slogan? "I'm propping up an empty suit?" "He can sleep while I stay up till 3 a.m.?"
Scroll down for analysis of this stunning development
"Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . This is the site that first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down).
Analysis of the coming "new" Democratic ticket:
When Sharon (OK), Jean (WA), and I figured out the story of the Sarah choice, I sent out e-mails that said "I hope I'm right . . ." Now, I know I'm right, even though you're not hearing it on CNN or MSNBC. Those people couldn't break an egg. My sources are from central Texas, Washington, DC, and elsewhere, and they are consistent truth-tellers and fact-knowers. Sarah and Jean are NOT the sources of this story, although neither one will be surprised.
One of the key moments in this development was when Joe Biden said in NH that Hillary Clinton would have been a "better" V-P candidate than he. I have been dancing around for days on blogs saying that "Hillary is coming . . ."
However, I believe McCain-Palin is unstoppable at this point, whomever the Dems run against them. There's no reason to disbelieve serious polls that show them 10 or more points ahead.
I feel as good about this story as I did about the Palin choice story two weeks ago. I will not name the people (three in recent days) who told me this is going to happen. I trust them all, and Democratic Party logic indicates that group will stoop to any lengths to try to win this race. After all, what's a few more months of humiliation for Sen. Clinton?
The "rumors" various people at Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission had during the run-up to the Convention that Hillary didn't get the nod because "she asked for too much" were true. (Of course, with the Obama crowd, one wonders if "too much" was a promise that she wouldn't have to make coffee for The Chosen One.)
Right about now, with the Obama Campaign falling like a boulder from the sky, Hillary can get (promises! promises!) just about anything.
Okay, on Biden: the one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted (and how!) by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats.
I also believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably COULD take place as early as Monday, although it could occur somewhat later. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. He does look old and tired. He got 9,000 votes in the presidential primaries, his high-water mark in two decades of running futilely for President.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can endorse Obama, the man who labeled her a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. She can endorse the politician whom her husband claimed "played the race card" against him.
Hey, friends this is today's "Obama Democrats." Nothing lost save honor and integrity.
When I heard from the McCain camp (through the legendary "little birdie") about their "Biden Strategy," I thought it was a good one. Essentially, it said, "Ignore him. He's irrelevant, a windbag who's been wrong on every major issue of our time." Well said. If he makes it to the debate on Oct. 2, Sarah Palin will mop the floor with him.
We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that, in a cynical, desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this within the next hours -- and days. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack H. Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. Presumably, he hasn't grown any more qualified in the past few weeks. As the saying now goes, "It took a Republican woman [Sarah Palin] to have the Obama Dems name a female to the ticket."
What the new campaign slogan? "I'm propping up an empty suit?" "He can sleep while I stay up till 3 a.m.?"
Scroll down for analysis of this stunning development
"Stand up! Stand up! And fight for what's right" (John McCain)
Much more information to follow later . . . This is the site that first broke the news that John McCain would name Sarah Palin as his running mate (scroll down).
Analysis of the coming "new" Democratic ticket:
When Sharon (OK), Jean (WA), and I figured out the story of the Sarah choice, I sent out e-mails that said "I hope I'm right . . ." Now, I know I'm right, even though you're not hearing it on CNN or MSNBC. Those people couldn't break an egg. My sources are from central Texas, Washington, DC, and elsewhere, and they are consistent truth-tellers and fact-knowers. Sarah and Jean are NOT the sources of this story, although neither one will be surprised.
One of the key moments in this development was when Joe Biden said in NH that Hillary Clinton would have been a "better" V-P candidate than he. I have been dancing around for days on blogs saying that "Hillary is coming . . ."
However, I believe McCain-Palin is unstoppable at this point, whomever the Dems run against them. There's no reason to disbelieve serious polls that show them 10 or more points ahead.
I feel as good about this story as I did about the Palin choice story two weeks ago. I will not name the people (three in recent days) who told me this is going to happen. I trust them all, and Democratic Party logic indicates that group will stoop to any lengths to try to win this race. After all, what's a few more months of humiliation for Sen. Clinton?
The "rumors" various people at Clintons4McCain and NoBama Mission had during the run-up to the Convention that Hillary didn't get the nod because "she asked for too much" were true. (Of course, with the Obama crowd, one wonders if "too much" was a promise that she wouldn't have to make coffee for The Chosen One.)
Right about now, with the Obama Campaign falling like a boulder from the sky, Hillary can get (promises! promises!) just about anything.
Okay, on Biden: the one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted (and how!) by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats.
I also believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably COULD take place as early as Monday, although it could occur somewhat later. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. He does look old and tired. He got 9,000 votes in the presidential primaries, his high-water mark in two decades of running futilely for President.
Yes, Hillary Clinton can endorse Obama, the man who labeled her a warmonger, a liar, and a racist. She can endorse the politician whom her husband claimed "played the race card" against him.
Hey, friends this is today's "Obama Democrats." Nothing lost save honor and integrity.
When I heard from the McCain camp (through the legendary "little birdie") about their "Biden Strategy," I thought it was a good one. Essentially, it said, "Ignore him. He's irrelevant, a windbag who's been wrong on every major issue of our time." Well said. If he makes it to the debate on Oct. 2, Sarah Palin will mop the floor with him.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sarah Palin Ensuring PA Victory
"As Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation . . ."
Below in italics read a then-confidential memo I sent Cristi Adkins, founder of Clintons4McCain and a key figure in McCain-Palin's efforts to win VA, PA, and OH. The memo was written on August 5, a month ago. It outlines how McCain can win -- and perhaps win decisively -- crucial battleground states -- and has a growing opportunity to win NJ.
If those victories occur, as appears increasingly likely, John McCain late on Nov. 4 will be President-elect and Sarah Palin vice-president elect. Remember, I was writing long before most Americans had ever heard of Sarah Heath Palin, the most dynamic figure in today's political scene.
I wrote the memo below without Sarah Palin in mind. She is a candidate who has tremendous appeal in all of Pennsylvania outside the urban centers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Even in those two cities, she will help McCain perform better than any other GOP candidate since Reagan.
Cristi, the longer Obama continues his clown act the more chance we have to win PA and VA. I'm going to call on bloggers to ask people to go to VA, even for a day or two and the same with with PA. Perhaps people around the country will provide some financial help to individuals of modest means who will travel to PA and VA to go door-to-door for McCain. Remember, McCain will be on federal funds after the GOP Convention [and is now on September 5]
Now and in the future, everybody needs to get a copy of Michael Barone's The Almamac of American Politics (a little pricey, granted, about $45, but a great tool). I bet the 2006 edition sells for about six bucks.I
It tells people everything they need to know about PA, VA, OH, NJ, and every congressional district in those states. It's wonderful. My district (PA 4th, west and north of Pittsburgh) has heavy Democratic registration edge, but always votes for the GOP presidential candidate. The same in the 12th district (Johnstown to Washington, PA).
The district I live in is the "bitter place" Obama demeaned -- pro-God, pro-gun (also pro-life), pro-military, mainly white, mainly working class. It voted two-and-a-half to one for Hillary. It's west and north of Pittsburgh. The people here are suspicious of Obama. They want to vote for a man of mixed race, which Obama is, but they worry greatly about a person who spent 20 years in the church of a crazed anti-American and racist, Jeremiah Wright.
The only PA areas remotely resembling Virginia's affluent Fairfax County are the counties (Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware) outside Philly. Obama carrried those counties in the primaries but not by impressive margins.
Laureen [a McCain volunteer] and others are working in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre), which are important ones. Hillary carried them by three-to-one margins. There is a ferocious congressional race there, and a lot of interest.
New Jersey is not in play just yet yet, but it is heading in that direction. Note: Hillary Clinton carried NJ with a big majority. [Note: On September 5, I believe NJ IS in play.]
Added today: Sarah Palin, a female professional, wife of a union man, mother of a soldier, pro-life, and pro-Second Amendment, greatly reinforces the strengths McCain in PA already had.
Thus, McCain-Palin, which has overtaken the fading Obama campaign, should carry Pennsylvania, perhaps by a large margin.
Below in italics read a then-confidential memo I sent Cristi Adkins, founder of Clintons4McCain and a key figure in McCain-Palin's efforts to win VA, PA, and OH. The memo was written on August 5, a month ago. It outlines how McCain can win -- and perhaps win decisively -- crucial battleground states -- and has a growing opportunity to win NJ.
If those victories occur, as appears increasingly likely, John McCain late on Nov. 4 will be President-elect and Sarah Palin vice-president elect. Remember, I was writing long before most Americans had ever heard of Sarah Heath Palin, the most dynamic figure in today's political scene.
I wrote the memo below without Sarah Palin in mind. She is a candidate who has tremendous appeal in all of Pennsylvania outside the urban centers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Even in those two cities, she will help McCain perform better than any other GOP candidate since Reagan.
Cristi, the longer Obama continues his clown act the more chance we have to win PA and VA. I'm going to call on bloggers to ask people to go to VA, even for a day or two and the same with with PA. Perhaps people around the country will provide some financial help to individuals of modest means who will travel to PA and VA to go door-to-door for McCain. Remember, McCain will be on federal funds after the GOP Convention [and is now on September 5]
Now and in the future, everybody needs to get a copy of Michael Barone's The Almamac of American Politics (a little pricey, granted, about $45, but a great tool). I bet the 2006 edition sells for about six bucks.I
It tells people everything they need to know about PA, VA, OH, NJ, and every congressional district in those states. It's wonderful. My district (PA 4th, west and north of Pittsburgh) has heavy Democratic registration edge, but always votes for the GOP presidential candidate. The same in the 12th district (Johnstown to Washington, PA).
