Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America.
He was a remarkable candidate, and the historic nature of his victory tonight is truly extraordinary.
While I supported John McCain in this election, I can certainly recognize why Obama appealed to so many Americans.
And I hope that every American can set aside differences in political party or ideology and appreciate the significance of our country's first African-American president.
There will be a time to look back and analyze how Obama won or why McCain lost, and without a doubt, this 2008 campaign has been one of the most interesting, exciting and complex races in modern politics.
For now, though, I hope America can collectively celebrate this incredible milestone in the history of our great country.
Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, to his campaign, and to his supporters.
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Case for John McCain
Last week, the free newspaper here in NYC, amNewYork, asked me to "make the case for John McCain in 400 words or less". Now, as frequent readers of BraggingWrites know, brevity is not my strong suit! Nevertheless, I managed to make my case (in 402 words!), and I think it nicely -- and yes, succinctly -- sums up why I will vote for John McCain on Tuesday.
For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.
With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:
For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.
With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:
The events of today often makes it easy to forget what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow. Today, we have been kept safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for more than seven years. Today, the situation in Iraq
In this time in which our national security remains under constant threat, John McCain is the right candidate to assume the weighty responsibilities of the presidency. His foreign policy knowledge and instincts are tested and proven. His support for the so-called “Surge” strategy in Iraq
Lost in the midst of Barack Obama’s impressive domination of the “change” mantle is the fact that McCain represents change, too. He is not President Bush. In fact, he ran against Bush in 2000, and has been a frequent critic of Bush and his policies throughout the last eight years. Drowned out by Obama’s empty promises to usher in a new kind of politics is the reality that it is McCain who has the long and distinguished record of putting political party aside in order to reach across the aisle for results. As impressive a politician as Obama is, he lacks the record, the experience and the judgment that John McCain possesses in spades.
With his long and dedicated service to our country, John McCain is the right choice on Election Day – not because he deserves the presidency, but because he is the president that the American people deserve – today and tomorrow.
Friday, January 4, 2008
About Last Night...
Last night in the Iowa Caucuses, the 2008 Presidential Race was altered significantly for both Republicans and Democrats. In case you didn't already know, on the Republican side, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney finished second with 25%, followed by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson and Senator John McCain with 13% each. As for the Democrats, Illinois Senator Barack Obama won with 38% of the vote, followed by former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 30%, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton with 29%. For both parties now, the road to the nomination has become far more interesting than anticipated.
Looking first at the Republicans, Mike Huckabee not only won the Caucus, he gave himself and his campaign some much needed legitimacy, and in all likelihood effectively ended Mitt Romney's quest for the White House. Romney had put many of his "eggs" in the Iowa basket. He had spent more money and more time there than any other GOP candidate, and until about a month ago, was the odds-on favorite to win there. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, started his campaign as a little-known, poorly-funded "fringe" candidate -- someone who sought to appeal to the evangelical, "Religious Right" of the Republican Party. Until late November, Huckabee was simply the folksy, witty, former Baptist Minister who had managed to have the best laugh lines in the circus-like debates of the last six months. (I underestimated him, myself. In the first of my "series" -- though it never really became a series! -- of blog entries about the candidates for the party nominations, I examined Hillary Clinton. I also specifically mentioned those candidates on whom I would not be wasting your time or mine, and Huckabee was one of them). After Thanksgiving, however, (and in my own defense, after my aforementioned blog entry!), Huckabee instead became the folksy, witty, former minister who was now leading many of the polls in Iowa. (Have a look at this graphical representation of the Iowa polling over the last year, courtesy of the fantastic Real Clear Politics website. Seeing it illustrated in that way only further underscores how remarkable a feat it was for Governor Huckabee). As often happens in politics, momentum begets media attention and media attention begets more momentum. By mid-December, Huckabee was reveling in national media interviews and newfound strength, and he posed a serious threat to Romney's chances to win in Iowa. The threat proved very real, and Huckabee defeated Romney soundly -- probably far beyond even the worst-case scenarios envisioned by Romney and his advisers. The race for the Republican nomination is now completely turned on its head.
As for the Democrats, last night was -- regardless of how her campaign tried to spin it both before and after the Caucus -- a terrible night for Hillary Clinton. Hillary was viewed by many to be the inevitable Democratic Nominee, and Iowa was thought to be just the first step in her victorious path to the nomination. (Again, if you look back at my blog entry on Hillary from a few months ago, you'll see the many, many advantages she had, and the resulting unlikelihood of her losing Iowa). Like Romney, however, she not only lost, but she lost badly. In fact, she didn't even finish in second place, but in third. The Clinton Campaign seemed to at least partially see this coming given their strenuous efforts in the last week to downplay both the importance of the Iowa Caucus and the expectations for her performance in it. Despite these efforts, though, there is simply no denying that last night's results have created a significant chink in Senator Clinton's political armor. Unlike Romney, however, Senator Clinton has good reason for optimism. She has led in the polls in New Hampshire (the site of the next key contest on Tuesday) from the very beginning, and should she manage to emerge victorious there, she and her campaign would be back on very solid ground. For Barack Obama, the significance of his victory (and the size of his margin of victory) are invaluably important and beneficial. He has lingered for months as the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination, but with a decisive win in Iowa, he has proved that there is more to him and to his campaign than many realized. The odd machinations that make up the Iowa Caucus process were tailor-made for Clinton's campaign. She had the money, she had the field organization, and she had the experienced advisors. Obama wasn't hurting for campaign money, but he was relying on advisors with less experience, an untested field workers, and on the voter turnout of young and politically inexperienced Iowans. According to a closer look at last night's numbers, however, they came through for him, as Obama not only won the youth vote, he also won the majority of votes among women. (57% of voters under the age of 30 chose Obama, as did 40% of first-time caucus voters. Additionally, 35% of the women who voted last night chose Obama, compared to 30% for Hillary). This victory in the female vote is particularly worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, as support from women has long been viewed as a core source of strength for Senator Clinton. So while Clinton is not politically "dead", she is certainly bloodied, and in politics, it doesn't take long for the sharks to appear.
