Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Why Clinton Is our Best Shot…Sasso’s take

By

Today’s Globe: John Sasso gives a compelling argument why Clinton will prevail, why she is the Democrats’ best shot (from the frontrunners) at regaining the Presidency.. http://www.boston.com/bostongl…

They say you learn more from working on a losing campaign than a winning one…in that case, Sasso has the experience of being upfront in 2 losing Presidential efforts, and that gives him a painfully keen insight into what our nominee will confront from the GOP and what it will take for Dems to win.

Clinton has what it will take.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …just a Democratic Party power broker (who know doubt, stands to make lots of money with Clinton in the WH) supports the quintessential insider candidate.

    <

    p>BTW, I do think she’ll squeeze an Iowa win, which will pave the road for her nomination…because, as I suspect you very well know where Sasso’s friend, Michael Whouley, has been the last month.

    • Never thought of Sasso and Whouley as such great friends…perhaps you know something that I do not..Sasso is the kind of guy who wants to ride in the plane with the candidate, get in the news as a top advisor…Whouley is the type that stays out of the camera shots and just gets the work done…I admire the latter more.

    • FROM The Atlantic.com…mark Ambinder blog..

      <

      p>Whouley Consults For The Clinton Campaign — But Not In Iowa

      <

      p>18 Dec 2007 08:55 am

      <

      p>Magical. Mysterious. Scary. All those adjectives to the Bostonian named Michael Whouley, probably the most famous, least-attention seeking and most-regarded political organizer of his generation. If there is a vote to be gotten, he is the best getter.

      <

      p>According to a campaign official, Mr. Whouley has been brought in an as extra set of eyes for the Clinton campaign. He’s finishing a review of the campaign’s New Hampshire field operation at the moment.

      <

      p>So far, so good: Whouley apparently likes what he sees.

      <

      p>Fieldwise, Clinton’s top generals are in Iowa. And it is perhaps a sign of confidence — or a gesture meant to be interpreted as a sign of confidence — that Mr. Whouley has not been asked to take a gander at the campaign’s Iowa operation. (Yet.)

      <

      p>David Barnhardt and Karen Hicks, both Whouley protege, helped design the campaign’s sophisticated turnout program, he as caucus director and she as the planner. And then there is Clinton’s Iowa state director, the extremely well-regarded Theresa Vilmain, whose legend in the Democratic world is eclipsed only by Mr. Whouley’s (and, perhaps, by Steve Hildebrand, a deputy campaign manager for Obama who now lives at a Des Moines hotel.)

      <

      p>Clinton’s national political director, Guy Cecil, a younger, less bald, less profane version of Whouley, is in New Hampshire, and his supervision of a field organization put together by state director Nick Clemons, apparently passed Whouley’s bow-to-stern inspection.

      • …that clears the key question I had this campaign season…where is Michael…I found the Time Mention, but not not the Altanic…either way, Whouley and the Clinton campaign does not face the same challenges as four years ago…

  2. Like I’ve said lots of times, I like Clinton and would have no problem seeing her as the nominee.  But that op-ed did exactly nothing for me.  If I were the Clinton campaign, I wouldn’t exactly be trumpeting a big endorsement of why she can win, from the guy who had a major hand in Dukakis ’88 and Kerry ’04.

    <

    p>Plus, the whole piece is about how she’s such an “electable” candidate, which is one of the worst reasons to vote for someone.  Please, folks, let’s not fall into that trap again.

    • Now, David…that article was by John Sasso, a darling of the Globe gang. He surely proffered his opinion and they were happy to print it. He is NOT a spokesperson for her campaign.

      <

      p>As for electability…if you are a Democrat and you have seen 8 years of GOP bungling on too many fronts to count, electability in November must be one of the many factors you consider when choosing a candidate…just one, but certainly one.

      <

      p>I would be gleeful if I could put a bumper sticker on my car for the Biden/Richardson ticket, or Richardson/Biden ticket, or Richardson Dodd ticket, or even DoddRichardson…I could support those tickets with huge enthusiasm…and I wouldn’t mind if Senator Clinton was VP to anyone of those highly qualified presidential candidates, either.

      <

      p>But, thanks to the so-so-early campaigning/polling/pundit rat-a-tat-tat that winnowed the field long before the public was even paying attention, I am left with a much limited field of realistic choices now.

      <

      p>I vote on experience, depth of knowledge on major issues, political acumen, and, yes, electability in November.  I think Richardson, Biden and Dodd are the cream of this crop…however, they will not make it out of the media driven primaries.  

      • I’m just saying, I’d guess that a lot of folks over at Clinton Central probably grimaced and rolled their eyes when this thing appeared in the paper.

        <

        p>Personally, I’m against electability as any kind of factor.  It’s a trap — it forces you to try to predict what millions of people that you have never met are going to do.  You cannot do that reliably, nor can I.  Nor can just about anyone else, for that matter.  It also can have the pernicious effect of pulling you away from the candidate you most believe in. Just vote for whomever you think would make the best president, and let the primary results sort themselves out.

        <

        p>That, by the way, doesn’t mean you have to vote for Kucinich.  I (and many others) are in some respects closer to Kucinich on some big issues than to other candidates, yet I’m not voting for him.  Why?  Not because I don’t think he could win in November — that really doesn’t enter into it.  I’m not voting for him because I think he’d be a lousy president, his stances on the issues notwithstanding.  Being president isn’t just about the issues.

  3. Sasso has the experience of being upfront in 2 losing Presidential efforts, and that gives him a painfully keen insight into what our nominee will confront from the GOP and what it will take for Dems to win.

    <

    p>By this logic, if Sasso loses a few more races he’ll be invincible.

    <

    p>Sasso’s is the kind of tired, defensive thinking that drove the Democrats into the wilderness.

    • I agree with you on Sasso…he was Dukakis’ top and some say only advisor other than Kitty…funny, when Dukakis came out for Deval Patrick it was met with all kinds of fanfare and kuddos…but, Sasso takes a position in the presidential race and we say he is tired and responsible for the state we are in…BUT, to me they are one and the same…now all we need is Susan Estrich, the obnoxious pseudo-campaign manager of 88 infamy to chime in for Obama….Tri-fecta.

          • I’m admitttedly undecided about who I’m backing as a Presidential Candidate at this stage of the game;  I think it’s still too early.  However,  her candidacy begs a question:  Is the American electorate ready to elect a woman into the White House and the Oval Office?   Plus, I don’t care for the fact that she’s  been supporting our Iraq war.   In any case, given the fact that Hillary Clinton’s a woman,  I frankly have my doubts, but I’d back her if she got the Democratic nomination, and if she changed her mind and voted against funding our Iraq war.

            • If America’s not ready for a woman, it’s not ready for an African-America or a Hispanic.  So you’re left with two senators whose campaigns have gone nowhere (Biden or Dodd), or John Edwards, who America already has rejected in the primary and as a VP candidate.

Archives