http://wonkette.com/politics/debate-fallout/round-two-for-clinton-317619.php
Debate Fallout: Round Two for Clinton
by Wonkette
In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She’s kept a low profile since Tuesday night’s trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball (“As someone who loves her,” said former Clinton adviser James Carville. “This was not her best performance.”). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled “The Politics of Pile-On.” And honestly, it just doesn’t work.
Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce [WP]
The Politics of Pile-On [YouTube]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zk16oxb4Ck4
In the surface, it appears that this is about liberal crybabies in the Hillary camp putting out something to point out that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the other candidates -- the men in this race -- and maybe that was their goal, but I'd argue the end result is something entirely different than what Wonkette sees.
By putting this out, the Clinton Camp has changed the debate from being about hillary being a flip-flopper to be being about Hillary playing the "victim" card.
Frankly that change in focus has snuffed out much of the momentum that debate COULD have generated. By putting Hillary back under critique by Fox News over playing the victim card, Fox News has in essence normalized Hillary's realtionship with America.
Fox News has been routinely attacking hillary over playing the victim card when she hasn't, so now that her camp actually HAS played it, their criticism lacks teeth. They have, in effect, cried wolf too many times.
I think Hillary has essentially played this get out of jail free card to get out of her debate faux pas. She can't use this one again, but there are other criticisms Fox News has put against her that she can use in the future.
At this point, barring a SERIES of gaffes of equal measure, I am about 99% sure she will win the Democratic nomination.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Iowa Primary: polling result update.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?
clinton pulling away in Iowa after debate trouble? --- More proof that debates don't give rise to instant momentum, more that they only open the door to new strategies. Neither Obama or Edwards really are applying new strategies, so they won't win.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Romney maintains commanding lead in Iowa, Huckabee destined to hold on to second?
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Hillary weathers "driver's license" storm? It appears so...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history
The new national polls are out.
10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)
Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)
Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)
When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.
I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.
On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.
10/28/07
Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)
11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)
I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.
The new national polls are out.
10/28/07 (before Hillary's debate debacle)
Clinton - 44% (down 2% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
Obama - 20% (down 4% from the poll on the 22nd)
Edwards - 14%(up 3% from the polls on the 15th and 22nd)
11/4/07 (after the debate debacle)
Clinton - 42% (down 2%)
Obama - 22% (up 2%)
Edwards - 12% (down 2%)
When you consider the margin of error, it appears that -- like most debates -- this debate had little to no immediate affect. Debates can have long term effects though by introducing concepts that can be played out over time. It appears to me that this will most likely hurt hillary in the general election by opening the door to "flip-flopper" criticisms.
I think ultimately, the democratic feild has made up it's mind on the top 3 for now. Movement is only going to come if Edwards or Obama run away with Iowa and force a reconsideration.
On the republican side, Huckabee and Romney continue to chip away at Thompson and Guliani. I am not prepared to crown Romney the front-runner yet, but I think if Guliani's numbers stay floating in the 23-25% range he will be in real trouble after Romney destroys him in Iowa. There will be a reconsideration there.
10/28/07
Guliani -21% (down from 29% on the 15th and 25% on the 22nd)
Thompson - 18% (down from 19% on the 22nd)
Romney - 12% (down from 15% on the 22nd)
McCain - 14% (up from 12% on the 22nd)
Huckabee - 12% (up from 8% on the 22nd)
11/4/07
Guliani -23% (up 2%)
Thompson - 17% (down 1%)
Romney - 13% (up 1%)
McCain - 13% (down 1%)
Huckabee - 12% (no change)
I think Guiliani and Huckabee are moving and everyone else is more or less staying in place. I think Huckabee has taken a jump in Republican voter's minds to "serious candidate and IMO the front runner to be vice president. I think all 5 candidates had a solid core of 10-15% of the republican voters who love them and the rest are people leaning their way. Guliani should be considered the frontrunner, but this race will be a dogfight.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
"Border control Nazi" Lou Dobbs weighs in
For those of you who don't know Lou Dobbs, he is an economist who interprets the news in economic terms on his show on CNN. He is a little full of himself, IMO, but the man is clearly a patriot who says things because he believes they are in the best interest of America. Unlike other editorialists on TV, he is not a political shill for one of the parties.
He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?
Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00
He is against NAFTA and open borders because they drop the effective wages of the middle and lower classes --- the majority of America --- and contribute to an eventual loss of national identity and autonomy. If our borders with Canada and Mexico are slowly being dissolved, how can we efficiently make the financial corrections to the US economy that history has shown us we have to make from time to time?
Anyway, illegal immegration is his hot button and the idea of NY giving driver's licenses (a legal document) to illegal immegrants sets him on fire, so it is no suprise that he would be one of Hillary Clinton (and the Democrats) harshest critics on these issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3AUf7zUP00
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The wolves are out on Hillary
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6634.html
"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST
PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.
Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.
But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.
Those days seem to be over."
"Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
Oct 31, 2007 06:02 AM EST
PHILADELPHIA — We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.
Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.
But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.
Those days seem to be over."
RIchardson defends Clinton; 1st step to Vice Presidency?
http://haussamen.blogspot.com/2007/10/guv-defends-clinton-as-his-poll-numbers.html
"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen
The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.
To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”
Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.
In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.
“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”
Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.
But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.
Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?
Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."
I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.
"Guv defends Clinton as his poll numbers drop
by Heath Haussamen
The bad news continues for Gov. Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign. I wrote on Monday about his decline in the polls. Today, three new polls further confirm his sinking support.
To top it off, the National Journal has moved Richardson from fourth in its rankings among Democratic presidential contenders to sixth. In addition to being behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, he’s now also ranked by the publication behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.
“The issue we have with Richardson is that he’s a terrible liberal; it’s not in the guy’s DNA,” the National Journal states. “He’s trying to become the anti-war candidate but doesn’t seem like a credible messenger.”
Three American Research Group polls released today have Richardson at 7 percent in Iowa, 5 percent in New Hampshire and 1 percent in South Carolina. All three are drops from the group’s September polls. Meanwhile, Biden has climbed to 5 percent in Iowa, 4 percent in New Hampshire and 6 percent in South Carolina in the new polls.
In the face of all the bad news, Richardson came to Clinton’s defense today, saying he regrets the “negative tone” Obama and Edwards have taken in accusing her of being too close to lobbyists, according to the Associated Press.
“I think that Senators Obama and Edwards should concentrate on the issues and not on attacking Senator Clinton,” the news service quoted Richardson as saying. “It’s OK to get aggressive on the issues, but to make personal attacks on somebody’s attachments to lobbyists, that’s not the kind of positive tone I want to see.”
Richardson – a guy who has accused all three frontrunners in recent months of deceiving the American people with their Iraq plans – also predicted he’ll win the nomination because he’s running a positive campaign.
But his defense of Clinton is raising eyebrows in part because it comes on the same day that Clinton, on her campaign’s official news Web site, took the unusual step of putting up video of and information about the attacks by Obama and Edwards. Clinton also included a link to a news release from her campaign that essentially says she’s being unfairly attacked.
Richardson and Clinton defending Clinton from attacks on the same day? While Richardson is sinking in the polls? What does it mean?
Maybe nothing. Maybe much more than that. It will be interesting to see whether the two are chummy at tonight’s debate."
I think a lot of politicians see the writing on the wall. As of today, I think the movement and tactics of the various politicans say a lot about how they perceive their chances.
Hillary Clinton debate gaffe video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0uHybfmmY
-----------------------------------------------------
Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.
I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.
She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.
That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.
The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)
Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"
IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."
That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.
Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.
Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.
-----------------------------------------------------
Above is the video that shows clinton struggling with whether she supports the legislation the Governor of NY has proposed that would grant illegal immigrants driver's licenses.
I personally feel that she did bungle the answer by not answering it in politico speech, but that the answer DOES actually make sense. She is IMO not being treated fairly as a candidate on this, but that is life in the fast lane when you are the presidential front runner.
She clearly states in her inital attempt to answer the question that the issue is a failing of national policy, closing with the statements "No state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immegration reform." The words "well intentioned" clearly betray simpathy to the writers of that legislation and also a belief that it in spite of their efforts it may not be an ideal law conceptually.
That is a point that is not reported in any of the accounts. Why is that? Well, in part, because the media is always looking for something to bring in reader and viewers and reporting it in the stilted fashion that they did, did bring in more viewers. Additionally, Clinton and the media have an adversial relationship dating back to her first Health Care legislative effort. When Clinton went back and said the line about "gotcha" it was stating that the media would take this out of context as they would finally have something on her. That does presuppose a lack of professionalism. It should come as little suprise that was what was delivered.
The correct answer IMO would have been to challenge the initial loaded question. (And by loaded, I do not fault Tim Russert. A loaded question is a fair tool for a debate because every candidate will voice an opinion from time to time that they might want back. A loaded question often digs up these statements and forces a candidate to weigh their answer. The question is a fair one for a reporter to ask of a candidate.)
Tim Russert: "Senator Clinton, Governor of NY Elliott Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immegrants, you told the national new hampshire editorial board 'it makes a lot of sense', why does it 'make a lot of sense' to give an illegal immegrant a driver's license?"
IMO the correct answer: "Tim, that is taken out of context. The truth is the National government has failed the state governments by failing to enact a coherent and sensible immigration policy. This puts our states in the awkward situation of having to write laws to cover issues that come out of that. Gov. Spitzer is doing his best to address the immediate concerns of New Yorkers because the national Government under Bush has failed to address the issue in a sensible fashion. It would be irresponsible for him not to try to come up with a stopgap solution to protect NY citizens. If I am elected we will have that coherent national immegration policy and we will free the states from having to take action on immigration law."
That's probably a 60 second answer for a supposed 30 second slot, but she took about 50 seconds anyway.
Hillary was not sharp, she spent about 15 seconds of her time revealing that we have illegal immegrants. You have to get into the meat of a question like that a lot quicker. Additionally, she attempted to back up the Governor's policy on this and took a big hit over it. She should not have backed the policy as it is halfbaked liberal garbage. She should have backed the man instead, by bemoaning the fact that he is being forced to write halfbaked liberal garbage to offer a minimum of protetction for his citzens to cover the failings of the Bush administration.
Ultimately her defense of the governor's policies cost her. Maybe he will help her land NY and the surrounding states in the election. He clearly owes her. Time will tell if this worked out for her, but for now we all want to know if this is the gaffe that drops her back into a real race with Obama and Edwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)