So what now? Well, for both parties, all eyes turn to New Hampshire where next Tuesday, that state holds its very important primary. In the Republican race, Romney's campaign will be truly over if he fails to win there. Unfortunately for Romney -- and with kudos to the McCain Campaign -- Senator McCain now leads in the polls. Looking at McCain's strategy over the last month in light of last night's results and with hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that he and his advisers made a bold and shrewd calculation. They saw Huckabee's rise in Iowa, felt it had legs and credibility (when many others didn't), and realized that if he were to defeat Romney in the caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor would be badly limping into New Hampshire. Banking on this outcome, McCain has spent nearly all of his time, money and energy in New Hampshire in the last month, while Romney tried to shore up his weakening support in Iowa. The strategy worked, McCain now leads in the polls, and Romney now comes into New Hampshire not merely limping, but in a wheelchair and on life-support. It was only a few months ago that the McCain Campaign was in disarray, desperately low in campaign funds, and polling very poorly. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, he can justifiably label himself "the Comeback Kid" (as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992). A McCain victory would likely catapult the Arizona Senator to front-runner status in the race for the GOP Nomination, setting up a showdown with Huckabee in the South Carolina Primary in late January, and with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the Florida Primary three days later. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly enjoy a nice "bump" in the polls (and presumably in media attention and campaign contributions) following his Iowa triumph. It's unlikely, though, that his momentum will be sufficient for a victory in New Hampshire -- a state in which he has spent almost no time or money and whose relatively liberal electorate would not tend to be enamored with his conservative social positions. On the other hand, the "bump" will definitely bode well for "Huck" in the important South Carolina contest in which he can again count on a solid number of evangelical, socially conservative Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee and his efforts now have instant legitimacy and credibility after such a substantial win in Iowa. No longer a "fringe" candidate, Huckabee now will (deservedly) receive a great deal more media coverage and as mentioned previously, the momentum that accompanies it. If McCain wins in New Hampshire, Huckabee in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida, the race for the Republican Nomination will be wide open, and it will be a very exciting contest heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th when more than twenty states will hold their nominating contests.
On the Democratic side, New Hampshire has become an extremely high-stakes contest for Senators Clinton and Obama. Having never trailed in the Granite State's polls, Hillary may find herself in that unfamiliar position soon as she now has to expect and prepare for Obama to have his own "bump" from Iowa. Unlike the relatively crowded GOP field however, it's really a two-person race for the Democrats as John Edwards' distant second-place finish in Iowa likely spells the end of his campaign. Had Hillary bested Obama last night (or even finished a very close second), it's likely that Obama's campaign would be in serious trouble today, and that Hillary would be on a cakewalk to the nomination. That certainly isn't the case, however. Obama, who has not spent nearly the time or money in New Hampshire as Clinton has, will now gain in the same New Hampshire polls he has never led, and make it a real competition on Tuesday. The Iowa victory will also help Senator Obama with an issue that people are often reluctant to face head-on: his race. His race, however, (like Clinton's gender), is an unavoidable issue, and an issue that likely caused many New Hampshire voters (and voters nationwide, for that matter) to question his ultimate electability. In many ways, though, it's now as if the voters in the overwhelmingly White state of Iowa have given the people in subsequent primary and caucus states a reason to believe that an African-American could possibly win the presidency, and the "permission" to go ahead and vote for Obama. This could easily translate into new support for the Illinois Senator from undecided voters, independent voters, and supporters of other Democratic candidates who will not be continuing in the race for the nomination. If Obama manages to upset Clinton in New Hampshire, Hillary will be in serious trouble, as Obama's momentum would be almost insurmountable, and the resulting electoral snowball effect would likely propel him to the Democratic Nomination. Conversely, should Hillary hang on in New Hampshire, while it wouldn't guarantee her the nomination, she'd be very hard to beat given the amount of money and experience her campaign possesses. All the money and experience in the world, however, cannot ultimately trump the will of the people, and if New Hampshire spurns her as Iowa did, Hillary may be done.
Either way, we are looking at an extremely intense weekend of campaigning, as Mitt Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, fight for their political lives in New Hampshire. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will hold debates there this weekend, and each promises to be the political equivalent of "must-see-TV", with the stakes as high as they've been at any point in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, we are most likely looking at an intense month or two of campaigning, and perhaps the first truly contested races for the nomination in the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1980 and 1992 respectively. For a political junkie like me, it doesn't get much better than this!
EDITORIAL NOTE: I again must apologize for the delay between blog entries. I am still working on a fairly lengthy and intensive entry that I hope to complete soon, but in the meantime, I couldn't resist weighing in on the Iowa Caucus. Thanks for reading!
Looking first at the Republicans, Mike Huckabee not only won the Caucus, he gave himself and his campaign some much needed legitimacy, and in all likelihood effectively ended Mitt Romney's quest for the White House. Romney had put many of his "eggs" in the Iowa basket. He had spent more money and more time there than any other GOP candidate, and until about a month ago, was the odds-on favorite to win there. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, started his campaign as a little-known, poorly-funded "fringe" candidate -- someone who sought to appeal to the evangelical, "Religious Right" of the Republican Party. Until late November, Huckabee was simply the folksy, witty, former Baptist Minister who had managed to have the best laugh lines in the circus-like debates of the last six months. (I underestimated him, myself. In the first of my "series" -- though it never really became a series! -- of blog entries about the candidates for the party nominations, I examined Hillary Clinton. I also specifically mentioned those candidates on whom I would not be wasting your time or mine, and Huckabee was one of them). After Thanksgiving, however, (and in my own defense, after my aforementioned blog entry!), Huckabee instead became the folksy, witty, former minister who was now leading many of the polls in Iowa. (Have a look at this graphical representation of the Iowa polling over the last year, courtesy of the fantastic Real Clear Politics website. Seeing it illustrated in that way only further underscores how remarkable a feat it was for Governor Huckabee). As often happens in politics, momentum begets media attention and media attention begets more momentum. By mid-December, Huckabee was reveling in national media interviews and newfound strength, and he posed a serious threat to Romney's chances to win in Iowa. The threat proved very real, and Huckabee defeated Romney soundly -- probably far beyond even the worst-case scenarios envisioned by Romney and his advisers. The race for the Republican nomination is now completely turned on its head.
