Obamacrats — “She can’t win.”
By SeattleGonz on January 25, 2011 at 1:30 AM in Current Affairs
* Bumped Up *
I was inspired by a NQ reader, who found a way to get me a private message, to write the second election strategy employed by Obamacrats. The first, as you recall, although, really they are not in any hierarchical order, was, “He did it too.” The second is:
2. I like her, but she can’t win.
The reasons why “she” (and, she can be any female, left or right, who is in fact threatening to win.) can’t win will invariably be determined by high negatives achieved in manipulated polling data. (Manipulated to give her high negatives.) This strategy is already being played out by Obamacrats with regard to Palin. Obamacrats pretend to be Republicans, conservatives, Feminist Democrats, former Hillary supporters, Center Democrats, any stripe of political bent that they believe will get you to take their words more seriously, and then they’ll lay it on you — “I like Palin, and hate what they’ve done to her, but, now there’s no chance she can win the presidency. And what’s most important is that we beat Obama.” (They’ll take a big gulp from their mountain dew after they write that. Have some compassion, It can’t be easy to be as disingenuous and deceitful as they have to be in order to achieve what they believe to be their higher aims.)
When you counter (If you’re a Palin supporter) with your surprise or frustration that such a bogus statement has been made, they’ll present you with articles and polls.
The polls are manufactured narratives, we already know that. And since they’re the underpinning for most articles on the subject, the articles are fraudulent as well. Obamacrats are great storytellers, they build the narrative from the ground up.
I’ll refer to the past as a way to illuminate the present. April 2007, Real Clear ran the following story:
April 19, 2007
Huge Increase in Hillary’s Negatives Changing Presidential Race By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.
According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don’t like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.
Hillary isn’t wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.
In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.
The most recent Gallup Poll, taken on April 13-15th, shows the biggest increase in negative opinions of Hillary since March of 2001, when she was awash in the pardons and White House china theft scandals.
snip
These numbers mean serious problems for Hillary.
Particularly startling is the collapse of her favorability among key demographic subgroups that are usually considered to be stable parts of her political base. Her campaign is premised on a strategy of attracting women – especially young and single women. Yet, in the last month she has lost 7% of her favorability among all women, 10% among women aged 18-49, and 11% among single women. She is losing her base.
snip
The obvious question is this: What has caused this sharp decline? There is no current Hillary or Bill Clinton scandal, for a change. She has not been subjected to any negative media campaign and Obama and Edwards, her two rivals, have been positively gentle in their treatment of her.
So, what’s happening?
One is driven to the conclusion that Hillary is defeating herself! Voters are watching the former first lady in her first extended period of national exposure since her health care debacle and don’t like what they see. She appears scripted, phony, artificial, and even boring. Her ridiculous attack on Obama last month completely backfired. And her southern-preacher accent in Selma was downright scary.
snip
And she can’t alter her personality more than she already has. In short, Hillary’s in trouble.
I hope in an article like this, you’re beginning to see how so-called journalists are using the language of fiction to create a story. “Hillary isn’t wearing well.” Since, culturally we only or firstly seem to evaluate women by what they wear, this reminds us again that she’s not a woman that people (meaning lecherous people like Morris) want to look at.
Not wanting to let up on the “she’s a woman and that’s why we hate her” theme, the article states: “The most recent Gallup Poll, taken on April 13-15th, shows the biggest increase in negative opinions of Hillary since March of 2001, when she was awash in the pardons and White House china theft scandals.” Awash in china scandals. So, you see it? Hillary is a dowdy scullery maid taken to stealing china from the house she works in. Scandalously.
I admit I missed this whole china theft scandal. Was it one of the things that was going to finally destroy Hillary Clinton and her future in politics? That meant she had no chance to ever win again?
Then there’s this line, “Her campaign is premised on a strategy of attracting women – especially young and single women.” Was that your experience. Certainly Hillary never discouraged women from supporting her, and she always stands for women’s rights, but, I think if she had played the sex card at all, she would’ve had a killer hand. But that’s Hillary. She’s not exploiting women, she’s advocating for them.
Oh, reading this article gives me flashbacks — not the good kind. Morris/McGann have the audacity to write this: “The obvious question is this: What has caused this sharp decline? There is no current Hillary or Bill Clinton scandal, for a change. She has not been subjected to any negative media campaign and Obama and Edwards, her two rivals, have been positively gentle in their treatment of her.” Good lord. “No current Hillary or Bill Clinton scandal, for a change.” When writers add commentary such as, ‘for a change’, you know that they have completely abrogated ethics for the sake of pushing their agenda. And, well, “positively gentle” just makes me want to vomit in its disassociation from reality.
