Cry Havoc, Please!

I just don't get it. Especially after seeing Tuesday's primary results, I am even more confounded. This truly is the election that won't die! I asked in my last entry if Obama would strike while Clinton was ready to fall. The answer? An infallible no! It would appear as though Obama really is a lolligager who can't come up with the right formula to deliver a game-ending shot. Instead, it was Hillary Clinton who delivered the precise blow. Back-room deals with Canada, unanswered questions about slumlords seems to have rocked Barack Obama from his hope pedestal. It would appear as though both candidates are ready for a romp in the mud. Indeed, if Obama wants to survive and win this nomination, he has little choice.

What I don't understand is that I, as a relative policital neophyte, see glaring omissions or inconsistencies in Clinton's arguments for her presidency. Why doesn't everyone else? It seems the media broadcasts these concerns hourly, yet no one hears. Am I just taking crazy pills, or has the world gone topsy-turvy? Number one, what experience is this that she is flaunting so wildly? She is in her second term as a junior senator from New York. That is her only elected position! Experience? I'm sorry, but First Lady does not count. You had sex with the President, fantastic. Apparently, so did a few other ladies (allegedly). Number two, she's horribly inconsistent with her message. Now she's against NAFTA? Come on everybody, let's take a timeout from trade? What does that even mean? I thought it was abundantly clear in her book that it was a 'great success,' what gives? Lastly, she is about as transparent as a lump of coal. Her income, or more accurately her sources of income have become a state secret. One of the themes of this election has been a movement toward government accountability, and that begins with transparency.

Last I checked Obama is from the Chicago school of politics, which I read today handles politics 'with a crowbar.' It would behoove Mr. Obama to break this woman down, now that he has been struck with the proverbial kitchen sink. I'm sorry, but now's the time to expose Hillary Clinton for the ever-shifter that she is. To do otherwise would be to let this country slip back into business as usual, extinguishing any hope of a better future.
Read more...

The Broken Paradigm

As I watch these Democratic primaries, much like a housewife watches her soaps, the drama continues. Unfortunately, it looks like this drama is beginning to end. I read in Reuters that now Sen. Clinton is "ridiculing" Obama as all talk and no substance. She's posted attack ads, accused him of plagiarism and now she says he has no substance. This led me to think about the ideas of paradigms and why, barring some miracle, Hillary Clinton will not get the Democratic nomination.

It's as simple as looking at the candidates. Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain: which one doesn't belong? The one that isn't being touted for their appeal to independent voters. That's right, Hillary Clinton is your winner, or in this case your loser. The way she is running her campaign, reminds me of how political races have been won (at least in my memory) in the past. It's not about how I am qualified, it's how my opponent isn't qualified. It's attacking, quite simply that wins races. Johnson did it to Goldwater with a simple allusion to nuclear war (never mind the real war Johnson was running in Vietnam). George W. Bush did it with John Kerry, in addition to a brutal attack on Kerry's command experience, now more famously known as "swiftboating." Hillary Clinton is now trying the same thing, the problem is that it appears that Americans have become smarter, we've moved on.

In addition to his "lofty rhetoric" Obama does have specific plans. It's as easy as looking on the internet. There is substance as well as talk. Attack ads show an old paradigm that doesn't appear to be working anymore. Just ask any business that produces obsolete products, they don't sell; apparently neither does Hillary.
Read more...

The "Inevitable" Machine Creaks

So, I hear that Hillary Clinton has had a hierarchical shake-up in her campaign. Apparently, according to CNN, the campaign has been sending mixed messages to different states, they don't know who's in charge. Sounds pretty bad. After seeing that report, something dawned on me that might tell me how this election might fare.

This most recent news, coupled along with news that Sen. Clinton had to loan her own campaign $5 million, has not fared well for the former First Lady. While these shake-ups and stop-gaps are dotting the Clinton campaign, it seems that the Obama campaign can't even spend all the money he has gotten. On the same day that Clinton disclosed her investment, it was revealed that Senator Obama had raised $3 million, not only in one day, but all on the internet. These things don't seem to bode well for Hillary Clinton.

If anyone remembers how she started this race, it was clear and dominant. She lead national polls (she still does today, but not by near as much), and was seen as a somewhat inevitable pick for the Democratic nominee. That may be why her campaign looks like it's faltering now. Early in the race, where money was plentiful, it probably wasn't that important who was in charge at the campaign or how the money was spent. Nobody expected a long primary campaign. I think with these news bits, it's showing that the Clinton campaign is faltering at a protracted campaign. The first assumption of economics is the scaracity of resources. Everything will run out at some time. With the last two nights handing Barack Obama every state voting, whether it's a caucus in Nebraska or Louisiana, one might expect that resources are running out for Sen. Clinton.

I hope the Clinton campaign can figure something out. The way Obama craziness is spreading, they may not have much more time left.

Read more...