- How much is Clinton's last name an advantage? Disadvantage?
- What do you think of Bill's role in his wife's campaign thus far?
- How did Clinton's theme of inevitability help and hurt her?
- Is there anything surprising about Hilary's responses to her setbacks that is revealing about her character?
- What were some issues Obama faced as a candidate related to how he campaigned?
- Do you find Obama's struggle with the day-to-day of campaigning humanizing or does it paint him as a little bit bratty?
- Why was Iowa so important for both Hilary and Obama?
- How did John Edwards distinguish himself from the two candidates? What did he focus on?
- What personal problems beset his candidacy? Do you agree with his decision to run despite his wife's diagnosis?
- In regards to his affair, when does personal become relevant to the voter?
Saturday, June 2, 2012
GAME CHANGE BOOK DISCUSSION, CHAPTERS 5-8
Hey, same as last time... Some interesting questions to consider:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Clinton's last name definitely held her back -- people questioned if being a first lady counted as political experience, and her name is used to being muddied and dragged through the press. Bill plays support, but the Clinton campaign faltered when it came to Iowa. The debates tended to eviscerate her, especially if it's true she was facing questions about illegal immigration and Obama Halloween costumes. Her Iowan fatigue definitely set her back in a state that everyone's watching.
ReplyDeleteObama, on the other hand, did made leaps and bounds at fundraising and morale-rallying, but at the cost of his personal family life. Honestly, running for President is hell and Obama should've expected that coming in. But his schedule was indeed exhausting -- six or seven events, and the book signings, in a never ending train, sucks. Obama, who is good at lighting fires in bellies, did well in Iowa because he impassioned people to be willing to caucus for him; but it came at the cost of his sleep and happiness.
Edwards is a douche. It's not really an issue that he ran when his wife was sick, as long as his wife was truly OK with the entire thing and understands the ramifications. However, Rielle sounds dumb. Really, astrology? You're going to cheat on your wife with someone whose business title is "Truth Seeker"? (A private investigator is the legitimate version, and that's who busted him). I question his choice of mistress.
haha I definitely agree that Edward's "choice of mistress" was completely strange ( he could have chosen someone with a little more... less of a groopie and better named profession) . Obama, I think that it was unnecessary for him to sacrifice his family or rather happiness for the presidency. Clinton, I agree that Iowa was her main set back, but she should have seen it coming. It wasn't going to be just her against everyone else forever. They called Edward's the ego monster, but Hillary seemed to be floating on this cloud, unreachable and number one.
DeleteDoes first lady REALLY count as political experience? I mean it does now... But is that enough to become president? And her name not only reflects her past as first lady... but of the scandal that is brought to the spotlight by the couple. Americans could only expect that to happen again... Is that something we want? NO. we need a president who has a personal life reflecting the decency of his political career.
DeleteCat, your comment about being first lady brought to mind something later on in the book that mentioned how Al Gore felt that he shared the vice presidency with Hillary during Bill's presidency. And Al also felt that Hillary had more power and influence than him during that time. I think that she probably did have a lot of power when she was first lady, and she probably did gain a lot of experience from that time. Bill, as the book says, worshipped Hillary, and saw her as a force of nature.. Also, a woman who later runs for the presidency wouldn't just sit back and be a bum first lady; she's a leader as well.
DeleteMany times throughout history and even today a person's name has its advantages and disadvantages. For Hillary her last name gave her a public image of experience with a wide range of political experience especially due to her husband and being the First Lady. Unfortunately, it was also a burden since other candidates and voters perceived her to be privileged and assumed that she thought of herself more highly and righteous than the common citizen. Her husband's absence throughout the campaign was necessary since she didn't want people to think that her husband and her were a collaborative team, she was running for President not her and her husband together (of course his health situation was a factor). On the other hand his presence might have given her an advantage, but he should have definitely given her some advice from the get go. Her setbacks definitely revealed that underneath that courageous, strong, and opinionated woman was just another scared and worried candidate with no direct path.
ReplyDeleteObama and Edwards were completely different from Hillary. Throughout most of the first debates they teamed up on offense against Hillary. Obama eventually quit that partnership and stated leading his own way. His sudden raise to popularity, that placed him in front of Clinton definitely had a grave effect on his family. Yes, many times people believe that you have to sacrifice certain things to achieve your dream/goal, but when you're President its expected that you have a strong and united family. Same goes for Edwards, cheating on his wife in the middle of the campaign was not a smart move obviously. But when does a candidates personal life start to influence his campaign? I mean for Edwards it was obvious since his affair become public and had a drastic effect, but Obama's lack of family life was barely advertised or criticized! I think that there was no balance between Edward's and especially HIllary's public humiliation compared to Obama's. Hillary was clear targeted the most.
