Hillary In Or Out?

"I want to hear from you ... Share your thoughts with me."

I had a few hours to kill at Miami airport. The "D" terminal is plastered with large LCD screens of CNN (probably best watched under LSD). CNN was under its own ecstasy with their projection of Obama being the the Democratic Candidate and also bemoaning a reportedly inept speech by John McCain. I didn't see the speech but I got the drift.

Suddenly Hillary appears on all the screens to screaming banner waving supporters. I think she gave one of the best speeches of her candidacy, and it was a non-non-concession speech. The double non is in order because she is giving it some thought, but in the mean time she wants everyone to send emails and hopefully enclose some checks. She looked good and maybe her wait and see posture will work. She emphasized the Democratic Party should count every vote and by the way, she got more of them.

On a personal note, I watched the body language and facial expressions of black travelers and airport personnel. They were understandably moved and proud of their moment. So they should be. By the way, anyone see my guy's speech? How bad was it?

Hillary and O'Reilly

The Democrats may be stuck with Obama, and Bill O'Reilly may have made them regret the choice. Hillary was at the top her game. She listened, talked on point, grasped the details and spoke with clarity and made cogent arguments for her positions. The New York Times noticed:

Democrats and Fox News Make Friends


By BRIAN STELTER NYT
Published: May 2, 2008

Standing in front of a television camera last week, the chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, Terry McAuliffe, uttered four words that the Fox News Channel would not soon forget.

“Fair and balanced Fox!,” he exclaimed, noting that the network was the first to project Mrs. Clinton’s Pennsylvania primary win.

Fox executives could not have asked for a more rousing endorsement. The next day it showed up in promotions.

All of a sudden, the once-frosty relationship between Fox News and the Democratic candidates seems to have grown warmer. Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama, who steadfastly refused to attend Fox-sponsored debates last year, are now giving plenty of interviews as they court Fox’s viewers, who are largely white, conservative and undecided.

“It’s probably true that we appeal to white working-class voters,” said Brit Hume, the network’s Washington managing editor and the host of “Special Report.” “The candidates are going where the voters are.”

Conversely, Fox seems to have softened its stance toward the Democrats, mindful of the intense viewer interest in the prolonged primary season. Although Fox News remains firmly in first place among news channels, CNN has crept up in the ratings on primary nights. So Fox wants to appeal to people who might otherwise flip the channel in search of more time with the Democrats.

In short, Fox News and the Democrats abruptly find each other useful.

“I think the candidates are starting to realize that they need to reach the people who we reach already,” said Marty Ryan, the network’s executive producer for political programming.

Last year the Democrats declined most of the network’s interview requests. Barack Obama rejected the network for so long that the show “Fox News Sunday” resorted to a public demand in March, showing a weekly “Obama Watch” clock that counted the days since the senator had promised an interview and failed to make good.

Then the thaw came. Mrs. Clinton has been on Fox 10 times this year, and Mr. Obama has appeared seven times, compared with three times for Mrs. Clinton and two times for Mr. Obama last year. Mr. Obama appeared on “Fox News Sunday” last week, perhaps in pursuit of moderate voters in Indiana and North Carolina.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Mrs. Clinton was questioned for an hour on “The O’Reilly Factor,” whose host, Bill O’Reilly, is something of a poster boy among liberal voters who think of Fox as the media arm of conservatives.

“You’re a polarizing personality,” Mr. O’Reilly chuckled during the interview. “You’re like I am, and I hate to say that,” he said. (Perhaps the same words could have been said to him by Mrs. Clinton, though they were not.)

The first part of the interview set a year-to-date viewership record for “The O’Reilly Factor,” according to Nielsen Media Research, with 3.66 million people tuning in, about one million above average.

Political calculations are evident on both sides. With Fox leading the coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.’s remarks, it was logical for Mr. Obama to appear on Fox and respond.

