If Obama Wanted to Crush Clinton

C

Cypress

Well-known member
here's what he'd do.

He'd get away from the "who hired a slumlord" and whether the reagan adminstration deserves noble mention, as an agent of change.


He'd attack hillary, where she is weakest: The clinton adminstration's capitulation to special interests, and the sell out of working americans. Hillary's position on NAFTA, "free" trade", and unfettered WTO-style globalization.

Those clinton policies did enormous harm to working americans. Which isn't always apparent to keyboard warriors, but is glaringly apparent to working people in Wichita, Buffalo, and Toledo.

Obama would effectively take the economic populist issue away from Edwards, and solidify edwards supporters behind him, should edwards fade away.

Obama has more of a clean slate on the issue. Clinton has a track record, as a pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate democrat. The problem is, Obama appears to be cut from essentially the same mold as clinton; in short, I'm not sure if he could pivot on a dime, and attack Hillary where she is weakest.
 
Cypress said:
here's what he'd do.

He'd get away from the "who hired a slumlord" and whether the reagan adminstration deserves noble mention, as an agent of change.


He'd attack hillary, where she is weakest: The clinton adminstration's capitulation to special interests, and the sell out of working americans. Hillary's position on NAFTA, "free" trade", and unfettered WTO-style globalization.

Those clinton policies did enormous harm to working americans. Which isn't always apparent to keyboard warriors, but is glaringly apparent to working people in Wichita, Buffalo, and Toledo.

Obama would effectively take the economic populist issue away from Edwards, and solidify edwards supporters behind him, should edwards fade away.

Obama has more of a clean slate on the issue. Clinton has a track record, as a pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate democrat. The problem is, Obama appears to be cut from essentially the same mold as clinton; in short, I'm not sure if he could pivot on a dime, and attack Hillary where she is weakest.
Click to expand...

Obama is fighting the most powerful political machine the democarts have ever seen, and he's bringing up some of the same issues you've suggested .. and he's doing better than anyone could have previously imagined.

The trick is to do it without burning all bridges that he will need to cross later.
 
hes doing a pretty good job if u ask me. BUT unfortunately by mud slinging even if hes got better chance to win that war.... he brings himself away from the message of hope and change that is so appealing to voters. so even if he can manage to win the mudsling war he lost because his message gets lost.
 
blackascoal said:
Obama is fighting the most powerful political machine the democarts have ever seen, and he's bringing up some of the same issues you've suggested .. and he's doing better than anyone could have previously imagined.

The trick is to do it without burning all bridges that he will need to cross later.
Click to expand...

Obama supports the Peru Free Trade agreement, and other NAFTA-style agreements. Now, he doesn't have the long track record that Hillary does, and maybe he could pivot to a more populist position. But, I dont' see him doing that. I think if he did, he could bury clinton.
 
Cypress said:
Obama supports the Peru Free Trade agreement, and other NAFTA-style agreements. Now, he doesn't have the long track record that Hillary does, and maybe he could pivot to a more populist position. But, I dont' see him doing that. I think if he did, he could bury clinton.
Click to expand...

In some ways, Obama is already running in the general. Independents and republicans are starting to see him as an intelligent man capable of getting past political divides and capable of reaching compromise.

That's smart.
 
Unfortunatly---this is another mute thread by a dreaming liberial. Obamma supports the same programs Hillery does, and the same special interests---who fund their campaigns and tax free offshore accounts.

When your a people person and not a party person--you might see that.
 
blackascoal said:
In some ways, Obama is already running in the general. Independents and republicans are starting to see him as an intelligent man capable of getting past political divides and capable of reaching compromise.

That's smart.
Click to expand...


Again---words with no magnatidue or direction motivate the emotional.
 
theMAJORITY said:
Unfortunatly---this is another mute thread by a dreaming liberial. Obamma supports the same programs Hillery does, and the same special interests---who fund their campaigns and tax free offshore accounts.

When your a people person and not a party person--you might see that.
Click to expand...

What party would that be?
 
theMAJORITY said:
Again---words with no magnatidue or direction motivate the emotional.
Click to expand...

You're a republican here gasping for straws.

Your party is on life support dude and their "leadership" has been a disgraceful failure of historic proportions.

Thus, leaving you with laughable comments.
 
blackascoal said:
In some ways, Obama is already running in the general. Independents and republicans are starting to see him as an intelligent man capable of getting past political divides and capable of reaching compromise.

That's smart.
Click to expand...

I don't think a candidate has to shy away from attacking the Reagan/Clinton economic policies on trade, globalization, and the hollowing out of our manufacturing base, to be set up for a good general election campaign.

Those are winning issues. And voting for the Peru free trade agreement, and supporting NAFTA-style trade, is not going to win votes, or give one credibility as a candidate for working americans.
 
Cypress has now entered a full fledged campaign for a reactionary return to pre-1980 economic policies.

He has managed to link Reagan, Bush 41&43, and Clinton.
 
Epicurus said:
Cypress has now entered a full fledged campaign for a reactionary return to pre-1980 economic policies.

He has managed to link Reagan, Bush 41&43, and Clinton.
Click to expand...


Maybe you haven't been on your candidate's website, but Ron Paul also thinks NAFTA-trade, and the takeover of our government by corporate special interests is destroying this country.

He recognizes the same problem, that John Edwards does, albeit with different solutions to the problem.
 
Cypress said:
Maybe you haven't been on your candidate's website, but Ron Paul also thinks NAFTA-trade, and the takeover of our government by corporate special interests is destroying this country.

He recognizes the same problem, that John Edwards does, albeit with different solutions to the problem.
Click to expand...

NAFTA is not free trade. Period. As long as you have the government involved in regulating every facet of the economy, corporate interests will continue to have a reason to buy politicians.

But I was mostly just observing and thinking that while Clinton probably wouldn't be happy with that evaluation, it's largely true.
 
so we agree, that attacking the core of Reagan/Clinton trade policy and globalization, is a winning issue. Good deal.
 
blackascoal said:
In some ways, Obama is already running in the general. Independents and republicans are starting to see him as an intelligent man capable of getting past political divides and capable of reaching compromise.

That's smart.
Click to expand...

I agree the more he remains above the fray the better he will do.

I think he should answer any more lies form the Clinton camp with correction adds.

Like Clinton says he praised Reagan so he airs and add saying Clinton is mistaken in her statements of what he said. That he did noit praise but merely metioned Reagans impact on the country. Then say I would request Hillary to read and listen much more carefully to what is said and that misunderstanding fellow world leaders could prove disasterous for our country if she were to become president.

No name calling just remindin g people of the truth and the consiquences of such behavior in a president.
 
this tit for tat stuff is going nowhere.

It's important to rebut lies from another campaign. But, that's no where close to being nearly enough to crush an opponent. One has to be proactively attacking back. And I'm not talking about tossing out "slumlord" accusations.

I'm talking about attacking your opponents weakness.

The american people, I think, are desparate for a candidate who unapologetically stands up for working americans, and against special interests.

You know what happend in 1992? The two candidates who ran as anti-NAFTA and relatively economic populist candidates, got over 60% of the vote. And let's not kid ourselves, Perot didn't get 19% because of his charts and graphs. He got it because he railed against NAFTA, and the loss of american manufacturing jobs. And clinton posed as an economic populist too; it was only after the election that he caved on being a full blown NAFTA democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top