Your Thoughts: Clinton's Woudda Done It Strategy

I asked:

Imagine it's October of 2007 you're sitting in a soundproof conference room with Patti Solis Doyle, Mandy Grunwald, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson. They've told you that they think Barack Obama will be a big threat to Hillary Clinton. They've asked you to develop a strategy to defeat him. What's that strategy?

Your best answers included:

Could Clinton have gotten Chelsea to do campaign stops in Iowa and emphasize youth issues (student loans, national service), and won Iowa, then rolled? Seems plausible.

Plan B is to bank the wins in CA and AZ on early votes, and then stop campaigning there in person. Spend more time in competitive territory: CO, CT, AL, maybe even GA. If she had picked up another 50 delegates there, she could have made the case the she would cruise to the nomination.

In addition, if it's still a contested nomination after South Carolina, Clinton should have started running negative ads about Obama's health care plan not covering everybody. Obama could kick up dust, but it's pretty clear it doesn't cover everyone.

and

Since you've invented a time machine here I suggest setting the dial for 2000 and have Hillary run for the Senate in Illinois, her home state, instead of New York. Senator Clinton (D-Il) means no Senator Obama (D-Il).

and

...

4. Speak at Dodd's first filibuster over FISA in support of the filibuster.

5. Dont vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Its a nothing bill with no teeth or impact, but it looks bad. As soon as I heard she voted for it, I knew it was huge mistake.

6. Dont hire Patti Solis Doyle. Hire James Carville. Dont hire Mark Penn. Hire Paul Begala. Get Mandy Grunwald on TV as your principle spokesperson.

and

Steal Obama's message early, it will become yours.

and

It should be noted that electability was never Hillary's strongsuit (and it became much more of an Achilles heel with the McCain nomination), but casting the economy rather than the general election as the principle variable as to whether change can take hold would have forced Obama to spend more time arguing "I am going to do what you guys did," rather than "I am going to accomplish all you failed to accomplish."

Comments

Yay! (Channeling some Arrested Development here:)
Mark read comments!

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 22, 2008 3:28 PM

First, the obvious: don't take your own victory for granted, and prepare for the long haul.

Second, create a nationwide small donor base, especially amongst your best base demographic -- women of all ages, especially older women.

Moving beyond the obvious-in-hindsight: Take a page from your own effective New York Senate race playbook and embark on a nationwide "Listening Tour." You are most effective when you actually engage voters, on their own level, one-by-one and face-to-face. You can't compete with Obama's eloquence, and you can't steal his "change" message. But you can challenge him on the authenticity front, not by calling into question his, but by demonstrating your own.

(Hillary's best performances were in New Hampshire and Nevada, when she campaigned in this way, embodying the humble public servant. Why she largely abandoned that approach thereafter is a mystery to me...)

Posted by David Greenson | February 22, 2008 3:34 PM

I have to say that I don't agree with the idea that attacking Barack Obama on his health care plan would have made too much of a difference. Sure, he doesn't include a mandate, and that annoys the heck out of Paul Krugman and some other liberals, but it seems obvious that the average Democrat doesn't really care that their candidate's health care plan is "universal." They just want some assurance that they'll be able to keep the health care they have, or get some from the government if they lose what they have. I personally support the mandate idea, but its bad politics, if nothing else. There's really not an upside to supporting it, other than perhaps charming the Krugmans of the nation.

Ultimately, the biggest suggestion I would have made would have been this: don't assume Obama is another Howard Dean. Don't take him lightly. Don't dismiss him. The Clinton team did all of those things, and they are this close to losing everything. If they'd taken Barack seriously from the beginning, and modeled strategy accordingly, they might have pulled it out.

Posted by Lev | February 22, 2008 3:39 PM

There are plenty of good ideas, sorry for the minor point that most of them are tactics not strategies.

It is the love of tactics that make the Clintons good at politics, but Obama is giving lessons on strategy.

Strategy trumps tactics in a long contest.

