I have an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor titled “UNDER THE RADAR, CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT.” (January 30, 2006).

The original title was: “HILLARY’S STEALTH NOMINATION COUP?”

I have posted here [updated recently] (and here, here, and here) on Senator Clinton and the blogs. This present essay is not blog-related per se, but it does suggest that Hillary is taking a very traditional approach to a possible presidential bid in 2008: solidify key constituencies (African-Americans) and project a moderate image for the middle class white voter.

Curious but true: If the primaries were held today, HC would sweep the south; if the election were held today, HC would lose every southern state (save perhaps Florida). See post by MysteryPollster.

Earlier I speculated on what was her blog-strategizing options. I even asked if she might decide to take yet another page from her husband’s playbook and “Sister Soujah” the leftblogs! As of now Political blogs play little or no role in her campaign–save as leftflank antagonists. [See also here]. Is this an “ignore the blogs” strategy?

See comment on the National Journal’s BeltwayBlogroll.

Let’s see what develops!

BATON ROUGE, LA. – As of now, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) of New York is the front-runner for her party’s nomination for president in 2008 in fundraising, name recognition, and poll numbers. But under the radar of public and press, the contest could tilt even more in her favor.

The Democratic National Committee will vote in February on whether to accept a recommendation by one of its special commissions to insert one or two new first-tier caucuses and new primaries based on “criteria [of] racial and ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity including [labor] union density.”

On the assumption that she were to run, this change could prove to benefit a 2008 Clinton presidential campaign by positioning “safe” Clinton states immediately after Iowa and New Hampshire. As history attests, Bill Clinton established himself as a front-runner even after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992 by winning Southern states with huge African-American Democratic bases. Similarly in 1984, Walter Mondale’s campaign was saved by victories in Georgia and Alabama after Gary Hart’s strong second place in Iowa and upset win in New Hampshire.

The move proposed by the DNC is cleverly and credibly positioned as a plea toward “diversity.” For several generations in the arcane procedures of presidential nomination races, there have been two distinctive standouts: Iowa and New Hampshire. The first-in-the-nation caucus and the first-in-the-nation primary possess disproportionate power in media attention, campaign spending, and candidate time.

A perennial challenge to the dominance of the Little Big States is the envy of much larger states whose political leaders feel that their states better represent the party and the nation as a whole. Certainly, Democratic voters in Iowa tend to be less diverse in several demographic categories than, say, the electorate of Florida or Michigan. But opponents of the present system have failed to make any changes because they could not agree on which state would take the lead in any new rank order of primary contests and they fear the wrath of its present beneficiaries.

The proposed scheduling change reflects the desire of a number of Democrats, such as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, to follow Iowa with “diversity” states such as South Carolina, which has a large black population, or perhaps another state that has a larger Hispanic population.

Good deed activism aside, however, a complicated stealth proxy is at work on behalf of the probable future Clinton campaign for president. Despite her bulging war chest and survey numbers, she is vulnerable. In a hard-fought campaign, the many negatives associated with her husband’s tenure might begin to tell. Also, she is currently experiencing a wildfire revolt on her left flank with activists and left bloggers unhappy at the senator’s moderate and even conservative positions on issues such as an anti-flag- burning amendment and the war in Iraq.

Her best hope for the nomination race is to blow out all competition early. And her greatest bulwark is her high level of support from black Americans and black Democratic officials. Bill Clinton was famously dubbed America’s “first black president,” and this two-way attachment was reflected when he won Georgia, South Carolina, and many Super Tuesday states where African-Americans make up a huge percentage or even a majority of the voting Democratic base. As newsman Jim Lehrer put it in ’92, Clinton, after a string of early losses, came “back from the dead … with a lot of black votes.”

Hillary Clinton’s assertion that the House of Representatives “has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about” to the worshippers at a black church in Harlem during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration, however controversial in mainstream media, was simply an attempt to personalize her own credentials with her inherited base. So was her support of “faith-based initiatives” while in Boston recently speaking at a fundraiser for religious charities headed by a black minister.

