...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

March 08, 2007

The Way To Win, 1.0

People are making a big deal about Bronco Bomber's recent surge in the polls against Hillary, most notably among black voters. Hillary made a fool of herself in Selma, and Bomber is clearly making her scramble earlier than anyone thought she would. But she'll survive that embarrassment.

I still don't see Bronco's insurgent campaign winning the nomination in the long run. I like Bronco Bomber, I'm reading his book. I don't like his politics, but for me, he represents the end of the baby boomer stranglehold on American political leadership, which can only be a good thing. Too bad he's going up against the Clinton machine.

I'm sure that Hillary and her staff have been behind the growing list of thinly veiled attacks on the Bronco Bomber campaign. The list includes:

Clinton and her/his allies are denying that they were behind the steady drip drip of opposition research against Bronco. Clinton supporters have already tried to blame Republicans for these well timed attacks against a Democratic challenger who's still polling well behind the presumptive nominee.

That's just crazy. Republicans need Bronco Bomber to mount a strong campaign. It doesn't make sense to knock him down. Every serious political observer knows that Bronco won't win the nomination unless something catastrophic happens between now and the beginning of next year. Given a choice between an establishment front-runner and a populist challenger, Democrats will always nominate the establishment candidate. I think the only modern exception to that rule was McGovern, so you can see why they wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

From my long range vantage point — almost 20 months from election day — I'm beggining to see two general strategies that each party should use to ensure victory.

For the Democrats, it's easy. Hillary will be the nominee, and she will have a fight on her hands if she goes against Giuliani. That's because she won't be able to take the big blue states for granted. But Giuliani's weakness among social conservatives can be Hillary's secret weapon if she practices a bit of political judo. All she needs is a far right third party candidate, and she will cruise back into the White House. Some say the Republicans were behind Ralph Nader's candidacy back in 2000. I don't know, but it's obvious that Gore would have been president if he'd had Nader's 2% in Florida. I think a Republican Nader, like Pat Buchanan or someone of his ilk, would be just what the doctor ordered for Hillary's ailing campaign. She needs to stop worrying about Bronco and start looking for a social conservative to funnel money to.

For the Republicans, the key is in preparing the general election battlefield by defining Hillary now. She's giving them all the help they need, as she stupidly attacks Bronco through her surrogates. Every time another sneaky negative story appears in the New York Times or some other pro-Clinton organ, the Republicans should take note and tie it to her campaign. The key is to define Hillary as a female Nixon. Devious, sneaky, mean, and unlikeable. You want people thinking these things when the general election comes around.

She'll do anything to win.

That Obama guy seemed nice, and look what she did to him.

You don't want to cross her.

She has an enemies list, just like Nixon.

Her past history fits in well with this narrative. Remember Travelgate?

I had thought that Hillary's left flank might be her undoing, but now I don't think so. Other than a few scattered hecklers, I haven't seen the unhinged protesters that I expected to follow her around. I think even the true believers know that she's their best chance if they want to avoid repeating the humiliations of 2000 and 2004. That may change as Bronco gets stronger, though. Another reason why I'd like to see him continue the charge.

Posted by annika, Mar. 8, 2007 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Excellent strategy deconstruction, Anni. A couple of discussion points;

>That's just crazy. Republicans need Bronco Bomber to mount a strong campaign. It doesn't make sense to knock him down.

It might make sense if they wanted to create a food fight amongst the democrats where Hillary muddied herself (yes, I know, but even more).

> All she needs is a far right third party candidate, and she will cruise back into the White House.

Which is how she got there in the first place.

> Some say the Republicans were behind Ralph Nader's candidacy back in 2000. I don't know, but it's obvious that Gore would have been president if he'd had Nader's 2% in Florida.

I've no doubt to either point.

> Every time another sneaky negative story appears in the New York Times or some other pro-Clinton organ, the Republicans should take note and tie it to her campaign.

It's likely less passive than you describe.

Posted by: will on Mar. 8, 2007

Wasn't it the Bronco Bomber that just killed Captain America?

After perusing these, I concluded that Cap wanted someone to put him out of his fucking misery anyway.