As for the Democrats, last night was -- regardless of how her campaign tried to spin it both before and after the Caucus -- a terrible night for Hillary Clinton. Hillary was viewed by many to be the inevitable Democratic Nominee, and Iowa was thought to be just the first step in her victorious path to the nomination. (Again, if you look back at my blog entry on Hillary from a few months ago, you'll see the many, many advantages she had, and the resulting unlikelihood of her losing Iowa). Like Romney, however, she not only lost, but she lost badly. In fact, she didn't even finish in second place, but in third. The Clinton Campaign seemed to at least partially see this coming given their strenuous efforts in the last week to downplay both the importance of the Iowa Caucus and the expectations for her performance in it. Despite these efforts, though, there is simply no denying that last night's results have created a significant chink in Senator Clinton's political armor. Unlike Romney, however, Senator Clinton has good reason for optimism. She has led in the polls in New Hampshire (the site of the next key contest on Tuesday) from the very beginning, and should she manage to emerge victorious there, she and her campaign would be back on very solid ground. For Barack Obama, the significance of his victory (and the size of his margin of victory) are invaluably important and beneficial. He has lingered for months as the biggest threat to Hillary Clinton's winning the nomination, but with a decisive win in Iowa, he has proved that there is more to him and to his campaign than many realized. The odd machinations that make up the Iowa Caucus process were tailor-made for Clinton's campaign. She had the money, she had the field organization, and she had the experienced advisors. Obama wasn't hurting for campaign money, but he was relying on advisors with less experience, an untested field workers, and on the voter turnout of young and politically inexperienced Iowans. According to a closer look at last night's numbers, however, they came through for him, as Obama not only won the youth vote, he also won the majority of votes among women. (57% of voters under the age of 30 chose Obama, as did 40% of first-time caucus voters. Additionally, 35% of the women who voted last night chose Obama, compared to 30% for Hillary). This victory in the female vote is particularly worrisome for the Clinton Campaign, as support from women has long been viewed as a core source of strength for Senator Clinton. So while Clinton is not politically "dead", she is certainly bloodied, and in politics, it doesn't take long for the sharks to appear.
So what now? Well, for both parties, all eyes turn to New Hampshire where next Tuesday, that state holds its very important primary. In the Republican race, Romney's campaign will be truly over if he fails to win there. Unfortunately for Romney -- and with kudos to the McCain Campaign -- Senator McCain now leads in the polls. Looking at McCain's strategy over the last month in light of last night's results and with hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that he and his advisers made a bold and shrewd calculation. They saw Huckabee's rise in Iowa, felt it had legs and credibility (when many others didn't), and realized that if he were to defeat Romney in the caucus, the former Massachusetts Governor would be badly limping into New Hampshire. Banking on this outcome, McCain has spent nearly all of his time, money and energy in New Hampshire in the last month, while Romney tried to shore up his weakening support in Iowa. The strategy worked, McCain now leads in the polls, and Romney now comes into New Hampshire not merely limping, but in a wheelchair and on life-support. It was only a few months ago that the McCain Campaign was in disarray, desperately low in campaign funds, and polling very poorly. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, he can justifiably label himself "the Comeback Kid" (as Bill Clinton famously did in 1992). A McCain victory would likely catapult the Arizona Senator to front-runner status in the race for the GOP Nomination, setting up a showdown with Huckabee in the South Carolina Primary in late January, and with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the Florida Primary three days later. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee will undoubtedly enjoy a nice "bump" in the polls (and presumably in media attention and campaign contributions) following his Iowa triumph. It's unlikely, though, that his momentum will be sufficient for a victory in New Hampshire -- a state in which he has spent almost no time or money and whose relatively liberal electorate would not tend to be enamored with his conservative social positions. On the other hand, the "bump" will definitely bode well for "Huck" in the important South Carolina contest in which he can again count on a solid number of evangelical, socially conservative Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Perhaps most importantly, Huckabee and his efforts now have instant legitimacy and credibility after such a substantial win in Iowa. No longer a "fringe" candidate, Huckabee now will (deservedly) receive a great deal more media coverage and as mentioned previously, the momentum that accompanies it. If McCain wins in New Hampshire, Huckabee in South Carolina and Rudy in Florida, the race for the Republican Nomination will be wide open, and it will be a very exciting contest heading into "Super Tuesday" on February 5th when more than twenty states will hold their nominating contests.
On the Democratic side, New Hampshire has become an extremely high-stakes contest for Senators Clinton and Obama. Having never trailed in the Granite State's polls, Hillary may find herself in that unfamiliar position soon as she now has to expect and prepare for Obama to have his own "bump" from Iowa. Unlike the relatively crowded GOP field however, it's really a two-person race for the Democrats as John Edwards' distant second-place finish in Iowa likely spells the end of his campaign. Had Hillary bested Obama last night (or even finished a very close second), it's likely that Obama's campaign would be in serious trouble today, and that Hillary would be on a cakewalk to the nomination. That certainly isn't the case, however. Obama, who has not spent nearly the time or money in New Hampshire as Clinton has, will now gain in the same New Hampshire polls he has never led, and make it a real competition on Tuesday. The Iowa victory will also help Senator Obama with an issue that people are often reluctant to face head-on: his race. His race, however, (like Clinton's gender), is an unavoidable issue, and an issue that likely caused many New Hampshire voters (and voters nationwide, for that matter) to question his ultimate electability. In many ways, though, it's now as if the voters in the overwhelmingly White state of Iowa have given the people in subsequent primary and caucus states a reason to believe that an African-American could possibly win the presidency, and the "permission" to go ahead and vote for Obama. This could easily translate into new support for the Illinois Senator from undecided voters, independent voters, and supporters of other Democratic candidates who will not be continuing in the race for the nomination. If Obama manages to upset Clinton in New Hampshire, Hillary will be in serious trouble, as Obama's momentum would be almost insurmountable, and the resulting electoral snowball effect would likely propel him to the Democratic Nomination. Conversely, should Hillary hang on in New Hampshire, while it wouldn't guarantee her the nomination, she'd be very hard to beat given the amount of money and experience her campaign possesses. All the money and experience in the world, however, cannot ultimately trump the will of the people, and if New Hampshire spurns her as Iowa did, Hillary may be done.