Posted by Kim | February 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Honestly, I think this election has been less about rejection of Hillary than confirmation of Obama. I don't think anybody can beat him. It's who he is, what he stands for after eight miserable, despondent, partisan years. She can't change her personality, she can't change all the negatives of her connection to her husband. I knew he was going to win a year ago once people knew him. I just had that feeling.

Posted by elizabeth | February 22, 2008 3:48 PM

"Strategy trumps tactics in a long contest."

Given how close the party got to just giving Hillary the nomination, a couple of tactical changes might have worked.

1. Keep the muzzle on Bill. His atrocious behavior in South Carolina not only galvanized black support for Obama, it turned off a lot of other people from rallying to Hillary's side as she ran into trouble.

2. Contest the caucuses and small state primaries. If she could have just kept her margin of defeat in those places to 10 points, instead of 20 or 30 or 40 points, we'd be looking at a very different delegate picture.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 22, 2008 4:17 PM

1. Prevent her husband from stealing the spotlight. It's amazing they didn't have a strategy to deal with the "co-presidency" question, considering it was all the media talked about last year.

2. Less stupid attacks and press statements. No denigrating Obama's victories. Keep attacks on substance. Experience, health care -- fine. Plagiarism -- idiotic.

3. Don't appear sleazy! The whole Florida and Michigan thing, plus the threats to rely on super-delegates, brought back the whole idea that "the Clintons" are sleazy. (Not that those issues are settled.) Clearly, her campaign staff and spinners thought of themselves as a lot more clever than they were. Hint: It's only a clever political ploy if no one notices. Along those lines ...

4. More humility. The "listening tour" in New York was genius, because it showed she didn't think she was "entitled" to the seat.

5. More emotion, and more talk about what drives her. Obama was giving beautiful oratory, and she was repeating attack lines. Hillary can be moving, as the other night proved. But we rarely saw that side of her.

To be honest, many Democrats, including me, thought the whole "Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton" thing was distasteful, and there was not much she could do about that. I am surprised Obama didn't make more of an issue out of it.

Posted by noho1 | February 22, 2008 4:25 PM

Problem is there ain't no time machine, and there ain't no "do over" in politics or the Super Bowl. When you're toast, you're toast.

Posted by John, Las Vegas, NV | February 22, 2008 4:37 PM

Despite my love of time machines going back in time in 2000 would not work because there was no Senate Race in 2000 for Illinois. The last four races were 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 the only open race (without a democratic incumbent)for democrats would be in 2004 that Obama won.

Of course that would not stop a person having a time machine.

Posted by Daniel Roberts | February 22, 2008 4:50 PM

Can we stop it already with the Chelsea worship? They keep sending her places and it never changes anything. Howzabout that 3 day vacation in Hawaii? Obama wins 76%-24%. Sending her to Iowa would have been another nice gesture with zero results.

Posted by Tim | February 22, 2008 5:03 PM

Enivatibily out of the gates with Penn ushering poll after to poll to make the masses capitulate was a a turn off from my perspective. I suspect people do not like to be told that you will be their eventual nominee. So a more humble tone that strive working for your vote from the get go could have struck the right cord.

To say she is a great debater is the biggest sham of the sheep have swallowed during theis election cycle. Polished, yes. Evasive too often. By evading questions, she was not being direct and came off as vague. For example, her stance on social security. The turning point in the campaign was her non answer on drivers licenses for immigrants.

Her strategist were running a campaign for the nineties instead of a modern campaign. The did not utilize the web effectively. Especially, the sites geared for younger voters like Youtube and Facebook.

What it also boils down to is that she was running against a guy you could not let win out of the gates. She needed to pour in the major resources in Iowa.

I could go on...

Posted by Mark | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

Certain things are not eraseable and were blot's on Hillary's inevitability from the beginning:

1) Iraq

2) Iran

3) Iraq. Of, did I list that already?

4) Iraq. It is that important.

