Friday, January 11, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Hillary Clinton proposed a $70 billion* economic stimulus package today that would help families facing foreclosures, subsidize home heating, and create jobs in the energy sector.
No shocker there. Economic issues are taking center stage as the Nevada caucus and Michigan and South Carolina primaries loom. Nevada has been hit with a huge number of home foreclosures. Michigan is suffering an economic crisis, with a third of Detroiters living below the poverty line. South Carolina’s unemployment rate, like Michigan’s, exceeds the national average.
But here’s the way Politico described her strategy:
The plan is part of the senator’s appeal to voters who need a president, as opposed to the more upscale Democrats where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has won substantial support.
Seeing as John Kerry just endorsed Obama, it’s worth asking: Is Clinton trying to make Obama look like Kerry? Not the progressive war hero Kerry of Democratic lore, but the effete, “French-looking”, Heinz fortune-funneling Kerry painted by his Republican opponents.
Obama isn’t a Massachusetts liberal and he didn’t marry into money. But he has begun to attract the same “upscale” accusations that plagued Kerry. On the trail, John Edwards pointedly declares he isn’t running for “academic” reasons, implying that some people are. In Hillary’s new youth outreach video, one questioner says all her “law school friends” are voting for Obama. In the New Hampshire primary, Obama did better among Democratic voters who make over $50,000; Hillary did better with the under $50,000 set. He’s the “wine track” candidate, Hillary is the “beer track” candidate.
A union-powered victory in Nevada could do a lot to counter this perception. Obama might also consider coming out equally strongly on the housing and jobs fronts in the coming weeks. But if that doesn’t work, the curse of Kerry could haunt him as the crucial Feb. 5 vote approaches.
*UPDATE: Correction, 3:27 p.m.: OK, OK, we asked for it. This item originally referred to Hillary Clinton’s economic stimulus package as a $70 program.
-
sponsorship
When all is said and done, Michigan Democrats may have more viable choices on the ballot than most other voters. Originally, Michigan residents thought that they would only be able to vote for Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel at their primary on Jan. 15. Then came word that anti-Hillary Michigan residents were launching a renegade campaign to get people to vote for “uncommitted”—a post-modern rebellion if there ever was one. Now Michigan Dems are being given yet another option: Vote for Mitt Romney.
Markos Moulitsas—the Daily Kos guy—thinks that the Demcorats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t in the choice between uncommitted and Clinton. So instead, he’s rallying Democrats behind Mitt Romney, hoping that Mitt’s presence will help create more inner strife in the GOP.
As we see it, Michigan Democrats have four options, and each has its pros and cons.
- Vote for Hillary – Pros: If you like Hillary, there’s the chance you can float her above the 60 percent mark, which is necessary to help her avoid derision from the press. Cons: How boring—especially when so many other devious options exist.
- Vote for uncommitted – Pros: Support the Obama-Edwards axis of change; be an ironic cog in the movement founded upon apathy; screw with Hillary’s head. Cons: Unless you really hate Hillary, it’s a wasted vote; may prove even her own party hates her, which won’t help general-election unity.
- Vote for Romney – Pros: Kos’ ego doesn’t need to get any bigger, but he’s right—a vote for Romney messes with Republicans’ heads and weakens the party; if there’s any candidate whom self-aware Democrats should vote for, it’s Romney; a Democrat-fueled Romney win in Michigan is worth it just to see the spin. Cons: It splits the uncommitted coalition up, which will make for a quieter and harder-to-track rebuke of Clinton.
- Vote for Dennis Kucinich. – Pros: It’s better than not voting at all; the guy is due for a karmic boost. Cons: Voting for Romney or uncommitted does more mischief; you might as well shred your ballot—it has the same effect in the overall scheme of things.
-
sponsorship
Word on the pollster street is that Hillary’s New Hampshire victory owed to larger turnout than expected among women and, in part, lower turnout than expected among young people. The legions of fresh-faced youth who crowned Obama in Iowa decided to sleep in this time. New Hampshire voters also credit her willingness to answer questions at her rallies.
Now she's combining those two strategies. A new video, “Ask Hillary” (not to be confused with “Ask John” or “Ask Mitt Anything”), shows the New York senator answering questions asked by young people using the Ask Hillary Facebook tool. We also see lots of Chelsea and other women in their twenties—a connection Obama can't match.
The video lets Hillary hit her usual talking points while also showcasing her appeal to people other than retirees. The last question is about how to persuade friends who love Obama to vote for Hillary. She responds, “There’s a big difference between talking and doing, rhetoric and reality. … I have the experience that will make that change real.”
This is the message that, in a mere five days, helped her win New Hampshire (along with her Diner Sob, of course). But now she's not just the change candidate; she's also the youth candidate. Maybe she and Obama would make good running mates after all.
-
sponsorship
Even if he gets wept out of the race, Barack Obama has made "change" the political buzzword of the cycle. Even President Bush wants in on the action. NBC News' David Gregory asked Bush, "Do you see this message of change as anything other than a rejection of your presidency?" Bush's response:
Oh, listen, if you're running for office, you can't run for office and not say, "I'm an agent of change." That's just American politics. If I were running for office at this point I'd be saying, "Vote for me, I'm -- I'm gonna be an agent of change."
Considering he's already president, Doesn't he have the power to change whatever he wants?
-
sponsorship
CNN's caption for its investigative report says it all: "Who will be the kisser-in-chief?"
Unsurprisingly, they don't do the reporting to answer the question. Which, in this case, is fine by us.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?