|
(Orginally posted on Modern America)
I apologize for any typos or other errors in advance.
I believe that most people who view Modern America, or know me personally, would assume that I am a supporter of John Edwards. While I admire Senator Edwards, I am a fan of Hillary Clinton. I am confident in the experience that Hillary has, and I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would surround herself with competent and intelligent appointees if given the opportunity to be president of the United States; given these conditions I'm confident in her leadership. Needless to say, after watching the Iowa caucuses unfold and keeping up with recent polling trends leading into the New Hampshire primary, I have some advice for Senator Clinton.
Given the impossible scenario of Brandon Brewster advising Senator Clinton , he would recommend three tactics to help advance her in the Democratic primary.
One: Barack Obama has did an excellent to near perfect job of getting the mainstream media to adopt his message. David Axelrod, Obama's media consultant, must have assembled one hell of a media spin department, and a quick of study of both Carville and Begala's tactics will tell you that framing the debate is everything. (Change vs. More of the Same?) Obama has successfully framed the debate in such a way that nearly every candidate from Republican to Democrat have adopted the 'change' philosophy in their message. Now, granted Edwards has been preaching the class-warfare, change the corporate greed in Washington theme for quite sometime, he in no way made the practice of using it popular during this campaign, Obama did this when he dramatically increased in the Iowa polls. Huckabee jumped on this 'change' bandwagon early and this led to both Obama and Huckabee gaining an 'originality' boost in support, esp. from those young liberals and hungry-youthful Republicans whom have been burnt by the current Republican establishment. This 'change' tactic forced many caucus goers against these well-financed, entrenched machines that both Romney and Hillary Clinton had. (Conservative Christians played a role in the Romney revolt as well) You won't see this often, but I have to give it to Dick Morris, he called it pretty early: Democrats should not run on static platforms, and they should never run on experience; Democrats and in particular the liberal wing of the party, love CHANGE. Hillary by simply running on experience alienated herself from the liberal wing of the Democrat Party whom traditionally wants to change the status quo, she also failed to calculate the fact that during times of very unpopular wars the independent voters tend to reach out and embrace fringe elements of either political party. What can she do to correct her message mistake and slow Obama down? She needs to be more specific on how her experience has been linked to change in Washington. It's not enough to state that experience is a vehicle for change, she needs to be the candidate that can honestly state a proven record of change, unlike her rival. I would drive it through the heads of voters that change has already occurred during Clinton leadership. So many years of experience is no good unless you can highlight what you've did during that time. Not to take anything away from President Bill Clinton, but I would advise Hillary to reach back to those eight prosperous years and take credit for those positive ( The economy, foreign policy accomplishments, welfare reform, smaller government, the containment of anti-Americanism, etc) things that came out of Washington during that time, and leave the negative (NAFTA, Free Trade with China, Waco, etc.) for Bill to clean up. President Bill Clinton is at a point where Hillary can use his record in both negative and positive ways without affecting public opinion in relation to their feelings toward him; to sum up that point, people have made up their minds about Bill. Hillary needs to merge both experience and change; my message new message for Hillary would be: Proven Experience. Proven Change.
Two: Now that Hillary has as a 'proven record of change ' she needs to attack Obama on his message of hope and change. Obama has consistently said that when he gets to Washington things are going to change for the better, and that his policies will right the wrongs of the Bush administration and correct the problems that had existed even before Mr. Bush came to Washington. This is where Hillary needs to attack; she needs to make pointed attacks in her stump speeches, and direct her communications department to drive through this message " Barack Obama has consistently referred to changing Washington, yet he has failed to provide the public with any comprehensive details of these proposed changes." Regardless of whether or not these details exist, she needs to bait Obama into a discussion of proposed policies, once this has been accomplished she needs to go in for the kill. I believe that Hillary has far superior policy advisors and she has spent more time networking with individuals whom could really pick apart any proposed policy that Obama would provide details on, this would allow for Hillary to run attack ads (Now that we're out of Iowa) on the policies that Obama would propose. This would give her the ability to claim the political high ground; she made no open personal attacks, she did not attack his previous voting record, and she is simply comparing and contrasting opposing policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe Obama nor Hillary have engaged in these types of advertisements at this point, and it would provide an opening for Hillary to seize the 'change' philosophy. Her theme: lack of experience equals inadequate policies.
