MyDD :: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics

Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics

by Dee, Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:52:04 PM EST

Two weeks ago to the day, Jerome posted a diary completely distorting and mischaracterizing Cornell Belcher's "esteem" for Ronald Reagan as reported in the Politico. Belcher was NOT in fact praising Reagan's policies nor ignoring the devastating impact that Reagan's policies had on the African American community, but rather recognizing and appreciating his ability to sell himself as unifier for the nation.

Well, it seems that Reagan is not the only Republican who has gained in "esteem" among some Democrats. The Politico has discovered that George Bush is to Hillary Clinton what Ronald Reagan is to Barack Obama.

"Clinton advisers privately acknowledge the Clinton-Bush comparisons and don't particularly mind them."

Personally, I don't have a problem with this because I understand the difference between admiring the person and admiring their effective campaign strategies. I hope--but not expect--that those who condemned Senator Obama and Cornell Belcher for recognizing and perhaps employing the winning strategies of Ronald Reagan will now recognize how intellectually silly and politically immature their criticisms were.

Certainly Hillary Clinton supporters can NOT argue with one face that it's ok for her to model her campaign strategy after a man who has had an equally devastating impact on the African American Community as Ronald Reagan and an even more devastating impact on our nation as a whole and our relationship to the rest of the world, but with another face condemn Barack Obama?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 7/5326.html

Tags: Clinton, Bush (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

Marketing or selling personal characteristics that you want the public to buy is as much a part of a campaign's strategy than anything else. To say that Obama can not borrow campaign strategies from Reagan but Clinton can borrow from Bush is hypocrisy.

by Dee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:05:46 PM EST

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (3.00 / 1)

This is the hit diary which has been roundly ridiculed even on dailykos.

This sort of spin and speculation is simply laughable.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:08:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (3.00 / 1)

Extremely dumb piece. Obama's campaign publicly talk about how much they admire Reagan. This entire article is pure speculation. There's no evidence whatsoever Clinton is emulating Bush's campaign strategy or expresses her admiration.

Junk.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:10:49 PM EST

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

"Obama's campaign publicly talk about how much they admire Reagan."

Do you sit around your mother's basement and just make this shit up?

by Dee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:19:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please (3.00 / 1)

This is so bad it doesn't even qualify as a hit tactic. Lets look at the article

The clash with the Illinois senator did indeed reveal some striking similarities between Clinton and George W. Bush. But that is arguably a compliment -- at least for many Democrats who loathe Bush but envy his success in winning the presidency and wielding power.

Damn Clinton is like Bush in the sense that she wants to win...fucking establishment candidates...always wanting to win.

Here's another good quote

Of course, every presidential race features strategies adopted from the cycle before.

Uh...clearly the beltway is at it again! Trying to learn from succesful campaigns. GRRR it's time for Change!

by world dictator on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:13:00 PM EST

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

Did I not say that I DON'T have a problem with her tactic? You're making my point: it makes sense to employ winning strategies irrespective of Democrat or Republican. To condemn anyone--Senator Clinton or Obama--for wanting to employ winning campaign strategies borrowed from republicans is silly! I'm think any Democrat would be smart to borrow from Reagan and Bush in their campaign strategies; to criticize either is politically immature and intellectually silly! My point!

by Dee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (3.00 / 1)

There's no evidence Senator Clinton is borrowing specific 'strategy' from George W. The entire article is a pure speculation. Nobody from Clinton campaign speaks on record on this.

It is however Obama's campaign strategist who on record showed his fondness of Reagan and his strategy.

That's the big difference.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

He NEVER said he admired Reagain; he said he admired how he was able to reach folks across the political divide. And where is your elitist outrage EVERY Time Hillary Clinton quotes or expresses admiration for Barry Goldwater..A man who opposed the '64 Civil Rights Act and called Brown v. Board of Education an abuse of constitutional power? This is a blatant double standard!

by Dee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have to jump in here. (3.00 / 1)

Dee

I get the argument you're trying to make. I disagree but its a legitmate perspective so I've stayed out of that debate.

But the Barry Goldwater arguments are gross miscarricturizations.