Either way, we are looking at an extremely intense weekend of campaigning, as Mitt Romney and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, fight for their political lives in New Hampshire. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will hold debates there this weekend, and each promises to be the political equivalent of "must-see-TV", with the stakes as high as they've been at any point in the campaign thus far. Beyond that, we are most likely looking at an intense month or two of campaigning, and perhaps the first truly contested races for the nomination in the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1980 and 1992 respectively. For a political junkie like me, it doesn't get much better than this!
EDITORIAL NOTE: I again must apologize for the delay between blog entries. I am still working on a fairly lengthy and intensive entry that I hope to complete soon, but in the meantime, I couldn't resist weighing in on the Iowa Caucus. Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Taking a Look at 2008 -- Part 1
Believe it or not, the 2008 Presidential Election is right around the corner. (Granted, the actual Election Day is almost exactly one year away), but the caucus and primary season begins in early January of 2008, and the "invisible primary" -- the race for money, endorsements, momentum, etc. that precedes any actual voting -- has been underway for the better part of a year now.
2008 will be the first time since 1952 that neither party's nominee will be an incumbent President or Vice President, and so in many ways, this race is more wide open (at least in theory) than many in recent history.
So where do we stand with a year to go? The situation is actually quite similar in both parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have one candidate who has true "front-runner" status or is at least perceived by many as the front-runner: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democrats; Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for the Republicans. While both Senator Clinton and Mayor Giuliani have the lead now, neither can afford to be complacent. Both have formidable challengers behind them, and after taking a close look at polling data and a few other candidate-specific factors, it's clear that both have areas of concern that could spell trouble for their campaigns. The bottom line is that this should be an exciting race for the nomination in both parties, and I think that it's extremely important that the American voters take a good, long look at all of the viable candidates.
In that spirit, I am going to begin a multi-part series of blog entries in which I will take a look at the leading contenders for the White House from both parties. This "election season", there seem to be an unusually large number of men and women running for the Oval Office. Quite frankly, a number of these candidates simply do not have a realistic chance at capturing his or her party's nomination, and so I am not going to waste your time (or mine) with them. On the Democratic side, I'll not be examining Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson. For the GOP, I'll be excluding Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. If you disagree with me and feel that any of these candidates actually do have a shot at winning, please let me know (and kindly explain your reasoning) by leaving a "comment" below.
With all of that said, let's get started. I'll begin with the Democrats, and I'll kick things off with the current Democratic front-runner, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary Clinton. The mere mention of her name generates a wide range of emotions in most Americans. Some adore her; some abhor her. Regardless of where you may fall on the "Hillary spectrum", it's an undeniable fact that the Junior Senator from New York has a very good chance to be the next President of the United States.
By almost any conceivable measurement, Senator Clinton appears headed for the Democratic Nomination. In terms of polling, the latest Real Clear Politics ("RCP") Polling Average has Clinton leading the Democratic field nationally by 23.1 points -- clearly a commanding lead. The national polling though, while it may seem very important, is secondary in the race for the party nominations. The polls that matter in this early stage are those in the states with the first primaries and caucuses. So, how is Hillary faring in these bellwether locations? Put simply: quite well. In Iowa, the location of the first caucus, Clinton has an RCP Average lead of 7.2 points. In New Hampshire, the location of the first primary, Clinton's RCP Average lead is 17.7 points. And in South Carolina, also one of the first primaries and a key test of a candidate's appeal in the South, Clinton's RCP Average lead is 15 points. Were these leads to hold and were she to win all three contests (much less win all three contests with margins of victory like these in the current poll numbers), Hillary Rodham Clinton would have the Democratic Nomination all but sewn up by January 19th -- the date of the South Carolina Primaries.
Other than her decisive lead in the polls, what else does Hillary have working in her favor? Conversely, what could prevent Senator Clinton from capturing the nomination? What does she have working against her? Let's take a look...
Pro: She has phenomenal name recognition. Senator Clinton enjoys "name ID" that even millions and millions of advertising dollars couldn't buy -- a double-advantage because the money she might otherwise spend for name recognition can now be allocated elsewhere.
Pro: Speaking of money, Hillary Clinton has more than any other candidate in the race (in either party). As of September 30th (the most recent campaign finance disclosure period), Senator Clinton had raised $90.9 Million in total ($27.9 Million raised in Q3 alone), and still had $50.4 Million "Cash On Hand". (To put this in context, Barack Obama, who has had an impressive fundraising run in his own right, had raised $80.2 Million in total, but had $36.1 Million Cash On Hand -- a significant deficit when compared to Hillary. John Edwards had raised over $30 Million in total, and had $12.3 Million Cash On Hand). In today's political world, "Cash is King" -- a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. Or perhaps better put in this case, "Cash is Queen".
Pro: She is inarguably brilliant. Intelligence has many forms and manifestations. In Clinton's case, her intellect is most evident in her absolute mastery of policies and issues, (and of the details and fine points within those policies and issues), and in her ability to effectively and articulately express herself and her positions. Put differently, it is difficult to catch Hillary "flat-footed", (though her armor was dented in a debate last week -- more on that later), and she will likely always be the best-prepared candidate in any debate, and be able to extemporaneously answer (if not expound upon) any question posed to her.
Pro: She is not George W. Bush. The level of hatred for President Bush is real and it is significant. This is an advantage that every candidate enjoys to some extent, though the Democrats obviously have the edge because of President Bush's party affiliation.
Pro: She has the most talented and experienced advisers, and the most efficient and well-oiled campaign operation. In many ways, this advantage stems from her husband's days in the White House. The magnet of the White House is a powerful one, attracting talent from far and wide. Over the course of Bill Clinton's eight years as President, some very intelligent and skillful experts and operatives joined "Team Clinton", and many of these same individuals are now key figures in the other Clinton's presidential campaign. They are battle-tested and very shrewd, and the advantage this gives to Mrs. Clinton cannot be understated. Similarly, having been a key participant in her husband's successful campaigns for election in 1992 and reelection in 1996, Hillary has both the knowledge and the experience to run a successful campaign for the White House. Here too, the ability for Senator Clinton to tap many of the same talented individuals who helped elect her husband is a crucial advantage.
