MyDD: Hillary's Race to Lose...and...Obama: Movement? What Movement?

[SaveElmer]

A Hillary opponent taking a hard look at the state of the campaign...

by Jerome Armstrong

I don't have a dog in the race, and voted "other" in the MyDD poll. But I gotta tell you, this race is Hillary Clinton's to lose at this point. I wish to be wrong, and see Obama or Edwards get the nomination, but I honestly don't see it happening from this vantage point, and it's very frustrating. The Edwards candidacy was a longshot to begin with, and that he is still in it points toward how sound a strategy (combined with the luck of having Fiengold & Warner drop out), that he laid out; the frustration is more directed at Obama because he has the opportunity to lay claim with what's grown in the netroots this decade and hasn't grasped it at all, and it shows.

It's not about the dumping of Obama by the former contributor to Barack Obama, Steven Spielberg; or the very huge endorsement by Nevada State Sen. Dina Titus of Clinton; or even her latest surge in the polls.

No, it's the fake self-proclaimed "movement" that exhausts me of Obama. I say fake, not because "movement for change" and "building a movement" are such vacuous slogans, but because the continual touting of having such a movement in the Obama campaign email slog is a sure-as-heck signal that there really isn' a substantive movement behind the numbers.

...

It's ludicrous that some point toward the outreach and early partnership that Edwards has done with the blogging community and the netroots in the same manner that a candidate reaches out to an issue base group, and and argue from there that Obama doesn't kowtow to such groups. First of all, that's bs, he does plenty of pandering and is very ordinary in that regard; but more fundamentally, this is the base of the Democratic party's rapid response team. The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement. In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once. Edwards and Clinton do. Whose nomination is Obama running for?

There is an Obama that could be the partisan leader that builds with the netroots-blogger movement, but it's not his current campaign; and there is an Edwards campaign that's struggling to remain close to the pole; but here we are, seven months out, and only the potential of Al Gore jumping into the race seems standing in the way of Clinton getting the nomination. Otherwise, get prepared to accept Hillary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/13/223057/676#commenttop

[Kingstree]

1. Keep Dreaming

She is trending down.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3318044

[SaveElmer]

2. Only in bizarro world...nt

[jefferson_dem]

4. Is that where polls that you don't agree with come from?

n/t

[SaveElmer]

5. One poll is not a trend...

The trend of recent polling shows exactly the opposite...Hillary is trending up...

[Tellurian]

10. Exactly..ARG is a more accurate poll showing Obama 20pts down from Clinton

Obama's numbers get worse state to state with a +- moe of 4pts

If the polls in Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire are any indication of how far off the Harris Poll is w/moe of +-5pts

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[loyalsister]

3. Regardless

She still has no intellectual appeal to a gen xers such as myself who wants to see a the ridiculous overly partisan entrenchment of the current political system come to an end.

[MGKrebs]

22. Presidential politics is going to be a frustrating arena

in which to fight that battle.

[loyalsister]

27. well....

I used to work for candidates in local politics, but then our state voted in term limits and it got as nasty as it is on the national scene.

I may grudgingly vote for them, but until they stop practicing this kind of politics they won't get my time or money.

[MGKrebs]

28. I can understand that.

And I'm sure you know that there are lots of ways to try to change things. I happen to like Instant Runoff Voting as a relatively achievable path to tilting the dynamic of the electoral process toward increasing the influence of the people.

[loyalsister]

52. I didn't make myself clear

I don't push third parties.
My point is that current conventional wisdom encourages some (constituents if not politicians) to get as mean as they can and take partisanship to excess.
I want to see us get out of that rut.

[MGKrebs]

54. Actually, IRV can help that too.

Since voters get to choose a second (and third, etc) favorite candidate, it is a motivation for the candidtaes to not get too nasty towards each other. Candidate #2 may need some of candidate #1's voters!

[loyalsister]

51. self delete

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. No candidate will address that

Obama claims he will. One of two things will happen if he is elected: 1) He will not govern as a progressive. Why? Because in order to curry favor with the right-wing he will have to make significant concessions. He will have to split the difference between progressives and conservatives on issue after issue. 2) He will quickly abandon his talk of "changing the tone" in Washington like his predecessor did after being selected in 2000.

Either scenario contains false advertising. Either he is a fraud running as a progressive when he plans to govern as a centrist or his core message of a "new politics" and "unity" is a cynical election year ploy.

[johnnyrocket]

53. How is Hillary overtly partisan??? She voted FOR the Iraq War....

...she's a centrist. A moderate. The establishment.

In fact, I would think MORE partisanship is in order, to SHIFT the right wing government by force ( judicial, executive, congressional ) to a more liberal agenda.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Premature ejaculations ...

are usually a sign of pent up frustration.