5) She blew the health care business in 1993 and never learned the lesson of it about how to create and lead majorities.

6) The Clintons are sleazy and unprincipled.

7) Hillary has her own personal negatives.

8) Iraq

Posted by joe | February 22, 2008 5:23 PM

The "listening tour" does seem like a very good idea, but I think it's symptomatic of a more general strategic error: The lack of grassroots support. There was, in retrospect, too much (arrogant) assumption that certain demographics would vote for her [African-Americans, women, Hispanics, Whites, union-members ...] and not enough asking them for their vote. The 55-60% support she had in the polls early on were people who were willing to vote for her but not positively engaged in her campaign. So when Obama asked these people to become part of his campaign, and he seemed like an okay choice as well, they did. In short, more of other people's voices and less reliance on her voice.

That said, maybe the Mike Henry strategy of skipping Iowa might have worked too. There's a reasonable chance that if she had that John Edwards, not Obama, would have won Iowa. She could have argued that he spent 4 years pandering to Iowa so that it wasn't very meaningful and in the meantime Obama never would have given that victory speech in Iowa that promoted him to serious contender. (Although that tack is admittedly a little tricky to square with "less arrogance".)

Posted by milandv | February 22, 2008 5:31 PM

Pay Vilsack to stay in the race instead of paying him to get out.

Fire Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson.

Own up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake.

Posted by JC | February 22, 2008 5:51 PM

If you think that any surrogate could have helped Hillary in Iowa you are deluding yourself. As an Iowan whose life revolves around politics, I can tell you that the war was always Hillary's achilles heel here.

She should have apologized for her vote authorizing the President to go to war. The war as an issue is the starkest difference between Clinton and Obama.

Obama used Clinton's war vote to neutralize the experience gap. What good is all that experience if she doesn't have good judgement regarding important issues.

Do not take money from lobbyists. I think this issue goes back to the war. Lobby money= influence. Influence=Halliburton. John Edwards drove this point home time and time again.

Wait to trot Bill out to Iowans until the last days before the caucuses. I was shocked when Hillary and BIll were campaigning together in Iowa on the 4th of July. Everyone knows Iowans don't make up their minds until the last week. If he had waited to show up until then it would have been a mad dash to see him and it would have sucked all the air out of Obama's mo.
It turned out that the night before the caucuses Obama drew 2,000 people at a rally in Waterloo, while down the street the former President of the United states drew 200!

I truly believe that strategically there was little else she could do against Obamas legendary ground game. His organization is legendary in Iowa. Believe me everyone at the party meetings is going to be begging for his phone calling software and his other organizing ideas.
The bottom line is that when the majority of your party is against the war in Iraq, and you vote to authorize this war,and won't repudiate it, you shouldn't be surprised when the members of your party cast a suspicious eye at everything else you say.

Posted by Katy | February 22, 2008 6:07 PM

you mean run as first lady in 98 in a primary against the second popularly elected african-american senator in the history of this country or wait til 04? cause the illinois senate seat wasnt on the table in 2000...and as everybody knew then - she had the presidency on her mind - so time was most certainly of the essence

Posted by lincoln | February 22, 2008 6:13 PM

Watch more YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Posted by tongassberry | February 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Watch more YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Posted by tongassberry | February 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Question: If any American moved to France, do you think the French would deny their country's main language to be the official language. Hell no. I am pissed that Hilary would say no to English being the official language of America. I don't mind dual language schools, menus, street signs, etc. Spanish is the second spoken language in America. BUT, if immigrants move to an English speaking country, it's their obligation to learn English. If you go to Miami, there is such an arrogance, that Americans feel like foreigners in their own country. The spanish speaking store owners, bank tellers, etc., refuse to speak "English". Americans in Miami have complained for years. Although I am voting for Obama, I believe both are wrong on this point. Hilary said it loud and clear. No mistaking that.

