U
Re: Where's Bill?
1 message
B
Brent Budowsky Sep 8, 2015 11:56 AM
Late fall is much too late. WJC should have begun early summer in stages, a periodic
but reinforcing presence escalating late fall, not beginning late fall. If it wasn't important enough for him to do compared to other things he is doing, shame on him. If it was a staff-generated plan, shame on them. High probability I write a very strong column very soon about these things. I have been very aggressive defending her and avoiding any criticism while she was under attack but this is now going very wrong and when I read the NYT story that reconfirms my view, never publicly stated, that some
of the people around her---not you but others---are dumber than bird shit when it comes to modern public opinion and modern politics.
I will tell you, I was an early Obama supporter in 2007 and 2008, which was a mistake,
but I was in the inner loop going to meetings with John Kerry sitting on my right and
Tom Daschle sitting on my left and exchanging ideas with the top Obama people
in D.C. and Chicago by speaker phone. They had then, and carried with them into
the White House, an unbridled contempt for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Some of them,
who now are visible for Hillary, said or wrote things to me when I suggested possible
contributions by one of the Clintons that were so dripping with contempt that I told
them that if they ever do that again in my presence I would treat it as on the record,
write it, and name them, that's how bad it was.
There are some people now working for her who consider her a profit center for
their income and not a cause or a mission that they believe in. They almost certainly
carry with them an incredible jealousy that Obama has always harbored towards
Bill Clinton and a condescending attitude towards Hillary Clinton. That attitude
shines through the Times story today that treats her a commodity to be sold and
not as a leader of the nation.....it treats her as a calculating tactician who is changing
her maneuvers about how to sell herself to manipulatable voters and not as a putative president with a heart and a soul and a passion about WHY she wants to be president
and what she would do if she is.....
An inauthentic strategy to make her look authentic is absurd.
And BTW, Biden's populist act on Labor Day with his rhetoric of being indignant
about the unfairness of the economy makes a mockery of his four decades of
carrying water for banks as their de facto lobbyist in the Senate from Delaware.
He won't take one vote from Bernie when people focus, is the best thing that
could happen to Bernie and will come in third behind Hillary and Bernie, taking
votes from Hillary that will give Bernie's percentage more delegates and clout.
The solution is for Hillary to be more authentically populist, not as far as Bernie
but much more so than she has been, and give her candidacy some heart and
soul and bite that is not her nature, and not her staff's, which may be her undoing.
I could write a column listing one by one the corporate clients of many of Hillary's
closest advisors and many Democrats would puke. I have researched this, and it
is appalling, and these are people attuned to making money from whomever writes
their checks, who are not attuned---and in many ways are hostile to----the powerful forces that are now driving the electorate....
As for Bill, he should have been a visible presence all along, he is the great validator
in American politics, the Babe Ruth of national politics when almost all other
politicians, including Hillary, are widely distrusted....Bill is the closest to a recognizable
model of the kind of president Americans would be happy with in 2016....he gives
the closest indicator of the kind of president Hillary would be, which is a huge plus....
and on selected populist issues where she could distinguish herself that would
be a big plus too.....
Instead all we watch is a tactical discussion about why she is not doing well because
of how much she is distrusted by voters, and suggestions she is dispatching
surrogate politicians to do her dirty work attacking the one Democratic candidate
who most excites the Democratic base, and the latest innuendo about the Clinton
emails because she---and her staff---give the voters and media nothing more
exciting and inspiring to discuss beyond what TV shows she will be appearing
on to make her less distrusted.....
Dan Pfeiffer can say I am bed-wedding but this campaign right now is in very,
very serious trouble and unless something dramatic changes the hourglass is
now getting low on sand to set things right.....Brent
Sent from my iPad
Plan has been from the beginning to start using him in the late fall. That's what they both wanted and still want and I think that's sound. Chelsea starts her book tour on September 15 which runs through early November. Then she'll be out more too, although she will certainly get questions on the book tour. Don't get me started on NYT story.
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015, Brent Budowsky <brentbbi@webtv.net> wrote:I have no comment about today's New York Times story about the new Hillary being
discussed as the New Coke, just assume the worst about my view and multiply times
two.
I will probably write about the following soon:
Why has Bill Clinton has been the invisible man for the Hillary Clinton campaign for the last six weeks? I can only think of two possible explanations, which are:
First, that Bill does not fully believe in Hillary's candidacy, or alternatively, that her
staff does not believe a more visible Bill Clinton would be helpful to her, which I
would consider campaign management malpractice.
From Bill's vantage point one would like to think that nothing is more important to
him than spending every waking hour trying to make his wife the next president, and
from Hillary's vantage point, in an age when virtually all political insiders have
negative ratings comparable to the bird flu, Bill remains a towering figure of popularity
and presidential credibility. Why is he hiding, or being hidden? (Closed door money
solicitations do not count).
Regarding the Times story, how about the campaign telling voters and media that
she believes in something more powerful, inspirational and visionary than what television interviews she plans to appear on to improve her negative trust ratings?
Sent from my iPad