(2008-01-07) — With the latest polls showing Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with a commanding lead in New Hampshire just hours before the state’s presidential primary, the Republican National Committee (RNC) today launched an effort to salvage the candidacy of presumed senator-for-life Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Clinton doesn’t need money, so the RNC announced a three-pronged strategy to help her:
1) Packing Clinton campaign events with enthusiastic crowds of cheering Republicans, “wearing silly hats and hemp-based fashions to conceal their identity”
2) Urging conservative independents to vote for Sen. Clinton on Tuesday, and providing grief counselors and paramedical care at poll exits for those who comply
3) Luring former President Bill Clinton into campaigning for Sen. Obama instead, by offering him $10 million and a “hip posse of Hollywood A-listers”
“There’s no difference in ideology or policies between Clinton and Obama,” said an unnamed RNC source, “But the last thing we want to face in November is a hopeful, inspiring, genuinely-likable adversary with no major ethical baggage. That’s just un-Democratic. We don’t really have a viable strategy for that, since we’ve never had to run against such a person.”
38 responses so far ↓
1 Libby Gone // Jan 7, 2008 at 9:18 am
I see an implosion in the Clinton camp in the near future……
2 upnorthlurkin // Jan 7, 2008 at 9:47 am
Right. The unethical baggage in Obama’s past is real estate related….and we all know that’s a resumé enhancement for dhimmies. Ooooo we’re doomed…..
3 boberinyetagain // Jan 7, 2008 at 10:16 am
Now that’s funny!
Mucho kudos Mr. Ott!!!
4 JQ // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:10 am
I don’t know. After the weekend’s debates, I’m kind of up-in-the-air as far as guessing who the Dems will nominate. Yes, Obama has a dignified, inspiring, Oprah-endorsed persona, but he hasn’t really clarified any details. It’s all rhetoric: “We want change!” “Let’s do it for the children!” “George Bush has been doing it wrong!”
As much as I dislike “Mrs. Stupid,” I have to admit that she came off in the debates as being far more informed and ready-to-roll than Obama (not surprising, since she’s been interviewing for the job for the last 16+ years).
The more I watch Obama, the more I see what people are talking about when they speak of his inexperience and lack of substance. When asked whether being a great orator was all it took, he didn’t even try to deny that that’s all he is; he just went on to extoll the power of encouraging words and positive thinking. That’s great for a motivational speaker or a preacher, but President?
Please note: this is IN NO WAY an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. I hate her politics with a vengeance, and she consistently states that she hates mine as a Republican. I’m just not so sure that Obama is the shoo-in for the Democratic nomination that I previously though him to be.
5 Maggie // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:25 am
Maybe the Hill will be Obamas VP. Who da thunk it?
ps…..well I’m back from MN and in the sunny South. We’ve actually had the AC on at times.
Must admit that the Minnasotans would make good southerners.The ones I met were the sweetest ,friendliest and most helpful people, bar none.It was a blessing and a pleasure to be amongst them for awhile.I have to add also the peolpe from Fargo, North Dakota and you know who you are,don’t you UpNorth Lurkin?
6 woodnwheel // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:36 am
To be honest, I turned off the TV after the Republican debate and the intermingling of the candidates from both parties.
(By the way, major kudos to Charles Gibson or whoever else might have come up with that brilliant idea. As Scott reminded me when Ted Kennedy recently had — as I recall — surgery on his carotid artery, you have to separate the person from the persona they play on television.)
Now, if you want to discuss the Republicans, and spefically the Republican Presidential Forum on Fox News last night, I’m all for that!
7 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:51 am
We Americans do like to get our Prognosticate On, don’t we?
The cacophony of political Prose which rises to a crescendo in November every four years wafts effortlessly on the Winter Breeze, buoyed by all available Mediums, as the Season Begins.
Personally, I find it exhilarating; it’s like May 29, 1913 at the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées for the Paris Premiere of Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du printemps (Russian: ВеÑна ÑвÑщеннаÑ, Vesna svjaÅ¡Äennaja) a la Groundhog Day (1993) times 270 days to go…..
God Bless America
8 JQ // Jan 7, 2008 at 11:55 am
OK, the Republicans. I was somewhat leaning towards Romney getting the nomination prior to the debate. Now I’m not so sure; he’s definitely coming across as the snake-oil peddling politician who has no problem stabbing his fellow candidates in the back while acting offended when someone questions his own record. As the candidate with the most negative campaign thus far, I don’t think that bodes well for him.
As for Huckabee, I honestly don’t know how he won in Iowa (except that I’m originally from Nebraska, and I’m rarely surprised by what Iowegians will do). While he seems like a nice guy with okay politics, I just don’t see him winning a national election. Every word out of his mouth (and every expression on his face) seems rehearsed, and, like Obama, I don’t hear much in the way of details when he’s talking policy. It just sounds like a guy saying what we want to hear to get elected (Weird, huh?).
