Hillary Clinton Goes for 2008: "I'm in. And I'm in to win."

(1) I couldn't agree more. I said the same thing when my husband brought it up. The Dems really haven't learned a thing about how to win, have we?

Is anybody bothered by the fact that less than a week into her new term as our senator she is declaring her bid for the presidency? I think it is a crime that politicians can hold one office while actively seeking a higher office. It seems like such an abuse of power. IMHO she is no longer acting in the best interests on NY. She is now acting in her own interests and NY will suffer (and pay the bill) for it. Thanks to everyone who voted for her.

Oh - and Governor Bush also had zero foreign policy experience. Isn't that ironic in retrospect! HA HA HA HA HA!!! (silently weeping)

All I got to say, is what everybody knows " the Country needs healing, and who better to heal it then a woman" All the way Hillary, get after them.....

Oh, gee, Hillary is running? Surprise!!!!
Just like she said all during her NY campaign that she wasn't interested? You mean she lied???!
I have always said that she should never be allowed to run for anything, as I'm sure if you shaved her head you'd find a "6-6-6" birthmark.
The only thing that scares the hell out of me more than GWB & Cheney is Hillary.
Whitewater, Vince Foster, Web Hubbell the scapegoat. Maybe we'll get Marc Rich as SecTreas.
How about her brother Hugh as Attorney General?
He seems to have plenty of experience with criminals.
The only saving grace is the thought of Bubba back in the Whitehouse as First Hubbie.
Ya gotta love the guy.
I think Obama is cool, nice guy, smart, comes across well, but I don't think voters are quite ready. I think Colin Powell (a great guy) got shafted to take the fall & take him out of any future political running.
Give me a good female candidate, no problema.
Give me a good AA, Hispanic, Asian,anyone of good personal character, creds & experience, no problema.
But please don't make me choose between this conniving, evil, coat-tail riding duplicitous danger to our future and whatever the Christian Right & Neo-cons allow the Republicans to run.
It's obvious nothing will be accomplished by or for this country for the next two years while the interests & politicians jerk around and consume billions of our tax dollars.

Bofug

Independent Anarchist (do you blame me?)

"Why can't we elect a woman or a person of color?"

Well, let's see... A guy (Bush) who had no foreign policy experience, no military background, and no debating skills was able to 'beat' a former Vice President (Gore) and a former war hero/lifetime politcal heavyweight (Kerry). And those were both white guys.

Given that history, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that Hillary and Barack are unrealistic choices to beat the next Republican candidate (who will probably be McCain).

as i said in my original blog post...

it is annoying to listen to a sitting senator orate over and over about how they would do things differently. it is even more annoying to listen to a sitting senator who's triangulating policy over reality.

her speech just wreaks of triangulation or as my good friend fred states "seems like DLCspeech to me!"

Great, the Democrats are going to nominate either a black dude or a woman, neither of which will win because of that whole part of America between NYC and the pacific.

[1] Posted by: horray for clusterfucks | January 20, 2007 12:20 PM

(1) I couldn't agree more. I said the same thing when my husband brought it up. The Dems really haven't learned a thing about how to win, have we?

[2] Posted by: mihow | January 20, 2007 12:37 PM

The one thing with the Republicans is, they never accept no. The post's on this thread are so negative and full of soft belly Liberal pessimism. 8 years ago, was George Bush a realistic candidate? No! But look what happened. Show some spark, some guts, some courage, some vision. You sound like the O'Reillys and the Hannaty's and the Coulters, declaiming they know what the American people want. NYC has been Republican for the last 18 years, and your all so happy with that state of affairs.
You are all some gloomy M@#$%F%$kers.
The Irony is White people love to pontificate about affirmative action and it's problems, yet when it comes to walking the walk you still want a WHITE MAN, no matter where he falls on the divide...pathetic.

The principle of "positioning" is used by advertisers to sell jeans, soda and bubble gum, but the same principles are used by governments for propaganda.

If you read the 1981 advertising and marketing book Positioning, you'll see it holds the secrets on how the Democrats can win. Rove definitely read it and used its techniques.

