By attacking Obama and comparing him to Bush, Clinton is reinforcing the impression of her as cold, calculating and mean-spirited. She seems to be banking on the notion that people will be attracted to her because she's cold, calculating and mean because that means she's a worker. I don't know. That's a tough sell, an appeal to a rational, cerebral political process that's well beyond the average voter. Most people will react by deciding not to vote for a "mean bitch."

This is kind of classic Clinton politics, meaning either Bill or Hillary. They believe they're entitled to win, and will adopt this "the gloves are off now" kind of approach whenever anyone gets between them and their goal. I don't think as many people will see it as tough as those who will see it as mean.

The smart thing to do would be to say, "Look, I realize Obama and Edwards appear more passionate about these issues than I am. In fact, I feel just as deeply as they do. I'm accustomed to pushing my passion onto the back burner in favor of hard work..." etc, etc.

Clinton should claim to be just as passionate about the issues as the others and then deliver the punch line: "How could anyone work as hard as I have for 35 years without passion for the issues and concern for people?"

The answer, of course, is "Because you're a politically ambitious bitch who will stop at nothing and that's what drives you onward, not passionate concern for the people." Clinton needs to make her opponents say that, not provide them with what amounts to her own attack on herself. She's getting up in public and calling her opponents a bunch of overly excited punks, then calling herself a worker, leading many people to believe her hard work is motivated purely by ambition. This is made easier to believe because that's been the rap against her for years.

Give up? No. Clinton should present the voters with the alternative of choosing a candidate who knows where the levers are located and how to pull them. She needs to do that without making herself look like a calculating, ambitious, machine politician.

You're absolutely right, Arlington.

I was amazed at how bad Hillary's post-Iowa defeat speech was. After losing in a caucus in which voters virtually screamed, "We want change and hope!" she might have said, "I'm boring, cynical, calculating and the Establishment candidate." It was the opposite of every message the voters wanted to hear.

She gave a speech with that horrible monotone voice of hers, talking first and foremost about how she has better odds of winning in November - nothing whatsoever to appeal to emotion or anything. And then she went into this laundry list of issues, "If you want better healthcare, If you want..." and ticked them off in that deadpan manner.

And the stagecraft of that speech could not have been worse given the voters' demand for "change." She was standing there with her husband, an ex-president of the United States, his ex-Secretary of State, and his ex-four star general.

I think Hillary's basically got a tin ear for politics, but by virtue of having been married to Bill has the Democratic machine behind her. She'd be nowhere with him.

Arlington:

The answer, of course, is "Because you're a politically ambitious bitch who will stop at nothing and that's what drives you onward, not passionate concern for the people." Clinton needs to make her opponents say that, not provide them with what amounts to her own attack on herself. She's getting up in public and calling her opponents a bunch of overly excited punks, then calling herself a worker, leading many people to believe her hard work is motivated purely by ambition. This is made easier to believe because that's been the rap against her for years.

Is this a bad rap or just the uncomfortable truth?

Considering the utter ruthlessness she's demonstrated in the past (intimidating her husbands' mistresses into silence) and the naked corruption she's been willing to engage in to advance herself (cattle futures, travel office, renting out the White House, ect.) perhaps she really *is* a "politically ambitious bitch who will stop at nothing".

I really do not know why Hillary Clinton would try to sell herself as the Democrat most likely to be elected in November. Nothing could be further from the truth. Her negative ratings are up there with our current President, and he has the good fortune of not having to run again. She starts the race with 50% of the country hating her. Assuming the other 50% does not, and that's a big assumption, I'd say this is hardly a good starting point.

Americans are looking for a change. Senator Obama fits that billing to a tee. If the Democrats want to win in November, they need to start rallying to him fast. If they stick with the same old Clinton thing, can a bimbo eruption be far behind. If Bill could not control his "urges" under the white hot spot light of the Presidency, you can just imagine what he has been up to over the past seven years. How many of these young "ladies" would not see this as the perfect opportunity to get rich quick off a tell-all book. Let's face it, some old dawgs only know one trick. I doubt America wants to sit through this again. Of course such an ugly spectacle would be a godsend to Letterman and Leno.

Well, I'm much rather have the Clintons than any of you Cons...and if people fall for that bimbo nonsense again, they deserve the nukes that are going to come straight down our throats!

What I dispise about the Clintons is this deeply compromising attitude towards the Cons -- like this cut they got for the shareholders into the health care pie, and like their constant assistance to the Cons by apologies ad nauseum, and by offering no solutions. Sometimes, I wonder if the Clintons are not wolves in sheeps clothing.

Obama is linked with the forces around Jimmy Carter, and I buy that; Carter got more good done as President that proved lasting (while Ronnie Reagan ruined my life and its still going to hell in a handbasket).

Why is OK for you all to refer to Senator Clinton as a "bitch"? If someone threw around a racial epithet about Senator Obama, he or she would have hell to pay in the blogosphere. How about some common decency and etiquette in the dialogue? Aren't you all supposed to be about bringing America together and all that jazz?