Posted by Sick of kiss up Hilary | February 22, 2008 7:03 PM

Question: If any American moved to France, do you think the French would deny their country's main language to be the official language. Hell no. I am pissed that Hilary would say no to English being the official language of America. I don't mind dual language schools, menus, street signs, etc. Spanish is the second spoken language in America. BUT, if immigrants move to an English speaking country, it's their obligation to learn English. If you go to Miami, there is such an arrogance, that Americans feel like foreigners in their own country. The spanish speaking store owners, bank tellers, etc., refuse to speak "English". Americans in Miami have complained for years. Although I am voting for Obama, I believe both are wrong on this point. Hilary said it loud and clear. No mistaking that.

Posted by Sick of kiss up Hilary | February 22, 2008 7:03 PM

Question: If any American moved to France, do you think the French would deny their country's main language to be the official language. Hell no. I am pissed that Hilary would say no to English being the official language of America. I don't mind dual language schools, menus, street signs, etc. Spanish is the second spoken language in America. BUT, if immigrants move to an English speaking country, it's their obligation to learn English. If you go to Miami, there is such an arrogance, that Americans feel like foreigners in their own country. The spanish speaking store owners, bank tellers, etc., refuse to speak "English". Americans in Miami have complained for years. Although I am voting for Obama, I believe both are wrong on this point. Hilary said it loud and clear. No mistaking that.

Posted by Sick of kiss up Hilary | February 22, 2008 7:04 PM

If she had renounced the war and run a 100% positive campaign, she would have won the nomination with Obama as VP. Simple as that. Short of that, setting up an actual political organization based on grassroots feminist support would have seen her through to Pennsylvania both in terms of delegates and money, but the only way to win would have been to straight up bribe Edwards to stay in.

Posted by some dude | February 22, 2008 7:21 PM

How Obama won Iowa

*He made the financial commitment well ahead of Clinton to invest in Iowa by building a statewide campaign with offices and field staff throughout Iowa.

*Leadership at the top from Paul Tewes, Mitch Stewart and Jackie Norris.
These three made themselves available, returned calls and created an environment that promoted inclusion and openness. They believed in their candidate and his message and this passion helped to connect with volunteers on a more personal level, unlike any that I have witnessed in a Presidential campaign. Trust and respect prevented infigting and egos from getting in the way of Barack's Presidential bid.

*First quarter campaign finance reports that showed Obama ahead of Hillary gave the campaign needed credibility and a nice boost.

*The campaign devoted significant resources to outreach efforts in the early days.
This contributed to solidifying the strategy of getting new voters to the polls, again well ahead of the Clinton campaign, who believed that this demographic would not vote.

*Turning point was Jefferson-Jackson Dinner when Barack gave his now famous speech and the organization demonstrated its strength through a show of force, created momentum and psychologically crushed the Clinton campaign. That night people began to believe (including the candidate) that winning Iowa could be accomplished.

*His message of change stayed consistent, no second guessing. When others talked it about it they were not seen as credible because Obama owned the “message of change.” And Barack avoided many of the road bumps that we expected to encounter because he learned to stay on message. Clinton’s message changed numerous times, not quite sure anyone really knew what it was.

*People could see him improving and getting stronger on the stump. And as he got stronger, his campaign got stronger. Fire generated more fire.

*Young campaign staffers were more passionate and connected better with people throughout Iowa. Passion trumped experience on this level.

• The campaigns sense of timing was perfect.

Posted by Dale T, CR, IA | February 22, 2008 9:16 PM

If Hillary didn't vote for the Iraq war in 2002 then Obama would have never ran this year. The touchstone of his run was the 2002 speech he gave. It was really the only notable difference between him and everybody else last year.

So playing along, she should have never voted for the AAUMF. The sad part is, that I never believed that she actually believed we should pre-emptively go to war, but she did not to look week. The ultimate irony is that it is the foundation of her undoing.

And I use to respect her.

Posted by zeus | February 22, 2008 10:48 PM

what I meant to say in the end was...

