Sunday, January 27, 2008

Clinton's Nixonian Strategy

First, let us debunk the notion that Bill Clinton is some sort of loose cannon in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Bill is a provenly brilliant political strategist. He is Hillary closest political adviser. Everything he says is part of a coordinated strategy. Bill's role is to play Spiro Agnew to Hillary's Nixon; saying all of the bitter, vile things that the candidate herself cannot say without blowback. Make no mistake, Bill is Hillary's servant in this. Every word Bill speaks is approved by Hillary.

The practice is for Bill to say something outrageous and allow it to float in the ether for a day or two. Hillary will then say Bill's words were unauthorized, giving the press a chance to repeat the attack. Finally, Bill will apologize, giving the press another chance to repeat the attack, while adding a snide comment that will reinforce the original attack. Watch for it.

The Southern Strategy
somebody at the Clinton organization will say to the press asking them about it: "Well, what do you do expect? A lot of blacks in that state." Thud. Duhhhh. Giving nothing to Obama, blaming it all on racial identity politics, or crediting it for that. You watch. ~ Rush Limbaugh - Jan. 22, 2008
I hate referencing Rush Limbaugh but he predicted the Clinton campaign's reaction to losing in South Carolina. Predicted it precisely. On election night while Hillary was flying (fleeing) to Tennessee, Bill was comparing Obama's victory to Jessie Jackson. Roland Martin at CNN accurately described Bill's comment as "race baiting."

It is not, technically, a Southern Strategy because its audience is national. The Clintons are trying to paint the multi-ethnic Obama with black face in a direct appeal to racism. They believe a coalition of older white voters and Hispanics can be frightened by the prospect of a "black president" and that will be sufficient for victory. It is a strategy that is not working with younger voters - CNN's SC exit poll shows Obama's vote among whites under 30 equals his statewide totals.

I considered listing the many racist attacks the Clintons have wielded in the past several weeks, but that is what they want. The want them repeated and repeated and repeated. They want their race baiting to become the currency of the campaign and I refuse to do their dirty work for them. (If you insist, the list is being kept here.)

My Personal Reaction
I never supported Hillary Clinton for President. I felt she was too conservative and I have a visceral distaste for a Bush-Clinton dynastic tag team. I also have the traditional Californian dislike for all things New York. I have preferred John Edwards to Obama. Given all that, I would not have sliced my wrists if Hillary were the Democratic nominee. As late as January 2 I wrote, "Still, she has several good ideas and, on the whole, would not totally suck as President." Just three weeks ago, while I would not vote for her in the primary, I would have happily voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

No longer. The endemic racism of the Clinton campaign has crossed a line with me. I refuse to sullen my soul by voting for her. Ever. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination I shall vote third party. Any Democrats on my ballot who endorses Clinton prior to the convention will lose my vote as well. The Clinton campaign sickens me and I must question the integrity of any Democratic politician who is not also sickened.

2 comments:

John Sun said...

I might come across as argumentative, and I apologize before hand.

Okay, so Hillary was wrong to have put emphasis on race.
But what other viable strategies are there to counter someone who gets such an enormous, sensationalist free ride? I honestly believe media outlets have overwhelmingly been the "sixth man" for him. Why does she have to run an obstacle course on a handicap? Because she isn't sexually appealing? So nothing goes for rewarding good deeds? I Admit, I'm a fan of Bill and was sold on the two-fer idea.

In the eyes of our international peers, is it not counter-productive to our global standing, to place a first generation immigrant of questionable merit and dubious heritage by sole virtue of who_he_is. You mentioned you are from California - racial equality alone does not the seventh largest global economy make.

Will Obama really give us a significantly better country? Will elder dems capitulate to and coalesce around a first term senator with no foreign experience?

Are we really going to equate community organization to national and global governance?

Healthcare - despite her having failed to get it passed on the first attempt, she brought the idea to the forefront of national consciousness. That gives me assurances that any revisits on it will have a higher chance of being ratified if it is spearheaded in the hands of someone who knows something about it. And I don't believe Obama understands universal healthcare, not to the same degree.

If he gets the nod, what more can you say but "the media won it for him".

Anonymous said...

It seems clear to me that Bill is running for a second chance at president as much as Hillary is running for herself. And, I am not confident that either are running with the best interests of our country, foremost in their minds.

If we want change in Washington, we are not going to get much from this "dual presidency."

As Barack commented, he's not sure which Clinton he is running against.

George the Second has Cheney and Hillary has Bill?

If it comes to it, I'll vote for the Clintons over any republican. But, they are not my first choice.

mfs