[評論] Another Bleak Wednesday for Clinton

[swallow73 (swallow73)]

Clinton女士如果繼續熱心的幫忙考驗Obama，對Obama來講
或許是不錯的磨練。然而如果她可以克制一下，不鬧的太
過份，就算沒辦法贏得提名，至少仍然能保住她的政治前
途。Balz認為接下來若民主黨贏得參院多數，她要成為參院
多數黨領袖是理所當然的事。如果共和黨贏得總統大選，
2012年事已高的馬肯若不爭取連任，她代表民主黨參選勝
選的機會還是有。1988年黨內爭取黨內提名落敗的高爾
不也順利在2000年代表民主黨參選嗎?

這篇報導對Clinton陣營接下來選戰策略的建議是很中肯，
不過Balz認為沒有任何一種策略能夠有起死回生的神效。
畢竟現在選戰已進到中後段，要戲劇性的扭轉一連串失策造成的不
利是很困難的(說到失策，有記者形容的很有趣，Clinton
陣營莫名其妙的對caucus過敏，拱手讓出了大量的黨代表票)。

有共和黨策士甚至提到，由於共和黨局勢已定，可能會有大批閒著
無聊的共和黨選民跑來投民主黨初選。雖然有人認為共和黨選
民會因為認為大選面對Clinton比Obama好對付而投Clinton，給
Clinton額外3、4個百分點的優勢，不過類似的效應似乎並未
在Wisconsin發生，甚至Obama在WI的17%領先部份應該是共和黨
選民贊助的。該共和黨人士認為，若是有大量共和黨選民參加
民主黨初選(或許再加個如果不搞反串的話)，那麼Clinton在
Texas跟Ohio的選情就確定崩盤。




標題:Another Bleak Wednesday for Clinton


新聞來源:華盛頓郵報
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/20/
another_bleak_wednesday_for_cl.html?hpid=topnews                                 (需有正確連結)

By Dan Balz
It is another bleak Wednesday for Hillary Clinton's campaign, the second in
as many weeks in which she has awakened to the aftermath of what President
Bush would call a thumpin'.

Was she expected to lose Wisconsin? Probably. Was she expected to lose it by
17 percentage points? Never. On top of that came another drubbing in a caucus
state, this time in Hawaii, where Barack Obama had lived as a child. The
margin there was 51 points.

Whatever the Clinton campaign thought would work has not worked. The
carefully crafted phrases -- Obama is about promises, Clinton is about
solutions -- fell flat in the Badger State. The negative ads about whether
Obama was ducking debates did not work either.

Clinton needs something more dramatic in terms of a midcourse correction as
the two-week battle for Texas and Ohio begins. What might it be? There
appears to be conflict inside the Clinton campaign about the nature of the
problem she has. Various theories abound.

Is it that white women are no longer supporting her in the numbers they did
earlier in the campaign? Or is it that white men have moved decisively to
Obama since John Edwards quit the race? Is Obama truly beginning to break
even or even win the votes of non-college-educated white voters? Does she
need to be more empathetic, to show she is vulnerable, in order to recapture
the voice she found in New Hampshire? Or more presidential to highlight her
experience vs. Obama's inexperience?

"Strength and experience," the mantra from earlier in the campaign, has not
worked. It ultimately cost her Iowa, where voters never found her warm
enough. In New Hampshire she evolved into the caring and compassionate female
candidate and claimed in the aftermath of her best night of the campaign that
she had found her voice as the caring Clinton. Now there are doubts about
whether that alone was the right tone. Some combination of strength and
compassion is the new goal.

Campaign officials see Thursday's debate in Texas as a major opportunity to
change the story line of the Democratic race, whether by her ability to offer
a compelling contrast in style and leadership, telling arguments on
substantive issues or a poor performance by Obama. A second debate next
Tuesday in Ohio gives her a second chance to drive a new message. But that
does not amount to a strategy, and Obama has been no pushover in recent
debates. So perhaps more is needed.

I encouraged a number of Democrats, some with sympathies toward Clinton,
others more partial to Obama, others fairly neutral in the nomination battle,
to offer their suggestions overnight Tuesday, on the condition that they not
be identified directly. Their ideas are not always consistent, but one
pattern emerges: This is no time to assume that a little better application
of the strategy she has been following will turn the tide.

"She lost the battle of the job description -- she let the Obama campaign
define what's needed in a president in terms that totally work for him and
totally marginalize her," one strategist wrote. "In fact, this was the major
turning point in the campaign. Obama took off when he stopped just talking
vaguely about the need for change and started making the case that his unique
attributes are exactly what we need in a president today to turn the country
around. She never engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the presidency,
and why she fits the bill better than Obama."