Pro: She is married to Bill Clinton. Many Americans remember fondly the presidency of Bill Clinton and, given the opportunity, would likely vote for him again. Since that is not a constitutional possibility, Hillary benefits from being seen as "the next best thing" to her husband by hinting (if not overtly declaring) that she would heavily involve Bill in her own presidency. This represents a reprise of sorts of the "two for the price of one" slogan Bill Clinton used to his benefit when he won the presidency in 1992 -- promising voters a heavy dose of Hillary if he was elected. Hillary is now able to use the same tactic as she angles for the Oval Office, and given Bill's significant popularity, he is an invaluable surrogate, partner and spokesperson for her on the campaign trail.
Con: She is married to Bill Clinton. While he is also an advantage for her and is certainly popular (even more so as an ex-President), Bill remains a very unpopular figure to others who don't remember his presidency as fondly, or who profoundly disapproved of his conduct while President. The Monica Lewinsky Scandal and Clinton's subsequent impeachment (not to mention Whitewater, "Travelgate", and other scandals that plagued his presidency) left an indelibly negative imprint on some Americans -- one that will indirectly disadvantage his wife as she seeks the presidency. There are also those who viewed her as complicit in the scandals, and so in that since, she is directly disadvantaged by her husband and his tenure in the White House.
Pro: She is a woman. Many women in America would like nothing better than to see another woman ascend to the highest office in the land. I suspect a significant number of men (likely a larger percentage than one might imagine) are also ready to see the country take the significant step of electing the first woman as President of the United States. Beyond the emotional and historic aspects of this issue, women represent a large and crucial voting bloc of the American electorate, and if Hillary can motivate women to go to the polls for her in large numbers, she would have a definitive edge in the vote tally.
Con: She is a woman. While I do believe many are ready to see a female president, there are undoubtedly those who would categorically refuse to pull the lever for a woman. Many of those in this category might cite concerns about a woman's ability to be "tough enough" to be the president, the Commander-In-Chief, and the Leader of the Free World -- a concern only magnified for them by the seemingly constant threat of terrorism under which we now live. While there is no denying the strides that the country has made towards gender equality, most would agree that the playing field is still not level, that the "glass ceiling" still exists, and that there is perhaps no glass harder to penetrate than the bulletproof layer surrounding the President of the United States.
Pro: She is tirelessly ambitious. In reading what lifelong friends, longtime observers and thorough biographers have said and written, it seems clear that Hillary has had her eyes on the White House for quite a long time -- certainly since her first year at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. It also seems clear that at some point along the way (likely for a variety of reasons), Hillary made the choice to put her own political ambitions aside (or at least on the back burner), hitching her wagon instead to Bill, and dedicating herself to seeing that he achieved his. As his presidency came to a close, we saw the reemergence of her ambition when she shrewdly parlayed her husband's political rise and the "bully pulpit" she possessed as First Lady into a stepping stone from which she could run for the Senate. Her decision to run for the Senate -- from New York where she had never truly lived and while still First Lady no less -- was remarkably bold, and a decision that had it not succeeded would almost certainly have spelled the end of her nascent political career. She not only won, though, she won handily, and has since proven herself to be a very competent Senator. This political gamble has paid off "big-time", and has unquestionably energized her prospects for higher office.
Con: She is tirelessly ambitious. Hillary has been disparaged at times by those who feel that her ambition is all too evident, even to the point of being off-putting. This is a fine line for any candidate to walk because anyone who runs for president is obviously very ambitious. Voters, though, (and people in general) tend to respond more positively to someone who comes across with less raw ambition (or at least someone who is able to partially mask his or her ambition). By contrast, other politicians (including others who seek the White House in 2008) seem more adept at veiling their ambition by employing one or more of the following tactics: channeling the passion and energy of their ambition into particular issues or causes; always maintaining a deferential and highly respectful view of the office they are seeking; and/or couching their drive less as a hunger for power, and more as a desire to "serve" the public and the greater good. Hillary has faced criticism for her inability to effectively cloak or frame her ambition which, if true and if discerned by a significant number of voters, could certainly hinder her chances for victory.
Con: She lacks "emotional intelligence". While no one questions her absolute intelligence, another area of concern for Hillary and her campaign has to be her arguable lack of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is described as the ability, capacity or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. In other words, emotional intelligence is the ability to effectively relate to others. Here again, her marriage and association with Bill Clinton are somewhat disadvantageous for her since Bill possesses probably more emotional intelligence than any politician in modern history. Because of her proximity to him, Hillary will inevitably be compared to her husband and his "E.I.", a daunting challenge to be sure. Yet even when looked at in a vacuum, emotional intelligence is clearly an area in which Hillary needs to improve. Too often she comes across as overly-scripted, shrill, or disingenuous. To many, it seems that when Mrs. Clinton attempts to tweak her words or her speaking style in an attempt to better relate to her audience -- again, a skill that Bill can employ with ease and agility -- the results are almost comical. Look no further than a speech that Hillary gave to a predominantly African-American church in Selma, Alabama earlier this year. In Selma last March to commemorate "Bloody Sunday" and the Civil Rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Hillary spoke to the First Baptist Church of Selma. At one point in her remarks, Hillary quoted from a "freedom hymn" written by Gospel-great James Cleveland. To put her remarks in context, Hillary was expressing her belief that more must be done for Civil Rights, and that while the fight has been long and hard, the goal is too important to let fatigue or frustration hamper the effort. Senator Clinton gave a fairly long speech, and in concluding, she said:
In the days following her visit to Selma, that brief clip was an internet sensation and fodder for late-night comedians. As a result, not only was her message obscured or forgotten, but a great deal of attention was instead paid to one of her key weaknesses as a candidate. With the power of the internet and twenty-four hour news cycles, even a seemingly small slip-up can prove disastrous for a campaign. (No better example exists of this than the infamous "Dean Scream" from the 2004 campaign -- you can hear that here if you need a reminder)! In my opinion, Hillary's deficiency of emotional intelligence and corresponding tendency to seem inauthentic are some of the most significant challenges she faces as a presidential candidate. I believe that if she is to win the White House, Hillary must realize that this is an area of weakness for her and focus heavily on her many strengths, and on "being herself".