The Clinton legacy is almost a dynasty of political affluence and carries a lot of weight over domestic and international affairs. This is beneficial for Hillary, however, because of her husband's affair this prestigious reputation was tainted. Bill is supportive yet he is a burden on Hillary of the Lewinsky affair. Hilary's attitude was one of ambition, but it was one of ambition without support. Without her closest advisers and her campaign committee backing her, there was little chance of success. Obama's Ivy league persona and pompous charisma is slightly annoying and rather hurtful to his friendly intent. He tries to be a man of the people of crushes that when he comes across as an overbearing elitist. Overall the book is a good read and gives some intriguing insight to the Clintonian legacy and Obama's political upbringing.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more that the Clinton campaign ran on ambition (or entitlement, if you see it that way) and not structure. She made some crucial missteps in Iowa, which gave Obama a huge berth to come and seize the title of a serious contender.
DeleteI never saw Obama in this kind of a light before. When I watched him on television, I perceived him as an infinitely modest kind of person, willing to make sacrifices for the country's greater good. However, I guess that Obama's tactful speech-weaver wove my thoughts and perceptions into a brightly colored "Go Obama!" t-shirt. Anyways, I simply cannot imagine the man with a snobbish air hanging about him.
DeleteI don't know if I read his characterization in the book as snobby, but just supremely self-assured. He is well-aware of his talents and isn't afraid to admit as much. I tend to think the word "snobby" calls to mind something else.
DeleteYou have to think that you can't be infinitely modest kind of person and run for president. It just doesn't compute. They are all ego maniacs. HA.
I think the issue of Hilary's last name is an interesting one. However, let's be honest, when one talks about Hilary's last name he is strictly referring to Bill. Bill's role in the whole thing is interesting because, from what we can see at least, Bill is not doing a whole lot to intervene with the election. Besides obviously endorsing his wife and the sprinkled fundraising events, he is really a behind the scenes character. What is crucial, however, is the amount of connections and simply people that he has on his side and that is thus at Hilary's disposal. This brings us to the question of whether or not all of this is a curse. Having the last name of Clinton allows Hilary to do a lot of things that the average person running for president simply can not do. She knows what it's like to live in the white house, she understands the stress that comes with it, and she can come out of it just as strong as she was going in, but all of this was made possible and evident because of Bill. I think that her last name is a curse as well, however, because as the election goes on people look to Obama as the outsider who truly captures a nation, while Clinton almost looks like the old politician who is too hardened by politics to be one with the people. Having the last name Clinton almost detached Hilary from the public, and that was her greatest fault and Obama's greatest asset.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that, whenever politicians were struggling to decide whether they should simply go along with Hillary as their best bet for the future of America, they instead became tied up with the spider-web of Bill Clinton insinuations. For some reason, these men and women let someone else's scandals demean Mrs. Clinton in their own eyes. This was essentially the the first step down for Hillary in the public's view; Americans only started to further flesh out her other weaknesses once the Big Bill Bombshell went off yet again. Honestly, I do not think that it was fair to judge Hillary for her husband's actions. She did not cause them. She did not approve of them. She was in no way involved.
DeleteI understand that this is politics at its finest, superimposing images on top of figures for the sole goal of a negative public image, that image is not substantial, but sticks in peoples' heads. Yet I do not intend to write individuals off simply because of image.
I agree with you when you say that her last name detatched her from the public... It definitely helped Obama, especially because they ran such different campaigns, his a grassroots one with lots of web interactions, and hers more about speeches given by her and her husband.
DeleteAt first, Bill was an asset to her, but he quickly became troublesome with his harsh statements about Obama. I tend to agree with the critics who said that if she couldn't control him during her campaign she wouldn't have been able to control him if they reached the White House once again.
Hilary's last name is a representation of political prowess and scandal. On one hand we have the Clinton legacy,which brought a sustained period of sustained economic growth, low unemployment, rising incomes, and reduction of the national debt. Over 22 million jobs were created, unemployment reached its lowest point in thirty years, over $360 billion dollars worth of American debt was paid off, and a budget surplus was created between 1998 and 2000. On the other hand, he was impeached and later acquitted of perjury after getting a little too friendly with a White House intern, which put quite a damper on his public image. To have that amount of success and scorn to follow after still trails Hilary, and most definitely trailed her during her candidacy. Bill Clinton created a political legacy, and legacy Hilary may not have been able to deal with; it was both a blessing and a curse.
ReplyDeleteEdwards is a total moron who cared more about what was going on with his pants instead of his possible presidency. For obvious reasons, his affair with Rielle Hunter caused a rift between himself and his advisers, and tarnished his public image when word eventually got out. He should've just listened to everyone who told him to stuff it back it, but he didn't exactly listen... To answer the last question, any action by a president can be turned into a demonstration/representation of their character; any good or bad action by the President will eventually affirm or bash his public image. A voter will side with a candidate who is a representation of their morals and ethics, so the personal lives of a President can and even have come into play and have the ability to change and shape public opinion. Personal information about a candidate could possible be a "game changer" even though we may want it to stray away.