[Tellurian]

8. Or Inexperience!

This new revelation in the OP reinforces the article just posted profiling the inner workings behind the scenes of Obama's campaign.. Detailing the "scripted" callers phoning people up for donations and endorsements. It's an eyeopener peeking into
underbelly of Obama's World, "Romancing the Phone".....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3316428#3318304

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

11. Here are excerpts of Mr. Obama's Foreign Policy: (do note the date for his plan)

A continuation of the Bush/Cheney Iraq Policy...:

"Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

But adding troops isn't just about meeting a quota. It's about recruiting the best and brightest to service, and it's about keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve. It's about providing funding to enable the National Guard to achieve an adequate state of readiness again. And it's about honoring our veterans by giving them the respect and dignity they deserve and the care and benefits they have earned.

A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women's ability to succeed in today's complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. It's time we recognize these as critical skills for our military, and it's time we recruit and train for them".

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

(...)

"A recent report detailed Al Qaeda's progress in recruiting a new generation of leaders to replace the ones we have captured or killed. The new recruits come from a broader range of countries than the old leadership - from Afghanistan to Chechnya, from Britain to Germany, from Algeria to Pakistan. Most of these recruits are in their early thirties.

They operate freely in the disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world - the impoverished, weak and ungoverned states that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

Some of these terrorist recruits may have always been destined to take the path they did - accepting a tragically warped view of their religion in which God rewards the killing of innocents. But millions of young men and women have not."

(...)

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.

I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice."

(...)

"As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

And when we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.

We must take these steps with the knowledge that while sometimes necessary, force is the costliest weapon in the arsenal of American power in terms of lives and treasure. And it's far from the only measure of our strength.

In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community - with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option.

The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency - securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

As leaders from Henry Kissinger to George Shultz to Bill Perry to Sam Nunn have all warned, the actions we are taking today on this issue are simply not adequate to the danger."

Obama's examples for security ALL pointing to a continuation of The Republican/Neocon leadership we all despise, to the year 2012 and if Mr.Obama is reelected, 2016. Let me know if theres any part of Obama's 5 Step Foreign Policy Plan that indicates he plans on ending the Wars and bringing our troops home, if he's elected.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam.html

And in regards to your statement:

"Tellurian (Team Hillary): No, why don't you go find it for me on Google."

Those are not my words. If anything I may have said: Do your own research or Google it yourself. I have an extensive file on Obama and have no need for anyone to do my research for me. My response (if there was a response, as you neglected to back your claim with a direct link) was for your own benefit, not mine.

[TeamJordan23]

13. Thanks, but where is the specific evidence of 8 more years of fighting in Iraq/Iran?

All this article says is that no President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. And that we must stop the spread of WMDs.

Are you saying that Hillary doesn't support those propositions? It never mentions prolonged wars for no causes. Remember Obama is against 'Stupid Wars'. So is Gore. But your candidate has been for 'Stupid Wars' as shown by her Iraq War Vote.

[Tellurian]

14. Hillary is running as a Democrat..not a Republican..

Sen Clinton has drawn up her own plan for Iraq.. I've devoted an entire thread to most of Hillary's movements within the Senate. You can peruse this site at your leisure starting with her "Troop Reduction Act of 2007"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3156632

and continue here for more info:

Sen Clinton's Plan to End the War:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&

And, her National Security and Foreign Policy site:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/

As to your question about Obama mentioning Iraq or Iran. According to Obama's Foreign Policy plan, he is not specific in mentioning any other countries besides the ME. That is precisely what scares me about him. He speaks in vagaries and generalities. His 5 Step Plan is until 2012..as bolded in my post. He is following the Neocon's Plan. I imagine whatever they tell him to do next...is what he has already agreed upon as a satisfactory plan for America. I'm against his entire agenda, maybe now, you can see why.

[TeamJordan23]

17. Funny you are making her out to be Anti-War....Was it only a dream that she voted for the IWR?

and the current mess that is going on there.

[Tellurian]

18. Have you read her IWR Statement?

It's here:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Obama wasn't there, so he doesn't count.

[JTFrog]

24. Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009

Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

[Tellurian]

31. Yes, I'm aware of her plan..

# STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ:

The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq
to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269481&&

[JTFrog]

37. I read the story highlights as...

• Presidential candidate says small force should remain past 2009
• New York senator says troops would fight terrorists, train Iraqis
• Scenario works only if Iraqis "get their act together," she says
• Sen. Barack Obama laid out similar plan on Wednesday

They seem awful similar to me. Too similar for either side to be claiming they have the better plan that's for sure.