The district I live in is the "bitter place" Obama demeaned -- pro-God, pro-gun (also pro-life), pro-military, mainly white, mainly working class. It voted two-and-a-half to one for Hillary. It's west and north of Pittsburgh. The people here are suspicious of Obama. They want to vote for a man of mixed race, which Obama is, but they worry greatly about a person who spent 20 years in the church of a crazed anti-American and racist, Jeremiah Wright.
The only PA areas remotely resembling Virginia's affluent Fairfax County are the counties (Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware) outside Philly. Obama carrried those counties in the primaries but not by impressive margins.
Laureen [a McCain volunteer] and others are working in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre), which are important ones. Hillary carried them by three-to-one margins. There is a ferocious congressional race there, and a lot of interest.
New Jersey is not in play just yet yet, but it is heading in that direction. Note: Hillary Clinton carried NJ with a big majority. [Note: On September 5, I believe NJ IS in play.]
Added today: Sarah Palin, a female professional, wife of a union man, mother of a soldier, pro-life, and pro-Second Amendment, greatly reinforces the strengths McCain in PA already had.
Thus, McCain-Palin, which has overtaken the fading Obama campaign, should carry Pennsylvania, perhaps by a large margin.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hillary Breaks Her Supporters Hearts?
Tracy Karol and Bobbi Ann White [Hillary Supporters now strongly backing McCain], if people like you continue to play a significant role in determining America's future, the country truly will be in good hands.
The critical factor in determining the election is if the "Hillary Supporters now for McCain" keep on growing, as they have been. Then, Obama cannot win the election. McCain'’s use of the "Hillary commercials" and the strong presence of "defrocked" Wisconsin Hillary Delegate Debra Bartoshevich in McCain’s campaign are major positives.
Note: if you go to the Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio program (archived) two Saturdays ago, you'll hear an interview with Debra Bartoshevich and Bev Perlson (founder of TheBand of Mothers. I urge you to listen to these two strong women -- American patriots -- discuss why they're strongly "NoBama." http://blogtalkradio.com/clintons4mccain
Hillary, Bill, and Pollster Scott Rasmussen
"I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." I can't imagine that HRC really wants us to ignore everything that was said and done over the last 18 months.
"The Obama played the race card . . . on me." (Bill Clinton)"Every day since Joe Biden was selected John McCain has picked up a little ground." (Scott Rasmussen, pollster)
"8.8 million more women than men voted in the 2004 election." (FOX News) McCain's chances in the General Election: It is winnable if we keep reaching out to as many people as possible -- friends, family, political allies, and people now "on-the-fence." I'm tired. We're all tired. We can rest up starting November .
The following e-mail was written by Charles, another staunch Hillary backer. Like so many Hillary backers, he's have a hard time accepting what he sees and hears.
We know you [Hillary] were threatened, but don’t sell us down the river . We worked hard for one year with a vast network of hundreds of thousands of supporters of yours (and satellite groups). We gave money, time, and effort 24/7.
Please don’t do what you are about to do [ask your supporters to back Obama].The second you encourage your supporters to back a person like Obama (the most dishonest, corrupt person in politics)...our group will go through with our plans of working even harder to elect McCain....the Party will not be united.
We ask you one more time...PLEASE HILLARY...blind-side the corrupt people who treated you like dirt and either tell your people to vote for McCain or simply walk on and off the stage without saying a word.
Obama will never win, I promise. Please realize that to give your delegates to Obama goes against everything you promised us in the Primaries. Don’t add insult to injury.
Now Obama gives Fla. and Mich. the full vote [at the Convention], knowing it doesn't mean anything since you're going to turn around and give them to him. Surely the people are not that stupid in both states to buy this "generosity" from Obama, a pathological liar.
The critical factor in determining the election is if the "Hillary Supporters now for McCain" keep on growing, as they have been. Then, Obama cannot win the election. McCain'’s use of the "Hillary commercials" and the strong presence of "defrocked" Wisconsin Hillary Delegate Debra Bartoshevich in McCain’s campaign are major positives.
Note: if you go to the Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio program (archived) two Saturdays ago, you'll hear an interview with Debra Bartoshevich and Bev Perlson (founder of TheBand of Mothers. I urge you to listen to these two strong women -- American patriots -- discuss why they're strongly "NoBama." http://blogtalkradio.com/clintons4mccain
Hillary, Bill, and Pollster Scott Rasmussen
"I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." I can't imagine that HRC really wants us to ignore everything that was said and done over the last 18 months.
"The Obama played the race card . . . on me." (Bill Clinton)"Every day since Joe Biden was selected John McCain has picked up a little ground." (Scott Rasmussen, pollster)
"8.8 million more women than men voted in the 2004 election." (FOX News) McCain's chances in the General Election: It is winnable if we keep reaching out to as many people as possible -- friends, family, political allies, and people now "on-the-fence." I'm tired. We're all tired. We can rest up starting November .
Roger, Charles Say "Hillary, Please Don't!"
The following are e-mails from two broken-hearted Hillary Supporters dismayed at her actions. The first is from Roger, who donated a significant amount of his scarce resources to Hillary's Campaign.
He says, "If Hillary Clinton releases those delegates before the end of the convention, I will consider that as fraud! We know he can not get the nomination without that [release of Hillary delegates] and there was a hidden agenda from the start to just fleece Americans out of their money. I am demanding a full refund for every cent I contributed! I have sent her a letter to that effect. If she announces [her withdrawal] or in anyway releases her delegates, I expect a full refund! I am asking the same of Joe Biden also seeing how he lied to me about Obama. FLAT OUT LIED!
The following e-mail was written by Charles, another staunch Hillary backer. Like so many Hillary backers, he's have a hard time accepting what he sees and hears.
We know you [Hillary] were threatened, but don’t sell us down the river . We worked hard for one year with a vast network of hundreds of thousands of supporters of yours (and satellite groups). We gave money, time, and effort 24/7.
Please don’t do what you are about to do [ask your supporters to back Obama].The second you encourage your supporters to back a person like Obama (the most dishonest, corrupt person in politics)...our group will go through with our plans of working even harder to elect McCain....the Party will not be united.
We ask you one more time...PLEASE HILLARY...blind-side the corrupt people who treated you like dirt and either tell your people to vote for McCain or simply walk on and off the stage without saying a word.
Obama will never win, I promise. Please realize that to give your delegates to Obama goes against everything you promised us in the Primaries. Don’t add insult to injury.
Now Obama gives Fla. and Mich. the full vote [at the Convention], knowing it doesn't mean anything since you're going to turn around and give them to him. Surely the people are not that stupid in both states to buy this "generosity" from Obama, a pathological liar.
How about spreading this word and helping me?
Thanks.
Charles
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Will Bill Clinton Support McCain?
Note: On my HillarySupportersforMccain site, I have an essay entitled, "Why The Democratic Party Doesn't Exist Anymore." I hope you'll visit.
See also the following links re: Bill Clinton
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/does-obama-need-bill-
http://nounity.blogspot.com/
Bill Clinton has said that Obama -- and the Obama Campaign -- used the "race card" against him. He's also suggested they used it against his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In that assessment, the former President is right on target. Obama is now obviously trying to use race against John McCain -- the remarks about his [Black] face on the currency being the latest example. The Obama Campaign has long been trying to spread the idea that a vote against him is a vote for racism -- something they believe will scare Democrats into voting for Party rather than country.
It's time -- and it's almost past time -- for Bill and Hillary to step up to the plate. They need to renounce Barack Obama before the Denver Convention. Bill has said he'll be ready to speak out on November 5.
That may be too late. Bill needs to speak NOW from his heart and head.
Bulletin: Rasmussen: McCain Trusted More Than Obama On 9 Out of 14 Electoral Issues
I have a report from a credible source that Bill Clinton at the end of the Democratic primaries was talking enthusiastically about "President McCain." I'm trying to get permission to reprint the material I received. The problem is that it could possibly compromise a political operative who is working hard to defeat Obama -- but who earlier was working for HRC's nomination. That's all I can say right now, but I'm sure there will be more later.See also the following links re: Bill Clinton
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/does-obama-need-bill-
http://nounity.blogspot.com/
Bill Clinton has said that Obama -- and the Obama Campaign -- used the "race card" against him. He's also suggested they used it against his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In that assessment, the former President is right on target. Obama is now obviously trying to use race against John McCain -- the remarks about his [Black] face on the currency being the latest example. The Obama Campaign has long been trying to spread the idea that a vote against him is a vote for racism -- something they believe will scare Democrats into voting for Party rather than country.
It's time -- and it's almost past time -- for Bill and Hillary to step up to the plate. They need to renounce Barack Obama before the Denver Convention. Bill has said he'll be ready to speak out on November 5.
That may be too late. Bill needs to speak NOW from his heart and head.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON'S TIME OF TESTING
Dolores Bernal, a heavy-duty liberal columnist wrote an article about "How Hillary Could Still Ger the Nomination." I don't for a minute believe that will happen. Ms. Bernal's problem with Obama is that he "moving toward the center" and is not a real "progressive," whereas Hillary might be. Blah, blah, blah. I wrote the following response to a NoBama Group:
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
[Note: This column is one of those rare reposts from my Hillary Supporters' blog.]
I disagree with Dolores Bernal on several points. Why do all candidates "move toward the center?" They move to the center (toward compromise positions) because that's where the voters are. The government is not one "for the progressives" anymore than it is one "for the social conservatives." It is a government "of, by, and for the people."
McCain ran in the Republican center (perhaps center-left), where supposedly he could not win. Conservatives still don't like him. Independents do -- and so do many Democrats. I like him a lot (see reasons below).
The difference is this: Obama is a man who doesn't have any strong beliefs. In 2007, he was the "most liberal" Senator (according to National Journal) and now he running as someone quite different.
Now, he is making speeches to Black audiences (NAACP and others) that are really directed almost exclusively to white audiences. Saying that Black people (generally!) lack a commitment to personal responsibility will go over big with some white audiences. ANYTHING he says to the vast majority of Blacks will not cause him to lose their votes. He will not go around telling white people that they are falling short on personal responsibility.