Indeed, Senator Clinton's response thus far to Obama's surge has been remarkably hamfisted. But she should give up only if you think that Iowa, New Hampshire and the truly inane commentators on CNN should get to choose our presidential nominees. If I were advising Senator Clinton, I would advise her to stress the future, and focus on a few things that she would do--concrete, tangible things--the first week in office. Something for kids, something for seniors, something for kids looking for help to afford college. Yes, her campaign should talk about Obama and draw contrasts (or try to get the useless media to do that, which would involve substance). But attacking him herself just plays into his game of trying to make her seem negative and petty and angry and establishmentarian.

The fact is that she is NOT the status quo. Bush is the status quo. The question is who would make the best President. Let us decide that by comparing their ideas for what they would do and how they would lead, not on who gives a better speech or who raised more money or who is leading in the polls. And let's let at least half the country vote before anyone throws in the towel.

Bush is not running again. What people want a great sense of "throwing off" not only the Bush years, but the '90s too.

Let's face it, although the Republicans were obsessed with the Clintons, the Clintons were also cheap, dramatic, self-absorbed. Their White House was an exhausting soap opera. Bill thought the presidency was about him, rather than, well, the presidency.

The way Hillary has run her campaign reminds us of what we're in for if she wins. Prior to the Iowa caucus she had to fire two people for making slurs about Obama, suggesting he was a closet Muslim, etc. Now, either that was terribly cynical and she wanted those slurs to come out, or she doesn't have much control over her campaign. And all the news from her campaign has been about in-fighting, chaos and all that.

Whereas Obama has run a pretty solid, even placid campaign in contrast.

We can be sure we're going to go back to another "Clinton years" with scandals and scandalettes of all sorts, Billy's indescretions, etc. No thanks. Even Clinton lovers are tired of that stuff.

Hillary has a lot of juice. She's going on past Feb 5th even if she's blown out. She still has the Democrat machine behind her. I would not count her out one bit.

What she has to do however is realize where the country is emotionally. Truly, issues, especially as they pertain to the Democrats since they are all basically in rough agreement with each other, are taking a back seat to this real hunger for a break with the political past. And unfortunately for Hillary, that includes her.

She needs to connect emotionally with people as well as with their heads. It's clear that even since Iowa she's still not figured this out.

EarlyBird, amen brother.

Might I also add that the Bush-Clinton symbiotic relationship must end. First, Bush 41 and his lack of caring about the economy ("Message: I care") enabled Clinton to win the presidency ("I feel your pain. [Later, ladies, I'll feel your asses.]). Clinton's inability to keep his pecker in his pantaloons (in addition to his mediocre presidency, which only now looks good in retrospect from the Bush 43 disaster) enabled Bush 43 to narrowly steal the election from Al Gore in 2000. So Bush 43 fubars everything that could be fubared, and now we're supposed to elect Hillary Clinton because she knows how to clean up this mess and it's her turn? Um, no thank you. Your husband helped get us in this mess.

And the final irony, the one that is making Clinton near break down into tears these days, is she is losing to a man so much like her husband in charisma that it's killing her inside.

To quote Nelson: HA HA!

But Obama is smart enough to only share his pecker with his wife.

CM

Yes. I am done with any more Bushes or Clintons. No thank you. I also found the governance of the Clinton administration mediocre and he was lucky to live in relatively frivolous times. (I certainly do not consider him some wild lefty or a terrible president in regard to his governance. Personally he was low-class trailer trash.)

His achievements were mostly tiny adjustments of the government machinery. He was not a visionary. He spoke like one - "Bridge to the 21st Century" and all, but he did very small things like getting more public school kids into uniforms. Most of what we consider his accomplishments were Gingrich Congress accomplishments which he did everything first to block, and then finally get in front of when they passed and became popular. Billy's job number one: Be Loved.

His foreign policy? Bad to mediocre, mostly bad.

It's not the right time for Hillary Clinton. I actually think she does have something to offer the country - in the Senate. She's not horrible. She's very smart, and has a big grasp of the whole details of issues. I just can't trust her basic judgement, to do that big things that are unpopular and hard. She has learned from Bill: First Be Loved; if you can accomplish something, that comes secondary.

No thank you.

theo:

Why is OK for you all to refer to Senator Clinton as a "bitch"? If someone threw around a racial epithet about Senator Obama, he or she would have hell to pay in the blogosphere. How about some common decency and etiquette in the dialogue? Aren't you all supposed to be about bringing America together and all that jazz?

I was more quoting the previous post for effect, but you're right, it is a harsh word.

However, analytically, sometimes the term fits, much in the way that some men are "assholes" or "dickheads" because of their obnoxious, rude, and unpleasant attitudes.

But again, yes, the term is harsh. I suppose just saying Hillary is cruel, ruthless, calculating, and cold is a more mature way of putting it.

<>I do not care for bush, but carter was even worse than clinton with all of his white house stupidity. I would love to see a turn to a middle of the road democrat who was not enamoured with gun control, tax increases and trying to "understand" terrorism from the terrrorist point of view. Rather like the two democrats who asked the terrorists what we could do to get along, and were told.. simple, convert to islam, change your government to an islamic theoracy, and give up all support of israel. Reminds me of "Independence Day" where the president asked the same question, and was told "DIE"... Clinton would be a bigger disaster than bush, and she supports many of the same bush ideas like outsourcing high paying jobs, and replacing them with minimum wage service jobs.

<>Get real and find a democratic candidate who really believes in the Constitution, and will take from both sides of the isle, but only that which really is beneficial to the American Public..