[JTFrog]

38. And damn those

lazy Iraqi bastards for not picking their bombed to hell asses up and doing more for themselves. :shrug:

Get their act together indeed. :eyes:

[Tellurian]

39. Where they differ greatly

Is with their Foreign Policy Plans.

(where you said Wednesday, this past Wednesday?)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Obama has the same position but is not as open about it is HRC nt

[Tellurian]

34. Actually, Obama's Foreign Policy Plan

is scary..

Clips are posted but if you read the lengthy piece in it's entirety...well...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3318279&mesg_id=3318450

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. He often sounds like Romney

Did you see the Obama/Romney comparison thread posted a couple days ago? The Mystery Candidate is scary. We need to figure out what, if anything, he really stands for.

[Tellurian]

36. OK...

but it will have to wait until tomorrow..

goodnight, Mitt.

goodnight, Obama.

Oh, and goodnight, John-boy ;)

[Tellurian]

47. No, I didn't see that thread..

From what I've seen of Obama so far, he is a homogenized compendium or every candidate's policys from Right to Center in the political spectrum. His career choice should have been in the ministry not politics.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. Obama is for continuing the war in Iraq

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

From an article written by Obama himself:

==We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.==

In other words, he is going to de-escalate--not end the war. Why doesn't he ever mention this during debates or forums? He is running falsely as a candidate who will end the war. You cannot say you will end the war when you will continue military operations in Iraq indefinitely.

[Ethelk2044]

43. Edwards fought hard to Push for the War in Iraq

He became the spokes person for the war.

[JTFrog]

46. Hillary says the same thing.

In the debates she claimed that if * didn't end the war that she would.

Yet,

Clinton: U.S. troops needed in Iraq beyond 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html

[JTFrog]

44. They still seem awful similar to me.

"It's all part of creating a centrist Democrat image," says Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. By virtue of her post, she has become well versed in the latest weapons and field tactics. She has backed every defense appropriation bill, including the latest $81 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee (Armed Services Committee), Sheinkopf adds, "raises her national profile in a way that is out of sync with how her enemies would present her. It's important for her career."

WASHINGTON -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stood between the former heads of the US Military Academy at West Point and the Army War College yesterday and unveiled legislation that would add 100,000 soldiers to the Army, declaring that it should be a ''national priority" to field a significantly larger military.

....

The United States Army Relief Act, the brainchild of Clinton and her conservative Democratic colleague, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, is likely to receive serious consideration at a time the Army's 500,000 active-duty soldiers struggle in Iraq and across the globe.

...

Other analysts noted that Clinton, who is the only sponsor of the Army bill believed to have presidential ambitions, stands to benefit from the perception that she is strong on military issues. Some analysts say she learned from the campaign of last year's Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John F. Kerry, that what counts in national politics is not one's personal service, but support for defense spending.

"The Administration has ordered our military to fulfill missions for which it is not sized, equipped or funded. I have joined other Democrats and Republicans in proposing that we expand the Army by 80,000 troops, that we move faster to expand the Special Forces, and do a better job of training and equipping the National Guard and Reserves."

• Iran: Senator Clinton underscored that U.S. policy must be unequivocal: Iran must not build or acquire nuclear weapons. We should keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself.

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she added.

This year, with their virtually identical statements about "options" and "the table," the leading Democratic presidential candidates – Clinton, Obama and Edwards – have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.

[mnhtnbb]

7. The fat lady has barely warmed up--let alone sung. And it ain't over 'til she's sung.

[nevergiveup]

12. You must be bored

For a new-comer Obama is doing remarkable and Edwards is still in a very good position at this early stage. There was never any question that this primary was Hillary's to lose. She is in good shape at this point but she better stay alert because she has a couple of fine candidates behind her ,either of which, could still win this thing.

[Bullet1987]

15. To say Obama hasn't put together what can be CALLED a movement is idiotic

Look at the money he gained in the 1st quarter that came largely from THE PEOPLE. Look at the crowds he draws that outdoes any candidate on EITHER side. My advise to Obama would be to take a hard stance on an issue that no one else is talking about...stand up for something. And that's not really even solely to Obama, but all of the Dems running. Biden and Richardson have come out in hard support for Sudan. Obama also needs to look stronger is the debates...admittedly. But I refuse to say Clinton is inevitable in June of 2007...when she could potentially lose both Iowa and New Hampshire. That's the problem with these damn national polls, they don't paint an accurate picture of the caucuses.

[SoxFan]

16. Amen!

When the Clinton campaign held a canvass in Manchester last month, it drew about 30 or 40 volunteers. When the Obama campaign held one a week later, it drew 300-400 volunteers. Hillary has the tired old machine politicians, but Obama has real, grassroots support from Democrats and Independents from all wings of the party.