I have a good sense of what John McCain believes and, frankly, it is the same thing most Clinton Democrats (and "Reagan Democrats") believe. He believes in campaign finance reform; he believes in comprehensive immigration reform; he believes in eliminating the vote-buying (with your money) tactic of "earmarks." He believes that losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a disaster for the country and the world.
He believes in being respectful to opponents, as he has been to Mrs. Clinton and, to the degree possible, even to Obama.
Also, he obviously believes in adoption to save the lives of those in danger (as he did with his Bangladesh born daughter). He believes in religious tolerance and a 'quiet Christianity.' He believes in working "across the aisle," unlike Obama, who believes in talking about it. He is opposed to the mistreatment of prisoners, for reasons that are both philosophical and intensely personal.Unlike Obama, he believes in paying female staffers at least as much as he does male staffers.
So, why do I think John McCain is the very best candidate for President this year -- and perhaps the best candidate in my lifetime? To answer that, read the foregoing paragraphs.
I realize that if Sen. Clinton accepts the vice-presidency nomination, which would have a disastrous effect on her reputation, she may help her nemesis, Obama, become President. She would be doing a major disservice to her Supporters and to her country, one I believe she loves.
With Hillary on the ticket some of her supporters would move over to Obama, in the mistaken notion that Hillary would exert some influence in his presidency, which she would not. As I said sarcastically last night, her main task would be to ask, "One lump or two, President Obama?"
Last night I said to friends -- in regard to this issue of the V-P -- that apparently "I take life itself much more seriously than some political candidates." They look at it mainly as a game -- a power game. I hope Hillary is not such a person, and I believe she is much better than that.
In her campaign, Sen. Clinton said: "I have a lifetime of experience. Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002."
The question is: did she really mean what she said on this point? In fact, did she mean anything she said during the campaign? I hope the answer is that she stands by everything she told her supporters. If she doesn't, she's not the woman they imagined her to be.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Decline and Fall
[The main directory of groups opposed to the election of Barack Obama is at: www.nobamanetwork.com . There are now nearly 300 organizations (some very large), blogs, and web sites listed there. The group is run by a Republican, Wendy, and it consists of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and various others. It's a great site and is set up to stimulate networking. Another group that's working actively with the McCain Campaign is: http://womenforfairpolitics.com . It started out as a site to back Hillary Clinton, but it now includes people of all political persuasions. I hope you'll all consider joining (or at least using) these good sites.]
One member of a Hillary Supporters Group accused me of trying to disrupt the group (apparently because I'm a Republican). Actually, I couldn't disrupt a family picnic in my hometown of Ambridge, PA.
Admittedly, I'm extremely skeptical about people who would prefer to spend their time fantasizing about somehow getting "St. Hillary" the Democratic nomination. I'm also irritated by people who rationalize endlessly about why Sen. Clinton endorsed Sen. Obama for the presidency.
Some of those people say she did it because "she had a gun to her head." Google those words, and you'll see how often the phrase comes up. However, I saw no gun.
Others say she did it to "preserve her career" as a politician who might someday gain the White House. That explanation doesn't exactly seem to cover her -- a mere careerist? -- with glory.
Anyway, here's my response:
I haven't read the email about me trying to tear up the group, which the group seemed to be doing a fine job of on its own. I have a hard time when people are saying absurd things in not responding, which may be a weakness.
I keep quoting that old saying by the poet T.S. Eliot about "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." The reality is that Mrs. Clinton let down her supporters and also, I believe, her country in coming out and slavishly endorsing Obama, a man who spent 18 months humiliating her.
In short, she did the things that career politicians always do. Frankly, rationalizing what she did means holding her to much lower standards than we do ourselves.
Thus, I'm the kid saying "The Emperor [Empress] has no clothes." And the crowd, fearful and confused, is treating me like the enemy for stating the obvious. I tell the truth. I don't do fairy tales. I don't humor people. I don't hold up false hopes. I don't rationalize dishonorable behavior. I judge people as I would like to be judged.
Like many people in the [Hillary Supporters] group, I endorse John McCain. I have done so since the New Hampshire Primary. I have done so because I believe he is the best -- the most honorable and capable -- person running for President. More honorable than Barack Obama. More honorable than Hillary Clinton. More honorable than President Bill Clinton.
In her "Unity" speech, which contained a thoroughly gratuitous dig at Sen. McCain, who is her better in every way, Mrs. Clinton proved that my assessment of the candidates was correct.
Some people don't want to hear that. They are the same people who don't want to hear that it's raining during a downpour. When people face up to the new realities about Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party as it now exists, they will be able to take constructive actions on behalf of their country. Before that, they will engage mainly in one futile exercise after another.
Senator McCain has put his career and his political future on the line innumerable times throughout his time in Washington. I do not believe Senator Clinton has ever done that, or will ever do it. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd love to hear about it.
"The Empress Has No Clothes."
One member of a Hillary Supporters Group accused me of trying to disrupt the group (apparently because I'm a Republican). Actually, I couldn't disrupt a family picnic in my hometown of Ambridge, PA.
Admittedly, I'm extremely skeptical about people who would prefer to spend their time fantasizing about somehow getting "St. Hillary" the Democratic nomination. I'm also irritated by people who rationalize endlessly about why Sen. Clinton endorsed Sen. Obama for the presidency.
Some of those people say she did it because "she had a gun to her head." Google those words, and you'll see how often the phrase comes up. However, I saw no gun.
Others say she did it to "preserve her career" as a politician who might someday gain the White House. That explanation doesn't exactly seem to cover her -- a mere careerist? -- with glory.
Anyway, here's my response:
I haven't read the email about me trying to tear up the group, which the group seemed to be doing a fine job of on its own. I have a hard time when people are saying absurd things in not responding, which may be a weakness.
I keep quoting that old saying by the poet T.S. Eliot about "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." The reality is that Mrs. Clinton let down her supporters and also, I believe, her country in coming out and slavishly endorsing Obama, a man who spent 18 months humiliating her.
In short, she did the things that career politicians always do. Frankly, rationalizing what she did means holding her to much lower standards than we do ourselves.
Thus, I'm the kid saying "The Emperor [Empress] has no clothes." And the crowd, fearful and confused, is treating me like the enemy for stating the obvious. I tell the truth. I don't do fairy tales. I don't humor people. I don't hold up false hopes. I don't rationalize dishonorable behavior. I judge people as I would like to be judged.
Like many people in the [Hillary Supporters] group, I endorse John McCain. I have done so since the New Hampshire Primary. I have done so because I believe he is the best -- the most honorable and capable -- person running for President. More honorable than Barack Obama. More honorable than Hillary Clinton. More honorable than President Bill Clinton.
In her "Unity" speech, which contained a thoroughly gratuitous dig at Sen. McCain, who is her better in every way, Mrs. Clinton proved that my assessment of the candidates was correct.
Some people don't want to hear that. They are the same people who don't want to hear that it's raining during a downpour. When people face up to the new realities about Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party as it now exists, they will be able to take constructive actions on behalf of their country. Before that, they will engage mainly in one futile exercise after another.
Senator McCain has put his career and his political future on the line innumerable times throughout his time in Washington. I do not believe Senator Clinton has ever done that, or will ever do it. If I'm wrong in that characterization, I'd love to hear about it.
"The Empress Has No Clothes."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Hillary Supporters Rationalizing "Unity" Message
We hear a lot about "talking truth" to power. Well, I've been talking truth to (some) Hillary Supporters that want to rationalize Mrs. Clinton's recent "Unity" Speech strongly endorsing Barack Obama. The Hillary Supporters I'm referring are ones who don't want Obama to gain the presidency.
Few of them believe Hillary really wants Obama to win. They believe she wants to run again for the presidency in 2012 or perhaps 2016. A few of them believe (fear?) that Sen. Clinton is angling for the vice-presidential nomination.
The defense of Hillary is that she did it to preserve her political career. Some of the rationalizers say she did it as a way to reduce her huge campaign debt (in excess of $20 million). My response was that for a family with the vast wealth of the Clintons was "pocket change."
A phrase you may hear a lot is that "she did it with a gun to her head." If you "Google" the words "gun to her head," my guess is you will soon find tens of thousands of hits. Actually, the "gun" was, if anything, imaginary -- all in Hilary's head.
Betty Jean Kling, perhaps the staunchest Hillary Backer during the primaries, doesn't agree with any of the rationalizations. She wrote a passionate letter comparing Hillary's "Unity" message with the actions of Rosa Parks, who refused to go to "the back of the bus." I agree completely with Betty Jean's sharp criticism of Sen. Clinton.
You can read Betty Jean's excellent e-mail on the following: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.
Here's what I wrote today on one of the Hillary sites (ClintonDemsAgainstObama on Yahoo):
Betty Jean, as a teacher of modern English literature, I used to quote the poet T. S. Eliot who said, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." I thought I knew what he meant, but now I'm certain I do. It is NOT a justification to say, "Well, she did it for her career!"
Let me be very blunt, please: When our favorite Senator from Arizona became a co-sponsor of Kennedy-McCain on comprehensive immigration reform, he alienated powerful forces in his Party. He risked his career and almost ruined it. He has done the same thing many times -- and years ago he made choices that risked his life and sanity. That is what a leader does. He (or she) leads. When someone puts a gun to their heads, they resist. They don't fold like a two-dollar tent.
My mother, now long-deceased once told me, "Steve, your standards are much too high." Maybe they are, but I hope not. She was trying to prepare me for life in a world where most people -- but not all --are thoroughly self-serving (but will not admit as much).
Few of them believe Hillary really wants Obama to win. They believe she wants to run again for the presidency in 2012 or perhaps 2016. A few of them believe (fear?) that Sen. Clinton is angling for the vice-presidential nomination.
The defense of Hillary is that she did it to preserve her political career. Some of the rationalizers say she did it as a way to reduce her huge campaign debt (in excess of $20 million). My response was that for a family with the vast wealth of the Clintons was "pocket change."
