Response To Hillary Comment

In the previous blog, Linda posted the following comment: "Hillary said what she had to say and she certainly wants her party to win. That said, like many, she is well aware that Obama's shine began to fade soon after the South Carolina victory - and he is perilously close to letting the presidency slip away. He barely gained the nomination and now he is falling in the polls every day.Obama got where he is by having 99%positive press coverage until Hillary was out of the way. Then, as soon as Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. came out, he started to fade - and his many flip-flops have revealed him to be a politician, not an once-in-a-lifetime agent of change.If nothing else contradicted his CHANGE theme, the selection of BIDEN for VP certainly did. - The consummate Washington insider and a huge disappointment.John King on CNN said one day that some in his campaign call Obama - OBAM-E, the E standing for ego. Even for the sake of his party, he would NOT nominate Hillary for the VP - and he never considered her.So, Hillary did her thing last night - so magnificently - and he can never match her.In the end she has won the hearts of MOST Democrats, even those now suffering from Obama Buyer's Remorse. However, she has lost what she wanted most: to have her party in power so the lives of Americans can be improved."


My verbose, I mean, informative response:

Your point about media coverage is certainly valid, although I find it ironic that in 2000, the media had a love affair with John McCain.


"Washington" takes a hit from virtually every American, and many times deservedly so, but the reality of politics is much like the weather, "Everybody complains about it, but nobody does anything about it." Without gaining power in Washington, neither party can attempt to enact their respective agendas. Biden has been a Washington fixture since I was...well...a long time. He brings lots of experience to the ticket, especially in foreign policy, something Obama lacks, but also in Washington savvy. Jimmy Carter tried to be the outsider and reform Washington candidate, but as president, we all know how that ended. Change is usually incremental in American society, barring some dramatic event, like the Great Depression, which gave Roosevelt the opportunity to push through lots of legislation in his famous "100 days" and "The New Deal." When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they had a huge agenda, and what they perceived to be a mandate for change. What they found was that change is easy to talk about, but not so easy to implement. In all due respect, they helped to change America in that time, along with Bill Clinton.

Early on in the primary campaign, I must admit that I was "leaning" ever so slightly to Hillary. There is something amazing, however, in that many Democrats seemed to be looking elsewhere for an alternative to her. Obama's win in Iowa brought a large number of supporters to him, and it certainly gave him lots of favorable press coverage. Let us not forget, many Democrats were looking for an alternative to Hillary. These weren't Republicans.

For Hillary (and Bill), their years of experience also had a negative side. I guess you could say, their strength was also their weakness. To their favor was the fact that EVERYBODY knew Hillary, and she had no problem with name recognition. Further, they had loads of contacts and friends within the Democratic Party power structure, including the ability to raise lots of money for her campaign. On the other side, being so well known has its negative side, as polls all showed Hillary with the highest negatives of any Democrat in the race. Part of that, in my opinion, transferred to her from her husband, fairly or unfairly (no one has ever claimed that politics is fair). By winning in New Hampshire, Hillary seemed to stop the bleeding, but the open wound was really just beginning to fester. The Clinton campaign seemed knocked off stride, and what had seemingly been a march to the coronation... I mean nomination, became a brutal slug fest. Bill Clinton seemed to have run off the "bridge to the 21st Century," as he failed to comprehend that with 24 hour news and the Internet, virtually anything and everything said or done by high profile individuals, like himself, will be reported in the media.

There's no need to go over the rest of the campaign, as we all know what happened, but there's no question that Hillary made Obama a better national candidate, and that he made her a better candidate. And she did get better! Much better! Thus the campaign dragged on as Obama, while leading continuously, was unable to put the race for the nomination completely away.

Hillary's speech to the convention was certainly a great one, and I, too, wondered if Obama could top it, BUT HE DID!!!

To kind of finish up here, there's just something about the Clintons that make people suspicious of their motives; that they always have their own interests first and foremost. Maybe "Clinton fatigue" plays a part, but again, these feeling aren't just out there among Republicans, but many Democrats, too.