Ah, the much anticipated Hilary bashing article. If I had any influence on anyone's opinion other than the 5 people that read this blog, this would be my coup de grace for the Clinton campaign. It is incredible to note the astonishing fall from inevitability that Senator Clinton has experienced. She was touted merely 4 months ago as the next president of the United States. People and pundits were already swearing her into the Oval Office. Now, after a surge by Senator Obama, continual miscalculations on the part of her campaign, and a generally dismal performance in debates on and the stump, Senator Clinton seems to have conceded the race to her rival.
All of the factors that have contributed to her downfall are reasons not to vote for her. She entered the primary season as the clear cut favorite for the Democratic nomination. She led her nearest competitor by millions of dollars in campaign financing and purportedly had the establishment in her corner. Only to lose Iowa and fight to a draw on Super Tuesday. Although Senator Obama's rhetoric and charisma resonates with the Democratic base, much of the failure has to be put on Clinton's awful management of her campaign.
First, she relied completely on the pocketbooks of high end donors to graciously offer money before the primaries and throughout. She went the traditional route of courting corporations and holding galas where donors spent thousands of dollars on dinner. This is, appropriately, the traditional method of getting funds. The only problem is, not everyone can afford thousand dollar dinners or maximum donations. Further, when she flailed in January, those donors questioned her viability as a candidate and she did not have the charm nor personality to keep them aboard her sinking ship.
Obama, on the other hand, embraced the technology of the 21st century and launched a grassroots campaign. Obviously he took money from corporate donors and probably held those dinners as well, but he recognized that if ordinary people were encouraged to donate small amounts, he could raise more money more frequently. And it worked. He has raised a considerable amount of money soliciting $25 online donations from ordinary people. This shows that the Clinton machine is indeed mired in the politics of the past and has failed to step into today's world. Do we really want a candidate who cannot effectively use modern communication mediums and who is so disconnected from the information age? Clinton represents the the archaic divide that exists between today's politicians and their political base. She is a personification of the disconnect that has existed in our politics since the advent of mass media and corporate sponsorship. She's just more of the same and doesn't have the foresight to change.
Second, her callous spending this primary season is an omen for potential tenure in the White house. The New York Time reported today that Clinton's financial backers are presently petrified of her campaign spending. According to her campaign's expenditure report, she spent exorbitant amounts of money in Nevada on hotels. Apparently members of her campaign committee stayed at the Bellagio, Planet Hollywood and the Four Seasons hotels totaling $30,000. The campaign also spent $94,000 in Iowa ordering sandwiches for pre-caucus parties and shovels for voters in case it snowed. A magnanimous gesture, but rife with folly in the end (it did not snow).
And apparently, Clinton insiders expected this to happen! She spent ridiculous amounts of money to secure her Senatorial bid in New York as well. And that was against candidates that, fairly enough, had no shot at defeating her. She has spent only 42% of her contributions on political outreach, whereas Obama has spent half. Although this may seem like a small difference, we are talking about millions of dollars in advertising that the Clinton campaign squandered on expensive hotel rooms and sandwiches. Do we really want someone in the White House that cannot even financially manage her campaign? This shows a lack of fiscal judgment on her part as well as a tendency to use resources in an inefficient manner.
Finally, her arrogance this primary season is completely unflattering. Her campaign did almost no grassroots campaigning and has been continually out hustled on the ground by Obama's supporters. They rarely installed any type of political infrastructure to garner support at the individual level. This oversight shows that even she was victim to the myth of her inevitability. Do we need more arrogance and elitism in the White House? Does America need a leader who is too good for the world?
There are some other points I'd like to make about Senator Clinton that are disconcerting. Her supporters always cheer when her travails in her husband's White House are brought up. They are proud of the fact that she stood up to the people and supporter her husband, the President of the United States, even though he cheated on her multiple times. Is it real strength and courage to do what you are expected to do? Would anyone in their right mind stay with someone like Bill Clinton if he weren't president? Probably not. Hillary did what she did because she knew that any other course of action would have been suicide for her political career. If she showed independence and left Bill, then her chances of being president may have been affected negatively. Instead she really took the easy way out, stuck with Bill and used his name to propel herself into this position.
That brings me to my next point: How is Hillary Clinton the champion of women in America? Are women in this country so oppressed and denied opportunity that they blindly vote for any of their gender running for president so they can say they are equal to men? It is an interesting quandary. This is a woman who is trying to ride the coattails of her husband's success into Washington. I do not dispute the fact that she is incredibly intelligent or able, but I dispute the fact that she is doing this on her own. Don't women want a candidate who can become President on her own merits without the meddling or efficacious support of her husband?
And if Hillary wins, her legacy will always be tainted by her husband. Questions will continually rise about how much influence Bill has and if Hillary is indeed making important decisions on her own. And remember, in today's world the facts don't matter, only the perception. Hillary really represents the archaic notion that women can't get anywhere without their husbands. Is that what the women of America want? How about a woman (or minority) with no political connections who pulls herself into the White House? That's the real champion that women should wait to support.
