Just watched the debate, probably one of the very last of the primary season. If you missed it, you didn't really miss much, we'd heard almost all of it before. The pattern of Clinton being stronger on domestic policy and Obama being stronger on foreign policy I think continued. But Clinton did try to deliver an extremely biting line about Obama's alleged plagiarism that backfired badly, making her sound petty.
Now I think this whole debate about politicians copying each others punch lines is really silly. That being said, Hillary Clinton had a lot of gall to call Obama's lines from Deval Patrick "not change we can believe in but change we can xerox," when she pretty much entirely lifted her last lines about how "we're all gonna be fine, I just hope the American people are going to be fine, and that's what the campaign should be about," clearly from John Edwards.
Granted, it was an amazing line and Hillary seemed to show genuine emotion while delivering it which often works well for her, and I think she should be able to use it. Politicians use very similar themes all the time (change, experience, judgment, bringing the country together, middle class anxiety, hard work, responsibility) and it's not very surprising that they'd borrow particularly powerful phrasing. But it's extremely hypocritical for Hillary to deliver that line RIGHT after criticizing Obama for doing the same thing.
I think things like this more than anything have tripped her up in this campaign. It was so clearly devised in a smoke-filled Clinton campaign war room and it didn't come off as authentic so it fell flat, and more than that, I got sort of a dirty, sleazy vibe. Hillary is better than that. She's so good on policy and she has firm, passionately held core beliefs, but the relentless politicking is killing her.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall backs me up:
Now I think this whole debate about politicians copying each others punch lines is really silly. That being said, Hillary Clinton had a lot of gall to call Obama's lines from Deval Patrick "not change we can believe in but change we can xerox," when she pretty much entirely lifted her last lines about how "we're all gonna be fine, I just hope the American people are going to be fine, and that's what the campaign should be about," clearly from John Edwards.
Granted, it was an amazing line and Hillary seemed to show genuine emotion while delivering it which often works well for her, and I think she should be able to use it. Politicians use very similar themes all the time (change, experience, judgment, bringing the country together, middle class anxiety, hard work, responsibility) and it's not very surprising that they'd borrow particularly powerful phrasing. But it's extremely hypocritical for Hillary to deliver that line RIGHT after criticizing Obama for doing the same thing.
I think things like this more than anything have tripped her up in this campaign. It was so clearly devised in a smoke-filled Clinton campaign war room and it didn't come off as authentic so it fell flat, and more than that, I got sort of a dirty, sleazy vibe. Hillary is better than that. She's so good on policy and she has firm, passionately held core beliefs, but the relentless politicking is killing her.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall backs me up:
Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."
Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
13 Comments:
Yet again, more positive Obama spin from the College Obamacrats. You guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore, are you?
Obamacrats?!?!?!
This blog actually used to be pretty Pro-Hillary, back when Eric Schmidt would post daily.
Pretty sure the author of this post voted for Hillary. He's been posting pro-Hillary stuff for months.
And why can't they be pro-Obama? He won Wisconsin by 17 points and he won campus by 60 POINTS. Isn't that a mandate from the masses?
Erik, this is why you are the communications chair for SFO and not College Democrats. Look at the Hillary votes on campus... a shade over 2500 on campus. I am going to guess 2250 were Democrats, and 2000 of them students (factoring in non-students and crossover). While these numbers are not scientific by any means, these people are strong democrats. Democrats like KJ, Steven Grant and Suchita who give countless hours to the party. Hours that are not adequately compensated by any means.
Erik, 80% of your comments alienate members of the democratic base, the very thing you accuse Hillary of doing.
So yes, there is definitely a problem with the leadership of the Obamacrats and the current message of campus party.
Unity? What the hell is that?
I'm sorry Anonymous, but who are you to speak for the College Democrats? If you're going to make these assumptions and postulations, I would at least expect for you to attach your name to them.
There are members of College Dems who support Hillary. There are members who support Barack. I consider myself a very strong College Democrat, and I hope that many members would agree with me. However, I did work for the Obama campaign for some time, and I consider myself a very strong Obama supporter. So don't go about assuming that Obama supporters are not real Democrats. I am just a strong a Democrat as any of the 2250 or 2500 you claim as strong Hillary Dems.