Posted by: reagan80 on Mar. 8, 2007

Bronco does have some stink on him. He got a sweetheart deal on his house in Illinois (just like the Clintons in NY), then split the lot for a tidy profit, but guess who doesn't want to talk about land deals.

As for the nutjobs chasing her filthiness, it's still early. No need to define her with all those negatives, they're already there. About four months out from the General is when you want to start reminding everyone. I'm waiting for her 5 o'clock shadow to pop out.

Posted by: Casca on Mar. 8, 2007

A very prescient observation about the inevitable end of the baby boomer stranglehold on American politics.

We won't escape that stranglehold in 2008 --- but the babyboomers are starting to run on fumes now. Just another election cycle or two, and we'll be just about rid of them.

Posted by: Robbie on Mar. 9, 2007


I'm sorry that I actually read the Captain America link you posted, although I'm also glad you posted it. Whoever wrote that simplistic non-sense should be strung up.

It's amazing to witness this shift among the comic writers who, decades ago, invented a hero named Captain America. Now they take thinly veiled shots against the Patriot Act (because privacy in library records is more important than human life or property), depict a "journalist" who identifies America with its popular culture, and (from what I read) kills off Captain America at a time when what the ideals he stood for are needed most.

Those geek-writers forgot who their audience was. It's the first time I'm proud never to have been a reader of that sophomoric/psuedo-art trash.

Posted by: Mark on Mar. 9, 2007


Like all good libs, the "Bronco Bomber" feels rather entitled to tax money.


Posted by: Mark on Mar. 9, 2007


When will the shredding of personal liberties be too much for you? When they search your colon without a warrant and tell you that people's lives are at stake? Show me a single conviction since the PA took effect that is the result of the new powers it offers? People like you Mark, candy assed patriots frightened of their shadow willing to sell the 4th amendment for nickels. Why, Mark, if we just let the army police the streets and libraries and declare marshal law we could really be safe.

Posted by: strawman on Mar. 9, 2007

"search your colon"


it's a little to early in the day for that image.

Posted by: annika on Mar. 9, 2007


I think a woman who blithely admits to knowing about and then goes on to explain the mechanics of a deed, a deed that is way higher on the ladder of things not to be imagined before morning coffee, to wit, a ”Dirty Sanchez”, has no standing when it comes to criticizing my imagery regardless of the time of day

Posted by: strawman on Mar. 9, 2007

"search your colon"


it's a little too early in the day for that image.

What? Why? After all, there's not much to search, right? Just:

Posted by: Kevin Kim on Mar. 9, 2007

Hmmm... given the strategy you just outlined, Annika, isn't it possible that it could be either Hillary OR the right behind the mysterious attacks on Obama? It makes perfect sense to me that Republican strategists could want to create tension between the Democratic frontrunners, so they can smear Hillary all the more if and when she wins the nomination. If they're as certain as you that the HRC nom is a sure thing, why wouldn't they? For instance, the only media outlets I've seen reporting that the "Muslim school" allegations came from HRC are very conservative ones. Certainly, not an outright bullseye on that point, but at least suggestive, no?

That said, I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. Either side could be behind it, or maybe both. HRC has proven that the only ideal she stands for is power for HRC. I wish we had a more trustworthy female candidate, because I just can't get behind her, much as I would love to see a woman president.

Strawman, thanks to you, I've now got the SNL Super Colon Blow commercial stuck in my head.

Posted by: The Law Fairy on Mar. 9, 2007

"Those geek-writers forgot who their audience was."

That's right, Mark. I will never forgive those bastards for turning The Punisher into some radical Lefty shithead.

Posted by: reagan80 on Mar. 9, 2007

LF once again opens her mouth, and removes all doubt.

Posted by: Casca on Mar. 9, 2007

Casca again fails to generate substantive responses and punts with a lame personal attack.

Posted by: will on Mar. 10, 2007


We can always count on you to talk completely out of your ass - and have absolutely no knowledge of which you speak. Instead of just parroting some nonsense made up by the traitors at the ACLU, why don't you have a look at what the professionals in law enforcement have to say about the PA and whether it has been an effective tool.

Then while you are at please tell us how your life has changed one iota since the PA's passage. What activity can't you do today, that you could do before the PA? What imagined "right" of yours has been recently trampeled on by the PA police?

