The Many Flaws in Ryan Lizza's "Can Obama Catch Hillary"

One of the political correspondents for the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza, published an article
November 26, 2007 on the Obama candidacy. Many of the residents of New York I know read the article and quickly made a decision to endorse Barack's candidacy. The very fact that the New Yorker was the magazine that helped shift votes is telling. Many exit polls have shown that Obama has very strong support among college graduates, but Hillary has stronger support among Democratic voters that ended their education after high school. All of my friends are college graduates and many of them have advanced degrees. That being said many of them point towards the idea of "change" that Obama has espoused. It is so strange to me that Obama has been able to garner so much of the college educated vote through he has not taken a strong stance on any issue and as Hillary pointed out at several debates he has abstained from voting on some important legislation.

At one point in the article, Obama tells Lizza, "Hillary is running, in many ways, a textbook campaign. But it’s a textbook that I think is inadequate to the moment. It’s a textbook that says you don’t answer tough questions directly because it may make you a bigger target in the general election—that you tell people what they want to hear but avoid telling some hard truths.” I find this quote troubling, as should anyone that has seen any of the debates. In fact, Obama has refused to debate Hillary anymore. Hillary has answered tough questions and has completed 7 years as Senator of New York and has had to vote on many important and difficult bills. In comparison, Obama announced that he was running for President after barely serving two years in our Senate (the only national position he has held).

I think, and I have been saying this since the campaign season began over a year ago, Obama has been running a "textbook" campaign. Focus groups have shown time and time again that "change" is the key political term to gain votes. Obama is running a "campaign of change," but every campaign is seeking to change from President Bush. Not even any of the Republicans want to be seen as the successor to the Bush Presidency.

What bothers me most about this change theme is what Obama supporters argue that he wants "change," but they cannot tell me what change he is going to bring that Hillary or any of the other former Democratic candidates would not bring. Obama keeps focusing on "change," as advised by his focus groups and if any campaign can be seen as being run by advisers and not being organic it is Obama's campaign for "change."

Stanley Fish's brilliant column on anti-Hillary diatribes

I think Stanley Fish has hit the nail on its head when he describes the deep, irrational hatred too many individuals have for Hillary.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/
While I was reading the blog entry the first thing I thought of was Sartre explanation for anti-Semitism. Sartre accurately explains that the anti-Semite is irrational. The anti-Semite hates the Jew for no rationale reason. Sartre famously remarked that if the Jew did not exist the anti-Semite would create him to hate. For the anti-Semite the Jew represents anything they despise. Similarly the anti-Hillary mob transfers each and every one of their peeves to Hillary. For those on the right, Hillary represents a Senator that espouses Socialist ideas and is a committed Marxist. They argue strongly that Hillary's current health care plan and the failed plan of President Clinton during the mid 1990s was Hillary's attempt at bringing Socialism to America through their health care system. The left says Hillary is in the hands of capitalist America because she was a partner at a large law firm that represented corporate interests and she sat on the corporate board of Walmart. I cannot continue to explain the irrationality of the anti-Hillary crowd but Stanley Fish is so eloquent I will not waste my words.

Advent of Saving Hillary

This is a blog we would have rather not started, but unfortunately Hillary Clinton needs eloquent, intelligent bloggers to defend against her detractors that are too often malicious and inaccurate. We would rather not write this blog, but there are too many nasty rumors and bloggers that are aiming to derail her Presidential run. We care to set the record straight, not only because we want to defend Hillary from her defamers for the sake of historical accuracy but because we sincerely believe that she is the best candidate for America. She is capable of setting America back on the path towards being respected globally and gaining back its economic edge. She knows how to work within the political system to pass bipartisan legislation. She is capable of engineering America's rise to global respectability. It is imperative that America gain back the international reputation it lost over the last seven years.

Sure, some of Hillary's political stances, ideology and personal life deserve criticism. After all, no one is perfect, but too much of the criticism surrounding her candidacy is completely invalid and ad hominum attacks. For the sake of the future of America she is the most qualified candidate and we will defend her.