Editor's Note: I found an excellent editorial in the February 24th edition of the New York Times titled "The Audacity of Hopelessness" by Frank Rich that echoes the very sentiments expressed in this post. Obviously Rich's writing is more cohesive and eloquent than this crude banter.
All of the factors that have contributed to her downfall are reasons not to vote for her. She entered the primary season as the clear cut favorite for the Democratic nomination. She led her nearest competitor by millions of dollars in campaign financing and purportedly had the establishment in her corner. Only to lose Iowa and fight to a draw on Super Tuesday. Although Senator Obama's rhetoric and charisma resonates with the Democratic base, much of the failure has to be put on Clinton's awful management of her campaign.
First, she relied completely on the pocketbooks of high end donors to graciously offer money before the primaries and throughout. She went the traditional route of courting corporations and holding galas where donors spent thousands of dollars on dinner. This is, appropriately, the traditional method of getting funds. The only problem is, not everyone can afford thousand dollar dinners or maximum donations. Further, when she flailed in January, those donors questioned her viability as a candidate and she did not have the charm nor personality to keep them aboard her sinking ship.
Obama, on the other hand, embraced the technology of the 21st century and launched a grassroots campaign. Obviously he took money from corporate donors and probably held those dinners as well, but he recognized that if ordinary people were encouraged to donate small amounts, he could raise more money more frequently. And it worked. He has raised a considerable amount of money soliciting $25 online donations from ordinary people. This shows that the Clinton machine is indeed mired in the politics of the past and has failed to step into today's world. Do we really want a candidate who cannot effectively use modern communication mediums and who is so disconnected from the information age? Clinton represents the the archaic divide that exists between today's politicians and their political base. She is a personification of the disconnect that has existed in our politics since the advent of mass media and corporate sponsorship. She's just more of the same and doesn't have the foresight to change.
Second, her callous spending this primary season is an omen for potential tenure in the White house. The New York Time reported today that Clinton's financial backers are presently petrified of her campaign spending. According to her campaign's expenditure report, she spent exorbitant amounts of money in Nevada on hotels. Apparently members of her campaign committee stayed at the Bellagio, Planet Hollywood and the Four Seasons hotels totaling $30,000. The campaign also spent $94,000 in Iowa ordering sandwiches for pre-caucus parties and shovels for voters in case it snowed. A magnanimous gesture, but rife with folly in the end (it did not snow).
And apparently, Clinton insiders expected this to happen! She spent ridiculous amounts of money to secure her Senatorial bid in New York as well. And that was against candidates that, fairly enough, had no shot at defeating her. She has spent only 42% of her contributions on political outreach, whereas Obama has spent half. Although this may seem like a small difference, we are talking about millions of dollars in advertising that the Clinton campaign squandered on expensive hotel rooms and sandwiches. Do we really want someone in the White House that cannot even financially manage her campaign? This shows a lack of fiscal judgment on her part as well as a tendency to use resources in an inefficient manner.
Finally, her arrogance this primary season is completely unflattering. Her campaign did almost no grassroots campaigning and has been continually out hustled on the ground by Obama's supporters. They rarely installed any type of political infrastructure to garner support at the individual level. This oversight shows that even she was victim to the myth of her inevitability. Do we need more arrogance and elitism in the White House? Does America need a leader who is too good for the world?
There are some other points I'd like to make about Senator Clinton that are disconcerting. Her supporters always cheer when her travails in her husband's White House are brought up. They are proud of the fact that she stood up to the people and supporter her husband, the President of the United States, even though he cheated on her multiple times. Is it real strength and courage to do what you are expected to do? Would anyone in their right mind stay with someone like Bill Clinton if he weren't president? Probably not. Hillary did what she did because she knew that any other course of action would have been suicide for her political career. If she showed independence and left Bill, then her chances of being president may have been affected negatively. Instead she really took the easy way out, stuck with Bill and used his name to propel herself into this position.
That brings me to my next point: How is Hillary Clinton the champion of women in America? Are women in this country so oppressed and denied opportunity that they blindly vote for any of their gender running for president so they can say they are equal to men? It is an interesting quandary. This is a woman who is trying to ride the coattails of her husband's success into Washington. I do not dispute the fact that she is incredibly intelligent or able, but I dispute the fact that she is doing this on her own. Don't women want a candidate who can become President on her own merits without the meddling or efficacious support of her husband?
And if Hillary wins, her legacy will always be tainted by her husband. Questions will continually rise about how much influence Bill has and if Hillary is indeed making important decisions on her own. And remember, in today's world the facts don't matter, only the perception. Hillary really represents the archaic notion that women can't get anywhere without their husbands. Is that what the women of America want? How about a woman (or minority) with no political connections who pulls herself into the White House? That's the real champion that women should wait to support.
Editor's Note: I found an excellent editorial in the February 24th edition of the New York Times titled "The Audacity of Hopelessness" by Frank Rich that echoes the very sentiments expressed in this post. Obviously Rich's writing is more cohesive and eloquent than this crude banter.
No comments:
Post a Comment