The concept of "positioning" is what Bush and his team have so masterfully done. You can see how many techniques were lifted directly from this book.

Here's a passage from the book. Tell me how eerie this is (it was first printed in 1981):


THE POWER OF A NAME

The name is the hook that hangs the brand on the product ladder in the prospect's mind. In the positioning era, the single most important marketing decision you can make is what to name the product.
    Shakespeare was wrong. A rose by any other name would not smell as sweet. Not only do you see what you want to see, ou also smell what you want to smell. [...]
    [...] Special-interest groups recognize the power of a good name. The "Right to Life" movement and "fair trade" laws are two examples.
    And what senator or representative would dare oppose a bill called the "Clean Air Act"?
    In working against an established concept like "fair trade," it's important not to try to rename the competition. All you cause is confusion among your audience.
    To counter the widespread consumer acceptance of fair trade laws, the opposition tried to call it "price maintenance" legislation. It was many, many years before fair trade laws were repealed by the many states that had enacted them.
    A better tactic is to turn the name around. That is, to reposition the concept by using the same words to turn the meaning inside out.
    "Fair to the trade, but unfair to the consumer" is an example of this tactic.
    Even better is to rename the opposition before the powerful name takes root. "Price maintenance" would probably have worked as a blocking strategy, but only early in the game. Another example of the importance of being first.
    


Again, this was printed in 1981, and the re-print of this book was in late 2000, before Bush started his first term. Rove definitely read this book cover-to-cover.

Notice how Republicans have positioned themselves fiercely, concisely and directly, but Democrats haven't done the same. In fact, Republicans have even re-positioned Democrats fairly easily because their defenses were down ("Soft on terror," "Flip Flop Kerry" stuck pretty well).

You can't win by telling people that you're simply "Not Brand X," it's been proven to be a losing technique on the market for decades, over and over and over again. And that's just for soda and bubble gum.

One more note:

Republicans have positioned themselves as "Strong on terror"

Democrats made the mistake of saying "Hey, we're strong on terror, but in a better and different way."

They should have twisted the Republican position as a negative.

If only Democrats re-positioned "Strong on terror" to mean "Endless War" it would've weakened the defenses of the Republicans, then they could've dealt a second blow. Unfortunately, when you have the likes of Clinton voting *for* the war, it makes this strategy harder to execute.

Democrats should've come up with something in one phrase to make themselves more compelling. I, for the life of me, cannot think of on. This is not good, they've got to think of something quick.

I'm not following Hillary's logic on "But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism." That is certainly true on things only the President has full control of like foreign policy. But the Congress controls tax policy and spending. The President may be able to offer suggestions but ultimately it is congress that has to pass the bills. The best thing to happen to Bill Clinton was losing the Congress in 1994 because he could use the veto threat to keep the Congress's spending in check and congress wouldn't pass his health care bill. Instant deficit reduction. Are we to believe a Democrat President is going to stand up to a Democrat Congress? 20th Century history doesn't predict this will happen. spending always rises most rapidly when the White House and congress are controlled by the same party.

As for her other issues, when the hell are we going to get details on things like health care? I would think after blowing elections in 2000 (yes, Gore should have crushed Bush not squeaked by) 2002, and 2004 you would have thought the Democrats would do a better job outlining their plans beyond "restoring hope". They only won in 2006 because the voters were against the war.

Here's hoping someone's "exploratory committee" actually explores some answers.

The knock against most women candidates is that people don't know if they have the experience or know-how to get the job done in the oval office. Hillary already well knows from personal experience how things work at the White House and that puts her above any candidate---man or woman---who's announced so far. Now that she's in, all the money will dry up for the other Dem contenders and the coronation in Denver will be merely a formality. Hillary will pick New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as her VP and that team (with Bill Clinton's unmatched political saavy to guide them) will achieve victory in 2008. You read it here first, people!

The reason the Village idiot from Texas made it to President was due mainly to the fact he was willing to be the perfect puppet for the Mil Industrial machine.
Add to that he had the mentor
WhatA Dick Cheney right at his side. Thats what America votes for... a pawn that is willing to place all the poker chips in the hands of the War machine.You know where your money goes.

squidfly, I have no clue what you're talking about. But if you're going to call me out, and be nasty while doing so, at the very least spell check your post first.

"People aren't going to vote against Hillary because she's a woman: they'll vote against her because they don't like her stance on the issues or they didn't like her husband. It's that simple."

I agree. She has too much of a history. She's not a safe candidate IF we want to win in 2008. That's all I am (was) saying. I would be happy to vote for Obama, but I feel confident in saying that he won't gather enough swing voters because of the racism that is still so powerful in much of America. If that makes me prejudiced, I'm only pre-judging racist swing voters.

Ease up on the hostility, Squidfly. With all due respect, man, you're the one who sounds negative.

I'm a democrat and I believe in Obama.

hell, i dont think Hillary's inability to win has much to do with the fact that she's a woman. i think it has more to do with the fact that a lot of people dont trust her and even more negatively associate her with her husband. being a woman is the least of her troubles.

I was impressed with your first paragraph, Charles. Then you had to ruin it all with the Edwards thing.

I just don't get why anyone would vote for him. I don't dislike him, but is he really presidential material?

I don't dislike Kerry either, but never felt that he had the stuff that presidents are made of (not that our current dickhead in power does). Of everyone currently stumping, the most "presidential" candidate - which is a gut thing admittedly, is Obama.

He seems the most able to diffuse a tense situation, the most pragmatic, the most charismatic.

And yet, for the reasons stated in previous posts, I'd have a hard time voting for him in a primary because I recognize the reality of the situation: he would get slaughtered in the general election.

It's amazing how people feels about a war that can't be won, for you all that still don't understand,,I'm talking about the war in IRAQ> I
t's amaziong that a war like this could mean freedom for us,,,,this is so not knowing the world as is it is..the war in Iraq was a mistake from day one.........and for respect to the the USA, please let us understand this ass all the Intelectuals do...

Our bigist problem, lies right around us. and that is the HEALTH CARE PROBLEM..I just sent my son to get operated on (and I have insurence in this country) and I sent him overseas to get his operation,,because even with insurance, I could still not offord to get him operated on here...but don't threat,,,I'm not the only one that's going through this,,,this is happening every day in my country, and people (since we are so closed in, that we are the best) we think that our system is the best...NO,,,,we need to expand ourselvles,and quit believing the media and propaganda that we created, to believe, we need to get back to the basics....
To hell with IRAQ, WE GOT PROBLEMS HERE THAT WE NEED TAKEN CARE OFF,,,,AND FIX....IT'S HARD TO BELEIVE THAT THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES HAVE TO TAKE CARE OFF OUR ILL, BECAUSE OF GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDD. LET'S VOTE FOR HILLARY, BECAUSE ONLY WOMEN COULD SEE WHAT I MEAN,,,AND I'M A MAN THAT LOVES HIS FAMILYL.

Bumpersticker for '08:

Vote for Hillary- it takes a woman to clean up a man's mess!

Funny on how most of you who want? to vote Dem are keying on why she can't win, as opposed to HOW she could win. Change your attitudes people. That to me has been the BIGGEST problem with the Democratic party, attitude. If she picks the right running mate, like Bill Richardson, she can easily beat McCain, who is low energy and will take a harder beating over Iraq than she will.

Attitude is EVERYTHING.

I would agree that the whole "flyover/podunk" attitude has to go, but at the same time that doesn't change the fact that the middle of the country is just simply less progressive on most issues *in general.*

While true that NY hasn't elected a huge amount of women or minorities, there is a reason that the creative elements, the gay community, big business, and the media flocks to the coasts. You won't see any school board in the northeast arguing that intelligent design ought to be part of the curriculum, for example.

"When was the last time a candidate from NY was nationally relevant?"

True, but why? Why is someone from Arkansas or Tennessee more relevant?

Hillary has a much better chance at winning.

In the south, when certain people invite you into their house, they will say, "Before you step into my home, I want you to know that I hate niggers."

Dixie has no such hatred for women.

Darn my predictive powers are finely honed; Richardson announced a few hours after my post!

But why do they have to make such a big deal out of him being Hispanic? who cares?