With such goodwill among a key Democratic constituency, the senator hopes for what sports fans know as a “three-peat” of the Clinton “southern” election strategies of ’92 and ’96. If Senator Clinton were to suffer an early reverse, it would be to her advantage that Democratic Party leaders build some friendly firewalls between and after the contests in the Hawkeye and the Granite states.

The current period of seeming campaign doldrums has been called “the invisible primary” because of the lack of press and public scrutiny relative to the frenzy of the formal campaign season. But key political players are making decisions now that may narrow the selection of our next president. We all must pay attention to who is altering the rules of the game and why. The proposed changes to the nomination race schedule are reasonable and respectable, but the process itself – who backs the changes and why – deserves wider debate.

If you want to comment on this article, please do so below and but also go to the letters portal at CSM (they want their mail about contributions to go directly to them).

UPDATE: More news from Hotline (paywall) about the Democratic primary calendar:

“PRIMARY CALENDAR: In Search Of A Little Straight Talk”

Last week, “it leaked” that DNC Chair Howard Dean “appears to be endorsing a plan that dilutes the impact of the NH primary” (See “On Call”). Now, NH Dem chair Kathy Sullivan “of all people” is “questioning her loyalty to the national party.” Sullivan says DNC chief of staff Tom McMahon told her the letter “was not an endorsement” of the nomination commission’s proposal “to place one or two” caucuses between IA and NH. “Given the wording of the letter, that’s debatable.” But the “content” of the letter “is not what angered Sullivan.” It’s that she “as a member of the rules committee and the state chair has yet to receive a copy from the DNC” and “first learned of it” when contacted by The Hotline on 1/28.

Originally posted January 30, 2006 at PolicyByBlog

One Comment

  • admin

    Original Reader Comments (15)

    The Institute for Women’s Policy Research conducts a biennial study on women’s political participation by state by computing the number of women elected officials for each state. Each level of elected official is issued a different weight (i.e. governors at 1.5, non-governors at 1.0). http://www.iwpr.org/States2004/SWS2004/index.htm

    Perhaps not surprisingly, the Southern states don’t fare very well in these rankings. In fact, this year 7 of the 13 “Southern” states ranked in the bottom third of the nation. (Note: although the Census Bureau claims there are 16 southern states, it’s difficult for me, a Louisiana girl, to consider Delaware, Maryland and Oklahoma “Southern states”… don’t believe me? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Southern_States ).

    In past years the majority of Southern states have consistently ranked in the bottom third despite minor gains (9 out of 13 in 2002; 10 out of 13 in 1996).

    From this data, and longstanding attitudes toward women in the South, there is definitely a lot of validity in the statement that even though Hillary may win the primaries in the South, there’s no way she could be elected as president in the South.

    Except, of course, if the Republican nominee was a woman AND a minority, Hillary just might have a chance – but that’s just personal speculation.
    February 5, 2006 | Unregistered Commentersmarin3

    Those within the Democratic Party that would like to change the normal tradition and routine of the primaries, in a desperate attempt to affect public opinion and support of Hillary Rodham Clinton. This tactic may result in an early victory by gaining an unrealistic picture, especially from the help of the liberal media, of solid support for their candidate, but reality could be that they may be setting themselves and their party up for an easy defeat by the Republicans.

    Despite the victories and momentum that President Bill Clinton received from the southern states during his primaries that helped to fuel his presidential run, recent polls show that Hillary would probably not have a similar outcome during the actual presidential election.

    According to a Gallup/CNN poll 51 percent of voters would not pull the lever for Hillary, while only 16 percent acknowledged solid support behind her candidacy. Another survey (Diageo/Hotline survey) showed that if Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona would defeat Clinton by a 16-point margin, receiving 52 percent of the national vote compared to 36 percent support for Clinton.

