One of the worst strategies in any competitive arena whether it be sports, politics, or business is to worry about the next "game." Despite the effectiveness of her overall campaign, she is always thinking about the November 2008 election. Playing to that audience has been the fatal mistake of all recent Democrats. Hillary and her staff should know better. It may have worked for Bill in 1992, but it wont work in 2008.
Managers and leaders must be willing to change strategies when necessary and not follow what may have worked in the past. The country has had so much BS over the last 7 years that even the slightest bit of the old methods of diversion and triangulation will not be tolerated. And the MSM will want to make a "horse race" out of the election as they did with Howard Dean in 2004. What was wrong strategy for Howard Dean in 2004 is the right strategy for 2008.
Hillary in my opinion is the most capable of all the candidates on either slate. She is intelligent, hard working, and basically true to her liberal values. She is not Bill and I do not think her governing style will be like his. She is not a "rock star" like her husband, but she is more of a realist and understands "process" very well, more so than her husband. We need to stop voting for people based upon personality and their appeal to the masses. Hillary has all the right qualities to be a great President. The problem, which is fundamentally not her fault, is that she is married to Bill Clinton. The so-called sins of her husband should not carry over to her. And the Clinton family does not pose a legacy threat like the Bush family and other rich elites.
As I suggested, she needs to win the nomination. If she wins the nomination, she will win the general election. So why is she making the recent mistakes concerning her vote for the non-binding Iranian terrorist bill and advocating the drivers license program for illegal aliens? The vote for the Iran bill was a carryover of the "commander in chief" obstacle for women that she has already overcome. That vote only meant something to the base of the Democratic party and would not have hurt her in the general election.
The drivers license issue was a mistake on her part because she did not communicate her position well and Tim Russert unfairly torpedoed her. Russert does this in every debate he allegedly moderates. Moderators should be neutral and his questions and rebuttal on that issue were not neutral. Russert loves political gamesmanship and benefits from the gotchya approach to journalism. The candidates should not allow him to be a moderator, especially the front runner. Russert does not serve the best interests of the country by viewing politics as a game. He and Chris Matthews are not aware of the damage they do by making it a game. The problem with Hillary's answer to the drivers license issue was not her position on the issue. It was her style. She was too cautious and failed to make a very valid point.
Many states have programs that allow for illegals to obtain drivers licenses. Many have argued that given are current immigration policy, it is the lessor of evils. When Russert did his rebuttal: "are you in favor of the Spitzer program," she should have said that she was, given that it was her <strong>SINCERE</strong> belief that it was the lessor evil." The key word in that response is <strong>SINCERE</strong>. That would have been a winning answer. It is possible that the recent debate may lead to her fall in the primaries. If she wants to win, her strategy now should be to drop the "commander in chief" strategy and adopt the <strong>SINCERITY</strong> thing. That would appeal to more of the "grass roots" Democrats and independents.