A phrase you may hear a lot is that "she did it with a gun to her head." If you "Google" the words "gun to her head," my guess is you will soon find tens of thousands of hits. Actually, the "gun" was, if anything, imaginary -- all in Hilary's head.
Betty Jean Kling, perhaps the staunchest Hillary Backer during the primaries, doesn't agree with any of the rationalizations. She wrote a passionate letter comparing Hillary's "Unity" message with the actions of Rosa Parks, who refused to go to "the back of the bus." I agree completely with Betty Jean's sharp criticism of Sen. Clinton.
You can read Betty Jean's excellent e-mail on the following: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.
Here's what I wrote today on one of the Hillary sites (ClintonDemsAgainstObama on Yahoo):
Betty Jean, as a teacher of modern English literature, I used to quote the poet T. S. Eliot who said, "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." I thought I knew what he meant, but now I'm certain I do. It is NOT a justification to say, "Well, she did it for her career!"
Let me be very blunt, please: When our favorite Senator from Arizona became a co-sponsor of Kennedy-McCain on comprehensive immigration reform, he alienated powerful forces in his Party. He risked his career and almost ruined it. He has done the same thing many times -- and years ago he made choices that risked his life and sanity. That is what a leader does. He (or she) leads. When someone puts a gun to their heads, they resist. They don't fold like a two-dollar tent.
My mother, now long-deceased once told me, "Steve, your standards are much too high." Maybe they are, but I hope not. She was trying to prepare me for life in a world where most people -- but not all --are thoroughly self-serving (but will not admit as much).
Friday, June 13, 2008
MAHHS Flocking to John McCain
What is/are "MAHHS?" Read on.
The web site -- a critically important one -- is called Clintons4McCain. I'm going to ask everyone who comes here (or to my other blogs) -- Democrat, Republican, Independent -- to go there right now, register, and participate in it. (http://clintons4mccain.com). I did.
I'm also going to ask you to contribute $10 or more. I did.
The site now has about 1250 registered members (including me). That's a lot for a web site, but it shows every sign of continuing to grow rapidly.What exactly is Clintons for McCain? It's a site for MAHHS ("Mad as Heck Hillary Supporters).
They are now committed to supporting John McCain for President. To overtures from the Democrats' presumptive nominee, they say: "NoBama!" They think Obama used race and gender improperly to win the nomination. They also believe the national media dumped endless truckloads of garbage on Sen. Clinton.
I agree with them. But even if you don't agree, go and join (and contribute a few bucks!) anyway. If you're not an American national, you can still contribute, because Clintons for McCain is an independent group not subject to FEC regulations. Heck, send them a tiny chunk of your stimulus check. (And if you're in generous mood, do the same for John McCain.)
No, it isn't a site where you should argue the fine points of the abortion issue -- or the merits and demerits of Mrs. Clinton's health care plan. It's a place to be respectful and supportive of people with the same primary goal as yours: Remember, joining this group does not mean you need to "worship at the altar of Hillary."
Will you feel welcome there? Yes, because here's their basic message: "Welcome to the official website of the Clintons for McCain movement. We're still working on it and it will always be a work in progress. We welcome contributions and suggestions, and of course volunteer help!Please create an account and participate in our forum. Unlike what we have seen with the DNC and the Democratic party of late, we welcome all and no one's disenfranchised. Join us and help stop the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell Obama and help instead elect an honorable, trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office."
Bingo, there's the link -- the common thread: the election of a "trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office.
I've asked three trustworthy and honest congressional candidates from Pennsylvania -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats -- to join Clintons4McCain. After they get over the initial shock, I think they will all join. I also asked them -- as I am you -- to make a small contribution to the group.
The women cited in the previous paragraph CAN win their congressional races, but they can't do it by appealing only to Republicans. (I write regularly about the Hart, Gilhooley, and Kats races on my Pennsylvania for John McCain blog.)For just about any Republican -- from John McCain on down -- to win this year will require boldness and imagination. It will also offering a hand of friendship to Democrats profoundly dissatisfied with their Party.
The people of Clintons4McCain already are receiving a stream of vitriol from Moveon.org and the Daily Kos, both pillars of the "Hate America" movement. The Clintonites want nothing to do with those unsavory groups.
As elements of the McCain Campaign, let's give them our praise and support. Join now. Contribute now. I did, and it made me feel very good.
The web site -- a critically important one -- is called Clintons4McCain. I'm going to ask everyone who comes here (or to my other blogs) -- Democrat, Republican, Independent -- to go there right now, register, and participate in it. (http://clintons4mccain.com). I did.
I'm also going to ask you to contribute $10 or more. I did.
The site now has about 1250 registered members (including me). That's a lot for a web site, but it shows every sign of continuing to grow rapidly.What exactly is Clintons for McCain? It's a site for MAHHS ("Mad as Heck Hillary Supporters).
They are now committed to supporting John McCain for President. To overtures from the Democrats' presumptive nominee, they say: "NoBama!" They think Obama used race and gender improperly to win the nomination. They also believe the national media dumped endless truckloads of garbage on Sen. Clinton.
I agree with them. But even if you don't agree, go and join (and contribute a few bucks!) anyway. If you're not an American national, you can still contribute, because Clintons for McCain is an independent group not subject to FEC regulations. Heck, send them a tiny chunk of your stimulus check. (And if you're in generous mood, do the same for John McCain.)
No, it isn't a site where you should argue the fine points of the abortion issue -- or the merits and demerits of Mrs. Clinton's health care plan. It's a place to be respectful and supportive of people with the same primary goal as yours: Remember, joining this group does not mean you need to "worship at the altar of Hillary."
Will you feel welcome there? Yes, because here's their basic message: "Welcome to the official website of the Clintons for McCain movement. We're still working on it and it will always be a work in progress. We welcome contributions and suggestions, and of course volunteer help!Please create an account and participate in our forum. Unlike what we have seen with the DNC and the Democratic party of late, we welcome all and no one's disenfranchised. Join us and help stop the home-grown terrorist sleeper cell Obama and help instead elect an honorable, trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office."
Bingo, there's the link -- the common thread: the election of a "trustworthy and honest man -- Senator John McCain -- to our nation's highest office.
I've asked three trustworthy and honest congressional candidates from Pennsylvania -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats -- to join Clintons4McCain. After they get over the initial shock, I think they will all join. I also asked them -- as I am you -- to make a small contribution to the group.
The women cited in the previous paragraph CAN win their congressional races, but they can't do it by appealing only to Republicans. (I write regularly about the Hart, Gilhooley, and Kats races on my Pennsylvania for John McCain blog.)For just about any Republican -- from John McCain on down -- to win this year will require boldness and imagination. It will also offering a hand of friendship to Democrats profoundly dissatisfied with their Party.
The people of Clintons4McCain already are receiving a stream of vitriol from Moveon.org and the Daily Kos, both pillars of the "Hate America" movement. The Clintonites want nothing to do with those unsavory groups.
As elements of the McCain Campaign, let's give them our praise and support. Join now. Contribute now. I did, and it made me feel very good.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Hillary, Bill: Barack's Worst Nightmare
Let's make a major effort to support Republican congressional candidate Dana Walsh. I am going to put up on every blog (and I have a bunch) an appeal to send a contribution to Ms. Walsh. She's pro-military and running against Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi, "the witches of the West." I hope a whole lot of people online will feature Dana Walsh at: http://danawalshforcongress.com. Her web site is terrific. It has pics of Sheehan and Pelosi playing huggy-bear with dictators (Chavez and Assad). Please contribute whatever you can to this courageous woman.
I put up late Tuesday columns on: (1) the Pennsylvania blog about a new, unified, national effort to elect Republican candidates; (2) the Hillary Supporters for McCain blog about the Obama campaign and its surrogates "sliming" (Bill Clinton's word) Mrs. Clinton. If you're a "mom," you'll want to take a look at Jean Avery's blog: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com/. (On the Hillary Supporters site, I have a picture of Bill's supposed girlfriend (Gina Gershon), as well as a quote from a friend in Ambridge, who said, "As Bill gets older, the girlfriends get better looking." Can't quarrel with that.
The pundits last night didn't really "interpret" Mrs. Clinton's "concession speech" (more properly, her "non-concession speech"). Instead, they mainly had a befuddled look on their faces. Some wondered if she was not perhaps launching the first shot in her 2012 campaign for the presidency.
(I suggested that the next presidential election -- the one after this year's -- might end up pitting Senator Clinton on the Democratic side against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the Republicans. (In this scenario, President John McCain would have -- as we said in business -- "elected to take early retirement.")
Of course, the major question the Senator left is whether she wants (expects?) the vice presidential nod. CNN"s David Gergen suggested that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be indicating that she wanted Senator Obama to agree to some sort of "coalition" government -- or perhaps a co-presidency. On that point, what about a "troika," that would have three equal parts: Barack, Hillary, and -- of course -- Bill?
The problem with Hillary as a vice-presidential nominee is this: she has supplied the Republicans with all sorts of ammunition. Famously, she once said, "I have a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience; Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002." When Obama runs against McCain, he will hear those words used in ads -- again and again and again.
Mrs. Clinton's slogan in her campaign was "Ready on Day 1." She has implied that John McCain would also be ready to serve as President on Day 1. Of course, her words mean that Obama would NOT be ready. If she thought the Illinois Senator had the appropriate seasoning (and as Prince Hamlet said, "The readiness is all"), then her slogan would have made no sense.
Bill Clinton said on June 2 that the Obama campaign was "sliming" his wife. Again, if Hillary Clinton accepts (the proper word may be "seizes") the vice-presidential nod, Bill Clinton's words just might ring throughout the fall campaign. The former President indicated that Obama is relying on "surrogates" to hurl mud at his wife.