    Now even some liberal supporters are not convinced that Hillary is the one to lead the Democratic Party back into the winner’s circle in D.C. — Molly Ivins, a nationally syndicated columnist who is usually a voice for liberals with her Bush-bashing rhetoric, recently wrote in one of her columns, ”I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.” http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/ Also see- http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/OPINION05/601310317/1006/OPINION

    So with a portion of the Democratic Party trying to change things for a possible opportunity to increase its chances back into the White House may lead to some early victories, in the long run I believe it will just continue to divide a political party that is searching to reunite itself as well as attempting to clarify its platform with the American people. So, it probably will not matter if they are successful in moving one or two caucuses and new primaries between Iowa and Super Tuesday. For once maybe I agree with Molly about something that she recently stated in her column regarding the status of the Democratic Party. Her words: “Oh come on, people — get a grip on the concept of leadership”… she adds: “You sit there in Washington so frightened of the big, bad Republican machine you have no idea what people are thinking. I’m telling you right now, Tom DeLay is going to lose in his district. If Democrats in Washington haven’t got enough sense to OWN the issue of political reform, I give up on them entirely.” My words: “A party with no real solutions will have a hard time winning no matter whom they pick as their presidential candidate.”
    February 6, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBigAL1993

    In MysteryPollster’s post (http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/01/hillary_the_blo.html) sites various statistics that suggest that

    “Liberals think she is a liberal, moderates think she is moderate and so on. Either way, the overwhelming majority of those who consider themselves Democrats rate Hillary favorably, and at least a third do so with intensity and liberal Democrats appear to like her better than moderate or conservative Democrats. ”

    She bases these results on Pew Research Center approval ratings Diageo-Hotline poll that tracked Clinton’s favorable ratings in 2005. She goes on to say that much remains to be seen about what kind of campaign the Senator will run but points out that as of now (Jan 06, 2006) “recent hostility of left-leaning blogs is not evident among rank and file Democrats.”

    From this, it would seem that whether Clinton is overtly ignoring blogs or, as I would think, treading lightly on a new, potentially potent medium, it does not seem to be effecting the larger Democratic population. Even MP admits, though, that the coming campaign season will determine whether or not this seemingly unrepresentative group of blogging Democrats will serve as effectual opinion leaders.
    February 6, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterow1018

    I think those are interesting statistics that smarin3 cited. I also agree that it would be difficult for Hillary Clinton to win the election in most of the Southern states. Smarin3 also stated, “Except, of course, if the Republican nominee was a woman AND a minority, Hillary just might have a chance – but that’s just personal speculation.” I think the candidate nominated by the Republican Party will also determine Clinton’s success.

    Jumping to another issue, you stated in your article, “Under the Radar, Clinton for President,” “On the assumption that she were to run, this change could prove to benefit a 2008 Clinton presidential campaign by positioning “safe” Clinton states immediately after Iowa and New Hampshire.” I think this could be a good move for her to solidify a nomination from the Democratic Party if your statement in your post, “if the primaries were held today, HC would sweep the south” is in fact true. The Iowa Caucus in the last several decades has not always been the most accurate predictor of nominee or president. The Democratic nominee won the Iowa Caucus prior to the last three elections. In 1992, Bill Clinton claimed only 3% of the votes before going on to win the Presidential Election. In 1988, Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, finished third in the caucus. In 1984, 1980 and 1976, the caucus predicted correctly for the Democratic nominee. In 1972, George McGovern won the Democratic nomination but finished 2nd in the Iowa Caucus. On the Republican side, in 1980 Ronald Regan finished 2nd among the Republican candidates prior to winning the Presidential election and in 1988, George H. W. Bush finished 3rd prior to winning the Presidential election. For complete statistics refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus. In the New Hampshire Primary, the Democratic Nominee won the primary six of the last nine times with the nominee losing in 1992, 1984 and 1972. It, however, failed in 1992 with Bill Clinton losing it before winning the Presidency in his first term. On the Republican side, the primary was accurate in predicting seven of the last nine nominees. In 2000, however, John McCain defeated George W. Bush before Bush went on to win the Presidential Election. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary for complete statistics.