Per wikipedia:

Goldwater supported the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. Nationally, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964; he argued that, among other things, it unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens in its drive to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

Goldwater was clearly no racist or segergationist. I know its hard to believe given the state of the Republican party currently and historically but Goldwater truly believed in states rights and not the coded "states rights" argument used by those employing the Southern Strategy.

Also Goldwater, being the true small government conservative, was very socially progressive. He was the one who coined the phrase "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight" in reference to DADT.

Furthermore Barry Goldwater was a strong advocate of personal liberty.

He believed abortion was a personal choice

He hated the religious right's moral legislation

Another great Goldwater moment

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned," Goldwater retorted: "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

I don't agree with Barry Goldwater on everything and neither does Clinton I assume but there is nothing wrong with being a Goldwater fan. : )

by world dictator on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 05:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to jump in here. (none / 0)

I know you are being jovial and your comment did bring a smile to my face.

Just wanted to remind you that Goldwater advocated using nuclear weapons ("lob one into the men's room" in the Kremlin), voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and spent much of his career, particularly his early career, trying to destroy the New Deal.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to jump in here. (none / 0)

Keep in mind I'm not saying this in a controversial tone because obviously we're just having a friendly discussion :)

But I don't think your post proves much. Nobody is claiming Barry Goldwater is George McGovern. But Barry Goldwater did a lot of good in his long senate career. I obviously don't disagree with everything he believed in but there comes a time when you have to divorce politics from political beliefs.

Many Republicans and some Democrats, have historically voted for and against bills because of bigotry,racism, classism,politics,etc. Barry Goldwater was not one of those people. He truly believed in ideology he professed. As my above posted he honestly believed the 1964 Civil Rights Act overstepped the powers of the government. But did he think that equality among the races were bad? No! And he didn't just talk the talk he walked the walk. There was no political benefit in him helping the local NAACP or desegergating the Arizona National guard. And he did support other federal legislation promoting racial equality such as a constitutional amendment against the poll tax or the 1956 Civil Rights Act.

We should be able to disagree with someone and still respect and understand why they feel a certain way about government. I don't have a problem with Dee or anyone else disagreeing with Goldwater politically but to imply that he was a racist because you disagree with him is out of line especially considering that he did do a lot to promote racial equality.

Aside from that as I mention above Barry Goldwater was more progressive than many progressives today. And most importantly he was consistent with his beliefs. He did't say let's have small government when it conviences me and then let's expand it when I want to push my own agenda. I greatly respect any politician who actually legislates by his convictions.

So yes Goldwater did say or do things that people on this site disagree with, that I disagree with, but I'm a proud Goldwater fan and I don't think theres a damn thing wrong with Hillary Clinton being a Goldwater girl

my .02 cents : )

by world dictator on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to jump in here. (none / 0)

You gave me some knowledge about Goldwater I did not know and I always loves me real deep authentic Western libertarianism, so I always admired him for that. Consistency is good too. He did say and do some really, really crazy stuff. I do not know if he was a racist, I know he voted against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and I suppose some reasons for doing so are better than all but none of them are persuasive. No state had the right to oppress anybody, as I look at things.

I do not hold liking Goldwater against Clinton in the slightest. I have done and said many things which today I wish I had not.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 08:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have to jump in here. (none / 0)

I do not know if he was a racist, I know he voted against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and I suppose some reasons for doing so are better than all but none of them are persuasive. No state had the right to oppress anybody, as I look at things.

If he was racist he wouldn't support the NAACP. He also gave commencement speeches at segegated black high schools.

I'm sure you don't disagree with the argument for states rights, neither do I. if we did we'd be republicans or libertarians. And yes good old fashion western politics,especially libertarian politics is pretty bad ass.

by world dictator on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 08:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

Moreover, where was liberal outrage when Bill Clinton touted his life-long relationship with William Fulbright, a life-long segregationist? As an African American, I found it appalling, but as someone appreciates his political genius, I can't help but recognize (and give credit) its effectiveness in reaching the good ol' boy southern vote.

In your obssession for Hillary Clinton, you fail to recognize I was NOT criticizing her, but recognizing how political smart it is to borrow from the enemy. It's like Hillary's butt cheeks are your political blinders.

by Dee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh please (none / 0)

Geez, you do not need to tell me your intention. Check your history, lots of blatant race baiting stuff.