The beginning of the article is Morris and McGann’s attempt at presenting themselves as being balanced analysts, in order to lure in the reader for the grand finale. All pretension gives way the longer you read, it’s the journalist version of, “She’s nice enough, but…” The shroud over the bias comes unglued with, “One is driven to the conclusion that Hillary is defeating herself! Voters are watching the former first lady in her first extended period of national exposure since her health care debacle and don’t like what they see. She appears scripted, phony, artificial, and even boring. Her ridiculous attack on Obama last month completely backfired. And her southern-preacher accent in Selma was downright scary.”
I just have to point out that the last part of that paragraph points back to number one in the Obamacrat strategy, “(s)He did it, too.” I never heard Hillary talk in a southern-preacher accent, but I sure heard Obama do it, and in a number of other voices as well.
So, Hillary defeated herself, Obama and Edwards were positively gentle, Hillary hasn’t had national exposure before this, and she’s scripted, phony, artificial and even boring. Aye-yi-yi.
And then the ultimate end for Hillary, “And she can’t alter her personality more than she already has.” What about you Dick…can you alter your personality more? Please?
Of course, for this article, there wasn’t any actual poll to validate the wild assumptions and mealy-mouthed insults being sputtered (before you let me know that I’m doing the same thing, I know. I know. Sorry. I’m pissed.) but, in looking for it I discovered another article written a year later in April 2008.
POLL: Obama Surges on Electability, Challenges Clinton on Leadership
This article, which I won’t analyze, refers to an ABC poll done at the time. I looked at it and was surprised that five questions were asked about Hillary Clinton, whereas the stats for only 1, whether Hillary Clinton is trustworthy or not, were reported on. The detail said this regarding Questions 30-34:
30-31 Held for release.
32 Previously released.
33-34 Held for release.
I’m dying to know what those four questions were and how the polling went on them.
Interestingly, this poll didn’t ask the same questions of each of the candidates. Respondents were asked these five questions about HIllary and about Barack they were asked:
27. As you may know there has been some controversy lately over the preaching of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has been Barack Obama’s minister. In terms of distancing himself from Wright’s comments, do you think Obama has done (too much), (too little) or about the right amount?
Are you frisking serious? Now they’re stealing poll questions right from classic literature…is the porridge too hot, too cold, or just right?
Oh, and, by the way, on that poll, 1,197 adults were randomly sampled, except that there was an oversampling of African Americans and Catholics. And oversampling of over 500 respondents. That means, 500+ more African Americans and Catholics than the random sample produced. Uh, that Hillary did as well as she did on this poll is astounding.
Anyway, my point isn’t to rehash old news, I just want you to be wary when you read these polls and articles that say, Poll: Sarah Palin can’t beat Obama. But Mitt Romney can., Scarborough: Palin Knows She Can’t Win, In It For Money, GOP Consultant Says Palin Can’t Win
, More top Republicans join Sarah-can’t-win caucus
…
Well, you get the idea. I could go on. Easily.
My point is this — the power elite of the left and right don’t want women with the integrity to stand up. They don’t want defiant women to achieve the highest elected office in America. They really don’t. And, since they control a great deal of the US economy, media, entertainment, etc., they have considerable power in framing and suppressing the message of a Clinton, Palin or whomever has the fortitude to stand her ground.
No poll, or punditry, especially in January of 2011, can accurately predict who will run, win the nomination or the general election.
It’s clear to me that Obamacrats don’t want Palin to win the Republican nomination and be Obama’s opposition. And, people like Romney and his surrogates, will work with Obamacrats to spread the same lie about her “un-electability” because it works in their favor.
There are days when it seems that the key to bi-partisanship and unity is misogyny. On those days, I’m grateful that leaders like Hillary and Palin are willing to endure the viciousness that is our realpolitik, and fight for our futures.
So when they say, “I like her, but she can’t win…,” smile, nod your head, and let em know that she can, and will. After all, you have as much authority about the future as a poll that oversampled biased populations by more than a third. Maybe more so.
(This isn’t meant to suggest that individuals might not like Sarah Palin based on her political views and plans, but the argument that she shouldn’t be supported because she can’t win is, in my view, a red-herring. It’s done to raise doubt and weaken conviction. Beware, stay strong.)
by Ronald Scott
* More novels by 
* 
(
)
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
