Clinton as GOP's Preferred Opponent
Submitted by Jeff on Wed, 02/13/2008 - 6:00pm.
Howard Wilkinson of the Enquirer writes today (at some length) about the "worst-kept secret" of the Ohio primary, i.e., that Ohio Republicans want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, hoping that she'll unite their fractured party and energize their dispirited voters. The response in defense of Clinton comes from supporters Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper and Gov. Ted Stickland:
“Republicans have been throwing everything they can at Hillary Clinton for years now," Pepper said. “I don’t know what more they can say that is going to drive more people away from her. It’s all been said. You either like her or you don’t.”But Obama, Pepper said, has yet to be a target of the Republican “attack machine.”
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, another high-profile Clinton supporter, agreed.
“There will be venom directed at whoever the Democratic candidate is," Strickland said. ”John Kerry, a war hero who was portrayed as someone who somehow didn’t bleed enough to earn his medals, I mean, give me a break.
“Presidential politics is always a hard-fought contest in Ohio, and I believe Hillary Clinton is the most vetted candidate perhaps ever to seek the presidency," Strickland said.
I have two reactions to this. One is that it shows what desperate straits the GOP are in that they are counting on getting Hillary as an opponent to improve their situation. Second, although I support Obama, I'm not impressed with either the notion that she'll have a harder time of it than Obama or the opposite idea that she is immune from further attack because of what they've said about her in the past. They will have plenty of dirt to throw at Obama, in fact they've already started (the madrassah smear, the drug use, blah blah blah). And what is it about being smeared before that is supposed to makes Clinton invulnerable this time around? The fact is, they will both have to run very smart, tough campaigns, and be ready to fend off a lot of nastiness and mud-slinging, to prevail. Call it a tie.
Not quite a tie
I think Obama has a bit of an edge just because he is unknown. Obama will have more time to get ahead of the smears and change peoples perceptions. Unfortunately, Many people have already made up their minds about Hillary. They heard some half truths and lies in the 90's and they never bothered or cared to rethink it, they just "know they don't like her". It's sad but true.
You are right though, whomever wins will have to run a smart, tough campaign.
Could be just me, I accept that, but
Isn't it a little creepy when an entire political party wants to be united by its dislike of someone? That just seems so perverse to me.
Creepy Indeed
But nothing out of the ordinary for the Republicans. :-)
Either one will get swiftboated
I GUARANTEE that either HRC or BHO will get attacked the minute that they are nominated. It will be racist, bigoted and/or sexist. It will be scurrilous and evil.
Some of it (the "milder" stuff) will come from the GOP or the McCain campaign, but the worst will come from "527" groups.
McCain will say "I didn't authorize this and I wish that they would stop, but I don't have any control over them."
You can take it to the bank.
I was really appalled by the way that the special election was conducted here in OH-05. It gave us a preview of what the fall campaign will be like. And it is going to be
UGLY.
I was out last night..
Hung with a group of neighbors, these are well-educated people and some of the stuff they were repeating about Hillary and Bill made me want to vomit. Extra disgusting, these are so-called accomplished women and they were repeating the same misogynistic BS they heard on the radio or something. It's was funny how they don't seem to apply the standards they set up for Hillary to their own lives. I suppose it is just entertaining for them to be nasty after a few glasses of wine.
As for Obama, his wife was universally liked by this group. Apparently, She is smart & outspoken enough to be viewed as her own women but she is still "the good wife". They thought Obama seemed geniune and nice. Something both Mccain and Hillary lacked to these women.
The whole evening seemed to confirm to me that it is all about perceptions and not so much about facts. This is good for Obama. Especially when you consider that everyone (from all viewpoints) agreed that they were sick of the nastiness and the divided country. Now, the liberals correctly blamed Rovian politics ushered in by the Bush era and the conservatives blamed "angry liberals" "cough" you'd be angry too! "cough" but everyone seemed to think Obama could unite the country.
As for McCain, nobody was excited. One person said he had more experience than Obama and that was better for this time in history but when it was pointed out he is "really pushing for war with Iran" and "he didn't care if we were in Iraq 100 years or more", she backed down quickly and agreed Obama was very inspirational and had a great vision for the country. So, overall, while I was surprised at some of my neighbors attitudes, it seemed Obama is overwhelmingly more well-liked amoung independents and conservatives than Hillary. Of course, it should be noted that an educated racist knows how to hide their spots in mixed company.
Senator Sherrod Brown about Obama vs Clinton Paul Hackett?
“Hillary does better with blue-collar voters, working-class voters, union members,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. “Barack does better among African-Americans and younger voters and upper-income voters. If that holds, Ohio tilts toward Hillary.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?em&ex=120...
What I do wonder is how Paul Hackett would have analyzed the situation. Would he endorse anyone? Which one in that case? Would he agree that Ohio tilts toward Hillary? I'm not sure but I do not think that Hackett would agree to Browns statement that I find as a very strange one with very strange conclusions at this time of the race.
Does anyone here agree that Hillary does better with blue-collor, working class and Union? Maybe that is his wish but I'm certainly not so sure about that.
Sherrod Brown's Comment...
I do think he is partially correct with his opinion, but Obama is dazzling people with his change rhetoric and there are people in every group who will get swayed Obama's Razzle Dazzle campaign style, but for those who are looking for substance, behind the show, they will support clinton. So Blue Collar workers who are intellectual and who look at the candidates plans or their "What I will do as president" will want to see the "how I will do it" and they won't get that from Obama. He's not very forthcoming in the "How" Department. Brown is 100% correct about that portion of the groups he mentioned.
I personally do not believe just winning the nomination and putting a Dem in the whitehouse is what any voter should vying for. Its not just putting Dem in the Whitehouse its putting the right person in the whitehouse.We can't afford to make the same error the republicans did when they chose George Bush as their candidate - not because he was the right guy for the job but because he could win the race.
This is not a football game, its our future.