As a professional communicator, one of my mantras is it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. Yes, I stole it from Frank Luntz, a man I greatly admire. But it speaks volumes about what will hopefully be the final flameout of Hillary Clinton that went down this past weekend.
First, let’s hold our noses and assume Hillary was not implying anything when she said a certain charismatic presidential candidate was assassinated in 1968. Let’s also pretend she didn’t imply anything sinister when she said Obama was not a Muslim, “as far as I know.” And let’s give her yet another pass when she said, “Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
After her assassination comments (even more poorly timed given Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis), Bill Clinton joined her by shoving both his feet in his mouth. He claimed he’d “Never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running,” and that, “she will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't.”
Just who would “they” be, Bill? It’s amazing that in the last six months, Bill Clinton has gone from esteemed ex-president to professional crackpot. People used to wince whenever President Bush opened his mouth. Bill Clinton now shares that same horrendous stigma. He has permanently damaged his legacy, perhaps even more than Monica Lewinsky did.
But both Clintons have failed to understand that even if they said all these words with the best intentions, they failed miserably when it comes to convincing the public. This cuts to the quick of why a growing number of people hate the Clintons – all their communication revolves around whatever is best for them. They may think they’re telling us they are the best choice for the country. But they don’t get that we are hearing nothing except their sense of entitlement. It is a huge turnoff, and their unshameful egotism obviously comes at the expense of the Democratic Party and the majority of Democratic voters and delegates who think otherwise.
If you’re a diehard Democrat, you’re probably shaking your head at all this. But hopefully this has a silver lining and means Hillary is permanently off the list as a VP candidate. Now you only have one more serious worry left – what both of these unbalanced party “leaders” will say at the convention.
More Info:
What the Liberal Blogs Think of The Clintons Now
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Blue Dogs -- Ready to Bite
We don’t know who will be president next year, but it’s safe to say that Congress will remain Democratic. In fact, conventional wisdom states the Democrats will probably add to their majorities in both Houses. What that wisdom is not stating is what kind of Democratic Party will control Congress.
Take a look at the newest Democratic Senators – potential VP nominee Jim Webb, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Nobody will mistake these freshmen for being your stereotypical liberal, big city Democrats. The House members are even more notable for the number of freshmen and women who have joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group that now numbers 48 and can wield some clout if they stick together.
Much has been written about the three recent special elections where the GOP lost, including the most recent one in Mississippi that had been held by Republicans since 1995 (and was previously held by old school Southern Democratic segregationist Jamie Whitten). But the demographics in this district have not changed – the Democratic candidate has. For example, the new Mississippi Congressman Travis Childers is a successful businessman, is pro-life and anti-gun conrol, but also believes the Iraqi war was a mistake and thinks the middle class deserves better education and lower taxes in their paycheck. Think the Blue Dogs will soon break the 50 number?
I’m starting to see a subtle shift in the Democratic makeup of Congress. Maybe Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is paying off, as is voter backlash against an unpopular president and a lifeless GOP strategy and communication effort. But the Democratic Leadership Committee may not be leading the liberal, tax-and-spend policy the media and John McCain wants you to believe. The new blood tells me very different and interesting changes are approaching.
Take a look at the newest Democratic Senators – potential VP nominee Jim Webb, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Nobody will mistake these freshmen for being your stereotypical liberal, big city Democrats. The House members are even more notable for the number of freshmen and women who have joined the Blue Dog Coalition – a group that now numbers 48 and can wield some clout if they stick together.
Much has been written about the three recent special elections where the GOP lost, including the most recent one in Mississippi that had been held by Republicans since 1995 (and was previously held by old school Southern Democratic segregationist Jamie Whitten). But the demographics in this district have not changed – the Democratic candidate has. For example, the new Mississippi Congressman Travis Childers is a successful businessman, is pro-life and anti-gun conrol, but also believes the Iraqi war was a mistake and thinks the middle class deserves better education and lower taxes in their paycheck. Think the Blue Dogs will soon break the 50 number?