"she did not want to look weak."

Posted by Zeus | February 22, 2008 10:50 PM

Hillary shoulda-
1. Divorced Bill claiming abuse.
2. Air dropped bundles of $50.00's over SAouth Carolina.
3.Published photos of Obama in bed with a live boy or dead girl (Sorry edwin Edwards and Huey Long).
4. Started sobbing at each debate.
Enjoy your exile in NY Hil!

Posted by remus | February 22, 2008 11:33 PM

I read these comments on a lot of blogs and have come to the conclusion that most of the people who comment do not read any thing else but blogs.
HRC voted for the Iraq bill because ...1. We had been attacked and lost the World Trade Center and almost 3000 lives by very nasty people who vowed to get all of us...Flight 93, The Pentagon..just a few attacks. The World Trade Center happened to be in Hillarys state. Do you remember? Do you remember how in an instant she went to Congress and got millions of dollars and support for New York to deal with this attack? Of course you don't remember. She was there that day with the Firemen and Police who lived through it and vowed to her constituents and to all Americans she and all New Yorkers and all citizens of the United States would not rest until the terrorists were brought to justice and all the casualties of that attack were identified and their families taken care of along with complete care for the survivors. She also vowed to help each and every business regain all they lost on that horrible day. She worked every day with out notice or fanfare to accomplish these goals. No one could ever give those lives back to the remaining family members-she knew that and did not make a political grandstand of her work with Chuck Schumer.
These attacks were very much on her mind and the threat of more attacks and the loss of more Americans was looming over us every day. George Bush and his intelligence agencies missed the warnings completely-obviously-so GWB and his crony Dick Cheney set about to make it better by attacking an enemy they knew. They created false intelligence reports and sent the great Colin Powell door to door to fool every one. He led the charge for them for two reasons 1.-He was GWB man and 2. He was a service man his entire life and he believed-like Hillary believed and 80% of congress that GWB might be a schmuck but he wouldn't dare lie about anything this important.
Remember what Obama says to you each day.."A president is someone you trust..." who would have in that climate gone against the Patriotic responsibility of protecting us and getting the evil one who did this to us. The reports Powell was forced to peddle along with the head of the CIA said Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them. GWB even showed photos of mass graves filled with innocent people Hussien had slaughtered. He fooled all of us. GWB, the CIA they all lied. In fact, the report was just released that said GWB and his cronies told the country and Congress and the committees in Congress 138 lies re: Iraq, Saddam and the threat they posed. Didn't you read that?
All of you would have voted the way our congress did and the way OBAMA voted when he was elected to the Senate. He made the big speech which he throws up there pretending he is above the entire world on the judgement level because he gave that speech. He could. He was not involved on any level at that time and had he been a Senator he would have voted the same way the overwhelming majority voted because all of us were fooled by GWB. We were fooled because our innocent people were slaughtered. We were fooled because our tallest symbols of America were burned down in front of our eyes on national tv.
We do elect our representatives to take care of us in times of turmoil and all of them and our young men dying now and all of the innocent people who have been killed in Iraq should get together to impeach George Bush..not knock down the wonderful people who tried to protect us and our families and politicize this tragedy. Barak Obama should tell all of us he has voted for the war each and every opportunity he can since he was elected.
So back off of the Iraq thing..its wrong- in hindsight..so is George Bush. It is a mistake we will be paying for for a long time and any one who can so cavalierly write off the passions of the American people for his political gain is just as idiotic.
When all of you want an example of judgement look at Rezko and how many times Obama lied about it and again on debate eve admitted he has been friends with Rezko..the man he denied knowing 5 times on national tv and swore during the debate with HRC that is entire involvement with Rezko was 5 hours of billable legal work through a church his firm was representing.
If you want an example of judgement look at his 140 walks or as Chicagoans call them 'present' votes. Its not difficult to decide if you want to protect the rights of sexually abused children, is it? Oh, another judgement call that was shady..Obama claimed he authored that bill..he did not.
Are we speaking of judgement? Drugs? John McCain and Hillary Clinton never did drugs and I guess that should be a pass on good judgement for Obama when he lectures to children in schools 'its Ok as long as you do what I do!""I am the President wanna be"..
So, as HRC says..it is what it is. I say don't even try to tell me to join you 'folks'. It is an American embarrassment that you idolize someone who you know nothing about because he speaks other peoples old speeches very well.