Con: She has a tendency to vacillate. A frequent charge leveled at Mrs. Clinton is that she lacks sincere conviction and, in fact, will change her position on an issue based on what she deems most politically expedient at the time. (Interestingly, this was something for which Bill Clinton was also routinely criticized). I believe there is some truth to this allegation, but I also think it is important to note that there is absolutely no doubt that Hillary does have many strong convictions -- beliefs that she has held and promoted for many years. Under the scrutiny of a run for the White House, though, the vacillations are what tend to attract the most attention and cause the most potential damage to her candidacy. The most recent example of this came in the aforementioned Democratic debate last week in Philadelphia. The issue in question was a controversial proposal by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer that would give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Because immigration is such a hot-button issue in the current political dialogue, his proposal attracted national attention and much debate. In a meeting last month with the Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph, Senator Clinton indicated that she felt Spitzer's plan "[made] a lot of sense". One of the debate's moderators, Tim Russert of NBC News, asked Senator Clinton about the Spitzer proposal:
Senator Hillary Clinton is a complex and controversial figure. She is a person of uncommon intelligence and unmistakable ambition. And as I write, she is also the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Nomination, an enormous step towards becoming the next President of the United States. Her strengths are many, but her weaknesses aren't few either, and the controversies that have surrounded both Hillary and Bill Clinton have made them very polarizing figures to be sure. In fact, a Harris Poll taken earlier this year found that 50% of respondents would simply refuse to vote for her if she were the Democratic Nominee. That poll result points more to an issue of electability (her ability to win in the general election) and less to an issue of viability (her ability to win the nomination), and herein lies the problem for Senator Clinton. She has all the tools necessary to win her party's nomination, and it is my belief that she will do so. The general election is where I think the going will get particularly tough for Hillary, and her chances to win will likely come down to two key issues. First, it will be important to see which candidate the Republicans nominate to run against her. Some of those running for the GOP nod would be more of a concern for her than others. That issue, though, is really out of her control. The second and more important key issue, however, is entirely in her control. She must use and build upon her strengths ("pros"), while simultaneously addressing, avoiding or eliminating her weaknesses ("cons"). The means, then, for a Clinton victory may sound simple enough, but reaching the desired end will be long and arduous. Is Hillary up to the task? I have my opinion but will withhold it for now. I'd love to hear yours, though, and if you'd like to share it, please leave a "comment" below.
Up next week...a look at Rudy Giuliani, the Republican Front-Runner...Stay tuned and thank you for reading!
2008 will be the first time since 1952 that neither party's nominee will be an incumbent President or Vice President, and so in many ways, this race is more wide open (at least in theory) than many in recent history.
So where do we stand with a year to go? The situation is actually quite similar in both parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have one candidate who has true "front-runner" status or is at least perceived by many as the front-runner: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democrats; Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for the Republicans. While both Senator Clinton and Mayor Giuliani have the lead now, neither can afford to be complacent. Both have formidable challengers behind them, and after taking a close look at polling data and a few other candidate-specific factors, it's clear that both have areas of concern that could spell trouble for their campaigns. The bottom line is that this should be an exciting race for the nomination in both parties, and I think that it's extremely important that the American voters take a good, long look at all of the viable candidates.
In that spirit, I am going to begin a multi-part series of blog entries in which I will take a look at the leading contenders for the White House from both parties. This "election season", there seem to be an unusually large number of men and women running for the Oval Office. Quite frankly, a number of these candidates simply do not have a realistic chance at capturing his or her party's nomination, and so I am not going to waste your time (or mine) with them. On the Democratic side, I'll not be examining Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson. For the GOP, I'll be excluding Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. If you disagree with me and feel that any of these candidates actually do have a shot at winning, please let me know (and kindly explain your reasoning) by leaving a "comment" below.
With all of that said, let's get started. I'll begin with the Democrats, and I'll kick things off with the current Democratic front-runner, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary Clinton. The mere mention of her name generates a wide range of emotions in most Americans. Some adore her; some abhor her. Regardless of where you may fall on the "Hillary spectrum", it's an undeniable fact that the Junior Senator from New York has a very good chance to be the next President of the United States.By almost any conceivable measurement, Senator Clinton appears headed for the Democratic Nomination. In terms of polling, the latest Real Clear Politics ("RCP") Polling Average has Clinton leading the Democratic field nationally by 23.1 points -- clearly a commanding lead. The national polling though, while it may seem very important, is secondary in the race for the party nominations. The polls that matter in this early stage are those in the states with the first primaries and caucuses. So, how is Hillary faring in these bellwether locations? Put simply: quite well. In Iowa, the location of the first caucus, Clinton has an RCP Average lead of 7.2 points. In New Hampshire, the location of the first primary, Clinton's RCP Average lead is 17.7 points. And in South Carolina, also one of the first primaries and a key test of a candidate's appeal in the South, Clinton's RCP Average lead is 15 points. Were these leads to hold and were she to win all three contests (much less win all three contests with margins of victory like these in the current poll numbers), Hillary Rodham Clinton would have the Democratic Nomination all but sewn up by January 19th -- the date of the South Carolina Primaries.
Other than her decisive lead in the polls, what else does Hillary have working in her favor? Conversely, what could prevent Senator Clinton from capturing the nomination? What does she have working against her? Let's take a look...
Pro: She has phenomenal name recognition. Senator Clinton enjoys "name ID" that even millions and millions of advertising dollars couldn't buy -- a double-advantage because the money she might otherwise spend for name recognition can now be allocated elsewhere.