Are Hillary and Bill Clinton really ready to mend fence with Obama? Are they willing to say, in essence, "all is forgiven, Barack. We really didn't mean all those nasty things we said about you."
Is this to be a ticket that contains a undertone of the following: "It's true that I said Barack wouldn't be ready on day 1; however, since he will have me with him (in the White House? perhaps the Lincoln Bedroom?), he won't have to worry about not being quite ready for prime time."
And what would the presence of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket do to Obama's seminal message of change? In fact, the "Billary" triplex would be a continuing reminder of the ghosts of American politics past. Barack would learn that it's impossible to fire a vice-president (or a former President).
For Senator McCain, campaigning against an Obama-Clinton team might not be the daunting task it appeared to be yesterday. The Republican message -- one of them -- is going to highlight Obama's unsuitability for the highest office. And the main "spokesperson" for that position might not be John McCain, but rather Hillary Clinton -- with occasional assists from her husband.
Let the games begin!
I put up late Tuesday columns on: (1) the Pennsylvania blog about a new, unified, national effort to elect Republican candidates; (2) the Hillary Supporters for McCain blog about the Obama campaign and its surrogates "sliming" (Bill Clinton's word) Mrs. Clinton. If you're a "mom," you'll want to take a look at Jean Avery's blog: http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com/. (On the Hillary Supporters site, I have a picture of Bill's supposed girlfriend (Gina Gershon), as well as a quote from a friend in Ambridge, who said, "As Bill gets older, the girlfriends get better looking." Can't quarrel with that.
The pundits last night didn't really "interpret" Mrs. Clinton's "concession speech" (more properly, her "non-concession speech"). Instead, they mainly had a befuddled look on their faces. Some wondered if she was not perhaps launching the first shot in her 2012 campaign for the presidency.
(I suggested that the next presidential election -- the one after this year's -- might end up pitting Senator Clinton on the Democratic side against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the Republicans. (In this scenario, President John McCain would have -- as we said in business -- "elected to take early retirement.")
Of course, the major question the Senator left is whether she wants (expects?) the vice presidential nod. CNN"s David Gergen suggested that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be indicating that she wanted Senator Obama to agree to some sort of "coalition" government -- or perhaps a co-presidency. On that point, what about a "troika," that would have three equal parts: Barack, Hillary, and -- of course -- Bill?
The problem with Hillary as a vice-presidential nominee is this: she has supplied the Republicans with all sorts of ammunition. Famously, she once said, "I have a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience; Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002." When Obama runs against McCain, he will hear those words used in ads -- again and again and again.
Mrs. Clinton's slogan in her campaign was "Ready on Day 1." She has implied that John McCain would also be ready to serve as President on Day 1. Of course, her words mean that Obama would NOT be ready. If she thought the Illinois Senator had the appropriate seasoning (and as Prince Hamlet said, "The readiness is all"), then her slogan would have made no sense.
Bill Clinton said on June 2 that the Obama campaign was "sliming" his wife. Again, if Hillary Clinton accepts (the proper word may be "seizes") the vice-presidential nod, Bill Clinton's words just might ring throughout the fall campaign. The former President indicated that Obama is relying on "surrogates" to hurl mud at his wife.
Are Hillary and Bill Clinton really ready to mend fence with Obama? Are they willing to say, in essence, "all is forgiven, Barack. We really didn't mean all those nasty things we said about you."
Is this to be a ticket that contains a undertone of the following: "It's true that I said Barack wouldn't be ready on day 1; however, since he will have me with him (in the White House? perhaps the Lincoln Bedroom?), he won't have to worry about not being quite ready for prime time."
And what would the presence of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket do to Obama's seminal message of change? In fact, the "Billary" triplex would be a continuing reminder of the ghosts of American politics past. Barack would learn that it's impossible to fire a vice-president (or a former President).
For Senator McCain, campaigning against an Obama-Clinton team might not be the daunting task it appeared to be yesterday. The Republican message -- one of them -- is going to highlight Obama's unsuitability for the highest office. And the main "spokesperson" for that position might not be John McCain, but rather Hillary Clinton -- with occasional assists from her husband.
Let the games begin!
Monday, May 12, 2008
HILLARY, PLEASE ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN
Note: On my Pennsylvania blog today, I have a piece about "America's Worst Congressman: Chaka Fattah." Rep. Fattah is from Philadelphia, and he's about as corrupt as it gets in American politics, which is saying a lot. On my Hillary Supporters for McCain blog, I continue my discussion about how McCain could break the election wide open -- and also add some thoughts about the West Virginia primary. In many ways, WV is "Pennsylvania South," loaded with good people of modest means. Hillary will win big there. Obama basically has no interest in states like WV.
See below: "I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton."
The following two paragraphs are from my new -- and popular (to my amazement) -- blog called "Hillary Supporters for McCain." From all appearances, Mrs. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President, but she will continue to play a major role in determining who wins the general election. (I hope you take a look at the "Hillary" site. It is definitely not part of the usual "Hillary bashing.")
I'm hoping this blog (the "Hillary" site) becomes one of the most fascinating -- and useful -- ones in the political blogosphere. You can help me achieve that end by taking various steps: (1) bookmarking the site; (2) visiting regularly; (3) sharing your own thoughts about the various articles (either through the "comments" or by writing me at TalkTop65@aol.com); and (4) telling your friends and political allies about this site and providing them links to it. Thanks for your support. On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates (Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley) whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate.
One key question that hasn't been answered yet is whether Hillary supporters should back John McCain -- and if so, why? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that issue. Another critical matter is how (and to what degree) Hillary should endorse Obama. If she believes he would be a bad President, should she endorse him at all -- or perhaps rest her wounded spirit incommunicado in Hawaii? If she has to choose between Party and country, won't she choose country?
If I had any direct contact with Senator Clinton, these are some of the questions I'd ask her -- respectfully but forcefully.Some months ago Mrs. Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 [against the Iraq War]." In those comments, she was suggesting that McCain has the necessary experience to be President -- and that Obama doesn't.
Many people in Sen. Clinton's Party will tell her, "Hillary, it's time to 'take one for the team' and to strongly support Obama for the presidency. If she gives into that request/demand, it would be a terrible way to conduct a life. This nation -- her nation, mine, and yours -- does face the huge challenges she's discussed in the campaign.
From his record, John McCain has the experience -- and the character -- to deal with them. From his record (or the lack thereof), Obama does not. He demonstrates great naivete about the way the world operates. He would have great trouble protecting America because he doesn't grasp fully that the nation needs protection.
As I've indicated, Obama apparently does not respect McCain the person. Why? Because Obama doesn't know many (any?) people like the Arizona Senator. Instead, he knows his wife (who calls America "a mean place"), or Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who damns the country and blames it for "inventing" the AIDS virus), or William Ayers (who thinks the country deserves to have bombs set off in public places), or Tony Rezko (who believes that political payoffs are appropriate).
This is the Obama who (in Dreams From My Father) calls his grandmother "a typical white person." The Obama who thinks typical white people are religious fanatics, gun-lovers, racists, and xenophobes. Am I underestimating the Illinois Senator? I wish there were some evidence that I was.
And back to Mrs. Clinton: instead of "taking one for the team," she should consider what she owes to a country that has been so good to her, her husband, and her daughter.
I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton.
It's probably unlikely that Senator Clinton will endorse John McCain. Unlikely? Yes. Unimaginable? Not really. Doing the right thing sometimes comes with a personal cost. Doing the wrong thing, however, can come with a terrible cost for a nation.
Life is tough -- and so, I believe, is Hillary Clinton. We shall see, won't we?
See below: "I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton."
The following two paragraphs are from my new -- and popular (to my amazement) -- blog called "Hillary Supporters for McCain." From all appearances, Mrs. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President, but she will continue to play a major role in determining who wins the general election. (I hope you take a look at the "Hillary" site. It is definitely not part of the usual "Hillary bashing.")
I'm hoping this blog (the "Hillary" site) becomes one of the most fascinating -- and useful -- ones in the political blogosphere. You can help me achieve that end by taking various steps: (1) bookmarking the site; (2) visiting regularly; (3) sharing your own thoughts about the various articles (either through the "comments" or by writing me at TalkTop65@aol.com); and (4) telling your friends and political allies about this site and providing them links to it. Thanks for your support. On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates (Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley) whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate.
One key question that hasn't been answered yet is whether Hillary supporters should back John McCain -- and if so, why? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that issue. Another critical matter is how (and to what degree) Hillary should endorse Obama. If she believes he would be a bad President, should she endorse him at all -- or perhaps rest her wounded spirit incommunicado in Hawaii? If she has to choose between Party and country, won't she choose country?
If I had any direct contact with Senator Clinton, these are some of the questions I'd ask her -- respectfully but forcefully.Some months ago Mrs. Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 [against the Iraq War]." In those comments, she was suggesting that McCain has the necessary experience to be President -- and that Obama doesn't.
Many people in Sen. Clinton's Party will tell her, "Hillary, it's time to 'take one for the team' and to strongly support Obama for the presidency. If she gives into that request/demand, it would be a terrible way to conduct a life. This nation -- her nation, mine, and yours -- does face the huge challenges she's discussed in the campaign.
From his record, John McCain has the experience -- and the character -- to deal with them. From his record (or the lack thereof), Obama does not. He demonstrates great naivete about the way the world operates. He would have great trouble protecting America because he doesn't grasp fully that the nation needs protection.
As I've indicated, Obama apparently does not respect McCain the person. Why? Because Obama doesn't know many (any?) people like the Arizona Senator. Instead, he knows his wife (who calls America "a mean place"), or Rev. Jeremiah Wright (who damns the country and blames it for "inventing" the AIDS virus), or William Ayers (who thinks the country deserves to have bombs set off in public places), or Tony Rezko (who believes that political payoffs are appropriate).