Posted by M Miller | February 22, 2008 11:50 PM

I read these comments on a lot of blogs and have come to the conclusion that most of the people who comment do not read any thing else but blogs.
HRC voted for the Iraq bill because ...1. We had been attacked and lost the World Trade Center and almost 3000 lives by very nasty people who vowed to get all of us...Flight 93, The Pentagon..just a few attacks. The World Trade Center happened to be in Hillarys state. Do you remember? Do you remember how in an instant she went to Congress and got millions of dollars and support for New York to deal with this attack? Of course you don't remember. She was there that day with the Firemen and Police who lived through it and vowed to her constituents and to all Americans she and all New Yorkers and all citizens of the United States would not rest until the terrorists were brought to justice and all the casualties of that attack were identified and their families taken care of along with complete care for the survivors. She also vowed to help each and every business regain all they lost on that horrible day. She worked every day with out notice or fanfare to accomplish these goals. No one could ever give those lives back to the remaining family members-she knew that and did not make a political grandstand of her work with Chuck Schumer.
These attacks were very much on her mind and the threat of more attacks and the loss of more Americans was looming over us every day. George Bush and his intelligence agencies missed the warnings completely-obviously-so GWB and his crony Dick Cheney set about to make it better by attacking an enemy they knew. They created false intelligence reports and sent the great Colin Powell door to door to fool every one. He led the charge for them for two reasons 1.-He was GWB man and 2. He was a service man his entire life and he believed-like Hillary believed and 80% of congress that GWB might be a schmuck but he wouldn't dare lie about anything this important.
Remember what Obama says to you each day.."A president is someone you trust..." who would have in that climate gone against the Patriotic responsibility of protecting us and getting the evil one who did this to us. The reports Powell was forced to peddle along with the head of the CIA said Saddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction and he was going to use them. GWB even showed photos of mass graves filled with innocent people Hussien had slaughtered. He fooled all of us. GWB, the CIA they all lied. In fact, the report was just released that said GWB and his cronies told the country and Congress and the committees in Congress 138 lies re: Iraq, Saddam and the threat they posed. Didn't you read that?
All of you would have voted the way our congress did and the way OBAMA voted when he was elected to the Senate. He made the big speech which he throws up there pretending he is above the entire world on the judgement level because he gave that speech. He could. He was not involved on any level at that time and had he been a Senator he would have voted the same way the overwhelming majority voted because all of us were fooled by GWB. We were fooled because our innocent people were slaughtered. We were fooled because our tallest symbols of America were burned down in front of our eyes on national tv.
We do elect our representatives to take care of us in times of turmoil and all of them and our young men dying now and all of the innocent people who have been killed in Iraq should get together to impeach George Bush..not knock down the wonderful people who tried to protect us and our families and politicize this tragedy. Barak Obama should tell all of us he has voted for the war each and every opportunity he can since he was elected.
So back off of the Iraq thing..its wrong- in hindsight..so is George Bush. It is a mistake we will be paying for for a long time and any one who can so cavalierly write off the passions of the American people for his political gain is just as idiotic.
When all of you want an example of judgement look at Rezko and how many times Obama lied about it and again on debate eve admitted he has been friends with Rezko..the man he denied knowing 5 times on national tv and swore during the debate with HRC that is entire involvement with Rezko was 5 hours of billable legal work through a church his firm was representing.
If you want an example of judgement look at his 140 walks or as Chicagoans call them 'present' votes. Its not difficult to decide if you want to protect the rights of sexually abused children, is it? Oh, another judgement call that was shady..Obama claimed he authored that bill..he did not.
Are we speaking of judgement? Drugs? John McCain and Hillary Clinton never did drugs and I guess that should be a pass on good judgement for Obama when he lectures to children in schools 'its Ok as long as you do what I do!""I am the President wanna be"..
So, as HRC says..it is what it is. I say don't even try to tell me to join you 'folks'. It is an American embarrassment that you idolize someone who you know nothing about because he speaks other peoples old speeches very well.

