Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

HuffPo / James Boyce: Hillary Wasn't Given The Crown, She Earned It

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:12 AM
Original message
HuffPo / James Boyce: Hillary Wasn't Given The Crown, She Earned It
"It's game time."

The previous debates, all 356,897 of them, were the preseason of politics. The warm-ups when the candidates got ready for when the leaves change, the weather turns cold, the races, hot.

Here's where I think we stand. It's pushing October, people are paying attention and the core window to make waves in the next 45 days. Here in New England, we take our Thanksgiving pretty seriously and then there's the Holiday Season, so you better start moving now.

BARACK OBAMA AND JOHN EDWARDS

What they share is plenty of money, tons of money in Barack's case, and the rallying cry of look at me not Hillary.

At this point, they also both share a glaring, and in Barack's case, monumental failure to make the case that they are alternatives to Senator Clinton. The failure is total and will be complete in another thirty days.

As regards John Edwards, to his great credit, he learned the lessons from the Kerry Titanic Campaign of 2004. However, he misapplied them. Yes, you need something true to yourself to focus on, but the poverty issue is not the most pressing issue of the day, Iraq is.

Right concept, wrong basket of eggs.

But, yes, Edwards is solid on Iraq. In fact, Edwards is solid on just about every issue. And his campaign has executed them well. So why no mojo? No Johnmentum?

I think it has to do with the fact that he has been running for four plus years. He has been in the spotlight too long. The public appears slightly tired with him, the media certainly is and the problem for John Edwards in New Hampshire tonight is quite simple.

He has been here for four years. He is going to win the bronze at the current rate in January. And I just don't see the path for him. A known quantity with clear positions and a well run group (well, well run with the exception of a monumentally mediocre first NH tv spot.)

As regards Barack Obama, too bad he didn't learn any lessons from 2004.

Too bad he has many of the same advisors and strategy that drove Edwards done the tubes in 2004.

Too bad he talks the talk of "hope and change" but walks the walk with the most inner circle DC traditional campaign folks of any campaign (including Hillary)

Too bad he didn't surround himself with more friends and less consultants.

Too bad he hasn't realized that my compatriot Jerome Armstrong was absolutely right - if he had actually been a progressive candidate instead of talking about being a progressive candidate, he would have been the nominee.

Too bad he is going to bring in thousands of new people to the party and leave them disillusioned by the business as usual campaign.

Too bad.

My free advice to Barack Obama is the same advice I gave to John Kerry in October / November 2003. Right now, it should be clear to you that the path you're on ends with you giving a concession speech sometime in early 2008. Guaranteed.

So immediately gather your best and your oldest friends. Jettison the consultants and the beltway advisors. Become true to yourself and give yourself a chance. Worst case? You're giving a concession speech sometime in early 2008. But it's not guaranteed.

SENATOR CLINTON

When she announced earlier this year, Dave Johnson and I wrote about how her first mission was to shatter the prism of the right. What we meant was Hillary is one of those people who you think you know, but you really don't.

Think of it this way.

Imagine if the only thing someone knew about you was what your worst enemies thought of you. Actually, the worst of what your worst enemies thought of you.

That was everyone's perception of Hillary.

But to her great credit, she has done what she did in New York State where she know has a resounding 81% favorable rating.

She went 'door to door' person to person and re-introduced her self, sans prism.

Here is the result:

Clinton, the national frontrunner, has the support of 43 percent of Granite State Democrats, according to the CNN/WMUR poll, compared to 20 percent for Barack Obama. In a similar poll in July, Clinton led Obama by a narrower margin, 36 percent to 27 percent.

In the poll, 54 percent of those surveyed also said that Clinton has the best chance among the Democratic contenders to beat the Republican nominee, up from 37 percent in July.

Also encouraging for Clinton, 36 percent said she was likeliest to bring needed change, compared to 24 percent who said Obama, who has made change a key theme of his campaign.


That's remarkable.

She is leading in national polls.

She is kicking ass in New Hampshire.

She is inevitable right now, not because she was given the crown, but because she earned it.

If John Edwards and Barack Obama have failed to be alternatives to her candidacy, how does rest of field look?

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/is-it-last-call-tonight-f_b_65897.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.......nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. QUESTION: Why didn't Hillary fight against the stolen elections in '00 & '04?
The status of her and her husband certainly would have brought media attention to the subject, but instead we got silence. I believe they were afraid if Gore or Kerry won, then HRC would not have a chance to run in '08.

Read these articles, first on Gore in 2000:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.

Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

YAAY RIGHT-GORE LOST!

AND THIS ON KERRY'S REASON FOR CONCESSION (THANKS TO CLINTON CRONY JAMES CARVILLE):

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE CORPORATE MEDIA BACK THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTIONS AND THE POLICIES OF BUSH. NOW WE SEE HOW THEY ARE PUSHING HILLARY CLINTON. IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR PARTY AND NOT ALLOW THE CORPORATES FROM CHOOSING A LEADER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. SInce HillaryCare, She Has Fought For:
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Bubkes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. What about the war, and patriot act, come on-you gotta give her that.
Oops...I forgot, they were lied to by *. Funny how a lot of leaders, Al Gore comes to mind, was able to not take * on face value but looked into the issue and came to the truth-bu$h lied and the war was a disaster.


