Politics News

James William Smith asked:


Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination has been over since early March. However, during the last two months, the Clinton campaign has exploited some very dubious Democratic primary election rules and a compliant media which profits from an uncertain Presidential race, to continue to run her failed Presidential campaign.
It is likely that both Clintons have realized for several months that Hillary Clinton would not be the Democratic Party nominee in 2008. In addition to craving the power of elected office, the Clintons are, if nothing else, very politically astute. So why does Mrs. Clinton continue her futile 2008 campaign? The answer to that question is becoming increasingly apparent with each passing day. She is using it as a political platform to launch her next campaign for the Presidency in 2012.
Make no mistake that at the right political time, after all the primaries and caucuses end in June, she will concede the 2008 Democratic party nomination to Barack Obama. Her concession speech will occur before the Democratic convention but only after all the delegates from Michigan and Florida have been seated.
In her speech, she will say that she is withdrawing from this close election for the good of the party and that she is acting for the high purpose of party unity. She will also say that she has stayed in the race to insure that the interests of every delegate in Florida and Michigan are treated properly.
Of course, prior to her public concession speech, she will have secured from the Obama campaign her own prime time televised speech at the Democratic convention and a pledge to absorb her campaign’s multi million dollar debt. Her reward for finally acknowledging the reality of her election defeat will be several more months of positive political visibility and an improvement in her finances to pursue a future campaign.
In addition she will experience the good will of a Democratic Party trying to avoid a divisive August Democratic convention. She will also be seen fighting for the victims of the Democratic primary rules in the states of Michigan and Florida. Overall, it is a 2008 political ending with the potential to launch another Presidential campaign for her in the future.
However, after the Democratic convention, Hillary Clinton will need some political luck in the fall. The truth is that she needs Barack Obama to lose the November Presidential election. His defeat cannot be traced back to either Hillary or Bill Clinton in any way. Surely, there will be many Clinton promises to campaign hard for Obama, but the actual effort by them for the Obama campaign will surely be constrained as it was for Democratic candidate John Kerry four years ago.
Two terms of Barack Obama in the White House and in control of the Democratic Party would leave both Clintons on the political outside looking in. In eight years, Hillary Clinton would probably be too old to seriously challenge for the Presidency, since she would be sixty nine years of age in the year 2016. Therefore, a Barack Obama victory in November 2008 would end for good the Presidential hopes of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
However, the outlook for the Clinton’s is much improved with a John McCain election victory in November. In fact, four years of Republican John McCain in the White House would provide one final opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to campaign for the nation’s highest office in the next Presidential election.
In 2012, John McCain would be celebrating his seventy sixth birthday. It is very likely that he would not run for a second term in office at that age. If he did, his advanced age would certainly be a major campaign issue. It is also very likely that with Republican, John McCain, in the White House, the 2012 election would once again provide a wide open field for Mrs. Clinton as the potential Democratic nominee.
Many mainstream political pundits are speculating that Mrs. Clinton may be offered the spot of Vice President on the 2008 Democratic ticket. The truth is that it is hard to see how such a ticket helps either candidate. In fact, such a ticket could create several major problems in the fall for the Obama campaign. First, it would bring the Clintons’ political baggage into the November campaign. Remember, she is currently viewed as untrustworthy in current public opinion polls by 6 of every 10 voters. Next, it would be hard to keep her husband focused on the campaign trail. He is a campaign trail liability as was in evidence in the recent Democratic primaries. In addition, both Clintons would probably upstage Barack Obama throughout the fall campaign and even into his first term of office in the White House.
It is also unclear what Hillary Clinton actually brings to the Democratic ticket for Obama. The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s primary base of support is white Democratic women. It is a voting demographic which should vote for Barack Obama without her on the ticket anyway. In addition, having Hillary Clinton as a running mate would compromise the Obama campaign of change while adding little actual experience in the area of United States foreign policy.
The Clintons’ thirst for a return to the White House is still clearly evident. However, the end of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign is near. Her current political motivation is to position herself in defeat with a future Presidential campaign in mind. If Barack Obama loses in the fall general election, her next campaign for the Presidency in 2012 will have already begun.

James William Smith asked:


Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination has struggled throughout 2007 in the public opinion polls because his campaign has not developed a clear, focused message that provides Democratic voters with a reason to vote for him.