Posted by M Miller | February 22, 2008 11:54 PM

Michelle Obama's America -- And Mine
By Michelle Malkin
February 20, 2008
Like Michelle Obama, I am a "woman of color." Like Michelle Obama, I am a working mother of two young children. Like Michelle Obama, I am a member of the 13th generation of Americans born since the founding of our great nation.
Unlike Michelle Obama, I can't keep track of the number of times I've been proud -- really proud -- of my country since I was born and privileged to live in it.
At a speech in Milwaukee this week on behalf of her husband's Democratic presidential campaign, Mrs. Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Mrs. Obama's statement was met with warm applause from other Barack supporters who have apparently also been devoid of pride in their country for their adult lifetimes. Or maybe it was just a Pavlovian response to the word "change." What a sad, empty, narcissistic, ungrateful, unthinking lot.
I'm just seven years younger than Mrs. Obama. We've grown up and lived in the same era. And yet, her self-absorbed attitude is completely foreign to me. What planet is she living on? Since when was now the only time the American people have ever been "hungry for change"? Michelle, ma belle, Barack is not the center of the universe. Newsflash: The Obamas did not invent "change" any more than Hillary invented "leadership" or John McCain invented "straight talk."
We were both adults when the Berlin Wall fell, Michelle. That was earth-shattering change.
We've lived through two decades' worth of peaceful, if contentious election cycles under the rule of law, which have brought about "change" and upheaval, both good and bad.
We were adults through several launches of the space shuttle, in case you were snoozing. And as adults, we've witnessed and benefited from dizzyingly rapid advances in technology, communications, science and medicine pioneered by American entrepreneurs who yearned to change the world and succeeded. You want "change"? Go ask the patients whose lives have been improved and extended by American pharmaceutical companies that have flourished under the best economic system in the world.
If American ingenuity, a robust constitutional republic and the fall of communism don't do it for you, hon, then how about American heroism and sacrifice?
How about every Memorial Day? Every Veterans Day? Every Independence Day? Every Medal of Honor ceremony? Has she never attended a welcome home ceremony for the troops?
For me, there's the thrill of the Blue Angels roaring over cloudless skies. And the somber awe felt amid the hallowed waters that surround the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at the Pearl Harbor memorial.
Every naturalization ceremony I've attended, where hundreds of new Americans raised their hands to swear an oath of allegiance to this land of liberty, has been a moment of pride for me. So have the awesome displays of American compassion at home and around the world. When millions of Americans rallied to help victims of the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia -- including members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group that sped from Hong Kong to assist survivors -- my heart filled with pride. It did again when the citizens of Houston opened their arms to Hurricane Katrina victims and folks across the country rushed to their churches, and Salvation Army and Red Cross offices to volunteer.

Posted by Jerry Chui | February 23, 2008 2:21 AM

I think the "Words" issue is very important because Obama is running his campaign on his words, not on the issues.
Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod is the same one Deval used when he ran for Governor. So this isn't a case of two friends sharing some lines. It's a case of the campaign manager using the same manufactured speech for different clients.
If all Obama has are words, and the words aren't even his own, then what does he have?
And what does it say about our culture when we don't value hard work, ideas or even originality? We're getting to the point where we fall for anything that isn't real.

