Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Why is Clinton losing?

Yesterday, watching the latest primary and caucus results coming in from Wisconsin, Hawaii and Washington state, Barack Obama had double digit leads over Clinton in Wisconsin. And had a 76% advantage over Clinton in Hawaii. He was 3% ahead of Clinton in Washington state in early reports with 56% of the precincts reporting. When I watched Clinton's speech last night, I was struck with something that CNN itself was struck by: Ms. Clinton failing to thank people for voting for her and not acknowledging that she had lost the primary and caucus votes of at least two states on the 19th of February. Instead, she put her candidacy on reset, and started campaigning over again in Texas and Ohio. She has done that repeatedly. Instead of the Dem strategists such as Paul Begala discussing the obvious, they tried instead to discuss what "message" Ms. Clinton should bring to her campaign. Found on HBO (Huckleberries on-line) with Dave Oliveria officiating, was a discussion of politics as usual that the people were quite frankly getting tired of. On one side, the last 8 years of the Bush administration, with Oliveria pointing out the scandalous behavior of the Clinton years. To put it bluntly, the GOP were grasping for anything to put a scandal on, so to speak, as long as this was a Democrat and they wanted the White House so bad. But, there were as many scandals and of a more serious sort to be found in the Bush White House too. Serious enough to be impeachable. But, GW happened to be the GOP meal ticket, they couldn't man up enough to address what was now shaming their party and put them on the run by 2006. And could put any Democrat in office by 2009. I'll agree that the Dems and others who voted for Obama in ever increasing numbers are looking for a fresh start. A fresh start that they wouldn't get with Clinton or McCain. That is why McCain is outpolled by Obama in just about every state holding a primary or caucus. That is why Clinton is losing heavily right now. So what about the message? Did any of these strategists look at what GOP (I believe) Oliveria was looking at? I know what I was looking at. Obama on his way to becoming our president by 2009.

So McCain beefed about voters should not be "deceived" about soaring rhetoric that offered empty promises of change. What does he have to offer? One need only look at his Congressional track record to recognize that he doesn't have much to offer that isn't right now a repeat of the Bush years. Which must be why Obama has pulled in twice, three times and even four times the votes of McCain. Okay, if McCain's message isn't resonating, what about Ms Clinton's continually changing, if that tactic doesn't work try this tactic instead. I offer solutions being the latest message. For all of her years in the White House, how could a first lady offer solutions. As a minority Dem Senator until 2006, how could she offer solutions? What a laugh. Which is why she suffered heavily again in Wisconsin and even worse in Hawaii. And further, she is shrill. She isn't talking too people as does Barack Obama, but rather at people. There is a difference. When this GOP and even my mother find we prefer a Democrat by the name of Barack Obama over any other candidate, that says something about the man and his message. Mom is more of the GOP religious activist type and yet she prefers Obama to McCain and even Clinton herself. Now if McCain wants the "religious vote," I think that he should consider that even the religious in this country are getting hit hard by home mortgage scandals and massive home foreclosures. Even the religious activists are suffering from the credit crunch. Even religious activists can become highly angry that their jobs are disappearing because of jobs outsourcing and jobs that can't be outsourced are instead given to illegal aliens and guest workers. They found out that Microsoft would rather have alien guest workers at his software plant because they are cheaper than invest in the American workforce. In short, even religious activists can suffer pocketbook issues.

They are finding out that China, under the Bush administration trade policies are threatening our national security. Hillary Clinton hasn't touched on that in her "solutions" message and Barack Obama has touched on what it would take to get this country moving again as a nation independent of imported oil and what we might do to create new jobs. Which is not an argument for global trade. A global trade that is instructional for bankrupting American society, causing national security concerns, creating health concerns because of a lack of food and etc. safety standards, and yes, China spying on us to ramp up their military machine and we borrow from this same sworn enemy we nonetheless do business with to finance our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as our tax cuts. I would certainly think that religious activists would be gagging at the prospect.

Why is Clinton losing? Oliveria had it right that there is a disgust out there for politics as usual and Clinton for one represents it on the Dem side. So, no matter what message she tries on for size next, she will continue to represent politics as usual on the Dem side of the fence.

No comments: