Skip to main content

Signs of the Apocalypse: Hillary unwilling to attack Palin; Obama campaign abandoning 50-state strategy

From The Australian [h/t Real World Libertarian], we discover first that Senator Hillary Clinton has declined to become a major anti-Sarah Palin surrogate for the Barack Obama campaign (perhaps because she recalls that this is exactly the strategy Obama used against her):

HILLARY Clinton may be the most obvious choice to throw into the ring against the new darling of American politics, Sarah Palin, but the failed Democratic presidential candidate is refusing the job.

"We're not going to be anybody's attack dog against Sarah Palin," a Clinton insider said yesterday....

Her refusal to roll up her sleeves against Palin, who describes herself as "a pit bull with lipstick", has already come under questioning by Democratic apparatchiks. "The strategic imperative right now is to do something about Palin and prevent her cutting through the race," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine.


This in reference to

...the roster of prominent women deployed by Obama to such good effect against Clinton herself during the primary campaign.


Clinton will be stumping in blue-collar areas of Pennsylvania and Ohio.

In the same article, we discover that the Obama campaign has--without fanfare--dropped the 50-state strategy that was going to take the fight to Senator John McCain, forcing him to defend formerly safe areas like Georgia or North Carolina:

Just before Palin's selection, David Plouffe, Obama's astute campaign manager, looked at the electoral map of the US and declared the national polls less important than the 18 battleground states where Obama had the ground troops, enthusiasm and money to win.

Palin's emergence has upset those calculations and forced the Obama campaign for the first time to re-examine its successful campaign tactics. Obama now has a great need to drive up voter turnout among black people and the young, while staunching defections to McCain from blue-collar workers and women.


On New Year's Day 2008 the two Presidential candidates left slugging it out in September were not to have been Barack Obama and John McCain. The spring primary campaigns, I would hope, have cured us of the strange addiction to conventional wisdom.

Palin's selection as McCain's VP has--for better or worse--wrenched the race into an entirely new direction: one that the Obama camp clearly did not foresee. That's how they beat Clinton: they kept her campaign off balance throughout the entire spring, until it was too late to change the momentum.

But given the amazing turns this year has already taken, I'm sure we've got at least one September, and maybe two October surprises still to come.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...