    I think the media puts a lot of emphasis on the first two because the media loves to report simple, clear-cut wins and losses rather than long, complex, epic battles. Plus it is easier to sell news when it is presented this way. The media’s eagerness to report the first two primary/caucus results makes the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary seem more relevant. If more states placed their primaries closer to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, there would be less emphasis on the winners of these two.

    I don’t think replacing these primaries with the likes of Florida or Michigan because “Democratic voters in Iowa tend to be less diverse in several demographic categories” is the answer. The very diverse demographics from such states are not indicative with the majority of the nation. I do believe that the inclusion of caucuses/primaries from “diversity” states could better predict the best candidate for the parties’ nominee.

    Lastly, I wanted to address your question regarding Clinton’s lack of blog use as a campaign strategy: “Is this an “ignore the blogs” strategy?” I have a feeling Hillary Clinton will rely on what you call “Voluntary Associations” from your “The Coming Anti-Hillary Blogswarm–from the Left?” post. I think she will let her supporters to do the talking and campaigning for her. This strategy reminds me of the olden days of partisan media where the newspapers, not the candidates, did the campaigning. Refer to Baldasty’s, The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth Century, for more details regarding this issue. I think one reason for Clinton to avoid blogging as a campaign strategy, has to do with the absoluteness of blog entries. If she says something in a blog post, her message is in print and cannot be deleted from the world to see. It is definite and can maybe be taken out of context. The post can easily be used later during campaigning against her. She already has a Senate voting record that may be used against her if she is nominated. She definitely does not need blog posts used against her. I believe his previous voting record and past actions were one of the main downfalls for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election.
    February 6, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterNOLA7

    Hillary Clinton is in a unique position for pursuing the White House, having participated in two successful presidential elections with her husband. She knows first hand the intricacies of the primary process and she has an especially keen awareness of how the early Iowa caucus New Hampshire primary can put a candidate into come-from-behind position.

    An adjustment to the early primary process, to give Clinton some early momentum, could only serve to help her candidacy. If she can use the southern states to jump ahead in the race instead of serving the purpose of just catching up with the pack, she could put the Democratic nomination away early.

    It is probably important for Clinton to fly under the radar in any effort to reconstruct the primary process. Any appearance of an overt effort to de-emphasize the importance of the Iowa and New Hampshire processes could have a particularly chilling effect on her chances for a victory or strong showing in those states.

    So far she is saying the right things. A story in the December 7 edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader quotes New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch as saying that Clinton voiced support to him for keeping New Hampshire in its tradition role behind only Iowa. It goes on to say that Lynch had spoken to at least five potential presidential candidates, all of which supported his plan to place any primaries in more ethnically diverse states at least a week after the New Hampshire primary. Of course, what else would they say to the governor of New Hampshire?

    In a column by Dotty Lynch on cbsnews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/05/opinion/lynch/main1097736.shtml), she quotes an unnamed Democratic Party official as saying “Democrats in 48 other states think that just maybe they should have a role in selecting the nominee. Why are Iowa and New Hampshire so sacrosanct? There really are living rooms in other states. Trust me.”

    But note what Lynch says in parentheses immediately following the official’s quote: “(The party official insisted on anonymity in case she wishes to visit a New Hampshire living room some day.)”

    Such is the sensitivity of the issue of changing the political calendar. While it certainly appears on the surface that placing more ethnically diverse populations within the decision-shaping early primaries is an admirable effort, it reeks of political motivation by certain Democrats to steer the campaign in their favor.
    February 6, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHog79

    Hillary Clinton is not her husband.

    No one is Bill Clinton. Who else can attract the black population, almost every woman in the country, a democratic base, almost all of the center, and some of the other guy’s stronghold as well?

