The Bill Clinton Rally. My family and friends saw the Bill Clinton rally for Hillary Clinton in Morehead this afternoon. I got in line at 4:00pm and it was a long, long, line--more than a quarter mile. I'm a bad judge of crowd size but I'd say that only half the people in line got into the auditorium. At least three of the sociology and social work professors I know were working as volunteers for the Hillary campaign. So were a couple of students. Morehead State University seems to be much more of a Hillary campus than an Obama campus. Perhaps the downscale demographic here militates against Obama's rhetoric of unity.
The Three Idiots. I've had occasion to discuss the stupidity, laziness, and ineptitude of Kentucky Democrats before. Today's performance by local state representatives John Will Stacy, Rocky Adkins, and Walter Blevins was particularly embarrassing. All three of them talked about "when the Clintons were in the White House" over and over again as if Bill and Hillary had been co-presidents between 1992 and 2000. Out of the three local politicians to introduce Bill Clinton, only one of them used Hillary's name and only used it once. Maybe, the local guys haven't noticed but Hillary Clinton has been working for the last eight years and especially for the last 15 months to define her own political identity. Perhaps they haven't noticed that the idea of a Clinton dynasty is one of the major objections to Hillary's candidacy. Or maybe they were afraid they would forgot her name.
Part of the blame for the introduction fiasco lies at the feet of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Where the Obama campaign engages in spontaneous organization and does their homework concerning local talent of various kinds, the Hillary Campaign has relied on the organizations of state and local politicians. Part of the outcome of that reliance was the spectacle of people promoting the Hillary campaign without using her name hardly at all.
And couldn't there have been a woman speaking for the Hillary campaign to introduce Bill?
As the first major female candidate for the presidency, Hillary should have at least one woman speaking up for her.
That was another embarrassment.
But by now, Kentucky Democratic voters have grown immune to the failures of Kentucky Democratic politicians. So, the idiot warm-up acts probably didn't do Hillary any harm.
The Bill Speech. The Bill Clinton speech was a lot better and did his wife's candidacy some good. After starting off with some weak stuff that I forgot, Bill Clinton settled into a point by point argument for Hillary Clinton's candidacy on the issues of energy independence, health care reform, withdrawing from Iraq, and caring for Iraq veterans. Having taken his medicine for his racial comments in South Carolina, Bill Clinton stuck to the specifics of Hillary's policy ideas, how her plans would improve people's lives, and her relevant experience in those areas. The Hillary Campaign should have been doing this all along. Hillary's policy knowledge and plans are a major strength of her candidacy and a major reason she'd make a good president. But Mark Penn and Hillary's staff decided not to build Hillary's campaign on her policy expertise. So her most important strength is being wasted.
Still, I felt better about supporting Hillary's candidacy after Bill's speech than before. In that sense, the Bill gambit worked well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Good one!
I remember seeing Gerald Ford in Austin back in 1980, stumping for Reagan. A similar thought occurred to me: "why don't they have a MAN speak up for the candidate?"
Bill's presence in Morehead is just another sign of their rabid desperation. The recent reptile show at the Conference Center was a good preparation for his arrival.
Your even-handed description and analysis are admirable in any case. Though how you could take such detailed notes while holding your nose is beyond me. :)
JVModaff
Thanks. I don't know about the prose though. I was doing the typing version of slurring toward the end. Too many chocolate chip cookies I guess.
First, I commend you for recognizing the brilliance of President Bill Clinton's campaign skills. I'm sure he'll sleep well knowing he has your approval.
Now, let's see, my understanding is that you have a PHD and you teach at some college in Kentucky. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. I sense in your comments however a kind of jealously toward those local office-holders you mentioned. I don't live there though I have read a good many of your posts so I've never heard of the three Kentucky Democrats of which you spoke. Perhaps they are lazy and inept. I've never read their writing (if there is any) nor have I heard them speak pubicly. I have read your writing and while you are usually right on point, I must tell you that the snide arrogance that permeates some of your posts really costs you a lot of credibility.