This is the Obama who (in Dreams From My Father) calls his grandmother "a typical white person." The Obama who thinks typical white people are religious fanatics, gun-lovers, racists, and xenophobes. Am I underestimating the Illinois Senator? I wish there were some evidence that I was.
And back to Mrs. Clinton: instead of "taking one for the team," she should consider what she owes to a country that has been so good to her, her husband, and her daughter.
I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton.
It's probably unlikely that Senator Clinton will endorse John McCain. Unlikely? Yes. Unimaginable? Not really. Doing the right thing sometimes comes with a personal cost. Doing the wrong thing, however, can come with a terrible cost for a nation.
Life is tough -- and so, I believe, is Hillary Clinton. We shall see, won't we?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
AMERICAN POLITICS: WHOLE WORLD WATCHING
Note: On my new -- and, amazingly, popular -- blog: (http://hillarysuportersformccain.blogspot.com, I have a piece today by a superb political analyst, Jean Avery. It's called "The Agonies of Hillary Clinton." Yesterday's piece on the same blog is titled "Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary." I hope you'll read both and comment if you wish. On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate. Thanks.
In recent months, The (London) Economist has written about the fascination many people in Great Britain have with this year's American politics. In Britain, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Englishmen and Englishwomen find them awake at 5 a.m. (their time) hanging on the latest results from Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Some of these people may not know exactly where Indiana or Pennsylvania are, but they're fixated on the Obama-Clinton battles in those states.
The Economist mentions that a lot of people in Britain have a form of "primary envy." They wonder why their own country, one with a parliamentary system, can't have primaries of their own! Obviously, the primaries are great theater. Also, there are clear winners and losers, a situation that's always certain to draw public interest.
The obsession with American politics isn't just something you'll find in Britain. For example, I received the following e-mail from an overseas man, Jim Fryar, an Aussie who's a regular reader of my blogs.
He tells me, " I have been over to HSFM [Hillary Supporters for McCain] a few times, and I regard it as a potential winner for our cause [i.e., the conservative and libertarian one].
"My main concern at present is that Hilary will make it. I realize it's unlikely or highly improbable, but I never underestimate the Clintons, [because] they are as cunning as outhouse rats. . . . It's not over until Obama has the nomination, and even then I think its likely that Hilary would have 2012 in mind and have similar sentiments [regarding] the people we are reaching out to.
"[Alaska Govenor] Sarah Palin would be a great asset to this effort if she were the VP nominee. The "girl" thing is a side issue to this. She is honest, competent, has executive experience, and appears to have the toughs where she needs them. I would not recommend her otherwise. The last thing we need in the future would be a useless VP who we 'owe' for getting us over the line.
"Sarah's main competition would be Mitt Romney, who is also a good choice. Mitt would bring back some of those who backed him but still won't come across to McCain. He would cost us some ultra-conservative support, but I am not sure that this would be a real bad thing if he can bring in greater numbers of other groups. I think that a great many ultra-conservatives would still support the ticket [McCain-Romney] rather than accept the alternative. If Mike Huckabee and/or Fred Thompson were to support such a ticket, it would go a long way to help.
"That group [ultra-conservatives] worry me as they seem to be pulling us away from the more moderate electorate to the point where I feel some of them actually despise moderates and possibly want them out. I still believe we need the [ultra's] support so we have to be nice to them, but to some extent I think they are costing us, especially among the young [voters that] Romney could appeal to.
"I notice in the NYT an article which suggests that the Latino vote could be crucial and Eric [Dondero of BlogTalkRadio/Libertarian] has been pushing this line for the last year, or at least that we do not do enough to get that vote. He also seems to feel that quite a few Latinos don't really like the Democrats as they tend to stand over them. He presented a good case for Bonnie Garcia as a possible VP a couple of months ago. If she were at least to get a prominent place in the campaign, she could be a great asset.
Is Condi [Rice] really 'tainted' [by assocation with the Bush Administration] as some seem to claim? I feel she has handled a bloody difficult role with total credit, and I have great respect and admiration for her. From over here, I don't get the street feel you would have, but on her record I would love to see her on the ticket.
In another e-mail Jim said talked about the need in his country and ours for highly skilled immigrants -- in the face of growing anti-immigrant feelings.
"All of us are bound to disagree on some things. I kind of half heard a tv show in the background the other night on our ABC which was interviewing someone with similar views to Marina Kats's. I have been looking for the transcript on their website but it has not come up yet. The interviewee was saying that both of our countries [U.S. and Australia] could lose out badly and the tendency for industry to move offshore could increase if we do not get in more skilled people [immigrants] in a hurry."
He adds, "It is almost impossible [in Australia] to get an electrician [in most non-minerals] industries now because of the mining boom."
Jim's knowledge of American politics is quite amazing when you consider that he's in Queensland, Australia. I love the way he talks about "us," referring to American conservatives. Jim sees himself -- and frankly, is -- one of "us." He's very familiar with what's going on in the New York Times and on ABC.
You can find Jim's remarkable blog at: http://jimunro.blogspot.com/. He describes its nature as:
"Real World Libertarian: The Politics of Liberty and the Defense Thereof." Occupationally, he is a "former farmer, [and] surface and underground driller now moving into [mining] training and consultancy."
I told Jim that "Americans and Aussies" are brothers and sisters under the skin. And as he demonstrates, we are. May it be ever thus.
In recent months, The (London) Economist has written about the fascination many people in Great Britain have with this year's American politics. In Britain, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Englishmen and Englishwomen find them awake at 5 a.m. (their time) hanging on the latest results from Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Some of these people may not know exactly where Indiana or Pennsylvania are, but they're fixated on the Obama-Clinton battles in those states.
The Economist mentions that a lot of people in Britain have a form of "primary envy." They wonder why their own country, one with a parliamentary system, can't have primaries of their own! Obviously, the primaries are great theater. Also, there are clear winners and losers, a situation that's always certain to draw public interest.
The obsession with American politics isn't just something you'll find in Britain. For example, I received the following e-mail from an overseas man, Jim Fryar, an Aussie who's a regular reader of my blogs.
He tells me, " I have been over to HSFM [Hillary Supporters for McCain] a few times, and I regard it as a potential winner for our cause [i.e., the conservative and libertarian one].
"My main concern at present is that Hilary will make it. I realize it's unlikely or highly improbable, but I never underestimate the Clintons, [because] they are as cunning as outhouse rats. . . . It's not over until Obama has the nomination, and even then I think its likely that Hilary would have 2012 in mind and have similar sentiments [regarding] the people we are reaching out to.
"[Alaska Govenor] Sarah Palin would be a great asset to this effort if she were the VP nominee. The "girl" thing is a side issue to this. She is honest, competent, has executive experience, and appears to have the toughs where she needs them. I would not recommend her otherwise. The last thing we need in the future would be a useless VP who we 'owe' for getting us over the line.
"Sarah's main competition would be Mitt Romney, who is also a good choice. Mitt would bring back some of those who backed him but still won't come across to McCain. He would cost us some ultra-conservative support, but I am not sure that this would be a real bad thing if he can bring in greater numbers of other groups. I think that a great many ultra-conservatives would still support the ticket [McCain-Romney] rather than accept the alternative. If Mike Huckabee and/or Fred Thompson were to support such a ticket, it would go a long way to help.
"That group [ultra-conservatives] worry me as they seem to be pulling us away from the more moderate electorate to the point where I feel some of them actually despise moderates and possibly want them out. I still believe we need the [ultra's] support so we have to be nice to them, but to some extent I think they are costing us, especially among the young [voters that] Romney could appeal to.
"I notice in the NYT an article which suggests that the Latino vote could be crucial and Eric [Dondero of BlogTalkRadio/Libertarian] has been pushing this line for the last year, or at least that we do not do enough to get that vote. He also seems to feel that quite a few Latinos don't really like the Democrats as they tend to stand over them. He presented a good case for Bonnie Garcia as a possible VP a couple of months ago. If she were at least to get a prominent place in the campaign, she could be a great asset.
Is Condi [Rice] really 'tainted' [by assocation with the Bush Administration] as some seem to claim? I feel she has handled a bloody difficult role with total credit, and I have great respect and admiration for her. From over here, I don't get the street feel you would have, but on her record I would love to see her on the ticket.
In another e-mail Jim said talked about the need in his country and ours for highly skilled immigrants -- in the face of growing anti-immigrant feelings.
"All of us are bound to disagree on some things. I kind of half heard a tv show in the background the other night on our ABC which was interviewing someone with similar views to Marina Kats's. I have been looking for the transcript on their website but it has not come up yet. The interviewee was saying that both of our countries [U.S. and Australia] could lose out badly and the tendency for industry to move offshore could increase if we do not get in more skilled people [immigrants] in a hurry."
He adds, "It is almost impossible [in Australia] to get an electrician [in most non-minerals] industries now because of the mining boom."
Jim's knowledge of American politics is quite amazing when you consider that he's in Queensland, Australia. I love the way he talks about "us," referring to American conservatives. Jim sees himself -- and frankly, is -- one of "us." He's very familiar with what's going on in the New York Times and on ABC.
You can find Jim's remarkable blog at: http://jimunro.blogspot.com/. He describes its nature as:
"Real World Libertarian: The Politics of Liberty and the Defense Thereof." Occupationally, he is a "former farmer, [and] surface and underground driller now moving into [mining] training and consultancy."
I told Jim that "Americans and Aussies" are brothers and sisters under the skin. And as he demonstrates, we are. May it be ever thus.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
GOP Candidates: Seizing Hillary Supporters
Media, candidates, and others: Please feel free to post, reprint, forward, or discuss this piece. Please make mention of the fact that this article originally appeared on: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. If you have a blog or web site, please establish a link. Thanks. "We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately." (B. Franklin) I receive no financial support or direction from any candidate.