Pro: Speaking of money, Hillary Clinton has more than any other candidate in the race (in either party). As of September 30th (the most recent campaign finance disclosure period), Senator Clinton had raised $90.9 Million in total ($27.9 Million raised in Q3 alone), and still had $50.4 Million "Cash On Hand". (To put this in context, Barack Obama, who has had an impressive fundraising run in his own right, had raised $80.2 Million in total, but had $36.1 Million Cash On Hand -- a significant deficit when compared to Hillary. John Edwards had raised over $30 Million in total, and had $12.3 Million Cash On Hand). In today's political world, "Cash is King" -- a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. Or perhaps better put in this case, "Cash is Queen".
Pro: She is inarguably brilliant. Intelligence has many forms and manifestations. In Clinton's case, her intellect is most evident in her absolute mastery of policies and issues, (and of the details and fine points within those policies and issues), and in her ability to effectively and articulately express herself and her positions. Put differently, it is difficult to catch Hillary "flat-footed", (though her armor was dented in a debate last week -- more on that later), and she will likely always be the best-prepared candidate in any debate, and be able to extemporaneously answer (if not expound upon) any question posed to her.
Pro: She is not George W. Bush. The level of hatred for President Bush is real and it is significant. This is an advantage that every candidate enjoys to some extent, though the Democrats obviously have the edge because of President Bush's party affiliation.
Pro: She has the most talented and experienced advisers, and the most efficient and well-oiled campaign operation. In many ways, this advantage stems from her husband's days in the White House. The magnet of the White House is a powerful one, attracting talent from far and wide. Over the course of Bill Clinton's eight years as President, some very intelligent and skillful experts and operatives joined "Team Clinton", and many of these same individuals are now key figures in the other Clinton's presidential campaign. They are battle-tested and very shrewd, and the advantage this gives to Mrs. Clinton cannot be understated. Similarly, having been a key participant in her husband's successful campaigns for election in 1992 and reelection in 1996, Hillary has both the knowledge and the experience to run a successful campaign for the White House. Here too, the ability for Senator Clinton to tap many of the same talented individuals who helped elect her husband is a crucial advantage.
Pro: She is married to Bill Clinton. Many Americans remember fondly the presidency of Bill Clinton and, given the opportunity, would likely vote for him again. Since that is not a constitutional possibility, Hillary benefits from being seen as "the next best thing" to her husband by hinting (if not overtly declaring) that she would heavily involve Bill in her own presidency. This represents a reprise of sorts of the "two for the price of one" slogan Bill Clinton used to his benefit when he won the presidency in 1992 -- promising voters a heavy dose of Hillary if he was elected. Hillary is now able to use the same tactic as she angles for the Oval Office, and given Bill's significant popularity, he is an invaluable surrogate, partner and spokesperson for her on the campaign trail.
Con: She is married to Bill Clinton. While he is also an advantage for her and is certainly popular (even more so as an ex-President), Bill remains a very unpopular figure to others who don't remember his presidency as fondly, or who profoundly disapproved of his conduct while President. The Monica Lewinsky Scandal and Clinton's subsequent impeachment (not to mention Whitewater, "Travelgate", and other scandals that plagued his presidency) left an indelibly negative imprint on some Americans -- one that will indirectly disadvantage his wife as she seeks the presidency. There are also those who viewed her as complicit in the scandals, and so in that since, she is directly disadvantaged by her husband and his tenure in the White House.
Pro: She is a woman. Many women in America would like nothing better than to see another woman ascend to the highest office in the land. I suspect a significant number of men (likely a larger percentage than one might imagine) are also ready to see the country take the significant step of electing the first woman as President of the United States. Beyond the emotional and historic aspects of this issue, women represent a large and crucial voting bloc of the American electorate, and if Hillary can motivate women to go to the polls for her in large numbers, she would have a definitive edge in the vote tally.
Con: She is a woman. While I do believe many are ready to see a female president, there are undoubtedly those who would categorically refuse to pull the lever for a woman. Many of those in this category might cite concerns about a woman's ability to be "tough enough" to be the president, the Commander-In-Chief, and the Leader of the Free World -- a concern only magnified for them by the seemingly constant threat of terrorism under which we now live. While there is no denying the strides that the country has made towards gender equality, most would agree that the playing field is still not level, that the "glass ceiling" still exists, and that there is perhaps no glass harder to penetrate than the bulletproof layer surrounding the President of the United States.
Pro: She is tirelessly ambitious. In reading what lifelong friends, longtime observers and thorough biographers have said and written, it seems clear that Hillary has had her eyes on the White House for quite a long time -- certainly since her first year at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. It also seems clear that at some point along the way (likely for a variety of reasons), Hillary made the choice to put her own political ambitions aside (or at least on the back burner), hitching her wagon instead to Bill, and dedicating herself to seeing that he achieved his. As his presidency came to a close, we saw the reemergence of her ambition when she shrewdly parlayed her husband's political rise and the "bully pulpit" she possessed as First Lady into a stepping stone from which she could run for the Senate. Her decision to run for the Senate -- from New York where she had never truly lived and while still First Lady no less -- was remarkably bold, and a decision that had it not succeeded would almost certainly have spelled the end of her nascent political career. She not only won, though, she won handily, and has since proven herself to be a very competent Senator. This political gamble has paid off "big-time", and has unquestionably energized her prospects for higher office.
Con: She is tirelessly ambitious. Hillary has been disparaged at times by those who feel that her ambition is all too evident, even to the point of being off-putting. This is a fine line for any candidate to walk because anyone who runs for president is obviously very ambitious. Voters, though, (and people in general) tend to respond more positively to someone who comes across with less raw ambition (or at least someone who is able to partially mask his or her ambition). By contrast, other politicians (including others who seek the White House in 2008) seem more adept at veiling their ambition by employing one or more of the following tactics: channeling the passion and energy of their ambition into particular issues or causes; always maintaining a deferential and highly respectful view of the office they are seeking; and/or couching their drive less as a hunger for power, and more as a desire to "serve" the public and the greater good. Hillary has faced criticism for her inability to effectively cloak or frame her ambition which, if true and if discerned by a significant number of voters, could certainly hinder her chances for victory.