“In the end, they don’t do it for us — they do it for themselves,” said Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday,” referring to the Democrats and their decisions to come on the show. He said that he assumed that Mr. Obama’s “defeats in Ohio and Pennsylvania convinced him that he needs to reach out to blue-collar, moderate and conservative Democratic voters.”

(the rest of the story)

Hillary Vanishing Fast

Hard to ignore the trend now...

Ashish

Following another weekend of mostly bad news that revolved around two more incidents of people questioning her stories and the resignation of her chief strategist Mark Penn, Monday kicks off with...well, more bad news.

ARG has their new poll of Pennsylvania out, conducted on April 5th and 6th and making it the latest poll done of the state, and the news is stunning. Barack Obama 45%, Hillary Clinton 45. Last week, Clinton led 51% to 39%. That means that ARG has her falling six points and Obama moving up six points in ONE WEEK. The poll is also right in line with three other polls from last week that have the race as a virtual tie. Clinton led by 20+ points in PA just a few weeks ago and it now appears that lead is all but gone.

As I stated last week, her collapse in the state is happening due to a few reasons, I suspect. One, the media is now reporting that Clinton has virtually no chance of winning, and that results in many of her supporters becoming demoralized and thus they begin to tell pollsters that they no longer plan to go and vote (and thus they are not factored in polls). Two, her credibility is being destroyed by all the stories of her being caught exaggerating or making up stories, first with Bosnia, then with the healthcare story that was exposed a few days ago, then with her claim that she opposed the War in Iraq before Obama did in the Senate, only to have that proven wrong. Third, she is running out of money as I wrote about a few days ago and therefore can't do much to counter all the ads Obama is running in the state.

And the most troubling news for her is that two weeks remain until voting day. If Obama is going to maintain a 5-to-1 spending advantage over her for those two weeks, it's hard to see her stop this trend and regain a big lead. Because remember, she doesn't just need to win, she needs to win by 10+ points. Obama has already stated that he will view any loss of less than 10 points in PA as a victory. We saw Obama get to this point, a virtual tie after being down 20+ points, in both Texas and Ohio, but he didn't have the time to close the deal. Now, he has caught up to Clinton and still has plenty of time left to campaign in the state, run his ads, etc. The big question is whether he goes for the kill in PA, a state that very few still expect him to win, or continue to share his time between PA, NC, and IN. I suspect he'll wait to see how his numbers look next week before deciding whether to spend all his time the week before PA voting in the state or to shift focus to NC and IN.

But the main point to take away from this poll is the race in PA is very close now, and that by itself makes the entire state a loss for Clinton already unless she turns things around. She has to win big, and what looked like a likely 10+ point win for her a few weeks ago now doesn't seem so likely.

Hillary and Obama Raw

The Black Sheep and the Republican Cardinals

Looking for guidance

If there is a national conservative pundit that supports John McCain, someone will have to help me out. I do not know who it is. Romney seems wobbly at best and Rudy is a puzzlement. Is it possible that it will be Huckabee or McCain? It certainly appears that it could be McCain. Based on Hillary's victory speech in New Hampshire, she is going left and populist. The Democrats are going to fracture with the blacks feeling like their moment was taken from them. The Republicans will be faced with a breakup or a makeup. Steady as you go, interesting times ahead.

Did the Inarticulator Do In Hillary?

Everything in life is context. Singular events happen and they do so as a result of the times or in a manner that changes them. JFK followed a tired and gray Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a great war time general and an adequate and competent President. He was not a good speaker. A young, handsome and witty, glib and polished, New Englander made a sharp contrast to old Ike. JFK glittered against the dull grayness of Eisenhower.

In an odd twist, Hillary is bedeviled by the stumbling prose of GWB. Had Bush been a fine speaker and governed the same, Obama's coinage would not appear to be so bright.

Could fate be so cruel that Hillary's context in time tripped her presidential ambitions on the twisted syntax and garble of George W. Bush? Cruelty and irony often shine in politics and Obama may very well bling his way to the Oval Office and that would be unfortunate for Clinton, Obama and us.