This is lame.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (3.00 / 1)

yawn...........

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:22:50 PM EST

the Tactics (3.00 / 2)

First of all this is not the campaign comparing itself to Bush, as Belcher compared Obama's campaign to Reagan, this is a fairly contentious reporter trying to generate some controversy. Secondly the points of comparison are not specific to Bush, all campaigns try to use these 'tactics'.

The basic comparison is this:

a highly disciplined candidate running an equally well-disciplined operation, surrounded by extremely loyal staffers who take care not to undercut their candidate with leaks to the press.

That isn't "Bush-like", any campaign strives to be like that. The specifics are:

* Build up an issue in order to tear it down.

* Aggressively challenge and publicly attack the news media.

* Get all the party's top operatives and fundraisers working for you.

* Project an aura of inevitability.

The first two are good media management, every campaign tries to lock up the best staff, and the article points out that the campaign isn't doing 'inevitability' since Obama raises as much as Clinton does.

The article is trying to take 'well run campaign' and turn it into a negative, and the diarist has fallen for it.

by souvarine on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:26:39 PM EST

Let Me Take a Stab at This (none / 0)

It might be that they don't particularly mind the Bush/Cheney-lite attacks because those attacks only succeed in marginalizing the one making the attack.

Just something to consider.

by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:43:39 PM EST

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

Where do you come up with this crap? Hillary admires Bush? You must be kidding because that is just such a stupid statement that I would find it hard for you to say with a straight face. This is just a crap shot from Obama followers to try and change the subject about their guy having wood for Reagan.

by DoIT on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:26:58 PM EST

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

it is from an article in the politico

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:47:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

Well if it came from Politico that explains it. How about actually providing sources for these wild accusations. And a source isn't just well they said it on Politico.

by DoIT on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 06:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least Hillary isn't running on this line (none / 0)

"I'm a uniter, not a divider", which seems to be the new catchphrase of the Obama campaign

An Obama spokeswoman, Jennifer Psaki, pointed to his record of fighting for ethics reform both in the Illinois state legislature and in the U.S. Senate. She also added: "He's dealing in the politics of reality."

Ms. Psaki would not comment on Mr. Edwards's fiery tone, but she said Mr. Obama "wants to be somebody that people look to as a uniter and not a divider."

http://www.nysun.com/article/60137?page_ no=2

sounds kind of familiar...

by okamichan13 on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 07:00:36 PM EST

Clintons run to win. Not to lose. (none / 0)

Gore and Kerry ran to lose.

The good news is that when Hillary Clinton does win we can count on efective government like we saw in the 90s under Bill.

The Clintons know how to run the country.

Anyone whining about Clinton's campaign is a Republican who knows they are going to get beat, or a supporter of one of the weaker Democratic candidates who are running to soft - running to lose.

by dpANDREWS on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:49:30 PM EST

nobody runs to lose... (none / 0)

the problem with the kerry or gore campaign's is not that they didn't want to win. it's really problematic to try to extrapolate hillary's new york races onto a presidential campaign, especially since she didn't have significant competition. the fact is that whoever the democratic nominee is will never have faced the kind of competition that we will see in 2008. bill clinton hasn't, either. they will never have run against a candidate with the voter vault, never run against a candidate who has the extraordinary messaging capabilities that republicans have now, never run against a candidate with the organizational strengths that republicans have in presidential races. they will never have run in a campaign were hundreds of millions of dollars will be raised and spent outside the traditional campaign/party structure nor run a campaign with the intense focus of the national media.

in the end, all we can say about hillary is that she provides republicans with a target rich environment, amplified by the fact that they've got 15 years of video on her. when she flip-flops (like she did with making a no-first use statements), they'll have a distinct advantage of showing it over and over and over. so the question is, can hillary run a negative enough campaign to keep independents and soft partisans out of the voting booth, to turn off most of america, in order to win? that's a gamble i wouldn't be willing to take, but knowing democrats, they will...

"vision for change comes first and foremost...from me." -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 07:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Emulates Bush Campaign Tactics (none / 0)

Oh, please, the only emulation that Hillary is going to do the same as Bush is WIN.

by reasonwarrior on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 05:09:56 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.