Of course, you have not lost a single bit of freedom nor have any of us since the PA passage. Arguments to the contrary have no basis in fact or reality. So, Straw, if you can manage not to conspire with terrorists, I think you'll be just fine. But, hey, if things are really so bad in this country, I'll bet Castro or Chavez would love to have you. And then, finally, Straw, you could truly experience the "freedom" you've always longed for.

Ignorance is Strength.

Posted by: blu on Mar. 10, 2007


While not an event that was a direct rampling as a result of the PA I did suffer the consequences of a Police force tha has lost it's understanding of the constitutional rights granted to it's citizens, due to the atmosphere of regenerate fear and resultant panic.

Briefly the facts. Dec 20, 2005

I am with my wife, my friend and his wife and a third friend Christmas week after a nice diner walking down 5th. ave at 53st.

I started crossing against a light deep in conversation and the first car waiting honked long and loud to get my attention (NY is not LA where the right of pedestrians is upheld) I jumped back, pissed off, to the curb and take a slap at the roof of the rapidly accelerating car which had barely waited for me to move away. Long story shot. Cop saw the slap, driver pulled over and expressed outrage, I could not produce identification (not that an american must), three cops arrive, hands on their guns entreat me to stand against a wall, yelling if I put my hands in my pockets( which had already been searched and it was snowing) figuring out what to do next. Sgt. comes and confers. I am Cuffed behind my back, not told I am under arrest, into the van, to the PCT. and a holding cell sans shoelaces or any miranda. A disorderly conduct ticket is written an hour later once they determined who I was (I know my drivers lic. no. so they could look me up) and a court apperance set up. I appear with counsel, Judge asks why I kicked a police officer, officer demures and corrects her
that it was the car, not him, ticket dismissed.
Blu, this was an illegal seizure. Slapping a car is not disorderly conduct no more than slapping a sign post or a sidewalk and Americans do not have to carry papers....yet!

This event, which should have been a non-event, with the officer chastizing the driver for not yielding to a pedestrian in a cross walk, chastizing me for not watching where I was going, turned into a epic struggle, because no cop wants to be the one who lets the guy with the bomb, or the guy on the watch list out of his custody. THe same mentality that causes my elderly 90+ year old mother to be searched at the airport.

Blu, we are declining into a fearful police state and thousands of people are having their rights abridged and as I said before there are no convictions on the books.

Posted by: strawman on Mar. 11, 2007


First of all, that sucks. Sorry to hear it. But that is about cops, not the PA. The PA is about the GWOT. Two very different things.

Secondly, I'm a libertarian by nature. I'm not a natural ally of law enforcement; and though my best friend is a cop, I generally find the average police officer to be a low IQ power-tripper with minimal analytical skills. Let's face it, these people only need pass the 12th grade. 9-11, however, changed my mind about a lot of things. Afterwards, I understood that that the world had changed and that we were now facing an enemy and a religion that was sick and twisted. Islamfascim is a disease that must be wiped out - period. And by any means necessary.

This war will be long, drawn out, and will go back and forth. Western civilization - the greatest civilization the world has ever known - depends on our victory.

Choose your side.

Posted by: blu on Mar. 11, 2007

Am I the only one thinking Midnight Cowboy??

I'm walkin heeere!

Posted by: annika on Mar. 12, 2007


Yes, just start calling me Ratzo Strawman.

I think, Blu, that all the fallout from what I call an innapropriate extension of the powers granted to justice through Homeland security, runs down hill. As you know, I do believe and agree with you that the extreme elements of Islam are a dangerous and vile force and that their efforts to attact the west must be stopped. I recognized this fifteen years ago and said to who ever would listen that this was going to be the great problem of the new mellennium. I just don't agree that Iraq was the right place to fight this enemy (since NO radical Islamists were allied with iraq or were being supplied or trained in or by iraq) and I don't agree that "all methods necessary and available must be used". We differ ONLY over those issues, that is not to say this is a small difference of opinion, but to believe that my differences mean I wish for them to prevail or take pelasure in any loss of ours or advance of theirs is absurd. I believe Bush and crew are seriously over matched and the situation on the ground proves this.

Posted by: strawman on Mar. 12, 2007