I would also counter that Andy Gordon, Maggie Raiken, and others who I will not name since they often post here themselves and have the right to speak for themselves have also given countless hours to the party without adequate compensation.
The point is that when primary time rolls around, Democrats can choose to throw their support behind a single candidate, or stay uninvolved in the primary race directly, yet still be ardent members of the party. It is our ability to come together after the primaries and unite to acheive a singular goal that makes us truly powerful.
That's what unity is.
If you were as good of a Democrat as you appear to claim yourself, Anonymous, you would drop the animosity and let bygones be bygones. Start thinking about the general election.
Paul, if you want to chat, we can chat. But now is not the time. If you are going to allow anonymous posts on this blog, you have empowered me with the ability to remain in the shadows. If you don't like it, talk to Resnick... or invest in an IP tracker.
Realize that to be a Hillary supporter on this campus is made out to be a sin. One professor used the quote "closet Hillary supporter." If you do not believe me, take a listen to the conversations between members of both the Obama e-board or a certain CDems cohort. If you want to unify the party, you need stop addressing Obama criticism by "He won Wisconsin by 17 points." As the story goes, the last CDems meeting ended with a playing of the national anthem, "Yes We Can." Does that show a bias? On election day, where was the Hillary tent? What was the role of the CDems and their involvement with Obama on election day? The point I am trying to make is that if you want to unify the party, throwing a kegger and invited a few Hillary supporters just won't be enough. But fuck it, right? Obama has enough popularity to carry the CDems without the Hillary crew keeping them down.
Granted, I am not speaking for or of the whole organization, but the Obama bias are definitely present.
Neither Maggie or Andy will be on campus next year, unless they move into a coordinated position. But would either of them still be with the organization if Hillary is the nominee? I don't know. But these two in particular cause more strife in the party, and may have been the least unifying figures you could have mentioned.
The Hillary people didnt have a tent because they chose not to have one. If they wanted to have one, they couldve gotten their own. College Dems didnt provide each org with a tent. This is common sense.
As an outside observer, it did seem as if SFO and College Dems were colluding a bit on Tuesday. But after talking to some people, there was a reluctance on the behalf of some of College Dems leadership to work with SFH after they went negative with lit and banners (Hope wont pay my student loans).
There is no reason to personally attack Maggie Raiken or Andy Gordon either.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The last post was a blatant personal attack and removed. Please direct any questions to this blog's moderator.
Uhh, no need for blatant assholery. For the record I did vote for Obama, but it was a tough decision for me. I think both Clinton and Obama are great candidates and at the same time both deserve a lot of criticism. And again, this blog is about exchanges of opinions. No one needs to be told to "shut up" by random anonymous posters just because they don't support your candidate or even because they don't toe the Democratic Party line on every issue.
To anon 11:26am/1:05pm: I realize your frustration, but it is important to remember that each member of the CDems e-board is involved with the organization because of their strong ties to the party, its candidates and the entire process. Many, if not, participated in the 2006 election, traveled to Iowa and attended multiple rallies. Their resolve and dedicate to this organization is beyond me. To ask these individuals to removed themselves completely from this process is difficult, if not, impossible.
You may disapprove, but at this juncture there is no reason to over-react. Wisconsin has spoken, but our nation has not yet decided.
To anon 1:05pm/2:15pm: I respect the fact that you want to remain anonymous. Here we share the same conviction. However, whenever a personal attack it made, with or without an identity, the comment will be permanently removed.
Scott is blatant assholery.
I think I have a new facebook status.
"Erik, 80% of your comments alienate members of the democratic base, the very thing you accuse Hillary of doing."
I'd like some proof of that. Just because my comments are pro-Obama does not mean that I alienate the Democratic base.
I am committed to the advancement of Democratic party issues, but that doesn't mean I have to support every single Democrat. That's one of the main reasons that I never really joined the CDems -- I can't stand some Democrats. I may agree with them on every single issue, but if I don't like them as a person, it'd be hard for me to work for them.
Hillary Clinton is one of those Democrats I don't like because I feel like she lacks conviction. If she bows out of this race gracefully, my respect for her will be restored, but if she tries to take Obama down with her, well then everything I've been saying for months will be proved true.
Post a Comment
<< Home