Tomorrow I'm going to write about the following piece from Politico.com: GOP Leaders Warn of Election Disasterpolitico.com — Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s [National Republican Congressional Committee's] money. The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama or anti-Rev. Wright campaign, they are simply going to fail. More… (US Elections 2008)
The article's message is either poppycock or balderdash. I haven't figured out which. A candidate's "brand" is not the Party. Rather, it is the candidate herself or himself. Also, if those supposed "leaders" had done a better job leading, well, things would be better.
There's much hand-wringing lately over the loss of Republican candidate Woody Jenkins in a supposedly "safe" election in Louisiana. As Karl Rove put it Tuesday night, "Look, Woody Jenkins [who's lost more elections than Britney Spears has mispaced underwear] is a fine man, but he's terrible candidate." I support only exceptional candidates.
As for Woody's loss, the best way to get candidates for congressional races is NOT to "round up all the usual suspects." Instead, get people who have great integrity and a real passion for the voters of their district. They usually win.
More to come on Wednesday.
On my Pennsylvania-specific blog, I have posted a strategy for Keystone State congressional candidates. Since it has national implications, I'm re-posting it here on this national blog. ON THIS BLOG THE EMPHASIS WILL NOT BE ON PROVIDING TIDBITS OF INFORMATION, BUT RATHER ON STRATEGIES AND TACTICS FOR WINNING. "Winning isn't everything -- it's the ONLY thing." (Vince Lombardi)
"[There's] this aspect of the Boy's Club ganging up on her [Hillary] and shoving her out." Chuck Todd, MSNBC
Barack Obama will almost certainly be the Democrats' presidential nominee. The question for presidential nominee John McCain and congressional candidates like Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Mike Livingston, and Marina Kats is how can they pick up the votes of Hillary Clinton supporters.
A lot of Hillary voters, as many as 45%, say they will not vote for Obama. If they will defect from the Democratic nominee, they may just defect from "down-ballot" candidates.
Melissa, Toni, and Marina can appeal to many disaffected Hillary backers. One major way they can do so is to emphasize the need for Pennsylvania to elect women to federal offices, including the presidency and the Congress.
The Republican candidates need to emphasize the many things they have in common with Hillary voters, especially their belief that Mrs. Clinton was mistreated by the national media (which is true) and by the arbitrary rules set by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (also true).
Melissa, Toni, and Marina should say very explicitly -- and often -- that they want the Hillary supporters to back them. But won't that offend Obama voters? Possibly, but who cares? They're the left-wing types who aren't going to vote for any Republicans.
Consider a few example of results from the Pennsylvania Primary:
4th District (Beaver County, Melissa's District) Hillary 28,205 Barack 12,184
17th District (Lebanon, Toni's District) Hillary 7,316 Barack 5,772
13th District (Montgomery, Marina's District) Hillary 77,762 Barack 75,515
I sent the following e-mail to Sharon Caliendo, a political consultant in the Southwest:Sharon: Thanks so much for passing my "Hillary Strategy" along to Congressman Tom Cole's office.
The issue has really nothing to do with whether someone "agrees" with Hillary. On some issues Hillary is okay (there are lots of issues after all!) and on some she is not so good.The real question: is Mrs. Clinton getting shafted by the Democrats' "old boys network" and by the national media, which hates her? The answer is yes.
Consider again Chuck Todd's comment last night on MSNBC: "[There's] this aspect of the Boy's Club ganging up on her [Hillary] and shoving her out."Bingo, Mr. Todd.
As I'm saying on my blogs -- and trying to get many others to say the same thing -- it will help Republican candidates (especially females) to start pointing out that Mrs. Clinton is getting savaged by media and political hacks (Howard Dean) who have done everything they can to wreck her campaign.Our Republican candidates should start saying that out loud (and in press releases).
Many Democrats, especially women voters, believe it's time in our nation's progress for a female candidate to get the nomination for the presidency.I've been advocating that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin be our GOP candidate for President in 2012 (if we lose this election) or 2016. I've done this not because she's a woman but because she is a remarkable human being and the most effective elected official in any state.
In PA, Hillary Clinton won nearly every county -- in some cases, she won by three-to-one or even four-to-one. We need to reach out (and keep reaching out) to Hillary Clinton supporters. They are the keys to John McCain winning the presidency -- and to many fine candidates getting elected to Congress.
Sharon, I want people like Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats to win elections. To do so, they have to defy some of the conventional wisdom, especially the elements that will lead to "conventional" defeats.
The three Republican candidates did NOT grow up with "silver spoons" in their mouths, and they need to get that across to Hillary supporters.
In the PA Primary on April 22, Mrs. Clinton got 1.25 million votes, an amazing total. Many of those voters will understand that we're running superb candidates this year. Winning is just so much more enjoyable than losing.
John McCain has said he wants to contest for every vote. I hope every one of our candidates, male or female, takes that approach. Sen. Clinton has campaigned with real ferocity and skill. She should have our respect for that.
(Note: Here's what Adam, a Coloradan and probably the best young political operative in the country, said about the thoughts in this column: "Good strategy. I'm not an expert on PA, but Hillary supporters certainly seem like a key to GOP victory. If you can hang Obama around a local Dem's neck, you might be able to pick of quite a few votes. The only caveat is that you probably can't associate Obama too closely with Dems who backed Clinton.")
Following are additional statements on the "Hillary Strategy." I posted them on http://www.mccainnow.com/, an important site bringing together McCain supporters. I urge you to visit and register so you can participate on it.
Like you, I've been fascinated by the "exit polls" showing that a great many Hillary Clinton voters (nearly half in Indiana) are saying that will not vote for Barack Obama. Very, very interesting -- and more than just "interesting."
On my Pennsylvania blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/) I'm asking John McCain and several great (female) congressional candidates in PA to go after those Hillary supporters. It's essential that John McCain (and other GOP hopefuls) start asking explicity for support from voters who have backed Mrs. Clinton.
Frankly, I hope John McCain and other candidates for federal offices say and do some unconventional things. Specifically, I hope they say that Mrs. Clinton is being savaged by the national media (which happens to be true). I also hope they say (accurately) that the Senator is being shafted by Howard Dean and other members of what Chuck Todd (of MSNBC) calls "the Democratic 'Old Boy's' Club."
If we scratch Hillary's back, many of her supporters will end up scratching ours.
Recognize that it makes eminent sense for Republicans to treat Howard Dean (an odious creature) like a political pinata. Actions by Dean and other in his Democrat Cabal -- specifically, the dinenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida Democrats should be a major issue for McCain.
We need to sympathize (now!) with those disenfrachised Democrats. We must remind those voters that Dean is treating them like dirt. Deans' strong-arm tactics are depriving Mrs. Clinton of the nomination.
Yes, I'm aware that in politics the actions I'm advocating "just aren't done." Why they're not done, however, is a question that has no real good answer.
In my home state of Pennsylvania, I'm strongly backing one presidential candidate (John McCain) and four great congressional candidates (Mike Livingston, Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats). I have this terrible sense that if all four of them don't reach out forcefully -- and explicitly -- to Hillary's suppoters, then all they all could lose Pennsylvania.
John McCain has said many times that he wants to "contest for every vote." In the Pennsylvania Primary, Mrs. Clinton got 1.25 million votes. I'm a selfish Republican -- and I hope McCain and others also are. I want a good chunk of those million-and-a-quarter votes to go to oustanding Republican candidates, starting with John McCain.
In recent memory, Senator Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experince. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he gave in 2002." I hope McCain is readying a commercial featuring Clinton making that statement.
Yes, when the Democratic Primary comes to and end -- presumably at some point in our lifetimes -- Mrs. Clinton will go through the motions of endorsing Barack Obama. But her heart -- and I assume she has one -- will not be in it. In reality, she will be looking ahead to 2012 and her race against . . . President McCain.
So, let's go get those Hillary supporters. We need to sympathize with them about their candidate's legitimate grievances against the Obama-loving media and the Clinton-hating national chairman (Dean). If we ask sincerely for their votes, we can get them -- and in massive numbers.
Tomorrow I'm going to write about the following piece from Politico.com: GOP Leaders Warn of Election Disasterpolitico.com — Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party’s message isn’t good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC’s [National Republican Congressional Committee's] money. The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama or anti-Rev. Wright campaign, they are simply going to fail. More… (US Elections 2008)
The article's message is either poppycock or balderdash. I haven't figured out which. A candidate's "brand" is not the Party. Rather, it is the candidate herself or himself. Also, if those supposed "leaders" had done a better job leading, well, things would be better.
There's much hand-wringing lately over the loss of Republican candidate Woody Jenkins in a supposedly "safe" election in Louisiana. As Karl Rove put it Tuesday night, "Look, Woody Jenkins [who's lost more elections than Britney Spears has mispaced underwear] is a fine man, but he's terrible candidate." I support only exceptional candidates.
As for Woody's loss, the best way to get candidates for congressional races is NOT to "round up all the usual suspects." Instead, get people who have great integrity and a real passion for the voters of their district. They usually win.
More to come on Wednesday.
On my Pennsylvania-specific blog, I have posted a strategy for Keystone State congressional candidates. Since it has national implications, I'm re-posting it here on this national blog. ON THIS BLOG THE EMPHASIS WILL NOT BE ON PROVIDING TIDBITS OF INFORMATION, BUT RATHER ON STRATEGIES AND TACTICS FOR WINNING. "Winning isn't everything -- it's the ONLY thing." (Vince Lombardi)
"[There's] this aspect of the Boy's Club ganging up on her [Hillary] and shoving her out." Chuck Todd, MSNBC
Barack Obama will almost certainly be the Democrats' presidential nominee. The question for presidential nominee John McCain and congressional candidates like Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Mike Livingston, and Marina Kats is how can they pick up the votes of Hillary Clinton supporters.
A lot of Hillary voters, as many as 45%, say they will not vote for Obama. If they will defect from the Democratic nominee, they may just defect from "down-ballot" candidates.