    Hillary doesn’t have what her husband had: the capacity as a political communicator to give the impression that she is speaking to each person as if he were the only person listening. She has a stiffness and an artificiality her husband lacked – one of his greatest qualities.

    I know she has relatively good numbers now among pollers searching for the democratic candidate to take that party’s nomination. But polls also show she doesn’t have what it takes to win the election.

    Positioning so-called “diversity” states closer in the primary line-up to Iowa and New Hampshire may help her and it may not. How popular she really is with “diverse” potential voters is something she’ll have to prove in the coming year.

    Even if she wins the entire black vote, that by itself is unlikely to carry her through the primaries in the face of liberal frustration. Her future depends on whether the Democratic party perceives a need to play to the base or the center. Hillary is working up the center like crazy, with public statements about her faith and support of chastity education and efforts to decrease abortions. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/26/whill26.xml. And though she would be the first female major party presidential candidate (an admittedly exciting concept) many women dislike what they perceive as her radically feminist views.

    Whether she could win in a general election is the important question. Stacked against Condi Rice, she may have to wave goodbye to the black vote. And stacked against John McCain, she may lose the center and even some of the left.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterrepublic3

    If nabbing the Southern vote is the ace-in-the-hole for any Clinton on the Democratic ticket, then there is the convenient topic of valuing Southern, human life available to the senator.

    As everyone knows, a great deal of the South is dealing with some serious issues right now and many Southerners are not happy with the response from FEMA or the current administration. In a blog called Facing South, Chris Kromm and his team have posted on this topic under the title “Fema response in perspective”(http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2006/01/fema-response-in-perspective.asp).

    Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to do what you suggest: “blow out all competition early”. I believe that, by appealing to Southern Americans on a personal level, Clinton could secure several, already vulnerable voters who are looking for recognition from the top as being a necessary and valued part of America. This would not only appeal to the smaller populations of Louisiana and Mississippi, but would ring familiar to Florida, Alabama, Texas, and the lower East Coast, where hurricanes are an unavoidable reality.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterdiversgirl

    As PBB/Editor points out in his Christian Science Monitor editorial, Clinton is indeed way ahead of the presidential candidate pack with regard to fundraising and name recognition. Additionally, a 2006 Siena Research Institute survey found that her approval rating among New Yorkers is high, and a solid 58% would re-elect her to the Senate (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10799). She seems to have all of the components for a successful bid; however, as referenced above by BigAL1993, a recent CNN Gallup poll shows a majority of those questioned would definitely not vote for Clinton in a 2008 bid for president. Also revealed in the study is that men are more adamant than women that they will not vote for Clinton in 2008 (60% to 43%). Furthermore, a full one-third of her liberal base reports that they definitely do not intend to support her in her bid.

    The juxtaposition of her financial backing and recognition against the results of this poll beg the question: What is Clinton doing wrong?

    The answer can be found in Perlmutter’s PBB article, Political Blogs and Other Political Media: Compare & Contrast http://www.policybyblog.squarespace.com/political-blogs-other-media/2006/1/31/political-blogs-and-other-political-media-compare-contrast.html), wherein he argues that, “the master axiom of political communication is that successful mass communication is that which best approximates successful interpersonal communication.” This is a major problem for Clinton. Many voters (liberal, moderate, and conservative) see her more as a shrill-voiced disapproving neighbor than as a trusted leader and friend. On a recent ABC interview, Chairman of the RNC, Ken Mehlman, described her as “angry” and said, “I don’t think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates.…Whether it’s the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger.” (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5510). Some coverage of Clinton’s reaction to the jab portrayed her as calm and nonchalant; others reported that her fiery reaction further perpetuated the idea that she is an angry person. No matter what her reaction, she definitely has a public image problem.

