According to today’s Iowa Rasmussen poll which has Hillary Clinton up dramatically, eighty-nine percent (89%) of Likely Democratic Caucus Participants believe the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. Democrats nationally are fired up and know we will rout the RIPublicans out of our White House and our Congress in 2008. Democrats know we are selecting the next president when we nominate the Democratic Party candidate. Democrats want to win. Democrats want a fighter as our nominee.
In We Can’t Spare This General. She Fights we compared Hillary Clinton to the great fighting civil war Union general Ulysses S. Grant. We wrote:
Grant was a fighter but he also knew how to build his forces and lead them to victory. Grant was a master tactician and master strategist who listened to the best ideas from others. Grant led the Union forces to victory over slavery and the evil that was the Confederacy.
In contrast, General McClellan, the General replaced by Grant, had talked a good game, usually to get himself out of actual battle. McClellan was a showboat who looked good in his uniform and loved parades. McClellan was a media star. But McClellan did not want to fight. Eventually he ran for president against Lincoln on a Copperhead platform vowing to negotiate with the Confederacy to end the Civil War by compromising on slavery.
As in the 1860s, the United States is very polarized today too. We need a fighter not a showboat.
For the record once again: any Democrat nominated by the Democratic Party will be attacked and attacked viciously, relentlessly, dishonorably, and unfairly. But Hillary will fight and fight effectively. Hillary will not be swiftboated and then wait weeks to respond. Hillary will not be swiftboated.
What will quickly and effectively unify the Ripublicans?
One word: weakness.
The Ripublicans are now discouraged. They know Hillary will unite the Democratic Party and run an intelligent and courageous and effective and successful campaign. Hillary will deflate and demoralize the Ripublicans because they know she will win.
The Ripublicans will unite and be happy and encouraged if they think they can win. If they smell blood in the water, or fear, or inexperience they will unite into one angry pack and gnaw and bite and chew on Democrats everywhere. They will attack the weak, run away from the fearless and strong.
Which brings us to the weak, the timid, the concilliating, the AWOL – the Obama campaign.
In April of this year Ezra Klein, for all intents and purposes an Edwards supporter, discussed the Obama tropism towards bloodless concilliation. Klein wrote about Democrats,
They want someone they can trust to fight for them. Hillary’s prominent flaunting of her years in the Democratic trenches comforts these voters, as does Edwards visceral populism, as did Bill Clinton’s preternatural empathy. And this is what Obama lacks.
Clinton’s warrior persona is deeply felt; she’s spent decades engaged in a vicious battle against the right, and her enduring presence on the national stage is proof positive of her commitment….But Obama has not fought the same fights. His ascension into public life has been mostly positive, his toughest races against Democrats rather than Republicans, his treatment from the right largely — or at least atypically — positive. He feels the possibility of unity, of bringing people together, because his experience has taught him that that’s possible. His reformism is deeply held. But it may not be what Democratic primary voters want.
Obama has not fought the same fights. Obama hasn’t fought period – against Ripublicans. Against Democrats Obama is willing to sling mud. Democrats want to fight – Ripublicans.
Today’s Washington Post asks the same question which we have answered – Does Obama’s Message Match the Moment?
Reconciliation May Be Hard Sell to Angry Party.
As Obama positions himself for the stretch run for the Democratic presidential nomination, his call for a “new kind of politics” faces a broad test in his own party, and not just of whether it makes any criticism of his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), seem hypocritical. As the pointed questions he received here suggest, it may be that his summons to “turn the page” past the country’s red-blue polarization is not what many Democrats want to hear after seven years of mounting anger at Bush and the Republican-dominated government.
Obama’s message is a defense of Bush and the Ripublicans. Obama defends and wants to work with the same Bush and Ripublicans who veto and fight against health programs for children. Americans by 80% support S-CHIP legislation which provides health care to children, something Hillary has fought for. What kind of concilliation does Obama want with these Ripublicans who fight against all reason for child health programs? Why does Obama, with his speeches, defend Ripublicans and protect them from the full responsibility of their hideous actions?
Obama faults a broken system in Washington for failures that many Democratic voters attribute simply to having the other side in power. By contrast, Clinton more directly exploits Democrats’ feelings of resentment. She argues that the troubles of the past seven years — the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, the widening income gap — are the result not of broken politics in Washington but of poor Republican governance, and she says that she would offer competent leadership to fix what has gone awry since her husband left the White House.
Obama accentuated the basic differences yesterday in Iowa. Reminded by a shop owner in Vinton that Clinton is proposing a universal health-care plan just as he is, Obama countered that electing Clinton president would not be enough to get health-care reform passed. “It can’t be the same kind of partisan battling we had in the ’90s,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “I think I can do better than Hillary Clinton, and that’s why I’m running.”
Despicable. RIPublicans are to blame for the Iraq war, the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, the widening income gap. Obama absolves RIPublicans of their responsibility and turns the page to blame a great Democratic president – Bill Clinton.
In effect, this seems to lift some of the blame for the war from the Bush administration and place it on the backs of Democrats, an unlikely tack in a Democratic primary. “There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush’s war, it’s all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney,” Obama said in Coralville. “The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalogue of many mistakes — it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought.”
Obama’s unifying message was the strategy of choice, Axelrod said, because it has been the main theme of his career. If Obama does not criticize Bush and Republicans more, he said, it is because he has “never been an aficionado of the cheap applause line.” As for the idea that Obama should instead frame his message around the fact that he has none of Clinton’s baggage and would therefore be a better candidate in November, Axelrod said he doubts that approach would work.
Denouncing Bush and the RIPublicans, like Hillary does, is not a “cheap applause line” – IT’S THE TRUTH.