Do we need a leader at this critical time that goes with the stutus quo or that looks at all the facts before committing our country to war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. What crown? Nobody has voted yet! You Hillarites are hillarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, She's Earned It!
She's earned it by kicking the Republican's butts on the following issues:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Are your list of issues meant to be left off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. That's The Entire List, Right There
What - don't you see anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. Interesting analysis, based on some stuff I knew and . . .
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 08:30 AM by MrModerate
some I didn't.

The "Clinton inevitability" complaint is nonsense. She has been laboring in the trenches from before she and Bill left the White House -- because she knew (like a lot of us did) that 'Lican rule (and especially Bush) would be damaging to America.

Of course, no one outside an asylum for the terminally paranoid could have guessed how disastrous Schimpanski's presidency was going to be.

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty theme is also utter bullshit. True, all four traded on their national recognition and respective party connections, but Bush I won a (mostly) legit election against a flawed Dem candidate; Clinton squeaked by once (helped immensely by the fact that Bush I was a putz) and won solidly a second time (facing a limp 'Lican challenger -- insert ED joke here); Bush II stole two elections in a row, and Clinton II could well win entirely differently than Bill did. That ain't dynastic ring-around-the-rosie, that's historical confluence, which does happen now and again.

In the absence of the incredibly hard-working Clinton, Edwards and Obama would be duking it out with each other and might end up on the same ticket. But this time around one is overdone and the other is underdone. I have a feeling that the American people are going to find Clinton is "just right."

And the 'Lican crowd? A pack of sociopaths, empty suits, third-rate day players, and nutjobs. They're going to have to rely on their vote-stealing black ops to emerge from 2008 with the White House, the Senate, *or* the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. I knew that Dubya would be a disaster for America in 1999
Hillary didn't and didn't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Look, everyone I hung out with knew he' be bad . . .
But THIS bad?

Our imaginations were unequal to the task of visualizing the world of shit he's plunged us into.

If you hit the mark in 1999, then you are 1) especially perspicacious and 2) probably something of a downer to talk politics with.

(I realizing I'm projecting a lot from one short comment but heck, this is the Internet -- I'm allowed to make shit up.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
11. BOYCE is another HILLARY SPINNER. No election fraud in 2000, 2002 and 2004
And HEY JAMES,

If Hillary and her team is the BEST AND TOUGHEST - where have they been the last 6 years?

BushInc didn't do anything they thought needed opposing?

Keeping their powder dry to save for their attacks on other Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. Did I miss where he explained
her courage in voting for this insane war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. and don't forget she supported the PATRIOT ACT-which made us all safer. right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
14. WHAT crown?
This is as ridiculous as all the anti-Hillary stuff.

She is ahead now. So, she's ahead now. In December 2003,
it was shoo-in internet whiz Howard Dean for the nomination.

Things happen, things change. The only thing that is sure at this
point is that nothing is for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. Like it or not, even her enemies have to admit she knows how to campaign
Which is why I see her winning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. We need a leader NOT another smooth talking politician (think: compassionate conservative)
We are faced with climate crisis-a obstacle of epic proportions, world hatred toward our country, war, huge national debt, and crumbling infrastructure to name a few. Do we really need another smooth talking corporatist or real leadership that represents the people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. This country is certainly in a ditch
Which is why we need someone who can get things done, has an international reputation, and knows how to work the system instead of a dreamer who won't get anything through congress.

With all the major issues we've got now, I'm going for practical and efficient leadership over an impractical dreamers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Me too-AL GORE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Well, that's a given!
Although, I've given up hope that he'll run. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Not me. Also, if the Democratic candidate is HRC, I will write in AL GORE. I will NOT
be any part of putting another corporatist into office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. The only thing that she has that most of the other dems don't
is TV coverage. Next Sunday she is supposed to be on 5 shows, 5 shows? Why? Is it because the RW want her to be the candidate? There has NEVER been a dem that has been courted on TV as much as Hillary has this year, NEVER! I am beginning to distrust her, and I never thought I'd say that. Is she making too many deals with the RW to get the nomination?

I'll vote for her in the general, if it comes to that, but I'm no longer sure she has our best interests at heart.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Oh shit, I thought you were going to use the V word.
Personally, I would use her marriage to Bill. I think too many Clinton supporters are voting for her because of her last name; not because of her policy positions.

Yours is good too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. I just don't view everything through RW conspiracy glasses.
First, I don't think they are as all powerful and influential as people make them out to be and, personally, I don't care who they want to run against. It's irrelevant to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
20. Howard Dean was a great campaigner, too
And I found him a much more inspiring speaker than Hillary is.

In the end, it didn't help him, and Bush's 2nd grade level English
didn't hurt him (how's THAT for an indictment of our cultural level?).
There is, and will be, more to it that just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Actually, I don't think Dean was a great campaigner
Although he was my choice in 2004, I never viewed him as a great campaigner. He never seemed to be able to control his image, he didn't build a great organization, he seemed to believe a core group of passionate and vocal supporters was indicative of the overall nation, and he didn't market himself well to the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. I guess I should qualify that
He is a great speaker. If his campaign had been run as well as he delivered
his speeches, he would have won in a heartbeat.

I find him such an inspiring speaker because his speeches are not much
different from his conversation at the dinner table. He doesn't put on
an act. That's really how he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. because of media manipulation in both cases (think how Dean's "amplified" scream
and *'s -a guy you'd like to have a beer with)

That said, I believe traditional media will play a much smaller role, people distrust "pundits" & pollsters, and folks in general are pissed off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
23. Just say "NO" to political royalty!
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-26-07 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
25. This is far from an endorsement by James Joyce. He falls for the
inevitability meme, but you can see he is desperate...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC