onegoodmove

your ideas for doing things differently.

At last, the Clinton campaign publicly admits they don't know what they're doing and need advice! (jk).

OK. Seriously: HRC has been stating a lot (as per usual) how helpful and good her policies will be, without really explaining their content beyond "they'll help working people like you." (In other words, a lot of talk about how great details are, and no details). I would like her to give a detailed speech, as in depth as Obama's race speech, on how the U.S. economy arrived at its current meltdown, and her own concrete proposals for dealing with it, both immediately and in the long term, and so beyond a moratorium on foreclosures and including proposed regulations to prevent its happening again.

(Hope this topic comes up in the debate).

Other than that, the obvious: if she doesn't win PA by big margins, to drop out of the race.

Have Chelsea take on Obama Girl?

(Sorry Norm, I couldn't resist.)

I'd advise him to build a time machine and run a consistent campaign instead of the inconsistent one that has already been run.

A major difference between the two campaigns is that Obama's has been chugging along consistently, moving in the same direction, with the same message, all along. Clinton's, on the other hand, has been all over the place, even resorting to the "kitchen sink" strategy.

I see no good options for her campaign moving forward. It might be time for her to start thinking more about how to make sure that a democrat gets in the white house rather than about how to make sure that she gets in.

Stop saying how great McCain is. The other party is the enemy.

"VP wouldn't be so bad."

???

Build a time machine and go back and don't vote for the war, and then run on your time in Washington as you trying to shake up the status quo.

or

Don't quit your day job.

or

Pray for a miracle.

Interesting question that no one is answering. I am pro obama, so i may be biased, but i like Hillary overall, i do think that her campaign has been poor, and has certainly turned me off.

I would say that the campaign has to show her as the high road, that she is really an inspirational leader. I don't think that the negative stuff is actually working that well in the primary. (in fact it is suprisingly backfiring I suspect). She needs to say that her vote for the invasion or Iraq was a mistake, Dobbs said that in his campaign.

She needs also to address the concerns of all the scandals of her husbands administration and her own (ie whitewater), she needs to do it now before we get into the general election. I think if she addresses that before the republicans or press does, she will have some hope of diffusing the issue. She too should do some inspirational speech, (like Obama on race), maybe on poverty?, and really get a good speechwriter.

Both democrats have to continue to link the war with the economic problems of the country. (Ron Paul did that well, and he is NOT an inspirational speaker) What backfires is all this stuff about the press is against me, hawks back to the right wing conspiracy thing of the past. She has to overcome this automatic response of attacking of people that criticize her.

I also think in the general election if she is choosen that attacking John McCain will be somewhat challenging, people like him, he is a hero to folks. Therefore she needs to separate as having the bettter ideas and not being the Bush administration. So the democrats need to be the people to save the country economically, stop the waste of american lives and money on the war, restore dignity to washington etc. Attacking John McCain may also backfire for her.

I support Obama. I was an Edwards supporter. My decision to back Obama after Edwards quit was guided by the fact that Obama's record is actually more liberal than Clinton's. Obama is not emphasizing this in his campaign because he needs to appeal to independents, however, I believe it to be his true nature. I do not agree with some that have asked Clinton to quit now. Clinton and Obama are in the Democratic party and this race to the finish is the closest we've ever come to letting the people decide. I think the protracted race has helped Clinton by dispelling many of people's prejudices against her, however, I do believe she has reached a plateau of support, and that she would have a very difficult time winning in November. My wife supports Clinton. She believes Clinton needs to stop with the anecdotes. She always sounds fake when she does it. We know she's not that religious, so when she tells those stories we know she just trying not to loose votes, and perhaps gain some. We know she hates guns by how she votes, so it is even more laughable when she tells her grandpa gun stories. She needs to stick to her guns so to speak. Both candidates need to stop pandering to the middle. The reason Obama is so popular is because the liberal views he does express are actually more popular than the main stream media and polling numbers portray. Pollsters ask the wrong question too frequently and the right ones to infrequently. In fact at least over 60% of Americans favor a radical change in how we use and produce energy in order to stop burning fossil fuels - even if it means great sacrifice for awhile. Also, there is a libertarian and liberal conjunction out there that no candidate is finding. They both hate the Iraq war. Perhaps Obama does know this and it is why he is doing so well in the western states (including Texas).

It is till not to late for Clinton to give a major speech on her Iraq war vote, apologize, and tell us what she has learned from the experience.

What I believe we lost in invading Iraq was our best potential ally in the "war on terror" (I hate that phrase, but that is another post). Saddam Hussein could have been forced to institute democratic reforms and could have helped us fight Al Queda.

There is something I really feel both candidates need to address: how will they work with Congress to get legislation they support into law? Candidates like to talk about their ideas as if they will automatically become law when they are elected, but really they have to convince ~500 people (and, by proxy, the American people) that they are good ideas that should be law. I would very much like to hear some discussion of how they plan to work with Congress, how they will sell their ideas, and when they will accept compromise.

i notice a lot of obama supporters are suggesting that hillary apologize for things she or her husband did. while that may make people feel better about her and themselves, i doubt it will help her campaign.

i doubt (fftcm) that any obama supporters are going to switch to supporting to hillary because she apologizes.

and anyone who is on the fence between the two have more important issues facing them as it affects them personally. healthcare for one is more immediately relevant than something that happened in her husband's administration for example.

hillary's healthcare plan is far and away better than any republican plan and its differences with the obama plan are not huge but significant and is one that is supported by Elizabeth Edwards for example for some very clear and relevanat reasons. i am not going to enter into a debate about hillary vs obama's plan (again!) but i believe if there is anything that will sway undecided voters it will be if she presents her plan (and its caveats, for example how to ensure the money does not end up just enriching insurers) in contrast to obama's in the context of moving towards universal health coverage.

my advice to clinton to would be to jopin the republican party where they could use a fresh young face! and a moderately hard core right wing zionest nutter instead of a truly berserk one! heheh.. ok, sorry. really, clinton? i'd advise her campaign to stop trying to swiftboat obama. it is ugly, counterproductive, and ineffective. it is ineffective for two reasons: 1. obama and his campaign respond swiftly and smartly to every salvo of BS thrown at them and 2. because obama doesn't have any skeletons to worry about. inhale? yeah, repeatedly, that was the point. that was then. etc. he's good at this. why is clinton's campaign trying to run against him like he's some ineffective punk? and why are they insulting all of our intelligence by doing so? that's all. but they wouldn't care what i said. hell, i'm only a voter.

it seems Norm's charitable attempt to engage readers in an objective discussion has failed. sadly, many (not all) feel this was an open invitation to do some witless hillary-bashing.

Hi, I'm French and I hope you'll forgive both my sneaking in and my frenglish.

Hillary is fighting as if the primary victory was a goal per se. "Look how well I am fighting! Am I not worth to be supported?". Obama conveys a whiff of revolution "I know what bullshit is. You know it too. Let's try to go beyond, even if we must go through the usual cheesy words to achieve this." But what is "this" exactly? The answer lies within each self... OK, this might be the nec plus ultra BS, but this is unusual stuff. And here's the generational hyatus. We're talking young vs old, here. Not black, or white, or educated, or male, or big steaks.

Hillary's doing politics "à l'ancienne". And I think she's doing a pretty good job convincing the "democlassics", the ones who are still opposing democrats & republicans, left & right, rich & poor, black & white, winners & losers... But maybe in America, as it almost was the case in last year's french presidential election, this dichotomy no longer applies? At least does not represent a majority of voters anymore ? Maybe a majority of people have overcome the usual categories and come to realize that the real opposition is between the conservatives (many democrats are), full of principles, and progressists-in-captivity who "don't belong" and are capable tof changing their mind from time to time. And be proud about it. Maybe the real opposition now is between human beings and companies, environment vs corporate power. That's Ralph Nader's discourse but he's too old and nobody wants to listen to him anymore.

In fact, the real election is taking place somewhere else: I believe the next president of the United States will be Al Gore, even without the official belt. The elected president will face a choice: either work with Gore against corporate power, or be another Bush.

Back to the topic, please: Hillary.

I don't think she can convince "demolastics" like me anymore. She's in the conservative category. It is so obvious, even physically.

If she wants to get elected, she needn't try to please the Obamacists. She's forced to go right, drink whisky and play redneck. Good old time old boy (as she probably fancies it, accordingly to the statistics in the last memo). She has to convince the conservatives and clearly position herself as an sympathetic Republican. She has to fight until the convention to convince - why not, in a "convention"? - the delegates that she's the only one who can win (since she'll get the republican and the democrat votes). And not that son-of-a-black Obama who can't play by the rules (that we haven't conceived for guys like him anyway...).

My personal hope is that less and less people are giving full credit to that theory but, going back to our host, and his first question, I am puzzled. "Would anyone like to take a shot at what my advice to him would be?", said Norm. I can figure very well why he is suspicious about Obama, but I don't fully understand this official incapacity to have chosen yet, between him and her.

So it seemed a good challenge to try and guess what your advice may have been, dear atheist-edwintonist Norm. I am sure you stayed true to yourself. And true to what you believe you hear when she speaks. You told Geoff Garin : "Listen GG, I was supporting Edwards. I could not stand another Bush. Let's be pragmatic: decide now that Edwards is your VP. And by the way, let him do the announcement. Endorsement galore. And if you're not able to convince him, that'll be the sign that you weren't fit for the job."

And Hillary, what do you think will she do eventually? She'll continue her 360° range marketing campagne, aimed to establish herself as the humble Joan of Arc of politics. "She died but she fought well". Isn't odd to use an epitaph as a campaign strategy?

my suggestion to Norm (ffti feel free to ignore):

open a thread and title it something like 'hillary clinton is a no-good two-faced gun-loving right wing zionist' (oh wait,sorry, that's what huffpo is for).

a second thread saying something 'obama is not such a swell guy' (won't see much action here i suspect)

and a third thread with something like 'politically incorrect comments that do not advance the discussion' (oh wait, that's where this comment goes - sorry!)

then there will finally be enough room to read thoughtful engaging dialog on other threads without having to wade through junk.

Advice to Hillary Clinton campaign: "Tell your highly-paid consultants to do their job and come up with their own ideas. If you hadn't relied on Mark Penn's brilliant advice over the past year you wouldn't need my money now."

Some more serious advice: HRC has played a lot of bad cop, she should play some good cop. Go after McCain. Eat up the airwaves and headlines making attacks as if you're going to be the nominee. You don't need to make nice with Obama (his supporters will still be his), but ignore him. How will this help you win? I have no idea, but it's at least as good as scorching the earth against Obama. All HIllary needs is something about twice as big as Rev Wright ot hit Obama, and the superdelegates might switch to her. Especially if they're convinced that it wasn't her doing. She has almost no chance anyway, and so hoping or wating for an Obama implosion is about as good as it gets.

That's two for building a time machine so far!

Advice for Hillary Clinton:

Who are your voters? Judging from the primary statistics, your voters are older, less educated and more bitter than the Obama base. The majority of your voters are in favor of a woman President, and know very little about you or your policy, despite holding the opinion that "Bill Clinton was a good President".

Your only path to victory is to appeal to the base; to the most powerful, and influential lobbies in America today. I am speaking of course about the irrationally stupid.

I suggest a speech like this:

"I believe that all Americans should be entitled to a weekly allowance of $500. All Americans, regardless of age, race or national origin, should be handed $500 each and every week. They deserve it. They are entitled to it. The gub'mnt has tons of money! Its not like we can't afford it! Yes, my fellow Americans, vote for me, and I'll demand that you get whats yours. Peace out, my niggas".

The only flaw in my strategy is this: Americans tend to be just as apathetic as they are stupid. Will they show up on election day, even for the promise of a little spendin' money? Stay tuned and find out.

My advice to Hillary: Face reality and stop alienating the Democrats who support Obama. Run the best, most optimistic campaign you can until the convention. Talk about health care, jobs, think and talk about a coherent foreign policy that realistically decreases American military spending. The delegate numbers are not going to be much changed by going negative on Obama (or by much of anything, actually). If, as is very likely, Obama wins the nomination, campaign your ass off in favor of his election. Explicitly apologize for ever comparing Obama unfavorably with McCain. Come out with a mea culpa that says something to the effect that, 'I've looked carefully at Barack's foreign policy plans, I've engaged in extensive discussions with Barack about those plans, and I'm here to tell you: I was wrong. Barack is not only "Commander-in-chief" material, he's got, far-and-away, a better plan for American foreign policy than John McCain.

Then, if McCain should happen to beat Obama in November, your hands will be cleaner and you will have done what you could to avoid being blamed for the loss and you can run again in 2012. A scorched-earth campaign and Obama loss will finish you forever as a candidate and as any kind of voice in American politics.

I want to respond to zdzp re Obama supporters wanting Hillary to apologize for her husbands stuff. I wonder if this was in response to my comment that she talk about the scandals of the administration. I don't think she should apologize for it, i think she needs to do a preventative strike so when the republicans start focussing on her the issue will be already discussed. If we get to hear on the 24 hour news channel over and over about some Bosnia remark (i mean who actually cares) just imagine when they decide to focus on whitewater and all that crap. I honestly think she needs to do that if she gets the nomination. I may like Obama better, but mainly i think he will win in November and i am concerned that Hillary may not. I am concerned that the Republican attack machine will come out, and if the dems are not ready, we are in trouble. ( i also think Obama needs to make sure he has a strategy but frankly his campaign has, with a few misteps shown an ability to deal with the attacks).

I also really think that she needs to talk about the economy and poverty and how she is going to change that. (actually show should Obama). With this attacking the other democrat stuff she will lose a lot of the new democrats that Obama has brought to the party, but if she goes after the republicans and the Bush administration, torture issues, restoring the middle class etc, she could win the hearts of the country. (and even a few Obamaphiles)

an open invitation to do some witless hillary-bashing.

Come now, zdzp. Asinine and unproductive perhaps, but witless? Surely you jest.

But really, Article after article has been written about how she has no clear path to the nomination. You can claim bias in the intent of those but math doesn't lie.

So if she actually wanted to win and have a democratic party to lead after taking the nomination then yes, inventing a time machine is needed.

After traveling back in time her are a few things she could do to change the outcome she now faces:

1. Take the War off the table by a. apologizing and b. taking bold moves against Bush and war in the Senate

2. Use inevitability as a fundraising argument but not a campaign strategy.

3. Be open with both the Press and the public, Don't feed fake questions to your supporters at scripted events.

4. Pick a clear stance on issues like trade and fire staff that take the opposite view in their lobbying work (Fire Penn a year ago)

5. Don't take on mark Penns Micro targeting strategy. You will always sound divisive and desperate if you are trying to piece together your vote one constituency at a time rather then talking to everyone. Micro is how you win a mayors race, its clown shoes to think it would work for a presidential run.

6. Try to win everybody. Biggest mistake any campaign can make is to decide what votes they won't try to get. Don't say Caucus goers, young people, black people, small state residents, members of certain unions, "don't count" and "weren't going to vote for you anyway." The members of those groups in the next state will hear you and believe you.

7. Control your husband

8. Send a memo to every surrogate explaining the types of language that are outside the bounds of what you will except in your campaign. (Don't mention race if at all possible and don't accuse people of being sexist except in the most severe circumstances)

9. Don't threaten People.(the press, bill richardson, etc)

10. Don't make shit up.

I could go on and on...

In the present tense she should stay positive. Focus on the the Clinton economy with the correction of the free trade blunder, be magnanimous when Obama puts his foot in his mouth and start thinking about reaching a negotiated settlement with Obama (IE don't piss him off every five minutes).

i know i may appear to be a relentless hillary supporter but sometimes...

things that make you go hmmm:

"It's ironic that one presidential candidate could hang that label on another," said Dr. Drew Westen, professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and author of "The Political Brain." "If you think you should be president, by definition you are an elitist, only because you believe that of the 300 million people in America, you are the best person to run it," he said. "There can't be a more elitist statement than that."

things that make you go hmmm

we have seen more then our fair share of disingenuous attacks lately.

This could have been an interesting thread but alas most just used it as a Hillary bashing forum.

I suppose feelings are too raw on both sides to have expected anything else.

I tried at the end there.

Hard to do much more then Monday morning quarter back this late in the game. What good advice can you give other then, run but don't divide?

And things are too raw.

RedSeven, yes, i enjoy (if enjoy is the right word) your posts and I have gotten to the point sometimes of seeing who the posters are first before deciding if I should invest any emotional and intellectual energy reading the post.

now THAT's elitist!