I was most impressed with Thompson and McCain (and I was anti-McCain in 2000). Both seemed put-together and knowledgeable, although Thompson came across as a little too frank and direct for a serious Presidential contender. I think he sees the writing on the wall and just wants to get his message out before he goes down (sorry Fred supporters!).
I think Ron Paul got to the debate too early; he accidentally ended up debating the Republicans.
Giuliani was somewhat likeable and the politics he spoke of at the debates seemed OK, but he’s been around too long, and everyone knows about his skeletons and actual political views. Not a serious contender in my eyes.
Not that any of this matters for me. In the great state of Montana, we don’t hold primaries until Thanksgiving (note: exaggeration), so I don’t get a say in which Republican wins anyway.
9 Hawkeye // Jan 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Quick! Get out the lifeboats! The Queen Hillary is sinking! Throw her a Life-Saverâ„¢…
10 Hawkeye // Jan 7, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Push!
11 gafisher // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm
JQ Re#4: “We want change!†“Let’s do it for the children!†“George Bush has been doing it wrong!†is a winning formula for the Democrats. Hillary’s biggest impediment is that she’s got a record to go with the rhetoric. I suspect her Senate “experience” is what’s dragging her down, while Obama can promise the world with no danger of someone saying “But what about …?”
12 MajorDomo // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm
THOMPSON-HUCKABEE ‘08
13 gafisher // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Pardon the [OT] excursions, but these “Recaptchas” really do make me wonder. A few days ago a comment about Mrs. Clinton’s husband’s impeachment had to be approved by typing “husband innocent” while today’s regarding Hillary’s fading fortunes called for the verification “Yesterday’s lemon.” Can these really be random?
14 JQ // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Gafisher-
Methinks you’re dead-on. Looking back at my prognosis, I just realized that I was running my calculations from the perspective of someone capable of reason. These are the democratic primaries. Nevermind.
15 MajorDomo // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I feel like a second-class citizen: All my posts remain in edit-delete for 15 minutes. How do I get promoted?
16 conserve-a-tips // Jan 7, 2008 at 3:21 pm
OK, so here’s my take, for what it is worth. (and this came to me in the shower so it is squeaky clean!)
To Christian voters out there: If the Pope or the President of the Southern Baptist Convention or the head Mullah for Islam became the leader of this country and demanded that we all give a 10% tithe to the government to be used according to the leaders’ convictions…say like…for the ban of all contraceptives or government mandated baptisms or government funded burkhas for all American women, what would you say? You’d say, “No!” You’d cite the first ammendment. You’d cry fascism.
And yet, that is what Christians today are doing when they support the likes of Mike Huckabee, Obama, Clinton, Edwards and McCain. These are all people who claim to be Christians and who think that it is their Christian duty to use the government to do what the Church should be doing. They think that it is the “compassionate” thing for the government to feed, cloth, insure, hire and treat the people of this country. That is the Church’s job.
This government was established by God, via a document written by inspired men for the purpose of protection of its countrymen in order that they might serve others. The Church was given orders to see to the needs of those others. Because Christians have abdicated that resposibility and now give to the government to do what they should be doing themselves, the responsibility is being shifted from the Church to the government and Christians sit around and whine about government intrusion while giving them the key!!
And so, if you want to continue down this path, then vote for the populists on either side of the isle. It is six of one, half a dozen of the other. But if you want a constitutional government, vote for Thompson or Romney and keep your time and money to give to the church.
And then I dried my hair.
17 onlineanalyst // Jan 7, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Ditto to your take on the Republican slate, C-A-T.
If we have any chance of assuring conservative judges and fiscal responsibility, as well as respect for originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Thompson and Romney are the ticket. Both, I think, be committed to the need for secure borders, strong defense, and addressing the problem of illegals by enforcement of the law and defusing the problem through attrition.
Free-market and federalist solutions to health care and health insurance, as well as to the tackling the social-security time bomb are the strengths that these two offer.
I want adults at the helm of this country, and I want leaders committed to keeping their hands out of my pocket.
Poor Madame Hillary has been reduced to recruiting out-of-state supporters to her rallies in order to swell her numbers.
18 gafisher // Jan 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I can’t fully agree, C-A-T. While all of the candidates (including Thompson and Romney) are giving us ways in which they intend to spend our money, only Huckabee is offering us a viable alternative to the current confiscatory and obligatory multi-tithe tax system. Only he, among all the leading candidates, promises to make the effort (which would, of course, require the cooperation of both Congress and the Supreme Court) to return us to the Constitutional method of financing government.
19 debass // Jan 7, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I like the Fair Tax, especially the abolition of the IRS, but do you think any politician is going to give up the power of taxation over his constituents with which he can buy votes?
