Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

NEVER?....Lois Romano has this to say about Hillary Clinton:

Never has a politician stepped onto a presidential stage before an audience of voters who already have so many strong and personal opinions about her, or amid arguments that revolve around the intangibles of personality and the ways people react to it.

Really? How about this guy?

Yes, I plead guilty to low-grade pedantry. But still. There's no question that Hillary has some serious competition in this category.

Kevin Drum 11:39 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (80)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Not to mention Grant, Eisenhower, Reagan, probably both Roosevelts.

Posted by: Gene O'Grady on July 12, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, hardly ever.

Posted by: roublen on July 12, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

You should have just plea-bargained. Maybe they'd just make you write for Powerline for a period not to exceed 60 days.

Posted by: BarrettBrown on July 12, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'm already sick of her!

Peter Daou, give me a break. He can't change her on the war--she's a dead duck.

Posted by: paradox on July 12, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Reagan got elected with 50% negatives.

Not that I want to try to repeat that crap with Hillary. Really don't like her hawkishness and corporate kissassity, but what I really fear in her candidacy is having to listening to so many people bitch interminably about her.

Posted by: shortstop on July 13, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

FDR was a cypher to the country when he was elected - he didn't really have a lot of enemies, he was not remotely the hated figure he became.

Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the presidency (at the age of 42) on McKinley's death, so he doesn't count in this.

Eisenhower had few enemies.

Grant? Well, the South didn't vote in 1868 if I recall correctly.

Nixon's the one.

As to that bio - he didn't make 2 secret trips to China - that was Kissinger.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on July 13, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Never before has our country faced such a serious threat to it's very existance. You, good sir, are promoting an irreverent pre-Monica mindset.

Posted by: B on July 13, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

I believe that part of Nixon's re-invention of himself involved him being out of the public eye for several years, between the 1962 CA Governor's race and the runup to 1968. That's obviously not true with HRC.

Posted by: DonBoy on July 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

she's a threat to our existence too

Posted by: B on July 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

what I really fear in her candidacy is having to listening to so many people bitch interminably about her.

Agree. Really the only reason to vote for her would be the sound of conservative heads exploding for 8 years. That might almost make it worthwhile.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, but Hillary's a girl, and that's the clincher.

If Hillary Clinton had Richard Nixon's personality, somebody would have assasinated her by now.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on July 13, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure people were well familiar with George Washington when his first presidential campaign began.

Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra on July 13, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Hopeless: Hey, I searched for literally minutes to find that bio! Maybe not 100% accurate, but right in spirit!

DonBoy: Actually, Nixon was very much in the public eye from 1964-68, mostly trying to promote himself as a more centrist guy than people thought. He also spent time demonstrating fantastic loyalty to the Republican Party and helping out with fundraising. The analogy with Hillary here is actually pretty good.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on July 13, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

The analogy with Hillary here is actually pretty good.

Plus, they have about the same appeal at cocktail parties.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure people were well familiar with George Washington when his first presidential campaign began.

Yeah, because he was famous from that painting and stuff. Kinda like Reagan, I guess, but without the monkey.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, that bio is a trip down memory lane. Really puts things in perspective. Reminds you of the days when Republicans had some integrity.

Posted by: Steve on July 13, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK


Global warming is going to change everything.

To get the dialog rolling on its multivarious solutions the ideal candidate in 2008 must be someone who has the best chance of uniting the country.

That ain't Hillary.
In fact it ain't a whole lot of people.

I am still sticking with Clark.

He is out of the South.
He is ethically clean.
He is a gun lover and a sportsman.
He is truly a self-made man.
He is a war hero.
He doesn't have a lot of republican stalkers...

In fact, the percentage of the country who outright hate him, is I suspect, one of the lowest for any of the candidates.

By the way... that is the kind of polls we need:

A Likert scale query that measures the country's hate towards various presidential candidates.

Hillary would be a leader for sure...
Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

Posted by: koreyel on July 13, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

You want to know why Kevin Drum hasn't blogged about the latest Israeli conflict?

Easy: Kevin Drum is waiting til he finds some way to blame it on Bush.

Posted by: Down goes Frazier on July 13, 2006 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

You want to know why Kevin Drum hasn't blogged about the latest Israeli conflict?

No.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

Despite the current negatives, I think it is actually the strategy of Hillary and her supporters to turn her primary run into a debate about her personality and demeanor. She is hoping that ultimately a lot of Democratic men will succumb to liberal guilt and say, "You know, Hillary really rubs me the wrong way, but perhaps that is because I am an unreconstructed male pig, and I'm not ready for a strong woman. I guess I should vote for her to prove my enlightened liberal, feminist ideals to myself and my friends."

And of course, if she can get them to obsess about their gulty liberal consciences in this way, she can get them to completely forget what they don't like about her positions and character.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on July 13, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

I think it is actually the strategy of Hillary and her supporters to turn her primary run into a debate about her personality and demeanor.

Far, far wiser than to turn her primary run into a debate about where she stands on the issues.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on July 13, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

Better be careful! She'll put a spell on you! She's a witch you know!

Posted by: R.L. on July 13, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

The excerpt says HER, so it only applies to female politicians. I can't think of another female politician tat applies to, except maybe Ambassador Carol Mauseley Brown; everybody is divided between contempt and apathy.

Posted by: American Hawk on July 13, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

This is how HRC could win: she comes up with a single payer health insurance plan backed by a bunch of major corporations, led by the automakers and Walmart, but also supported by liberals. It is an issue voters care about, it would show she has policy ideas, and is able to reach into business for support.