    Given all these facts, the question proposed by Perlmutter about whether Clinton is ignoring the bloggers becomes even more compelling. One could argue that the blogosphere is a perfect venue for Clinton. She would have free access to “interpersonal communication” with the voters without running the risk of becoming off-putting in her manner and tone. Furthermore, that not-so-small problem Clinton has of being a woman vying for the presidency may become fuzzy in the haze of the blogosphere. Clinton should strongly consider embracing bloggers. Given her PR problems, it could very well be her best chance yet.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterweezy138

    Many stories presently in the media are raving or ranting about Hillary Clinton’s apparent change of extremist heart, and her ideological move toward the ‘mainstream middle’.
    Matt Bai, contributing writer to the NY Times, is currently writing a book about the future of the Democratic Party. In an October, 2005 article he wrote about the NY Senator, he acknowledges that “a story line about Clinton has now taken hold, and it goes like this: While she is at heart a more stridently liberal and polarizing figure than her husband, Hillary Clinton is now consciously reinventing herself publicly as a middle-of-the-road pragmatist.”(read the whole article: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=fa9dde823c50c377dc9cc421e9c6de47&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=df15173cc4ae91e562b8dfad27c42e48)
    If what Bai says is true, and Clinton is “consciously reinventing herself” towards a more moderate ideology, then the mass media is blindly eating right out of her hand.
    Many articles, such as that published in “The Hill” in October, 2005, titled “The left nips at Hillary after her move to the right,”( http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=4678bfd6255b7c094cf5921f9ce4ca09&_docnum=11&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=6a841f996f6a96a4fa63bc6ddf7af2c9) give the impression that Mrs. (Ms.?) Clinton has had a sudden change of heart, mind and values and is aligning more with a conservative or at least not entirely liberal ideology.

    As David Perlmutter noted in his article “Under the radar, Clinton for President,” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0130/p09s02-coop.html) it is getting so bad that even the most extreme Hillary supporters are starting to notice her transition. “Also, she is currently experiencing a wildfire revolt on her left flank with activists and left bloggers unhappy at the senator’s moderate and even conservative positions on issues such as an anti-flag- burning amendment and the war in Iraq,” writes Perlmutter.

    Kate O’Beirne makes a point, though, in her National Review article, “Hillary Prepares.” (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=b347232bfd9b89941db5a665ba9a2eab&_docnum=5&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=eaf2a57e2774939931f49605dffca297 )
    O’Beirne recalls Hillary’s staunch “stand-by-your-man” defiance during her husband’s presidential years. For a feminist as supported by the likes of Susan Estrich (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=5f7248788a8e0aa3d9c53dc190941762&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=f200f47d60372a222f0e1944b1d8e783) it was always interesting that Clinton stood by her husband during years and years of rumored adultery. “I remember thinking, “Wow, it’s true that she will do absolutely anything for the sake of political survival,” writes O’Beirne.

    O’Beirne cites examples of Hillary Clinton’s Senatorial actions that would and could not be construed as moderate or even less-than-liberal, such as voting twice against banning partial-birth abortions, supporting a bill that would give amnesty to up to 1 million illegal ag workers, voting against all of President Bush’s proposed tax cuts, and being the second-biggest spender in the Senate, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
    The NY Senator may be publicly mediating her image to the extent that it only infuriates the staunchest liberal bloggers, and with the hope that the agenda-setting principle of the media, that “the media doesn’t tell people what to think, but what to think about,” might just prove to do both in her situation. For Clinton in 2008, the media might tell the masses to think about Clinton, and to think of her as a moderate. If 40% vote Democrat, 40% Republican, the more moderate candidate may gain the mass of the 20% leftovers in 2008. Maybe Clinton’s conscientious reinvention now may prove beneficial in the future.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterlittle34