The first example is the title of this post. "Bill Clinton and the Idiot Democrats" This isn't the first time you have displayed what sounds like a kind of hostile envy of Bill Clinton. You seem to take a great deal of pleasure reveling like a pig in a mixture of mud and its own feces in what you seem to consider Bill Clinton's mistakes. More often than not these "mistakes" seem to be noticed by you but no one else. Is it envy because you believe that your IQ is equal to or better than his but he is a beloved former president and you (I'm guessing) have never held public office. Your comments about him in past posts as well as this one practically scream "WHY HIM, WHY NOT ME??"
Then the cheap shots at your local Democrats. Could it be that you loathe them so because you feel that you are more qualified to fill any of their positions and your venting that jealousy by callng their remarks "idiotic?" And here's what you chose to pout about first. Apparently, all of them said something like, "when the Clintons were in the White House" over and over again as if Bill and Hillary had been co-presidents between 1992 and 2000... the idea of a Clinton dynasty is one of the major objections to Hillary's candidacy." Your words and I guess theirs as well. While it may be true that on the national level, Hillary needs to be seen as separate and distinct from her husband. But there are pockets of the country where nostalgia drives her campaign. There are places where people need to see them as a package deal. Where people want "them" back in the White House. That wouldn't work where I am but in rural Kentucky I'm guessing that's a different story.
You threw the President a few compliments but even those were laced with petty criticisms and nit-picking about EVERY LITTLE THING!! If you were representative of most Hillary supporters she'd be a goner.
So let us revue: You didn't like the people who introduced the President because they're not smart enough for you.
You think the Hillary campaign is being run badly but you didn't tell us what they should do, only what they shouldn't.
The President's speech was good BUT you just had to remind us that there was a percieved racial slur in South Carolina.
The speech was good BUT the Hillary campaign should have done more of this type of thing sooner.
The speech was good BUT they NEVER talk about her experience?? I beg to differ. I have been to a couple of Hillary rallys. One where they both spoke and another with just her. I've watched a number of them. They speak often of her policy expertise, they have from day one. So either you never watch C-SPAN or you just CAN'T help yourself. You simply MUST criticize every minute detail of every part of Hillary and her husband. I can't help but think I am reading the bitter rantings of a person who spends much of his days thinking, "It should be me."
When she is finally nominated what will be your complaint? When she wins in November how will you explain to us that she did the whole thing wrong. When she is inaugurated will you play the role of Mr. Blackwell and criticize her clothing, or will it be her speech? When she doesn't do everything the way you would do it what will be the complaint?
Instead of standing on the sidelines taking cheap shots at your "idiot Democrats" down there, why not run against one of them? Or would that be too real? If you lost you could always fall back on the "local Democrats are idiots" explanation for not seeing your brilliance.
If micro-criticisms were the path to vast wealth you'd be another Warren Buffet. But, it is your blog so...c'est la vie.
Of course, there's a chance that I might be frustrated with the way Mitch McConnell's run rings around the Kentucky Dems for 24 years or the fact that Hillary has been losing to a guy who is likely to do considerably less well as president than she would. But we're all subject to multiple interpretation. So, you're certainly welcome to yours.
The previous anonymous commenter nailed it. Caric is a bitter, jealous little man who lives to carp and criticize.
That, and he's a legend in his own mind.
But it is Caric's blog that you all are reading and whining about. It is a good forum for political ideas and Caric puts his ideas out there for you to criticize or comment on. I didn't make it to the Clinton event but would have wanted to just to experience it. I'm not a Hillary or Bill fan but find it all interesting. I'm always a bit puzzled but amused at how many people bitch and complain about Caric but few have any good comments of their own. Let's see if Obama or McCain has anyone showing up at Morehead, Kentucky!
Post a Comment