Team Hillary, I'm afraid to tell you but it isn't 2004 anymore

[underpants]

I see this morning that Hillary had a "cabinet style" meeting with some retired military types yesterday, she even invited some press people along to photograph it and such.

So the Hillary campaign is just sure that NATIONAL SECURITY is going to take them over the top. Get them the WINS in some of the primaries or at least get her close enough.

This isn't surprising in the groupthink world that we live in. Her advisors appear to be so deep into the DC status quo that they think that the conventional wisdom about how brilliant Karl Rove is/was is actually the truth. I think they need to get out more often or maybe actually talk to some of the people at those rallies they are constantly going to. They DO go to those rallies don't they?

This also isn't surprising as most every industry, from politics to the NFL, is rampant with copycatting. What ever is en vogue rules the day, until someone dares try something new. Team Hillary lauds their won "3 AM" ad as being the winning edge in Ohio (and of course the DC media follows suit)-it strikes me as more self congratulatory amongst the political operatives to just continue what they were going to do anyway GO NEGATIVE and SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEM--Rovian, DLC, the new status quo. Until this tactic is proven to fail more than once it will be continued. Why reinvent the wheel when you can get paid to just say what everyone is saying?

Two main problems with this are as follows
1. National security is NOT an achievement it is the basic bottom floor standard. When you don't have national security THEN you notice. It's as if the contractor who built your home showed up to remind how swell it is that your house is still standing. No it isn't- it is EXPECTED.
2. They really think this is a winner for them in the general election? Against McCain (see DC media script)? By her? There doesn't seem to be a very long history for her in this field-just saying.



From everyone that I have talked to they are just tired of being scared to death. It is not just about the economy or national security now we have constitutional issues to deal with and everything else thrown in in some degree. I just don't think that national security is what everyone agreed it was in 2004. Not only is it not a winner for us (for reasons that aren't reasonable) I just don't think that people live in fear. Yes fear does work but we seem to have gotten our heads back on as we get further and further away from 9/11 and people (me being all Mr. Man-of-the-people :eyes: ) have come to grips with it in a way-its an everyday part of life but we just don't want to dwell on it......just like everyone else is doing.

[hedgehog]

1. Kick

[BlueManDude]

2. This election IS about national security.

She's right about that. Most presidential elections are. The issue of the war and terrorsim and national security has be addressed head on.

That said, nominating someone who voted for the IWR (like 2004) is suicide.

[maxsolomon]

3. its the economy, stupid.

her problem is: democrats aren't scared.

she better focus on the economy. or better yet, don't, and lose to obama.

[underpants]

10. I meant to mention that

Is this really topic A #1 iwth Dems??? I have been told that we don't care about these things Hell we hate the military...right???

:eyes: I was being sarcastic obviously.

I don't think this does all that much immediately unless this is some super brilliant Mississippi strategy. :shrug:

[terrya]

4. It's a lot of things.

It's the economy. It's global warming. It's constitutional issues. It's domestic policy, which has been largely neglected the past 8 years.

I think the American people don't buy into the idea that national security is the sole determining factor in choosing a President.

[underpants]

9. I didn't want to create a long list but you are on the same path there

product safety
Food safety -- those two are the ones I hear from all our daycare mom & dad friends

Gas
cost of living
wages


etc.

I just don't think it is a one issue election. I think 2004 was unique in that maybe it was. Well at least all the pols and media drubbed that into our heads-gee wonder why? :shrug:

[terrya]

11. And that's what we need to do in the GE

There are serious problems the next President (well, we hope it will be President Obama) will face. We need, seriously need, to address the issue of global warming. Signing the Kyoto Protocol would be a very good first step. The next administration would do very well to get Al Gore as a sort of senior adviser on this issue, if Mr. Gore is amenable to that.

Plus...the economy. As you said, Constitutional issues. Restoring Habeas Corpus. Social Security (NOT privatizing it, btw). An energy policy that will begin to utilize other forms of fuel and will lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Health care.

There are so many domestic issues and problems to be faced. The American people are eager for the next Administration and Congress to tackle them.

[underpants]

12. Food and toys

I know I live a little bubble of being a new father but everyone and I mean EVERYONE was just livid about the dangerous toys and the what was it 148 MILLION pounds of beef recalled ?

I mean everyone, even conservative relatives, bought more expensive stuff for our girl because they wanted it to be American made. There is some xenophobia there (and not because they are conservatives) but mostly people are fed up with it, and no one is even giving it lip service.

Why aren't these people hiring me?????

[havocmom]

5. If Bill really wants to help HRC's campaign, he could give her that desk sign...

It's the ECONOMY, Stupid!

Team HRC does appear to be missing the point of TODAY

[hedgehog]

6. 4 more years of TERRA! TERRA! TERRA! or 4 years of progress.

That's the choice between Hillary and Obama!

[redqueen]

7. But... didn't you hear?!

There's more chattering! Al Qaeda is intent on attacking us again! Just in time!

:scared:

:eyes:

[Zachstar]

8. Good topic!!

I do not want to live in FEAR I want to live in HOPE for the future.

[BrooklynBased]

13. Don't Give-Up On National Security

While you are correct that National Security isn't what it was in 2004, it is what it has always been(as you point out), the bottom line, the floor. Given that Mac will argue primarily about National Security, our candidate must meet him toe to toe and beat him in that tug of war. If voters do not see our candidate as credibly strong they will not listen to the remaining arguments claiming Dems make better government. So if we have nothing to fear but fear itself, why do National Security arguments work against us time and time again? Well it is because Mac and his friends don't give-up so easily. Our argument must be strong on National Security allows for better government.

We must remember that winning this election means overwhelming the elephants, like the Lilliputians captured Gulliver. Anything less than an overwhelming victory would be a shame - which I say to anyone here unwilling to support either candidate.

[underpants]

16. Welcome to DU

I agree up to a point. That point is about why national security arguments work time and time again--it is mostly because the Republicans know that it is their issue, they have staked out the claim on it. Whether or not there is any reason for this (there isn't) is a whole other matter. They own it like Dems own healthcare so they just keep trodding it out.

My point here is that I think people are over it. Scaring them makes them feel weak. It also reminds thing (in a cringe-inducing way) what W pulled over on them.

[BrooklynBased]

17. Fear is like falling an loud noises

Fear is so fundamental and scaring society's fear out into the open is so easily done that irrespective of the current state of our feelings of weakness and vulnerability, Mac can dig even deeper as fear is an endless pit and the road to hell.

God help we Dems if we get in and they do us again. Our country needs to know before that happens, if that happens, that our candidate is on it like a fly to ... and that our candidate is strong as strong can be and smart as smart can be. I think BO needs a little beefing-up in that area.

[JBoy]

14. Obama needs to be the anti-fear candidate

He can paint Hillary as not just McCain-lite, but Bush-lite, by showing that she carries the same message of fear.

[Beregond2]

15. Military

If Obama had surrounded himself with a bunch of old white miliary men to boost his campaign, the Clinton supporters would have been foaming at the mouth. But because Hillary does it, it is "smart."