Posted by Jerry Chui | February 23, 2008 2:23 AM

Jerry Chui,

It is a known fact and a sad one that Hillary's base support is largely people with only high school degree and income of less than $50,000 a year. The implication is that they are the ones more susceptible to be fooled and cast votes based on insignificant and trivial things. Your comment typifies this sad point. Like a lot of obama supporters, I hold a ph.d and find it humorous to hear people like you insinuate that some how we are delusional in supporting him.

it is very apparent that you are very uninformed, Obama has a law degree from Harvard, he was president of Harvard law review and graduated in the top 1% of his class. Further more Obama has written 2 bestsellers by himself; Hillary has books about her written by others! Also Obama has clearly stated that he writes a significant portion of his speeches, can the same be said of Hillary?

The hypocrisy in Hillary's argument is ridiculous. In her closing statement from the debate she plagiarized her husband's line and John Edward's line. I suppose since her candidacy is not based on words it's ok for her to plagiarize?

The reality you and the rest of Hillary Clinton's supporters need to face is that Obama has ran a far better campaign and he has done it in a positive and inspirational fashion that has gotten a lot of young and old people involved.

The U.S. constitution did not put a minimum level of experience required to be president so why has that suddenly become the most important issue? If that is the most important requirement for a U.S. president then John McCain beats both Hillary and Obama.

Obama has proven to have the better judgment, leadership and communication skills, and the right attitude to work with republicans. He opposed the iraq war from the beginning, and Hillary did not. He has the correct stance on immigration reform including addressing the driver's license issue which Hillary is shying from addressing because its unpopular. Obama has 11 years of elected official experience to Hillary's 6, however Hillary wants to count her years as first lady in Arkansa and the white house as part of her work experience. She 1994 she was put in charge of her husband's universal healthcare bill and it was a massive failure but she somehow thinks it will suddenly pass when she is the president? She has mismanaged her campaign but wants us to trust her with our country. She is the establishment and wants us to believe somehow that she is also a change agent?

It seems like you Hillary supporters are the ones that are delusional!

Posted by Afro Baby | February 23, 2008 5:37 AM

"All of you would have voted the way our congress..."

I assure you that is not true. It was apparent to me and many other even before the vote to allow W to do whatever he wanted in Iraq that we would be stuck in an unwinnable quagmire. It's too bad that Congress acted like a bunch of frightened sheep instead of doing their job.

And Jerry, quoting Michelle Malkin is a great way to prove that you're point of view is wrong.

Posted by Lee | February 23, 2008 10:59 AM

They should be talking about how to stop the (Republican) media twisting Hillary's messages.
It doesn't matter what she says they will still project it as a wrong. Hillary's should have full staff to contact the media office as soon as any reporter starts publishing the opinions as news.

Posted by Rajesh | February 23, 2008 11:04 AM

I agree with Elizabeth's observation that this election is less about rejecting Hillary Clinton and more about confirming Barak Obama.

Maybe now we white liberals will recognize that African Americans are half our party and stop treating them like junior partners.

Go Obama.

Posted by robert chapman | February 23, 2008 12:23 PM

The time machine should've taken her back to 2003. She should've run in 2004. Yes, it would mean going for national office in her first Senate term, but the Democratic field that year was WEAK. She could've beat 'em out easily and she would've been a far better test of GWB.

Oh, and if was her instead of Kerry as the Democratic nominee, Obama likely wouldn't have given the convention speech that lifted him out of obscurity and into the stratosphere.

Obama's sense of timing is one of the many advantages he's had over Clinton.

Posted by Illinois observer | February 23, 2008 2:57 PM

Afro Baby did it even occur to you that stating your vote and therefore yourself are worth more than those who are not as educated or earn less money is inherently anti-democratic. When your vanguard sweeps to power will it set the value of those poor simpletons at 3/5 that of the affluent and highly educated Obama supporters?

Despite all of your education, you do not know the differences between the Latin honors. I assume your unfamiliarity is related directly to your grades.

Posted by dictatorship of the professoriat | February 25, 2008 5:29 AM