I’m starting to see a subtle shift in the Democratic makeup of Congress. Maybe Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is paying off, as is voter backlash against an unpopular president and a lifeless GOP strategy and communication effort. But the Democratic Leadership Committee may not be leading the liberal, tax-and-spend policy the media and John McCain wants you to believe. The new blood tells me very different and interesting changes are approaching.
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Enablers
Some dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the despots in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are fortunate to have national resources at their disposal to at least give their oppressed citizens some standard of living. But most dictators like Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Cuba’s Castro brothers and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il not only murder and subjugate their own citizens, but also lead the world’s poorest countries due to widespread corruption, sanctions and numerous other reasons. How do these tyrants stay in power so long?
Because in many cases there are one or two countries that enable these companies through foreign aid, trade or support to prop up these dictatorships and keep them running. A lone gunman in a town can be brought down if everyone hunts him down, but if he comes with a gang and has safe houses to hide it will be close to impossible to bring him to justice. Enron and MCI were made possible not by one rogue VP or CEO, but by a glut of greedy executives who didn’t care about their employees, shareholders or customers as long as they got rich at everyone else’s expense. They enabled those meltdowns to happen.
And like those executives, the world’s worst dictators crave power and control more than anything. We are compassionate and naturally expect all politicians to care about their citizens in times of natural disasters, and are shocked when it doesn’t happen (like New Orleans). So many are correctly outraged when the military dictators who rule Burma – who I’ve blogged about before – reject and stymie foreign assistance. They did not warn their citizens about the impending cyclone, or even evacuate them to higher ground. We are baffled why they would refuse visas to foreigners who want to help, or keep foreign food supplies and rescue vehicles out of the country. Why would they be indifferent to the fact that their actions will kill more of their people than the cyclone?
The answers are straightforward: Dictators on the right and left don’t care about public opinion, their citizens’ freedoms, lives or deaths, or raising the country’s standard of living. They only care about themselves. But the main reason these countries don’t collapse economically or through revolution is because there is always one or two countries enabling them. We can pass plenty of sanctions against Burma, but if an enabler like China keeps trading with them it will do little good except make the Burmese people suffer more. Ditto for Zimbabwe – as long as South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to enable Mugabe’s reign of terror it doesn’t matter. As long as China and South Africa keep cutting checks for economic aid and stand by the dictators, nothing will change. Of course, the U.S. is not alone in this – our assistance kept a dictator like the Shah of Iran and the Philippine’s Fernando Marcos in power for years. It was only after we pulled support that those governments fell, and they fell rather quickly.
Last week, China – Burma’s enabler – refused to let the UN Security Council hear a humanitarian chief detail how the Burmese junta refuses to help its people. China claims it didn’t want to politicize the issue. Russia said the same thing. Both countries make big money selling arms to the Burmese military government. If both countries dropped their support or at least twisted some arms in Burma, there might be progress. Don’t expect it to happen. Dictators don’t care what others think, except for their enablers.
Because in many cases there are one or two countries that enable these companies through foreign aid, trade or support to prop up these dictatorships and keep them running. A lone gunman in a town can be brought down if everyone hunts him down, but if he comes with a gang and has safe houses to hide it will be close to impossible to bring him to justice. Enron and MCI were made possible not by one rogue VP or CEO, but by a glut of greedy executives who didn’t care about their employees, shareholders or customers as long as they got rich at everyone else’s expense. They enabled those meltdowns to happen.
And like those executives, the world’s worst dictators crave power and control more than anything. We are compassionate and naturally expect all politicians to care about their citizens in times of natural disasters, and are shocked when it doesn’t happen (like New Orleans). So many are correctly outraged when the military dictators who rule Burma – who I’ve blogged about before – reject and stymie foreign assistance. They did not warn their citizens about the impending cyclone, or even evacuate them to higher ground. We are baffled why they would refuse visas to foreigners who want to help, or keep foreign food supplies and rescue vehicles out of the country. Why would they be indifferent to the fact that their actions will kill more of their people than the cyclone?
