Update: Joy Behar gets it (video below).
What are the lessons for Hillary Clinton and her supporters from Tuesday night’s
What are minor irritants for Hillary Clinton and her supporters coming out of Tuesday night’s
What is The Real Danger for Hillary Clinton and her supporters from Tuesday night’s
Hillary and her campaign and her supporters must now look at our fundamental premises and strategies for winning the nomination and the general election. Are our fundamental premises and strategies developing as we anticipated? Are our fundamental premises and strategies for this campaign in need of complete revision or minor adjustment or right on target? Is the campaign organization functioning as required?
How do we honestly answer all the above questions? How do we check ourselves and our answers – to make sure that our answers are not whistling past the graveyard, delusional, wishful, stupid, or just plain dumb?
ANSWERS (in no particular order):
The best way in any endeavor or enterprise to check whether you are being honest with yourself, on the right path, not whistling past the graveyard, delusional, thinking wishfully, stupid, or just plain dumb is to apply scientific methodologies to the enterprise. By this we mean you prepare a thesis, you test that thesis in real life, you acquire results. Test those results with your original thesis. If the results are what was you anticipated, (taking into account the circumstances when your thesis was tested) the thesis is accurate. If the results do not comport with your anticipated results – your thesis is wrong. This methodology cuts out self-delusion and associated traps and provides an objective, not subjective, analysis. A reality based analysis.
For instance, if you start a business, first you write a business plan. The business should meet its quarterly results for profits and losses detailed in your business plan. If the business does not achieve the profits and losses anticipated, then at best, the business plan is flawed. At that point the buisiness plan needs revision or a total overhaul.
Intelligent campaigns too have a plan, the campaign strategy, the campaign plan. Periodically and regularly that campaign plan must be reviewed to verify the plan is still viable and still working and still achieving the (good and bad) results expected.
So, to paraphrase former New York City Mayor Ed Koch – How are we doing?
The big answer is we are doing very well and are on target with what we have anticipated and what has been achieved. There have been no bad surprises only good surprises which deviate from the campaign strategy and our expectations. [Using our standards of objective analysis this can be verified by polling data which have Hillary doing very well. Contrast these results to the anticipated results from the other campaigns and you have further objective verification.]
The biggest surprise of this campaign has been what a great campaigner Hillary has become. Hillary has done better in the many debates and the many campaign appearances than any of us anticipated. The Hillary Team has also been superlative. The Hillary Team anticipates problems and deals with those problems immediately.
The minor irritants coming out of Tuesday night’s debate are the distortions about what Hillary said during the debate. The comments on this week’s earlier articles in Big Pink pretty much answer these irritants. We’ll review them quickly below.
The driver’s license for “illegal” immigrants issue is the most talked about irritant. Senator Dodd will eventually realize the problem he has opened up with his own supporters over this issue due to his very basic dishonesty. The link HERE demolishes the anti-Hillary narrative on this issue. As to the general election and this issue, let’s worry about it when we are in the general election (hint: plenty of states provide this type of license including Bush’s Texas and Bush’s Florida because cars do not discriminate on who or what they hit.)
Obama moaned and groaned about Hillary and the release of her papers. Plenty of lies on this issue. Taylor Marsh demolishes this silly business, especially Russert and the letter. Turns out “the letter” is from 1994 and (surprise!) it was the typically Russert misrepresentations and lies.
Obama, should stop worrying about Hillary’s papers – Obama has his own papers to release. Obama needs to start cooperating fully with the Chicago Sun-Times which has been trying to get answers from Obama and the law firm he worked for. The Chicago Sun-Times is being stonewalled. [Sun-Times article on missing Obama documents HERE].
Iran and Iraq and Social Security were the dogs that did not bark on Tuesday’s debate. Yes they were discussed, but these issues have been forgotten because Hillary and her supporters had done such a good job at addressing these worn out issues. We’ll keep addressing these issues but essentially Hillary is right where she should be.
Quickly, on Iran Hillary has made clear she opposes war with Iran and Hillary has credible Durbin, Clark and Wilson who support her on this. On Iraq, Hillary has the support of most Democrats who are against the war in Iraq. On Social Security, Obama is repeating Ripublican propaganda and Hillary will not use “crisis” Ripublican talking points. On Social Security Obama has a big problem with Iowa’s biggest voting bloc – seniors.
Testing our assumptions.
Before the debate (let’s test our assumptions here using our ‘before and after’ tests) we assumed that there would be an Obama/Edwards/Russert attack against Hillary. Our article BEFORE the debate was Lazio, Come Forth referencing Hillary’s 2000 senate race opponent and his attack against Hillary in a debate. Not suprisingly, we were correct. The attacks on Hillary by Obama were predicted by many. The attacks on Hillary by Edwards and others were predicted by many. Honest observers also expected a hostile Russert. No surprise. Big Pink however, noted the Russert and Lazio combination in that 2000 debate. Remember this line from our article Lazio, Come Forth which quoted news accounts of the 2000 debate?
But perhaps the most striking moment of the evening came not with Mr. Lazio and Mrs. Clinton, but with the first lady and the moderator of the debate, Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s Sunday program ”Meet the Press.”
That was in 2000.
