What Does It Feel Like to be Hillary?

What does it feel like to be Hillary?

I was humiliated by Monica Lewinsky after defending my husband's fidelity and going on television to denounce the sexual accusations against him as a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

I still defended my husband against impeachment despite the swirling emotions inside me.

People call me an "ice queen," but those who know me in person recognize my femininity. They know what comes across on TV is distortion, but everyone who meets me for the first time thinks it's reality.

I worked really hard in the Senate for over six years and gained the respect of many New Yorkers who initially doubted me. Then, when it seemed like I had a clear path to the Democratic nomination, this Obama phenomenon hits, and it looks like it's going to be taken away from me.

What does it feel like to almost be President of the United States? My campaign advisors misled me and let the Obama campaign pre-empt the change message.

I had the best, most extensive infrastructure so why is Obama winning all the caucuses? It should be the other way around.

My husband, who was supposed to be my greatest assest, alienated all my black supporters after South Carolina.

People are asking me to drop out of the race, but I am, was, so close to winning. What's 100 delegates among 4,000?

I thought Bill Richardson was our friend, not just a political ally.

Why am I getting the blame for going negative when my hand was forced, and Obama would have done the same thing if our roles were reversed?

With all the supporters and all the celebrity, I just feel so very alone.

Final word on Spitzer

For the many loyal readers of this blog (lol), sorry for the delay in this week's entry, but I wasn't feeling well on Saturday; it was the Ides of March (a good day for all politicos to beware); and I decided to stay in bed.

The Spitzer debacle occurred so quickly that there was barely time to comment on it, especially in a weekly blog, but here's ten insights as a final word on the matter.

1) The cost for the escort service ranged from $1,000 to $4,000 an hour. What does this say about the ex-Governor's fiscal discipline? Couldn't he find a better price than this?

2) At that level, how do you differentiate between the different prices? Maureen Dowd of The New York Times suggested that the same girl was probably available at a variety of prices. How would the buyer compare?

3) I'm used to hypocrisy from the Republicans. When it's one of your own, it's much more disappointing. I guess this speaks to the general fallenness of man.

4) When David Patterson was asked if he had ever patronized a prostitute (how many guys could answer this question in this situation), he paused for an uncomfortable period of time, then said, "Only the lobbyists," and everyone laughed. This bodes well for his time in office.

5) There's a reason it's called a classic Greek tragedy. Or as the Bible says, "Pride goeth before a fall." I wish we could all take this saying to heart.

6) It's not easy to beat the system. I'm still optimistic (or naive) enough to believe it can happen on rare occasions. But not in this one. All the Wall Street types are rejoicing at Spitzer's comeuppance.

7) I saw a cartoon with a picture of Spitzer's lawyers. The caption: "We cost thousands of dollars an hour, too. "

8) At least we got some relief from the media's 24-hour coverage of the Presidential race.

9) Why is it that people are so dumb when they commit criminal acts? Spitzer must have known his financial transactions would be monitored because he used the same techniques himself. Did he want to get caught?

10) Will Paterson seize upon his political honeymoon to effect real change in Albany? Or will he reprise his time as State Senate minority leader and work within what is widely believed to be one of the most corrupt state governments in the U.S.? The answer remains to be seen.

Today, the leadership changes hands. I am looking forward to hearing what David Paterson has to say.

The Genius of Bill Clinton

People belittle Bill Clinton these days. He was widely criticized for intemperate remarks in New Hampshire and saddled with the blame for the debacle in North Carolina, when he single-handedly seemed to transform a 50-50 split for black voters into an 80-20 split for Barack Obama. Some people have even said that he's never been quite the same since his heart bypass surgery a few years ago.

Well, Bill Clinton proved his genius with Ohio and Texas without anyone even knowing it. He defined the Presidential race on his own terms, and for the states most favorable to Hillary. By saying that if Hillary lost either Ohio or Texas, the campaign would be over, he accomplished two things:

1) He selected the states most favorable to Hillary: Texas with its large number of Hispanic voters, and Ohio, with its economic hardships for working-class people. Both these groups have generally broken in favor of Hillary with the recent exception of Wisconsin.

2) He played to the greed of the Barack Obama camp. Eager for a knockout blow, they seized upon his suggestion because they were confident they could win one of the two.

So, Barack's 11-state winning streak fell by the wayside as did the intervening primaries and caucuses. Both sides played under the new set of rules, a loss for Hillary in either Ohio or Texas meant a likely withdrawl from the race.

The fact of the matter was that if Hillary couldn't win Ohio and Texas, she wasn't likely to succeed in any case. But it was the greed of the Obama camp for a knockout blow that created the new dynamic of this race. They let the other side determine the terms.