The answers are straightforward: Dictators on the right and left don’t care about public opinion, their citizens’ freedoms, lives or deaths, or raising the country’s standard of living. They only care about themselves. But the main reason these countries don’t collapse economically or through revolution is because there is always one or two countries enabling them. We can pass plenty of sanctions against Burma, but if an enabler like China keeps trading with them it will do little good except make the Burmese people suffer more. Ditto for Zimbabwe – as long as South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to enable Mugabe’s reign of terror it doesn’t matter. As long as China and South Africa keep cutting checks for economic aid and stand by the dictators, nothing will change. Of course, the U.S. is not alone in this – our assistance kept a dictator like the Shah of Iran and the Philippine’s Fernando Marcos in power for years. It was only after we pulled support that those governments fell, and they fell rather quickly.
Last week, China – Burma’s enabler – refused to let the UN Security Council hear a humanitarian chief detail how the Burmese junta refuses to help its people. China claims it didn’t want to politicize the issue. Russia said the same thing. Both countries make big money selling arms to the Burmese military government. If both countries dropped their support or at least twisted some arms in Burma, there might be progress. Don’t expect it to happen. Dictators don’t care what others think, except for their enablers.
More Info: A blogger on the ground in Burma.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Appealing to Main Street
I’ve spent so much time excoriating Hillary Clinton that I need to step back and remind myself who she is appealing to. In fact, the slash-and-burn technique she is currently using is part desperation, part a preview look at what her presidency would be like and part a reminder that Main Street America rarely elects a candidate on issues.
Most Americans do not have a college education, live paycheck to paycheck, want a better life for themselves and their children, and do not follow the nuances of politics closely. In fact, the limited political knowledge they do have is clouded by cynicism and memories of broken promises. I am absolutely not demeaning or belittling average, Main Street Americans – they work hard and deserve thanks and respect.
But Main Street Americans are not policy wonks like me, and probably you. In this economic climate, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s ridiculous proposal to lower the gas tax will score points with them. Few of them will have the time to learn it will save an average family about $28, or the money will come out of funds to repair our highways and bridges, or the oil companies will never sit back and allow the government to rapidly raise taxes on their revenues. While most Americans should know this, they have lives to lead and are more concerned with the price of gas right now. It’s not necessarily their fault they don’t know this.
But when Hillary and McCain slam Obama for not supporting gas tax relief, it’s actually smart campaigning to do so. They know Obama’s explanation, as correct as it is, will unfortunately sail over many people’s heads. All his opponents have to say is, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to save you money at the gas pump. He’d rather it go into the pockets of big oil.”
Another X factor was correctly summed up in The New York Times this week: patriotism. Main Street Americans love America and many, unlike their city counterparts and the so-called “elite,” have actually fought for America. They do not look kindly on people who associate with preachers who scream, “Goddamn America.” Whether your next president wears a flag pin or not matters to many people. Some still believe Obama is Muslim, and Hillary has helped fuel the fire.
The Times article stated that only 29 percent of Americans believe Obama is “very patriotic.” The Republicans don’t have much going for them this year. Do you think they’ll make that a wedge issue? Of course they will. In fact, Hillary already has. This is not correct or fair, but it’s the way it is.
All is fair in love, war and campaigning. Now that Hillary has found her niche among Main Street Americans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, she will ride the issues that matter to them as long as she can. Or at least until the polls say otherwise.
Most Americans do not have a college education, live paycheck to paycheck, want a better life for themselves and their children, and do not follow the nuances of politics closely. In fact, the limited political knowledge they do have is clouded by cynicism and memories of broken promises. I am absolutely not demeaning or belittling average, Main Street Americans – they work hard and deserve thanks and respect.