Con: She lacks "emotional intelligence". While no one questions her absolute intelligence, another area of concern for Hillary and her campaign has to be her arguable lack of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is described as the ability, capacity or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. In other words, emotional intelligence is the ability to effectively relate to others. Here again, her marriage and association with Bill Clinton are somewhat disadvantageous for her since Bill possesses probably more emotional intelligence than any politician in modern history. Because of her proximity to him, Hillary will inevitably be compared to her husband and his "E.I.", a daunting challenge to be sure. Yet even when looked at in a vacuum, emotional intelligence is clearly an area in which Hillary needs to improve. Too often she comes across as overly-scripted, shrill, or disingenuous. To many, it seems that when Mrs. Clinton attempts to tweak her words or her speaking style in an attempt to better relate to her audience -- again, a skill that Bill can employ with ease and agility -- the results are almost comical. Look no further than a speech that Hillary gave to a predominantly African-American church in Selma, Alabama earlier this year. In Selma last March to commemorate "Bloody Sunday" and the Civil Rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Hillary spoke to the First Baptist Church of Selma. At one point in her remarks, Hillary quoted from a "freedom hymn" written by Gospel-great James Cleveland. To put her remarks in context, Hillary was expressing her belief that more must be done for Civil Rights, and that while the fight has been long and hard, the goal is too important to let fatigue or frustration hamper the effort. Senator Clinton gave a fairly long speech, and in concluding, she said:
"We have to stay awake. We have a march to finish. On this floor today, let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland's great freedom hymn, 'I don't feel no ways tired / I come too far from where I started from / Nobody told me that the road would be easy / I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me.'"These are certainly well-written remarks, but her lack of E.I. greatly affected her delivery of the remarks, and as a result, the "story" became not what she said, but how she said it. Don't just take my word for it; watch and listen for yourself:
In the days following her visit to Selma, that brief clip was an internet sensation and fodder for late-night comedians. As a result, not only was her message obscured or forgotten, but a great deal of attention was instead paid to one of her key weaknesses as a candidate. With the power of the internet and twenty-four hour news cycles, even a seemingly small slip-up can prove disastrous for a campaign. (No better example exists of this than the infamous "Dean Scream" from the 2004 campaign -- you can hear that here if you need a reminder)! In my opinion, Hillary's deficiency of emotional intelligence and corresponding tendency to seem inauthentic are some of the most significant challenges she faces as a presidential candidate. I believe that if she is to win the White House, Hillary must realize that this is an area of weakness for her and focus heavily on her many strengths, and on "being herself".
Con: She has a tendency to vacillate. A frequent charge leveled at Mrs. Clinton is that she lacks sincere conviction and, in fact, will change her position on an issue based on what she deems most politically expedient at the time. (Interestingly, this was something for which Bill Clinton was also routinely criticized). I believe there is some truth to this allegation, but I also think it is important to note that there is absolutely no doubt that Hillary does have many strong convictions -- beliefs that she has held and promoted for many years. Under the scrutiny of a run for the White House, though, the vacillations are what tend to attract the most attention and cause the most potential damage to her candidacy. The most recent example of this came in the aforementioned Democratic debate last week in Philadelphia. The issue in question was a controversial proposal by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer that would give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Because immigration is such a hot-button issue in the current political dialogue, his proposal attracted national attention and much debate. In a meeting last month with the Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph, Senator Clinton indicated that she felt Spitzer's plan "[made] a lot of sense". One of the debate's moderators, Tim Russert of NBC News, asked Senator Clinton about the Spitzer proposal:
"Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?"Clinton then responded with the following:
"Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."Russert then asked the other candidates if any of them supported driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. None did, and Senator Christopher Dodd elaborated on his opposition to the proposal. It was at this point that Hillary got herself in trouble. After Dodd spoke, Hillary interrupted:
"Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do..."And with that, she was unable to finish her sentence as the other candidates on stage clamored to highlight what they viewed as a clear inconsistency on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Russert was apparently unclear as well, asking Hillary:
"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?"Clinton then exacerbated her problems by essentially refusing to answer his question, responding:
"You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha'. It makes a lot of sense...Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on [the illegal immigration issues?...He's making an honest effort to do it."Confused? So were her opponents. John Edwards in particularly couldn't resist the urge to pounce:
"I want to add to something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago. And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them...and I think America deserves us to be straight."The headlines following this debate were nothing short of a debacle for Mrs. Clinton, and again, the internet was abuzz and the twenty-four hour news cycle dominated by Hillary's "stumble" in the debate, and by her apparent refusal to answer a yes-or-no question. The example is a lengthy one (sorry!), but it is also a timely and fairly glaring example of another key tendency that Mrs. Clinton will absolutely have to avoid in order to win the presidency.
Senator Hillary Clinton is a complex and controversial figure. She is a person of uncommon intelligence and unmistakable ambition. And as I write, she is also the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Nomination, an enormous step towards becoming the next President of the United States. Her strengths are many, but her weaknesses aren't few either, and the controversies that have surrounded both Hillary and Bill Clinton have made them very polarizing figures to be sure. In fact, a Harris Poll taken earlier this year found that 50% of respondents would simply refuse to vote for her if she were the Democratic Nominee. That poll result points more to an issue of electability (her ability to win in the general election) and less to an issue of viability (her ability to win the nomination), and herein lies the problem for Senator Clinton. She has all the tools necessary to win her party's nomination, and it is my belief that she will do so. The general election is where I think the going will get particularly tough for Hillary, and her chances to win will likely come down to two key issues. First, it will be important to see which candidate the Republicans nominate to run against her. Some of those running for the GOP nod would be more of a concern for her than others. That issue, though, is really out of her control. The second and more important key issue, however, is entirely in her control. She must use and build upon her strengths ("pros"), while simultaneously addressing, avoiding or eliminating her weaknesses ("cons"). The means, then, for a Clinton victory may sound simple enough, but reaching the desired end will be long and arduous. Is Hillary up to the task? I have my opinion but will withhold it for now. I'd love to hear yours, though, and if you'd like to share it, please leave a "comment" below.
Up next week...a look at Rudy Giuliani, the Republican Front-Runner...Stay tuned and thank you for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)