SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Asymmetric who wrote (103570)3/31/2007 1:42:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361020
 
Hillary's star appeal fading

townhall.com

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Friday, March 30, 2007

It’s now obvious that Hillary Clinton’s negatives are rising among American voters. A Harris Interactive survey says that a majority will not vote for her, and a Gallup poll this week finds her favorability among Democratic primary voters dropping from 82 percent in January, to 74 percent in March.

By itself, this slippage would not be fatal. But it begs the key question: Why is Hillary dropping?

Usually a candidate only falls in the polls when she is attacked by her rivals, or is the object of a major scandal. Yet, Obama and Edwards are treating her with kid gloves — avoiding even the most gentile of criticisms. So noteworthy are their all-positive campaigns, that when Obama’s fund-raiser, David Geffen, knocked Bill for his pardons, it became the central campaign event in January.

And, for once in her life, Hillary is not currently on the griddle for any scandal. There are no daily exposes of her financial or Bill’s marital misconduct. Nobody is hitting Hillary.

The real bad news for her campaign is that Hillary is losing support — not due to any attacks on her, but because people are watching her wage her positive campaign, and are concluding that they just don’t like her.

It is Hillary’s own campaign appearances that are driving up her negatives!

That’s the worst possible news for a campaign. When your main instrument — the candidate — creates negatives in her wake, you’re in big trouble. You can always rebut an attack that comes in from the other side — but how do you fix things when your own candidate’s campaigning is building up her unfavorables?

Basically, voters are seeing that Hillary is a phony. With her posturing on Iraq, and her evasions of her previous positions in favor of the war, she sounds as contradictory and dissimulating as she is. To watch her try to explain her positions on the war is actually amusing. She voted for the war — but now claims she only wanted to strengthen the hands of the U.N. inspectors. She even supported it after she learned there were no WMDs, but now wants a total withdrawal of our troops — except for those she would leave there to keep the Iranians out and hunt down al Qaeda. She voted to cut off funds if the troops are not pulled out, but she doesn’t really want to cut off the funding, etc., etc...

No politician looks their best when they are evasive, and Hillary looks worse than most.

The Clinton campaign clearly is dying to switch Clintons, and feature the charismatic Bill and downplay the candidate herself. But the more they put the former president out there, the more people realize that Hillary ain’t Bill. In effect, voters are echoing Lloyd Bentsen’s famous put-down of Quayle in their 1984 vice presidential debate, when Dan tried to invoke the image of John Kennedy in his own defense. Americans this year are saying, “We know Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a friend of ours. And Hillary, you’re no Bill Clinton.”

Generally, when the son or daughter of a famous politician strikes out on his or her own, the old man fades into the background. President Bush-41 was noticeable absent while his son ran for his old job. Most politicians are anxious to avoid the comparison between their nascent skills, and the more developed and polished presentation of their fathers. But, by putting Bill out there next to Hillary, we are treated to a daily reminder of the huge difference between them.

He’s warm. She’s not. He’s funny. She’s not. He’s charismatic. Her circumstances are charismatic, but she, clearly, is not. Bill is intuitive. Hillary’s lips move as she dances — each step is right but there is no innate sense of rhythm or beat.

Bill Clinton has an infinite range of poses to strike on a public platform: charming, ingratiating, determined, empathetic, committed, sincere, humorous, angry, self-righteous. He can turn on whatever affect suits the purpose. But Hillary has only two gears — park and straight ahead. She knows nothing but direct, strident, shrill advocacy when a microphone is in her hand. On talk shows, she has managed to develop a charming, smiling, giggly persona. But after repeated exposure, it is wearing thin.

Will all this doom Hillary? Probably not. Her ace in the hole is the vast infusion of new single women voters she will attract to the polling booths on Election Day, who are voting for the first time. All current polling excludes these women from its sample because they do not now say they are likely to vote, or aren’t even registered yet. But, by the time Oprah beats the drums for Hillary, they will realize a woman is running and will turn out to support her candidacy.

But if Hillary doesn’t get her act together, even these new voters may not be enough to save her.

*Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com



To: Asymmetric who wrote (103570)4/1/2007 6:25:39 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361020
 
Obama finds lucrative support in New York
______________________________________________________________

BY GLENN THRUSH
newsday.com
April 1, 2007

PINECREST, Fla. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the first round in the battle for New York's campaign riches, but Barack Obama has established a lucrative beachhead on Wall Street.

Clinton raised about $7.5 million from her home state, but Obama, who jump-started his New York operation in the last two months, raised as much as $3.5 million in the former first lady's backyard, according to sources in both campaigns.

Obama has been a frequent visitor to New York, but Hillary and Bill Clinton have yet to set foot in a Chicago area swept by Obama-mania since she declared her candidacy in January.

Chicago was their kind of town before Obama entered the race in February. The former first lady was raised in a nearby suburb, her campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle is a Chicagoan (her brother Danny, a local alderman, is one of the few locals to publicly support Hillary) and Bill Clinton developed a formidable Illinois fundraising operation in the 1990s.

"They haven't done anything in Chicago. It's surprising," said a senior Obama campaign official. "The reason, I think, is that there is pretty strong unanimity of support for him in Chicago and that makes it hard for anyone else to do anything."

By contrast, Obama has trespassed gleefully in Gotham, making a half-dozen profitable appearances in Manhattan since the beginning of the year, including a $1 million fundraiser earlier this month at the Grand Hyatt. He also attended a string of low-key, high-dollar February parties hosted by Warner Music executive Edgar Bronfman Jr., the son of financier George Soros and fund manager James Torrey, whose event netted between $350,000 and $400,000.

Obama returns to the city April 9 for a pair of high-priced events, one of them hosted by MTV founder Bob Pittman.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said the senator isn't writing off Chicago. She has attracted some local supporters, including public relations executive Rick Jasculca and banker Bob Nash, a former White House personnel director, who recently signed on to her campaign staff.

"I don't think there's any hostility to her here, it's just that the town's crazy for Obama and there's an incredible amount of civic pride," said longtime Chicago political consultant Don Rose, who hasn't yet picked a candidate. "I have not heard of a single major fund-raiser who has come out publicly for her. Some will, eventually, but people are reluctant."

Rose and other Chicago operatives think the Clintons may be avoiding the area out of deference to Mayor Richard Daley, a family friend who is marshaling local support for Obama.

To be fair to Clinton, every viable Democrat in the race will have to develop some kind of Manhattan-based fundraising operation -- and Chicago is not in the same league. But the speed with which Obama has been able to set up his New York network has taken many in her camp by surprise.

He's done so by tapping the anybody-but-Hillary sentiment and the anti-war wealthy, two sizable constituencies in her home state.

His first, and many say most important, step was recruiting Carter White House policy director Orin Kramer, a gruff, affable pension fund executive whom Democratic fundraisers say is especially proficient at turning fuzzy commitments into signed, deposited checks.

Just as critically, Obama hired as his national finance director Juliana Smoot, who ran the blockbuster fundraising operation for Sen. Charles Schumer -- a Clinton supporter -- at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last year.

"The scary part is that he's done this all in eight weeks -- eight weeks!" bemoaned one Clinton supporter earlier this month at a fundraiser for her in Washington.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.