Obama has raised over thirty million dollars for his campaign during the first six months of the year and has considerable popular, grass root support, so the resources are available to deliver the message. But what is the message? Should Democrats vote for Obama and cross their fingers and hope?

Consider this from Barack Obama in February of 2007 at a Democratic National Committee Meeting: “There are those who don’t believe in talking about hope,” Obama told the crowd. “They say, Well, we want specifics, we want details, and we want white papers, and we want plans. We’ve had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we’ve had is a shortage of hope. And over the next year, over the next two years, that will be my call to you.”

In July, as the polls began to show Obama falling further behind Hillary Clinton, Davis Plouffe ( Barack Obama’s campaign manager) had this to say in a letter to reassure campaign contributors. “One of our opponents is also the quasi-incumbent in the race, who in our belief will and should lead just about every national poll from now until the Iowa caucuses. Expect nothing different and attach no significance to it. It is clear you did not in this past quarter and we would encourage everyone to keep our sights focused on doing well in the early primaries and caucuses, and then using our organizational advantage nationally to clinch the nomination in February.”

The fact is that the “quasi-incumbent” that Plouffe referred to was Hillary Clinton, who in some public opinion polls had a nearly forty percent unfavorable rating with Democratic voters. It also should also be pointed out that there is no discussion by Plouffe of the Obama message or the strategy to get that message out.

In a column in July 2007, by David Paul Kuhn, Obama campaign advisors outline the strategy of their campaign as being modeled after insurgency campaigns like that of Ronald Reagan. As Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan “Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats, but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan allowed him to “transcend” ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.”

It is true that Reagan projected hope and optimism. However, Reagan got elected with a clear message of smaller government, lower taxes, and less government bureaucracy. At the time that message was called the “Reagan Revolution.”. It should be pointed out that once again beside “hope” there is no discussion by Belcher of the Obama message or the strategy to get that message out.

In August, with John Edwards attacking Hillary Clinton for taking campaign contributions from Rupert Murdoch, (We later found out that John Edwards made $800,000 on his last book deal from a Murdoch publisher. ) the Obama campaign decided that their candidate was an outsider who was going to clean up Washington. Here is how that turned out (from the Associated Press): Democrat Barack Obama, who says he swims in “the same muddy water” of lobbyists and fundraising that corrupts Washington, is pledging to reform the system if elected President. “I have a bunch of friends who were state lobbyists. The fact of the matter is … I played poker with them, so I don’t think that lobbyists are evil,” said the first-term Illinois senator. “I just think they’ve got an agenda and you got to be clear about that, and not pretend that they don’t. Why else are they getting hired and making all this money unless they’re actually getting something done?”

If you were a Democratic voter and wanted to see real reform in Washington, D.C. would that message from Barack Obama be a catalyst for you to vote for him in 2008?

Also, consider that after attacking Hillary Clinton for months over her vote in the Senate to support the war in Iraq, Obama had this to say about Pakistan: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

It sounds like Obama who has called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be in favor of invading Pakistan. If you were a Democratic voter and wanted to see an immediate end to the hostilities in Iraq, would this message about Pakistan, from Barack Obama be a catalyst for you to vote for him in 2008?

The early 2007 strategy of the campaign was apparently to capitalize on Obama’s star qualities with the American public. The campaign would use Obama’s book , “ The Audacity of Hope” to formulate a positive message of “hope” that would be delivered by Barrack’s gifted oratorical abilities to audiences that were longing for a fresh new face in Washington, D.C. The campaign would raise a lot of money and spend much of it in the early primaries to insure victories that would create a “domino” effect in other primaries and propel Barrack Obama to the Democratic nomination. However, as the year progressed, the fresh new face began to look like a politically inexperienced fresh new face to potential Democratic voters. To counter that impression of political inexperience, we are now seeing his campaign search for a message for voters to consider beside hope. Searching for a message in the middle of the campaign can become a painful experience for a candidate on election night.

The result of this campaign strategy can be seen in the latest polling data. Barrack Obama trails Hillary Clinton by twenty two percent nationwide and has now fallen behind Clinton in the early primary states of Iowa and South Carolina .

Throughout 2007, Barack Obama’s political campaign has been based solely on a message of hope. In an insurgency campaign facing a formidable opponent, the candidate needs a message that has much more audacity than that.