After the Tuesday 2007 debate, in Hillary Clinton – Lion Tamer we quoted a news account which said essentially the same thing about Russert that was said in 2000:
In an exchange with Mr. Russert, arguably her third toughest opponent on the stage, …
Lazio, Obama and Edwards rejoiced after the debate. They loved beating up on Hillary. Lazio was very happy post debate 2000 too. What happened to Lazio after that 2000 debate? In short, Lazio rejoiced, Russert rejoiced, Hillary elected.
Rick Lazio, grinning, crouched to embrace a group of children at an elementary school in Rochester, N.Y., the morning after his first debate with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Thank you very much for all these hugs,” he exclaimed. “I love the hugs! It makes me feel great! I love you! I love you all! I’m getting all kinds of hugs today. Any more hugs? Thank you very much for these hugs. I’ll be back soon. You guys work hard in school, O.K.? You guys do well in school, you can have any job you want. Any job, O.K.?”
He strode out of the school, hand-in-hand with a little boy.
Later that day, Mr. Lazio clambered onto a wooden picnic table before a crowd of supporters in Fulton, N.Y., a depressed industrial town. With about a hundred restive locals buzzing about his feisty debate performance, Mr. Lazio spoke gravely about his opponent’s out-of-state roots. He assailed her “hypocrisy” on soft money. The time had come, he yelled, to “fire back.”“The campaign really started yesterday–last night!” he declared.
Obama/Edwards Lazio, he was happy for a day. Then reality intruded:
Mr. Lazio’s transformation, in just several hours, from simpering guidance counselor to savage orator mirrored the metamorphosis in his campaign. By sharpening his attacks on Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lazio hopes to dispel the perception that he is running a relaxed and ineffectual campaign.
While his more energetic pose has delighted core supporters, Mr. Lazio’s top advisors are worried that the new strategy carries a grave risk–one that could cost him the election. [snip]
“I don’t know if it’s a role she plays or whether it’s just the way the electorate perceives her,” said Assemblyman Phil Boyle, a longtime friend and close advisor to Mr. Lazio. “Certain attacks on her evoke sympathy, and we need to be wary of that.” [snip]
Mr. Lazio’s advisers are well aware that Mrs. Clinton has ensnared many Republicans in this trap before. When the First Lady is attacked, she rises in the polls; voters stop viewing her as an ambitious opportunist and start seeing her as an aggrieved and noble victim. It was this dynamic that gave rise to her candidacy in the first place–she was proposed as a candidate after she stood by her cheating husband during the impeachment crisis and was roundly assailed by Republican critics.
The Lazio campaign already has reason for concern. Their vigorous assaults on Mrs. Clinton are re-awakening sympathies had vanished once she became a carpetbagging candidate for Senate. Since the debate, polls have shown that some undecided voters–including those who dislike the First Lady–disapproved of Mr. Lazio’s sharp assaults and now are drifting in her direction. [snip]
The dynamic was apparent in the press room during the Buffalo debate. Mr. Lazio’s advisers had hoped that news accounts of the debate would be dominated by Mr. Lazio’s soft-money challenge. In the press room, that moment was greeted by a sudden burst of keyboard clattering, as reporters chronicled the unexpected gesture even while grumbling that it was a “stunt.” But a similarly deafening clatter greeted another moment: when debate moderator Tim Russert aired pictures of a drawn and exhausted Mrs. Clinton defending her husband at the height of the Lewinsky scandal.
Still, there’s no question that other voters were delighted to see someone–in this case, Mr. Lazio–stick it to Hillary. [snip]
For his part, Mr. Lazio dismisses the idea of a backlash to his Hillary-bashing. “Since the debate,” Mr. Lazio told the New York Daily News , “we have seen I don’t know how many thousands of people, and we haven’t had one person say anything to me about that.”
The Real Danger
The real danger for Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Team and Hillary supporters is that after Tuesday night’s debate there is now a template for attacking Hillary. Big Media, the debate “moderators” – Russert in particular, and other candidates for the Democratic Party nomination attacked Hillary in a united probably coordinated manner.
Our counterattack has to be clearheaded and aware that the announced primary campaign opponents are not the only nor the most dangerous opponents. Any doubts in the Clinton campaign or the Hillary Team or among Hillary supporters that Big Media (Russert and Matthews in particular) and/or Big Blogs are our friends or allies or fair must be rejected. Any question that Obama and Edwards’ personal attacks against Hillary are anything but personal attacks have to be quickly rejected. (Edwards and Obama are not questioning Hillary policies, they are questioning her honesty. Further the silly attacks on electability from candidates polling less than half of what Hillary is polling is ridiculous.)
In our inaugural post months ago, we stated our contention that the danger, the effective attacks on Hillary, will come from Big Media, Big Blogs, PINOs and Democrats who repeat Republican propaganda to undermine Hillary or any of our candidates.
We have sounded the alarm about Big Blogs and Big Media well before this debate. Some questioned our analysis and aggressive “no unilateral disarmament” posture out of honest disagreement. Many more sought to distract us from what we see as a clear and present danger.
Hillary supporters, the Hillary campaign and the Hillary Team should have no doubt about the dangers posed by coordinated attacks from Big Media, Big Blogs and PINOs and Democratic opponents.
Big Pink has been right from the very beginning. The danger is as we anticipated. Our fight continues.