But Main Street Americans are not policy wonks like me, and probably you. In this economic climate, Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s ridiculous proposal to lower the gas tax will score points with them. Few of them will have the time to learn it will save an average family about $28, or the money will come out of funds to repair our highways and bridges, or the oil companies will never sit back and allow the government to rapidly raise taxes on their revenues. While most Americans should know this, they have lives to lead and are more concerned with the price of gas right now. It’s not necessarily their fault they don’t know this.
But when Hillary and McCain slam Obama for not supporting gas tax relief, it’s actually smart campaigning to do so. They know Obama’s explanation, as correct as it is, will unfortunately sail over many people’s heads. All his opponents have to say is, “Barack Obama doesn’t want to save you money at the gas pump. He’d rather it go into the pockets of big oil.”
Another X factor was correctly summed up in The New York Times this week: patriotism. Main Street Americans love America and many, unlike their city counterparts and the so-called “elite,” have actually fought for America. They do not look kindly on people who associate with preachers who scream, “Goddamn America.” Whether your next president wears a flag pin or not matters to many people. Some still believe Obama is Muslim, and Hillary has helped fuel the fire.
The Times article stated that only 29 percent of Americans believe Obama is “very patriotic.” The Republicans don’t have much going for them this year. Do you think they’ll make that a wedge issue? Of course they will. In fact, Hillary already has. This is not correct or fair, but it’s the way it is.
All is fair in love, war and campaigning. Now that Hillary has found her niche among Main Street Americans in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, she will ride the issues that matter to them as long as she can. Or at least until the polls say otherwise.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Clinton's March
It was fascinating to watch the Pennsylvania primaries last week. James Carville called the state, “Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other side and Alabama in the middle.” Keeping that in mind, it is becoming increasingly clear how the Democrats are falling apart and how Karl Rove was right once again.
Rove mentioned how there were more beer drinkers than wine sippers in the Democratic Party and Hillary was the choice of the beer drinkers. Stepping further into the Yuengling stereotypes, it’s also clear this is a battle royale that has put the younger, better educated, upper middle class Chardonnay sippers on one side for Obama, and the older, high-school educated, lower middle class Iron City chuggers on the other. And you thought the Democrats had united and abandoned their coalition mentality! Well, at least now we know where everyone stands.
Much has been written about the racial element re-emerging in this campaign. Unfortunately I think that racial element never went away. Recall that Pennsylvania had a closed primary – only registered Democrats could vote. If Obama hangs on and becomes the nominee, that ugliness among less educated and older voters will re-emerge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Rove mentioned how there were more beer drinkers than wine sippers in the Democratic Party and Hillary was the choice of the beer drinkers. Stepping further into the Yuengling stereotypes, it’s also clear this is a battle royale that has put the younger, better educated, upper middle class Chardonnay sippers on one side for Obama, and the older, high-school educated, lower middle class Iron City chuggers on the other. And you thought the Democrats had united and abandoned their coalition mentality! Well, at least now we know where everyone stands.
Much has been written about the racial element re-emerging in this campaign. Unfortunately I think that racial element never went away. Recall that Pennsylvania had a closed primary – only registered Democrats could vote. If Obama hangs on and becomes the nominee, that ugliness among less educated and older voters will re-emerge in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
And Hillary? If anything, my opinion of her continues to circle the drain. Her recent gas tax pander is the latest bad idea driven by polls and quick fixes. Branding Obama as an elitist given her background and social status is disgraceful. Someone asked if she remineded me of Gene McCarthy in 1968. I replied her increasingly desperate campaign reminded me more of Sherman’s March in the Civil War. Sherman’s scored earth policy mirrors what she and her husband have done to the Democratic Party – that is, if she can’t win the nomination she’ll do everything possible to make sure Obama won’t win it either. And if she does win, the Party will be so divided and damaged that all of the excitement, money and new supporters Obama gift wrapped for the party will die away. But as long as she wins, that’s unimportant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)