20 Fred Sinclair // Jan 7, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I thought I copied those two words correctly - but it’s been several hours now and nothing.
Now I forget what I wrote about - must not have been important.
Heirborn Ranger
21 Fred Sinclair // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm
c.a.t. #16 - Right on. One reason I like Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown is that she is a strict Constitutionalists, I read that she will hand a copy of the Constitution to lawyers before her with the injunction, “Show me where it is.”
If they can’t pinpoint it, specifically, she throws the case out! Sounds like a great choice for our next Supreme.
I believe that the President’s job, for which he was hired, is to ensure the safety and protection of the Country and the people. We have not had a repeat of the 9/11 horror so on that count he’s done that part of his job. However he’s done horribly on securing the border and promoting amnesty for illegal aliens. For that he gets a loud booo!
Gulfport, Miss. (unknown to many due to lack of coverage by the MSM.) got hit as hard or harder by Katrina but with a conservative government the churches stepped in (from all over) Salvation army, Red Cross, etc picked up the slack - no one looked to FEMA no one got $6,000 debit cards - etc. Today they’re still working and are for the most part in much better shape than it’s nearby neighbor, New Orleans.
Heirborn Ranger
22 camojack // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“There’s no difference in ideology or policies between Clinton and Obama,†said an unnamed RNC source, “But the last thing we want to face in November is a hopeful, inspiring, genuinely-likable adversary with no major ethical baggage. That’s just un-Democratic. We don’t really have a viable strategy for that, since we’ve never had to run against such a person.â€
Have no fear; those skeletons won’t stay in the closet. They never do…
23 conserve-a-tips // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:29 pm
GaFisher, re #20: Thompson has also talked about the Fair Tax, and he has also talked about the Flat Tax. He has been much more vocal on the taxation issue than Huckabee.
24 mindknumbed kid // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:59 pm
One thing about it, in a crop of political hopefuls there will be plenty of talkin’ about it. I get the feeling that we have a bunch of talkers about things, looking to get lucky and roll onto the magic bus and ride on into office. Of all of the main characters running I suspect that Fred is the most honest and straight forward of the bunch. Romney doesn’t seem to be very genuine to me, I think the best candidates are at the bottom of the heap as they are lousy campaigners.
I dislike the new spread out game plan, earlier and earlier. I would prefer one national primary date with no campaigning before about 9 months before the big day.Maybe the prospective vote wranglers would be a bit more focused and fired up, hit the ground arunnin’ and make their hay while the sun is shining. Voters might be more interested too.
25 camojack // Jan 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm
conserve-a-tips // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:29 pm
GaFisher, re #20: Thompson has also talked about the Fair Tax, and he has also talked about the Flat Tax. He has been much more vocal on the taxation issue than Huckabee.
Correctamundo!
26 mindknumbed kid // Jan 7, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I’d like that….taxes so easy a caveman can do ‘em.
Ain’t got a snowball’s chance in Galveston of happening, but that would be sweet!
27 prettyold // Jan 7, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I think Obama is a nice enough kid, polite, minds his manners , doesn’t sling out insults or putdowns. But that is it ,he’s just a kid. He is naive,and simplistic. Our world isn’t simple, and the sort of glib answers he gives ,just make me laugh.
Now Edwards is like a Chatty Cathy,pull his string and wait for the memorized response.Other than worrying about his hair being arranged just so ,I don’t thnk he has ever had a serious thought.Vapid .Airhead.
Hillary is another thing . If she were elected and Congress didn’t do as she wanted ,I could see her pulling a” Hugo Chavez” or a “Putin”. Declare herself the lone ruling body of the United States. She wouldn’t put it up to a vote.
I find her very scary.
28 gafisher // Jan 7, 2008 at 8:06 pm
C-A-T Re#23, the so-called “Flat Tax” is a sham, just the same old government-mandated tithe (to stick with that metaphor) in slightly different packaging. Thompson’s position on the Fair Tax has been described as “noncommittal” and “disappointing.” Meanwhile, Sen. Thompson is still proud of his support for McCain-Feingold.
Thompson may talk about the Fair Tax; he may even be the most vocal on tax reform, but he doesn’t seem to want to do anything about it. As folks used to say in Tennessee, your walk walks further than your talk walks. Huckabee has made the Fair Tax a central issue of his campaign. That’s walking the walk.
29 gafisher // Jan 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Interesting analysis of the Iowa results here.
30 conserve-a-tips // Jan 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Gafisher: I read the article and all I can say is, “Populist”. I am leery of anyone who touts the Rick Warren philosophy, is championed by Rick Warren and who employs the Rick Warren business model for Christianity, as Huckabee most definitely does. But that’s just me.
