Hillary's Scorched Earth Tendencies

Hillary's scorched earth tendencies.

Many have known that Hillary has that unique ability to heal the fractures in the GOP. David Frum made that point in the NYT's today. We've seen the poll data that shows how close a general election would be between Hillary and McCain or Romney.

What I never realized until recently is how Hillary is able to divide the Democrats. Over this last week, she and Bill have done a tremendous job of polarizing the Democrats' primary.

We've watched her and Bill lie about Obama's positions, lie about his past associations and so forth. This act has alienated many Democrats and Independents and is red meat for the Republicans.

So the key question is: can Hillary actually win in November with a divided Democrat Party up against a united Republican Party?

If she was running against W, I'd say she could win, but I don't think she can beat McCain or Romney if she continues to destroy her own party.

She needs to get Bill to be an advocate for her and not an attack dog. The former president doesn't need to be playing the role of James Carville. They have James Carville and others for that job. He needs to keep the message positive.

The Law of the Unintended

The catchphrase now is "change". The big three Democratic candidates (really big two, but I'll be more inclusive for now) can't stop talking about how they are the most pro-change candidate out there. The Republicans have to play the "change" game a little more carefully, but they still try to get the "change" word out there whenever possible.

Apparently voters feel things are so bad now, any change must be for the better.

I don't think that way. How many times have people sat in corporate meetings to hear about the latest and greatest new program? How many times have the new programs been wonderful changes for the better? Sure, sometimes they are, but too often, they just create a bunch of new problems to deal with.

I'm being pretty preachy here, but I just want people to dig just a little bit into what the changes are a candidate is proposing. The internet is great since you can go to their websites for particulars.

And remember one the the most fundamental laws of government at any level: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Don't we learn?

Following politics is proving to be a great way to increase my stress levels.

If nothing else, these last 7 years should have taught Americans that who we elect to office does matter. I think if something matters, then you should give your decision some thought. I feel like I'm in the minority.

In 2000, we kept hearing that people liked Bush (and were therefore going to vote for him) because he seemed more likable than Al Gore. The phrase tossed around at the time was that W was the guy you would want to invite to your backyard cookout for a beer.

I have lots of friends I like having over to the house for a beer, but I don't want them in the White House so I'm not sure why that became a real reason to vote for someone.

Now people are talking about how Hillary's tearing up played a pivotal role in NH. Are you kidding me? People really changed their opinion on whether or not to vote for Hillary based on that? Clinton has been in the spotlight for 15 years. She's been running for the presidency for 2 years. How can people's opinion of her be changed by a tear?

I certainly understand why people would vote for Hillary, but I don't understand deciding to vote for her because she can get emotional.

The tearing up moment was supposed to be a window into her humanity. What does that really mean? If you didn't like her before, how the heck did that change it?