I hope Hillary fights on and has the mettle to take on Obama, not because I want her to win, but because I want either Obama or Hillary to be the best candidate to face the best Republican. That is our system like it or not.

A Candidacy's Prose and Cons

By E. J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post
Tuesday, January 8, 2008; Page A19

CONCORD, N.H. -- Hillary Clinton may have unintentionally written the obituary for the Iowa and New Hampshire phase of her presidential campaign, and perhaps her candidacy, when she told voters on Sunday: "You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."

Clinton has not heeded her own lesson. She is campaigning in prose and has left the poetry to Barack Obama. She has answers to hard policy questions, but he has the one answer that voters are hungering for: He offers himself as the vehicle for creating a new political movement that will break the country out of a sour, reactionary political era.

The most telling laugh line in Obama's stump speech is his description of the dreadful charge his opponents make against him. "Obama's talking about hope again," the candidate says, mimicking his foes. Then his tenor drops to a low, conspiratorial pitch: "He's a hope monger." His audiences roar.

There is a certain melancholy in watching Clinton do battle. Obviously aware that the bottom is falling out from under her, she choked up Monday during her last day of campaigning here. By way of proving her tenacity and the depth of her policy knowledge, she has subjected herself to unremitting rounds of questions from voters about every issue from health care to global warming.

Clinton knows her stuff and would pass the most rigorous test available under any "No Policy Left Behind" program for politicians. If we chose a president by examination rather than election, she would win. In Hampton on Sunday night, Maggie Wood Hassan, a prominent state senator, said of Clinton's savvy on health care: "There isn't a single piece of the puzzle she hasn't figured out." True, but voters right now are not thinking about intricate puzzles.

There is compassion in Clinton's wonkiness. At a rally in Penacook on Saturday, she spoke with energy about the struggles of foster parents and the suffering of foster children. She pledged to make their problems a priority of her presidency, even if there are no headlines in it. She sounded absolutely believable.

Yet if Clinton's answers come off as well-intended lectures, Obama is offering soaring sermons and generational opportunity. In 1960, the articulate Adlai Stevenson compared his own oratory unfavorably with John F. Kennedy's. "Do you remember," Stevenson said, "that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said, 'Let us march.' " At this hour, Obama is the Democrats' Demosthenes.

It is no accident that the two best preachers on the trail, Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee, broke through in Iowa -- even if Huckabee's prospects here and in the long run are dimmer than Obama's. And it has to be painful for Bill and Hillary Clinton, who saw themselves 16 years ago as the heirs to John and Robert Kennedy, to watch Obama march off as the champion of a vast band of young and practical idealists.

The Clinton campaign is rooted in the idea that "Experience Counts" -- ironically enough, Richard Nixon's slogan against John Kennedy in 1960. But it is Obama who may have precisely the right experience for the mood of the moment. As a community organizer early in his professional life, Obama understood his task as catalyzing citizens into building movements for change. Obama's speeches are about citizen action, assembling coalitions, forcing change through popular demand.

"I'm betting on you," Obama told a rapturous audience in Derry on Sunday afternoon. "I don't believe change comes from the top down. It comes from the bottom up." Change will come "if you believe," Obama declares.

"When you've got a working majority behind you," he says at another point, "you can't be stopped." Transformation is not about policy details but about altering the political and social calculus. Obama presents himself, in one of Karl Rove's favorite phrases, as a game-changer.

If Obama seems to have history's winds at his back, Clinton is carrying history's burdens. In trying to push her way back into the contest by Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states vote, Clinton would have to press her sober case that, as good as Obama sounds, she's the one who is vetted and tested. "If you want to know which kind of change we will make," she pleaded to her Sunday night crowd, "look at what we've already done."

Here again, the echoes of the past are eerie. It was Hubert Humphrey, on the aging side of the generational divide in 1968, who declared: "Some people talk about change, others cause it." Hubert Humphrey was a great man. He did not become president.