    Ok people, who are we really kidding with the moderate and liberal terms here. There are many examples that show how Democrats and Republicans are basically the same party. Almost all of the people running for major offices regradless of the party, come from the same upper class level. This was highlighted years ago when Newsweek (August 2000) did an article on Cheney’s connections with Haliburton and New Jersey senator (Dem) Jon Corzine. Corzine was a former top executive at Goldman Sacs who refused to release his tax returns because of confidentiality agreements with Goldman. When in reality, it would show all the other companies he is involved, so who are the worst polluting companies out there.
    So while everyone so worried about her changing her style or beliefs or whatever, she is actually changing to what will help her win.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterharrison72

    I think that Hillary Clinton could successfully establish herself as the frontrunner for the DNC and if she does start during the “invisible primary” she will have a great opportunity to surge ahead. It troubles me to agree with the comments that she will not be elected president in the South, but the history and attitudes seem to dissuade the notion that she might win. In reference to “Hillary, Blogs and Polls: Her possible blog strategies” I feel that it would benefit her to take some course of action concerning left-bloggers. She has already entered the blogosphere, albeit extremely carefully worded, and to pull back now would seem like she is shying away from a stance to remain moderate, which is the problem some of the left-bloggers have with her. Because she has already engaged blogging, she should embrace it for the opportunities it has – opening a direct line of communication with constituents, getting feedback on issues and learning about new issues, and most importantly creating personal dialogue with a mass audience.
    Another drawback is the differences between her and her husband. She appears cold and impersonal, while her husband was quite the opposite. Much of this appearance may have to do with the idea of counter-typing (“Will Hillary Sistah Souljah the Leftblogs”) The idea that she must appear strong might take away from the skill that helped her husband win the South.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commentervanguard15

    Today the New Hampshire Union Leader is reporting that Hillary has apparently backed a plan by New Hampshire governor Lynch to keep the New Hampshire primary as the first primary, at least seven days before other primaries. The media would still have a week to focus on New Hampshire before moving on to other states. This leaves New Hampshire and Iowa, two states unrepresentative of the nation, as the first and most important nomination contests in determining the presidential nomination. This goes to show that even if Hillary wishes to make southern primaries relatively more important, she is not willing to buck the system and come out against New Hampshire’s treasured tradition.

    Check out the article at http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=63773.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterjohn444

    The ability to destabilize what the mainstream political machines and the mainstream media machines have decided governs the political landscape may be the most immediate impact of widespread blogging. While it’s not universally accessible (you have to be literate and have access to the Internet, and to make news you have to be at least a mildly interesting writer), it does poke holes in the power structure and allow for changes in what has been considered to be the standard strategy. I think this means that Clinton, or any other potential leader, will not be able to continue to ignore them. Look how early the mainstream media runs out of actual news in a campaign. The constant clattering of keyboards in the blogosphere may win out as the easiest way to cover the horserace. Journalists, under increasing time pressure and under increasing corporate control that discourages actual investigation and analysis, may just let the bloggers lead the way.
    February 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterMelissa7005

    Hillary Clinton is a household name. She can become President in 2008. At the very least she can run on a Gore / Clinton ticket. Being vice-president (with next in line to the presidency) isn’t so shabby.

    February 8, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterSupportHillary.com

    It is a funny phenomenon: Hilary Clinton has lost the favor of leftbloggers and, meanwhile, John McCain is not popular among rightbloggers either.
    Political bloggers seem to be a group of political puritans and decline the middle positions that are often chosen by election candidates to attract as many voters as possible. Thus, is it unavoidable for politicians to lose bloggers as they are trying to get more votes?
    There are still more questions that should be included into our consideration: Are the leftbloggers part of the “base” of Democracy Party? Will they abandon Hillary Clinton, suppose she will become the Democratic president candidate successfully, in presidential election even if they don’t like her? To what extent will blogging affect elections? Will influences on Web only stay on Web? Are there opinion leaders in blogosphere? If so, will they have similar effects in elections with their counterparts in reality?
    Although these questions left insufficiently studied, it is definitely unquestionable that blog should be included into the whole media strategies of a politician and the blog strategy will be a quite different one.
    February 9, 2006 | Unregistered Commentereusuee

Leave a Reply