The Clinton dynasty (if you want to call it that) is definitely marred by the Lewinsky scandal, but I agree that it's also marked by a well-executed, balanced government. However, Hilary's perception in the media is largely "bitchy" -- I remember her pantsuits somehow became an issue because of it. I could not agree more that Hilary's last name is both a blessing and a curse, but also that set puts her own spin on the Clinton name. Bill gets blowjob jokes and Hil gets the "not-really-a-lady" jokes.
DeleteEdwards prioritized his horniness over his campaign, and was extremely, extremely ill-advised. He definitely needed to keep it in his pants, since little Edwards seems to make horrible decisions. (Rielle the "Truth Seeker", really?)
Tori, you bring up an interesting point about the sexism in the race. Was Hillary unfairly characterized in ways that a man would never be? It's an interesting question. I tend to think yes.
DeleteWhat once used to be a name of power, leadership and strength is now often viewed with a little more mockery. The name "Clinton" reminds people a lot of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, and though the Clinton's prospered for quite a while even just by the sheer merit of their name, it became less of a "playing card" for Hilary upon running in the Presidential Election. The Clinton legacy was one of money and power in which Bill, then President, helped build America up and give is some stable footing to get working again after years of debt, job losses, etc. But upon impeachment and later acquittal, the Clinton name became somewhat tarnished. The name didn't help Hilary or slow her down all too much, but I'd find it hard to believe if one in 100 people didn't recognize the Clinton name for one reason or another, and that's saying something.
ReplyDeleteObama, though, kind of gained from this "stigma" of being well known, sometimes too well-known, in public as he was somewhat of a newcomer, a younger guy, and a "change" that he grew so famous to be. He spun things in his direction time and time again, and while Clinton got stuck as the woman who was cheated on and is riding off her husband's successes and failures, Obama took the nation by storm. He struggled with his time, the exhaustion of running for President, and all the publicity, but he knew he'd have to deal with that just by stepping foot into the race. Either way, he did what he set out to do.
I don't know that I agree with the characterization that one of her liabilities was that she was known as someone who had been cheated on. It was out there, mostly because her advisors were concerned about his most recent dalliances, but I think her problems (at least in my view) had more to do with her sense of entitlement to the nomination and her voting record on Iraq. I also think that while to many Democrats the Clinton name recalls nostalgic memories of budget surpluses, relative peace, and unprecedented prosperity, it was at tension with an overwhelming resistance to going backwards rather than going forward with someone new.
DeleteIt is clear to me that Clinton's last name put her at a disadvantage in the race. But her own actions also set her back greatly for Democrats, like her vote for the war in Iraq. I think Bill's role is appropriate thus far because he could be a typical male and try to take over everything, especially because he himself was President and might try to interfere because he felt he knew what was best. It was interesting to read "Barack in a Box" and see the setbacks that he faced against Clinton, because so far it had seemed that Obama was very confident about running... It was a tight race in the end, though we tend only to remember outcomes rather than the story behind the outcome. Edwards is definitely a megalomaniac--no wonder he was left out of the race. While a great personality isn't necessary in a great leader, voters don't vote for assholes, and Edwards does a poor job of hiding that side of himself. His relationship with Rielle is plain ridiculous, and for him to associate with someone like her is disconcerting. It's safe to say I'm glad he didn't win.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the fact that Hillary voting on the Iraq war was a HUGE problem for her. As a matter of fact, that was a big thing that turned me off from her as a candidate. We had eight years of expanding war in two fronts and if you were a liberal who was disconcerted with this, why would you want your alternative to the Republicans to mirror their policies exactly? The contrast between McCain and Clinton on the issue of war--which was the big issue before the 2008 crash--there needed to be more of a distinct contrast. She did it to show she was strong on national defense and foreign policy, something that Democrats ("Defeat-o-crats") were always struggling to get. However, in doing it she alienated her base, whose blood was boiling over the Iraq war in particular by 2008.
DeleteThis is the struggle of most candidates. How do you appeal to crossover voters without alienating your base? McCain struggled with this in the movie today when he was wanted to choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate to expand his appeal to those in the middle, but his advisors had to tell him that he would lose 40% of his base if he did that. Sometimes politicians get blamed for this, but this kind of rank partisanship is often the fault of the electorate itself, who cannot seem to break from the "our team" mentality. It forces politicians in a difficult position.
Obama really came in at a perfect storm. People were suffering from major Bush AND Clinton fatigue, and was early enough in his career that he was in state politics when authorization of the war happened. He was pure on this issue, as he was on many issues, and this had more to do with the fact that he hadn't been around to make tough choices more than being taking hard, risky stands on principle.