Her Advertisement
- Obama's Proposal (Negative) -
- Hillary's Proposal (Positive) -
- Proven Experience. Proven Change. -
Three: I certainly believe that there is a media bias at work; I've given credit to Obama's communications team, they're good, but not that good. From mainstream networks to individuals blogs, everyone seems to be on board with the Hillary bashing. The most liberal bloggers of our party seem to regard her as an intolerable evil, comparable to Roger Ailes and Lee 'Darth Vader' Atwater. The mainstream media seem to love the fact that the presumed invincibility of the Clinton machine is now meeting its demise by political new-comers whom have just stepped up to the plate. Whatever the case I've been trying to realistically analyze why these overwhelming and misguided views exist. For example, a common phrase that you might here is that "Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate." Honestly, that statement isn't entirely true; the Democratic Party is a very diverse party in which many constituents struggle for control, it just so happens that the constituency that Hillary Clinton represents is a minority in the Democratic Party, the corporate Democrats. Bill confounded and headed the organization known as the Democratic Leadership Council (they also drafted the 'Super Tuesday' to balance the liberal sway over the Democratic Presidential primary system during the 80's) which advocated the abandonment of populism, in favor of a more corporate, pro-business philosophy for the Democratic Party. Democrats whom adopt this banner go by the title 'New Democrat' (Governor Manchin is a New Democrat), and they are a minority in our party, don't believe me? The DLC has had a very difficult time winning and recruiting influence within the Democratic Party, for example, the DLC hand picked (with the Clinton machine) Wesley Clark (who I think would be an excellent running mate for Hillary if nominated) as their candidate in 2004 to defeat George W Bush, but there was one problem, he couldn't get through the Democratic primary. By all means Wesley Clark is an appealing Democrat, whom I think could have beaten Bush in 2004 despite what some say. Retired four-star military general, former Nixon Republican (a nice time to deploy "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me." Could still be used by Senator Webb of Virginia?), proven leadership abilities, a Clinton machine directed by the DLC, and well versed in policy issues by the Progressive Policy Institute (The sister organization to the DLC, founded by Clinton White House staffer John Podesta), yet he could not defeat Senator Kerry. Want another example? Here's one, Harold Ickes (now a political strategist for Hillary's campaign) whom served in the White House as a deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton was the DLC's hand picked candidate for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, however we all know he was defeated by newcomer Howard Dean, of whom was backed by liberal interests within the party who despise the DLC and hate triangulation.
So, is Hillary Clinton the establishment candidate? No. She may have been the mainstream candidate who was predicted to win big in 2008, but clearly she is not the 'Democratic Party's' hand picked candidate. So why is the media, who clearly knows the truth continuing to drive falsehoods? I do not know; perhaps the mainstream media is being sold this anti-Clintonism by liberal bloggers and well financed political action committees whom hate the New Democrats? Is it the underdog effect on a whole new level? (We all know why Fox News has Dick Morris and other pundits attacking Hillary day in and day out) For sometime now Ann Coulter and other Conservative spinsters have stated that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, perhaps this liberal bias that is supposed to inherently exist in the media is turning against Hillary for the injustices that her husband committed while in office?
I do not know, but what I do know is that Hillary needs to go on the offensive. She needs to move massive amounts of political capital through back-channel type connections to drive forward the fact that the media is sheltering Barack Obama. It would be politically unhealthy for her to appear as a victim, she needs to make it appear that the media is clearly neglecting their responsibility to ask the tough questions of Obama, and are deliberately sheltering him from critical points that question the durability of his leadership, and most clearly, his electability during a general election. She could win this fight, but she needs to do it strategically and quickly, behind the scenes and most likely over the internet where she can unleash this spawn without a connection to her campaign. Publicly she can point out that the media, will only begin to ask these much needed questions of electability after the nomination process is over, which is wrong. These questions need to be raised and asked now as a mechanism to determine whom the best candidate is going into the general election to face whomever the Republican nominee is. The only thing left to determine is whether or not there is enough time for implementation? Although the hour is late, I believe that she could implement my three point plan and hope for the best; a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire is not the end, nor is a loss in South Carolina, but beyond that she needs to draw a very thick line in the sand.
Now, about that consulting fee we spoke of.
modernamerica.blogspot.com
|