Another curious development has been taking place in NH. There are a fair number of "old guard" Democrats who are choosing not to support Hillary, but are instead going with Richardson. They feel that the Clinton campaign is too bloated, arrogant and top-heavy.

[MGKrebs]

23. As many Clinton critics have pointed out,

the Clinton campaign will be facing an unprecedented amount of attacks. Having a campaign that is a bit on the aggressive side is probably the only course to possible success for her.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. Movements are based on ideas. Obama is running on image and personality

==My advise to Obama would be to take a hard stance on an issue that no one else is talking about...stand up for something.==

How can a movement revolve around such an individual?

[MGKrebs]

50. "Unity" having been excommunicated from the idea bin.

[Radical Activist]

19. Jerome seems confused.

Does he really need Obama to tell him what party he's running for? The entire post lacks clarity or focus. Its just a rambling rant. People don't run for President to be a partisan leader. They run to lead the entire country.
His guess that the nomination is Hillary's to lose further shows his political naivety.

[Tellurian]

20. 276 people read it and didn't have a problem..

they posted their opinions beneath the article. I read about half of them...none were as enthusiastic about Obama's campaign as you are. Most of them were getting comfortable with the idea of Sen Clinton as president and wished her well.

[Radical Activist]

21. Resistence is futile?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

[Tellurian]

26. If thats a negative- not good at all! ;)

don't get excited...I didn't watch the video.

[Ethelk2044]

41. Keep dreaming

[PATRICK]

25. Accepting Hillary

That is the most underwhelming momentum any frontrunner can have. Traditionally, if she is not prepared to win the nomination, she will lose it. But is anyone else winning it? Not yet and therefore the present picture. No, the race is more troublesome by the primary structuring advantages Clinton has even if her polls and support slip and slide right to the end. Some though are imponderables by the untimely frontloading of large states in rebellion, they think, against the the past exclusion of their influence.

It was easier to forecast Smoking Joe's inevitable demise no matter what he did or said, deserved or undeserved. Kerry provided his own downward momentum in lockstep with the Dean phenom. Hillary has no insurgency to deal with and has not gaffed or insulted away her formidable base(superior to what Kerry had to start). So this will be, as most other primaries, interesting, even if the results or the action appear predictable, dull or with pendulum swings. Unless the competitors fold conveniently of course. it is not that wild enthusiasm will emerge from the Clinton campaign or horrid new troubles. She needs neither to "win". Her competition has to deal, as Kerry did with the need for a one-two achievement. Arise and dominate. her campaign is no surprise. She won two resounding victories in Dem NY with unchallenged ease which was not unearned by any means. It was easy because she cowed the challengers bereft of a prostate reduced Guilliani.

These are not dull times and if the primary process just rolls on in this moderate somnolence it is out of step with the people- as 2000 before Dean and Clark was. Like I said, better numbers and base and machine than Kerry, but more decided lack of enthusiasm overall. Acceptance. How many people vote with that as motivation? A very gray juggernaut and there will renewed enthusiasm among the GOP who have a more passionate take on Hillary than the Dem electorate.

[MGKrebs]

45. Potentially electing the first woman President EVER is dull?

Or the first African-American?
Is there ANY chance that a woman or a Black man would be able to get elected by being anything other than very mainstream? Of course not. In fact, NO candidate has much of a chance of getting elected without being mainstream. Therefore the policy aspect of these campaigns is going to be variations on a theme and not very dramatic. It is always so. Perhaps we should be happy that our national psyche is not so divided that we swing wildly between different extreme positions. Our country is maturing and we are gradually zeroing in on the kind of country we want despite occassional detours. The excitement and drama of presidential politics isn't going to come from the policies. There are very few new ideas and even fewer that are realistic at any given moment. Candidates have to motivate their supporters through subtle differences in policy but mostly through aura, cache, charisma, hopefully honesty and integrity, and not making too many mistakes.

[zulchzulu]

40. Funny, but I've signed up a thousand+ people so far at my Obama table

In Madison at the Dane County Farmers Market since April 29, I and others have signed up over a thousand people supporting Obama and wanting to get involved. A Clinton table? Are you kidding? There is an Edwards table as well.

People can blog all damn day, but what counts is getting the message out in the streets and setting up the ground game in critical first states in the primary/caucus season.

Let's just say that the Obama grassroots is doing just fine...and I've yet to see or talk to ANYONE who wants Clinton yet...

I suggest Jerome Armstrong get out of his pajamas, leave his blogcave and see what the rest of us are doing...

[Ethelk2044]

42. Good Point

[Tellurian]

48. Replacing the Obama sign with HILLARY would be a start..

[struggle4progress]

49. "Well, I've seen a poll so we might as well skip the primaries."