Melissa, Toni, and Marina can appeal to many disaffected Hillary backers. One major way they can do so is to emphasize the need for Pennsylvania to elect women to federal offices, including the presidency and the Congress.
The Republican candidates need to emphasize the many things they have in common with Hillary voters, especially their belief that Mrs. Clinton was mistreated by the national media (which is true) and by the arbitrary rules set by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean (also true).
Melissa, Toni, and Marina should say very explicitly -- and often -- that they want the Hillary supporters to back them. But won't that offend Obama voters? Possibly, but who cares? They're the left-wing types who aren't going to vote for any Republicans.
Consider a few example of results from the Pennsylvania Primary:
4th District (Beaver County, Melissa's District) Hillary 28,205 Barack 12,184
17th District (Lebanon, Toni's District) Hillary 7,316 Barack 5,772
13th District (Montgomery, Marina's District) Hillary 77,762 Barack 75,515
I sent the following e-mail to Sharon Caliendo, a political consultant in the Southwest:Sharon: Thanks so much for passing my "Hillary Strategy" along to Congressman Tom Cole's office.
The issue has really nothing to do with whether someone "agrees" with Hillary. On some issues Hillary is okay (there are lots of issues after all!) and on some she is not so good.The real question: is Mrs. Clinton getting shafted by the Democrats' "old boys network" and by the national media, which hates her? The answer is yes.
Consider again Chuck Todd's comment last night on MSNBC: "[There's] this aspect of the Boy's Club ganging up on her [Hillary] and shoving her out."Bingo, Mr. Todd.
As I'm saying on my blogs -- and trying to get many others to say the same thing -- it will help Republican candidates (especially females) to start pointing out that Mrs. Clinton is getting savaged by media and political hacks (Howard Dean) who have done everything they can to wreck her campaign.Our Republican candidates should start saying that out loud (and in press releases).
Many Democrats, especially women voters, believe it's time in our nation's progress for a female candidate to get the nomination for the presidency.I've been advocating that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin be our GOP candidate for President in 2012 (if we lose this election) or 2016. I've done this not because she's a woman but because she is a remarkable human being and the most effective elected official in any state.
In PA, Hillary Clinton won nearly every county -- in some cases, she won by three-to-one or even four-to-one. We need to reach out (and keep reaching out) to Hillary Clinton supporters. They are the keys to John McCain winning the presidency -- and to many fine candidates getting elected to Congress.
Sharon, I want people like Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats to win elections. To do so, they have to defy some of the conventional wisdom, especially the elements that will lead to "conventional" defeats.
The three Republican candidates did NOT grow up with "silver spoons" in their mouths, and they need to get that across to Hillary supporters.
In the PA Primary on April 22, Mrs. Clinton got 1.25 million votes, an amazing total. Many of those voters will understand that we're running superb candidates this year. Winning is just so much more enjoyable than losing.
John McCain has said he wants to contest for every vote. I hope every one of our candidates, male or female, takes that approach. Sen. Clinton has campaigned with real ferocity and skill. She should have our respect for that.
(Note: Here's what Adam, a Coloradan and probably the best young political operative in the country, said about the thoughts in this column: "Good strategy. I'm not an expert on PA, but Hillary supporters certainly seem like a key to GOP victory. If you can hang Obama around a local Dem's neck, you might be able to pick of quite a few votes. The only caveat is that you probably can't associate Obama too closely with Dems who backed Clinton.")
Following are additional statements on the "Hillary Strategy." I posted them on http://www.mccainnow.com/, an important site bringing together McCain supporters. I urge you to visit and register so you can participate on it.
Like you, I've been fascinated by the "exit polls" showing that a great many Hillary Clinton voters (nearly half in Indiana) are saying that will not vote for Barack Obama. Very, very interesting -- and more than just "interesting."
On my Pennsylvania blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/) I'm asking John McCain and several great (female) congressional candidates in PA to go after those Hillary supporters. It's essential that John McCain (and other GOP hopefuls) start asking explicity for support from voters who have backed Mrs. Clinton.
Frankly, I hope John McCain and other candidates for federal offices say and do some unconventional things. Specifically, I hope they say that Mrs. Clinton is being savaged by the national media (which happens to be true). I also hope they say (accurately) that the Senator is being shafted by Howard Dean and other members of what Chuck Todd (of MSNBC) calls "the Democratic 'Old Boy's' Club."
If we scratch Hillary's back, many of her supporters will end up scratching ours.
Recognize that it makes eminent sense for Republicans to treat Howard Dean (an odious creature) like a political pinata. Actions by Dean and other in his Democrat Cabal -- specifically, the dinenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida Democrats should be a major issue for McCain.
We need to sympathize (now!) with those disenfrachised Democrats. We must remind those voters that Dean is treating them like dirt. Deans' strong-arm tactics are depriving Mrs. Clinton of the nomination.
Yes, I'm aware that in politics the actions I'm advocating "just aren't done." Why they're not done, however, is a question that has no real good answer.
In my home state of Pennsylvania, I'm strongly backing one presidential candidate (John McCain) and four great congressional candidates (Mike Livingston, Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, and Marina Kats). I have this terrible sense that if all four of them don't reach out forcefully -- and explicitly -- to Hillary's suppoters, then all they all could lose Pennsylvania.
John McCain has said many times that he wants to "contest for every vote." In the Pennsylvania Primary, Mrs. Clinton got 1.25 million votes. I'm a selfish Republican -- and I hope McCain and others also are. I want a good chunk of those million-and-a-quarter votes to go to oustanding Republican candidates, starting with John McCain.
In recent memory, Senator Clinton said the following: "I have a lifetime of experince. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he gave in 2002." I hope McCain is readying a commercial featuring Clinton making that statement.
Yes, when the Democratic Primary comes to and end -- presumably at some point in our lifetimes -- Mrs. Clinton will go through the motions of endorsing Barack Obama. But her heart -- and I assume she has one -- will not be in it. In reality, she will be looking ahead to 2012 and her race against . . . President McCain.
So, let's go get those Hillary supporters. We need to sympathize with them about their candidate's legitimate grievances against the Obama-loving media and the Clinton-hating national chairman (Dean). If we ask sincerely for their votes, we can get them -- and in massive numbers.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Ways to Help McCain Win
Note: Until Wednesday of this week -- April 9 -- I'll be spending my time asking many bloggers and onliners to use their blogs and e-mails to build support for John McCain. I'd ask you to do the same thing on your blog, as well as to e-mail friends and family members and ask them to back John McCain. I hope you'll ask McCain supporters to contribute to his campaign, which they can do by going to: http://johnmccain.com and clicking on the "contribute" button. If you want to learn some techniques that will help McCain win the presidency, please go to Kathy Morrison's http://mcccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. I always appreciate your visits, and I enjoy your comments.
RNC Posts New Web Video: “Politics vs. Petraeus”
WASHINGTON – Today the RNC released a new Web video, titled “Politics vs. Petraeus.” The video highlights Senators Clinton and Obama’s politicization of the War on Terror and complete disregard for the facts and the warnings made by General David Petraeus during his last congressional hearing on September 11, 2007.
After consistently promising to “always listen to our commanders on the ground,” Barack Obama has blatantly ignored Gen. Petraeus’ recommendations and pledged to enact an immediate and dangerous withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq if elected President. And despite warnings from Gen. Petraeus that “a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences,” Senator Clinton has promised to begin a precipitous withdrawal of American troops within 60 days.
“Politics vs. Petraeus” can be viewed by clicking here.
RNC Posts New Web Video: “Politics vs. Petraeus”
WASHINGTON – Today the RNC released a new Web video, titled “Politics vs. Petraeus.” The video highlights Senators Clinton and Obama’s politicization of the War on Terror and complete disregard for the facts and the warnings made by General David Petraeus during his last congressional hearing on September 11, 2007.
After consistently promising to “always listen to our commanders on the ground,” Barack Obama has blatantly ignored Gen. Petraeus’ recommendations and pledged to enact an immediate and dangerous withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq if elected President. And despite warnings from Gen. Petraeus that “a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences,” Senator Clinton has promised to begin a precipitous withdrawal of American troops within 60 days.
“Politics vs. Petraeus” can be viewed by clicking here.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McCain: Use Clintons in Commercials
If you scroll down one column, you'll see that I recommended John McCain "make nice with Hillary Clinton." My point is that many Hillary voters -- millions of them -- are there for the taking. I'd like now to go further -- and recommend that McCain develop commercials featuring Bill and Hillary Clinton. He could use them in the general election.
The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
I hope all of you will get on Patrick's e-mail list, which you can do by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
The commercials would feature public comments by the Clintons. Mrs. Clinton has said that "John McCain has a lifetime of experience." She added that Barack has one thing -- "a speech he gave [opposing the Iraq War] in 2002." As for Bill Clinton, he recently commended McCain's service to America, saying he'd given everything imaginable "other than his life."
I know Republicans generally don't use Democrats in their commercials. However, McCain needs to deviate from that practice, because the Clintons have done everything but endorse the Republican nominee. They've identified important ways in which he's a far superior candidate to Obama.
If John McCain gets a significant portion of the Democratic Primary voters who now support Sen. Clinton, he will win the election. He can get those voters if he keeps reminding people that the Clintons see him as candidate superior to Obama.
If Obama regards this approach as unfair, he might consider "unleashing" his :spiritual advisor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As we recall, the "Rev." had some intriguing things to say about Bill and Hillary.
Good evening, all:
Please check out my two posts from Sen. McCain’s stop in Jacksonville today during the “Service to America Tour”:
This first post has a compelling section of Sen. McCain’s speech: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=58c486db-f4ec-454c-8d97-ad79da9a53d1
And check out this young man who attended the event: http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=0ad1cc64-c9ef-4006-8509-95c47d76042e
As always, we would appreciate you linking up to these two posts.
Patrick Hynes
I hope all of you will get on Patrick's e-mail list, which you can do by contacting him at: phynes@calypsocom.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