The same thing is happening now with Pennsylvania. So despite Barack's lead, Hillary with just one more win can make a claim for the nomination. After all, there are really only a few percentage points separating the number of delegates for each side, and most superdelegates are looking for an excuse to back Hillary. She is part of the Washington establishment, but so are they.

More about the superdelegates later...

The Media and Reality: Favoritism and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

The media is a favorite scapegoat for politicians and government officials who feel they are receiving unfavorable or unfair coverage.

But the concept of unfair coverage is a recent phenomenon. In the 19th century, newspapers typically reflected the bias of their publishers and put out all sorts of rag sheets with openly admitted prejudices.

The phenomenon of American cultural life included a plethora of different publications in pluralistic competition with each other. You could say checks and balances occured within the media as well as the government.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, however, particularly with the advent of television, we have witnessed a consolidation of media outlets into four or five major conglomerates. In such a situation, the concept of fairness becomes much more relevant.

Politicians are often correct in their assertions of unfairness, and the claims of Hillary Clinton's campaign in this regard are not without merit. However, the favorable coverage of Barack Obama does not result from a built-in prejudice against women as some have claimed. Rather, it is caused primarily by the dynamics of a capitalistic society. Put simply, newspapers print what sells, and TV coverage is aimed at favorable ratings. The phenomenon of a young, charismatic candidate upending the Democratic establishment and the presumed victory of Senator Clinton makes a very good story.

However, my concern is not with this understandable dynamic, but with the ability of the media to influence the story, to change the reality of the situation in a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are easily influenced by "horse race" coverage, and the touting of momentum often ignores statistical realities.

As we go into the Texas and Ohio primaries, it is worth reminding people that Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's delegate counts are only about one percentage point apart. The superdelegates will definitely determine the outcome and could easily affect the final decision in either direction.

The current race for the nomination, for the Clinton campaign, is not unlike this year's Super Bowl. Hillary Clinton is on the 20 yard line with two minutes to play. She needs a touchdown to win. That result remains within her grasp.

Kudos to Mike Huckabee

This election season has created a lot of cross-currents among Democrats, Republicans and Independents, maybe rip tides would be a more accurate statement. We've seen independents torn between supporting contradictory candidates such as Barack Obama and John McCain, whose positions are almost at opposite ends of the spectrum.

But this week, I want to focus on the populist positions of Governor Mike Huckabee, a candidate who was initially condemned by many on the religious right, until they realized they were going to get stuck with John McCain instead.

Mike Huckabee, like Barack Obama in many respects, represents a new generation of leadership. The old stalwarts of the religious right, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, focused almost exclusively on abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for Republican candidates. But then here comes Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, who says that life does not stop after the womb. Yes, abortion is murder, but so is condemning people to a life of poverty. Yes, gay marriage is a sin, but so is social injustice. And, to add my personal belief, capital punishment represents the snuffing out of a human life just as much as abortion does.

Access to decent health care represents affirmation of life as well. And so does withdrawal from a needless and costly war where the true treasures of our nation, our young people, have been dying in droves.

So, even though I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter, this entry says, "Kudos to Mike Huckabee." Thank you for having the courage to show us what true Christianity is all about.

Analyzing Super Tuesday

Now that all the spin and counterspin has ended, how is the average citizen supposed to interpret Super Tuesday?

Is it true that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton blunted the momentum of Barack Obama in the final days before the election? Or did Barack Obama battle the Clinton juggernaut to a tie, rallying from up to 30 points behind in some states?

I believe the former, and here's why. Politics, unlike history, is all about the present, the here and now. What happened in the past is irrelevant. The rapidly changing kaleidescope of national politics generates its own demands, and, candidates who are unable to satisfy those demands fall by the wayside. It's all about today's headlines and tomorrow's.

Any pundit will tell you how, in politics, a day is like a year, and, thus, yesterday's headlines are a year old. Barack Obama has amassed one of the most amazing fundraising operations in the history of the nation, but, in spite of his monetary advantages, he is unable to put Hillary Clinton away; he just seems incapable of delivering that knockout blow.

We saw it in New Hampshire; we saw it again on Super Tuesday. Despite his momentum from Iowa, and later from South Carolina, a few days before the election, he starts hemorrhaging support.

The reason: Hillary Rodham Clinton is a uniquely compelling figure, and her time has come. Maybe, it's destiny, but she keeps hanging on, staying close, remaining in the game. And the longer this occurs, just like the other Super victory of the New York Giants over the New England Patriots, the more likely she will breakthrough, stage a comeback and win in the end.

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

With the New York primary on Tuesday, here's a departure from the general format of My Week in Review. Instead of using this space as a company blog for Cut-It-Out Communications, instead please see below an article published in The New York Times on January 25, 2008, titled, "Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton."


"This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.


The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.


As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.


We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.


By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.


Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.


On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.


Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.


It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.


Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.


The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.


The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.


We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.


On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.


Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.


As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)


We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.


Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.


When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.


Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."