"Substantively, Clinton has got to draw even sharper contrasts to stop
Obama's momentum," said a strategist who worked in a key battleground state
in the 2004 election. "How negative that gets is really a gut check as much
as it is a strategic guessing game on where to draw the line. How far is she
willing to go, risking reputation, integrity, and leadership capital? She
must get women and working folks back on board with her populism and she must
succeed at establishing stronger doubts about Obama's experience. I just
don't know what else she can say."

Another strategist picked up on the risks of becoming too negative over the
next two weeks -- even though traditional political strategy would suggest
she has no other choice. "Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have too much more
that they want to do in their careers and for their legacy to burn down the
Party and the campaign," this strategist wrote. "They don't need to be
kamikazes. If Clinton doesn't make it through this race -- if she doesn't
drive her negatives through the roof -- she could easily be the next Senate
majority leader or potentially the nominee in 2012."

This same strategist said they need to toss out the poll-tested slogans and
"show Hillary talking from her heart... No more crying but raw emotion and
passion about the people she meets and the stakes that are so high. And she
needs to play the woman card more -- when she makes women feel guilty that
they are denying a woman a real chance -- that card works. It is okay for
voters to feel sorry for you if they vote for you."

A veteran of the Clinton-Gore administration offered these thoughts: "First,
for the political community, she needs to open up her campaign. I love Maggie
[Williams], Doug [Sosnik] and Steve [Richetti], but all the changes have
said, 'We're in trouble and we're drawing the circle TIGHTER.' HRC [Hillary
Rodham Clinton] needs someone high and visible who is not on the Clinton
Library Steering Committee."

This strategist continued: "Second, in terms of presentation, they should
never let her stand behind a podium and give a speech ever again. It's just
not her thing, and she's getting KILLED in the comparison to Obama. Put her
back around a table, listening and chatting. She's likable, smart, and
engaging in a small setting."

Like others, he urged renewed focus on women. "Women voters prefer her, but
don't really think they have much at stake here. She needs to show that she
understands them in a way that no man possibly could."

Other Democrats remain mystified by the failure of the Clinton campaign to be
ready for the post-Super Tuesday, pre-March 4 round of contests. And they are
stunned that the Clinton campaign only now is beginning to realize the
importance of ground operations in these states. Clinton officials say there
is a shift underway to focus more on field operations, but is it too late?

Several strategists were truly pessimistic, including one Clinton loyalist
and one Republican. The Republican called the race essentially over and said
Ohio voters could ratify the undoing of Clinton's campaign on March 4.

"Key for her is the blue collar union voters," the Republican wrote. "BUT,
the problem for her with those voters is her connection to NAFTA. AND, the
lack of a competitive GOP primary will attract LOTS of I's [independents] and
R's [Republicans] into the DEM primary, essentially overloading the
D[emocratic] primary." Clinton cannot win if that happens, he predicted.

The first strategist quoted said the time for slogans is long past and what
Clinton needs is a sustained argument about the election and the choices. He
proposed that Clinton deliver three big speeches in coming days, one about
the presidency in 2009 and the risks of an untested leader, a second on the
substantive differences between the candidates in which she clearly embraces
the moderate and pragmatic label and portrays Obama as "instinctively
liberal." The third, he said, should systematically dissect Obama's campaign
promises and raise hard questions about whether he or anyone can, for
example, magically reduce health-insurance premiums by $2,500 a family.

"None of this is likely to work miracles (and Act IV Scene iii is a little
late in the play to commence the action)," the strategist wrote. "But what
she has done up until now hasn't been working, and this at least might get
her the spotlight back and lay out a rationale that people can chew on."

--
 Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama
is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and
competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something
that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration.
                                                     －Los Angels Times
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 122.127.67.95
※ 編輯: swallow73       來自: 122.127.67.95        (02/21 13:27)
推 isaacchen:絕大多數的共和黨人對Cliton家族都很感冒，對OB有利
→ isaacchen:反串的票數可能遠遠比不上賭爛柯林頓的票數XDD
推 RIFF:kidding：HC若大批BO藍皮紅骨屬性 或許民主黨民眾會轉支持HC
→ RIFF:本篇文末 essay-poem說 很有趣   應該也說明了現況
推 fjjkk:不是每個州都可以反串吧??
→ swallow73:抱歉,essay-poem不是本文,是簽名檔,取自落杉機時報公開
→ swallow73:支持Obama的聲明,我以後會註明清楚
※ 編輯: swallow73       來自: 122.127.67.95        (02/21 14:21)