I’ll be honest. The major drawback in my book is that this Christian minister has aligned himself with Ed Rollins, who is not Christ-like in any way shape or form. He is mean, filthy mouthed, vindictive, and downright rude. Nope, the ends does not justify the means and this will come back to bite Huckabee as hypocritical.
31 camojack // Jan 8, 2008 at 12:25 am
The GOP’s foreign-policy wasteland -by Bridget Johnson
At first, I was wary of Mike Huckabee’s foreign policy prowess (or lack of it). Now, I just want to cry. First he didn’t know what the NIE on Iran’s nuclear program was about. Then he thought Pakistan was still under martial law. I mean, turning the assassination of Benazir Bhutto into an illegal-immigration stump was just disastrous:
“‘In light of what happened in Pakistan yesterday, it’s interesting that there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border,’ Huckabee said Friday.
…Huckabee said 660 Pakistanis entered the country illegally last year. When asked by a reporter the source for that statistic, Huckabee appeared unsure, saying, ‘Those are numbers that I got today from a briefing, and I believe they are CIA and immigration numbers.’ The Huckabee campaign later said the figure came from a March 2006 report by The Denver Post.
But the Border Patrol told CNN on Friday that it apprehended only ‘a handful’ of illegal immigrants from Pakistan in 2007.
The number of illegal immigrants from Pakistan deported or apprehended is not mentioned in the latest report from the Department of Homeland Security/Office of Immigration Statistics. In 2005, the nation did not make the list of the top 10 sources of illegal immigrants. The previous year, Pakistan was the last country listed, but no specific numbers were given.â€
And now this:
“On Friday morning, Huckabee listed former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has ’spoken or will continue to speak.’
At a Thursday evening news conference, Huckabee said, ‘I’ve corresponded with John Bolton, who’s agreed to work with us on developing foreign policy.’
Bolton, however, has a different view. ‘I’d be happy to speak with Huckabee, but I haven’t spoken with him yet,’ said Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.
…Huckabee said he had also spoken with former State Department official Richard Haass (now president of the Council on Foreign Relations); military analyst Ken Allard; former national security adviser Richard Allen; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank; and a ‘number of military personnel.’
Reached via e-mail, Allen said an intermediary asked him to speak with Huckabee, but he hadn’t yet agreed. ‘I’m gradually getting older, but am fully capable of recalling with whom I have spoken,’ said the former Nixon and Reagan foreign policy campaign adviser.â€
I cannot support a candidate who’s so out to lunch on foreign policy. And that’s a beef I have with Mitt Romney as well, who delivered a similarly lame response to the Bhutto assassination:
“‘If the answer for leading the country is someone that has a lot of foreign policy experience, we can just go down to the State Department and pick up any one of the tens of thousands of people who spent all their life in foreign policy,’ he said Thursday in New Hampshire.
Instead, Mr. Romney said, what is needed is a chief executive with leadership and the ability to assemble ‘a great team of people to be able to guide and direct them to understand what decision has to be made.’â€
Who really wants a president who’s leaning on a stable of “yesâ€-men, who needs aides whispering in his ear every time he meets with a foreign delegation? A leader knows the issues and knows how to make decisions, not someone who brushes off the importance of foreign policy expertise.
32 gafisher // Jan 8, 2008 at 6:42 am
Camo, there’s no doubt the current crop of candidates is universally incompetent to personally perform every task of the entire Executive Branch. Worse, those with the best foreign policy credentials are far short of what’s needed domestically (especially with regard to tax issues) and those with the most promising domestic policy positions are most lacking in detailed foreign policy understanding. That is nothing new — most of us recall how the media (foreign and domestic) pounded candidate G.W. Bush for erroneous foreign policy statements he made before his election, and even the candidates claiming (and some demonstrating) the best grasp of foreign policy were (apparently) surprised by the Bhutto assassination.
Romney’s got a lot of things wrong, but the answer you quoted from him is both the best and the most humble response. I’d FAR prefer a President who surrounds himself with competent advisors than one who micromanages every detail as though he (she in this campaign) somehow knew everything.
33 mig // Jan 8, 2008 at 6:59 am
From a Caveman:
Deanna Favre Ready to Quarterback for Packers
Brett says Green Bay will still win
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers on Saturday, January 12th.
Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.
34 conserve-a-tips // Jan 8, 2008 at 8:09 am
Mig - do you reckon that if she gets tackled that she is going to well up and look like she is gonna cry?
35 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 8, 2008 at 8:52 am
Oh dear, another sad day for the Buckeyes. Well, there is no more to be said about that.
36 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 8, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yes.
37 mindknumbed kid // Jan 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm
In addition Deanna says she is completely familiar with all of Brett’s moves particularly off of the field.
I wonder if the same could be said of Mrs. Bill Clinton and her husband?
38 gafisher // Jan 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm
:elefant:
You must log in to post a comment.