While I'd like to sit here and say that the name Clinton only brings good thoughts to mind (for obvious reasons), I can't. When anyone hears the name Clinton in association with policitics, they also think of the name Monica Lewinsky. The two names are almost coupled together. In reality, no one really remembers anything good either Clinton did because the media did such a superb job at outlining every little detail of this scandal. How can anyone not think of this scandal when the media did such a good job at publicizing it? However, to be fair, this whole scandal, while it involved Hillary, should really only be centered around Bill. It was his poor judgment that lead to this entire scandal, not Hillary's.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I think when people hear the name Clinton they cannot help but think of the scandal which in reality was more about Bill than Hillary. I do think on the other hand that the name also brings is positives in politics, although sometimes not as dramatically as its negatives. The American people are already familiar with the Clinton's and because of this, Hillary is at a slight advantage recognition wise. The only question is which outweighs the other, the positives or the negatives (I think in this case it is the negatives)
DeleteI tend to think that the name Clinton brings to mind both people equally, and I think Hillary came out as the more responsible, dependable, and loyal of the two coming out of the scandal, so in a lot of ways the horrible ordeal she went through in the late Nineties did a lot to show some of the more positive aspects of her as a leader.
DeleteAs far as Clinton's last name being an advantage, I believe that she exudes an aura of experience, no matter how much her opponents may attempt to discredit her by slapping a label of "inexperienced" on her forehead. Although I do agree that being First Lady certainly does not count as experience as far as policymaking goes, Hillary certainly had ample time to get a feel for the White House atmosphere; I think it would be silly to say that Mrs. Clinton wasn't sizing up the place as a future homestead by the time she and Bill were ousted. Personally, I believe that Hillary should have run a much less aggressive campaign. People were tired of her. People craved something different, something other than Hillary struggling to shove herself down everyone's gullets, proclaiming herself like some sort of medicine that the country must swallow (not without a grimace) in order to recover from its illness. Once Barak emerged as a possibility for a breath of fresh air in Washington, people were naturally drawn to him. Crowds simply CANNOT RESIST an underdog.
ReplyDeleteOn Obama: while the book sometimes portrays Obama as "bitchy" (an interesting word choice), I can empathize with him. I understand what being buried alive underneath piles and piles of inescapable work feels like, and moreover, in Obama's case, it turned out that his high command was acting irresponsibly, cramming too many commitments into the candidate's tight schedule. Therefore, I believe that some people may find Obama greatly irritable, insofar as his taking naps instead of attending necessary meetings. However, I must pose one question: "So, if YOU were frustrated out of your mind, caused by running a tremendously tiring campaign, then you would never shirk a meeting, or grumble, or complain even a teancy-weancy bit about your situation?" I think that most people would answer:
"No."
Oh, John Edwards. He tried to focus on a nice little goody-two-shoes populist campaign, focusing on national healthcare, and all the great things that our citizens deserve, and yada yada yada. He goofed. Need I say more?
I totally agree here. Hillary's time as First Lady means SOMETHING. She consulted with her husband, the president. As we learned this year, she was personally involved with Clinton's healthcare reform push, for example. She developed personal relationships with other statesmen, here and abroad. She didn't have defined responsibilities of, say, a Cabinet member but I'm sure she garnered a lot of experience being within the circles of power.
DeleteI do think it's interesting that while she has limited concrete experience--a brief tenure as a Senator--she is also a part of the fabric of Washington. This kind of gives her the worst of both worlds--she's an insider but has limited official experience to show for it.
I think that the name Clinton brings both advantages and disadvantages with it. Clinton is expected to behave a certain way, and the public is already aware of her strengths and weaknesses. On the other hand, Clinton has to live up to the reputation of her husband and well as quite his reputation at the same time. While the name is both hurting and helping her, Clinton draws more attention solely based on her name. With a last name like Clinton, Hilary is the one person in the election that everyone in the country is aware of. She is a figure that the country has previously gotten a chance to know on a national level due to her husbands success. This draws both good and bad attention to Hilary. In the debates, she is the target because she is known, while in the polls she is also known, so many feel comfortable with her. The name is both a blessing and a curse.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Clinton's name last as a name that resonates with the whole Lewinsky affair but as a sense of dynasty? I distinctly remember people suggesting that we were moving away from a true democracy because from 1988 to (presumably) 2012 (or 2016) we would have Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. That's a looooong time to have two dynasties controlling the White House. People were concerned for this and maybe this encouraged people to give pause to giving it to Hillary. Also, the inevitably seemed to sort of irk people. That combined with the sense of succession might have helped the insurgent Obama and really hurt Hillary, who (as the book suggests) expected a coronation.
ReplyDelete