If she pulls that off, she has a chance.

I assume she is working on this.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on July 13, 2006 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Note to RNC interns: Albot 2.0 (known by the trade name American Hawk) has been in need of a tune-up for some days now...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on July 13, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

"You know, Hillary really rubs me the wrong way, but perhaps that is because I am an unreconstructed male pig, and I'm not ready for a strong woman. I guess I should vote for her to prove my enlightened liberal, feminist ideals to myself and my friends."

This gibberish says so much more about you than you could ever understand. And none of it is good.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe if Nixon had run for president in 1976.

Posted by: MNPundit on July 13, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Agree. Really the only reason to vote for her would be the sound of conservative heads exploding for 8 years. That might almost make it worthwhile.

A refreshing change after 8 years of exploding liberal heads.

Posted by: fillmore on July 13, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

As to that bio - he didn't make 2 secret trips to China - that was Kissinger.

It's no surprise they were secret - the Aus Opposition Leader of the time (Whitlam) was roundly criticised for making an open visit to Beijing in 1973 (the first Western politician to do so):

On the afternoon of our fourth day in China, and our second in the capital, an official of the People's Institute asked us to remain in our hotel till further notice. About 9.30 p.m. we were driven to the Great Hall of the People, and taken to one of its ante-chambers, where Zhou En-lai and about forty of his officials were assembled. The two-hour interview ranged widely, beginning, naturally enough, with Vietnam and covering China's relations with the Soviet Union, Japan, and the United States. The most alert of China watchers (a thriving industry in those days) could not have detected from his words or demeanour that three days later Zhou would be meeting Dr Kissinger in Peking.
http://www.whitlam.org/collection/1992/19920114_Nixon_in_China/19920114_Nixon_in_China.rtf

-------
The Prime Minister last night, referring to the anniversary this year, marked a generation since Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam put Australia as the first Western nation to formally recognise what was then referred to as Communist China and the controversial visit which re-opened ties with China during the dark days of the Cold War...

Although the credit for that historic process is usually given to US President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, Australia also played an important role for very different reasons.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s561294.htm

Whitlam had his 90th birthday a few days ago in Sydney.

Posted by: floopmeister on July 13, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

The press can barely remember last week. The only people who run video of what politicians were saying a year back are on the Daily Show. And you expect the press to remember that there was a guy named Richard Nixon?

Posted by: Joe Buck on July 13, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

A refreshing change after 8 years of exploding liberal heads.

Cute. But when 2/3 of the country thinks you're wrecking the place, it looks like those wacky liberals were right after all.

Posted by: craigie on July 13, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

Nixon visited China in early 1972, which preceded the Australian politician's visit by a year. I think he qualified as a Western politician.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on July 13, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

Mr. Whitlam lead an Australian Labor Party delegation to the Peoples Republic of China in
July 1971, as leader of the Federal Opposition, and one of the first acts of the Whitlam Government, on 21 December 1972, was the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China.

Sorry - 1973 was a typo.

Kudos to both of us for pedantry!

I just get a little annoyed with all the lionising of Nixon (and Kissinger) as if "at least he recognised China".

Well he did, but he wasn't the first.

Posted by: floopmeister on July 13, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

Andrew Jackson, anyone? He'd also lost a close election and claimed he'd been defeated by a "corrupt bargain."

Posted by: bad Jim on July 13, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

OK, but wouldn't it have been better if Nixon, Jackson, and Reagan hadn't run.

Posted by: B on July 13, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for a history short-cut, Kevin. I came here in January of '73, didn't "retool" to Am.Eng. (from Brit. Eng.) until about October, and the hearings caught me being clueless (in Poland, all US Presidents -- with the exception of Washington, FDR and Kennedy -- were considered to be scum. Why Nixon was more scum than others was unclear to me, even though my DH *said* it was so)

I certainly hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination; over the past 5+ yrs, she's become too much to the right of centre for my taste. But I wouldn't mind giving Gore a second chance. Accompanied by Wesley Clark (though I can see that 2 candidates from the South would not a winning ticket make )

Posted by: libra on July 13, 2006 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

Even if Hillary weren't carrying so much baggage, she'd be unelectable. We're not nearly mature enough a country for a woman president. I suspect that Kerry's being Catholic and Lieberman's being Jewish cost them votes.

It's got to be a folksy, good-looking guy from the South or the West. We need a Marlboro Man.

Posted by: bad Jim on July 13, 2006 at 4:04 AM | PERMALINK

Or how about the (re)election of George W Bush? (Hey, you didn't qualify it!)

I am still sticking with Clark.

I like Clark too, but his personality isn't the greatest. He doesn't have much of a presence (yet alone the commanding presence you'd expect from a general) or speaking voice. And one of the worst campaign blunders I've seen (worse than the Dean Scream, IMO) was Clark wearing sweaters. Makes him look like a namby-pamby twit masquerading as a New England elitist.

Hopefully he's honing those skills. I'd love to see him get some traction. He certainly has a great resume. Reminds me a bit of George Bush Sr. - well qualified, but charisma-challenged. However, Bush Sr. had the good sense not to wear sweaters while stumping and also came across as more fiesty.

Posted by: Augustus on July 13, 2006 at 4:57 AM | PERMALINK

While I am disappointed with her Iraq stance, it is conceivable that we will be headed for the exits by 2008 and it will have faded as an issue. She is a dazzling campaigner, hugely articulate, smarter than most of the male candidates, and it would be great fun

Posted by: bob h on July 13, 2006 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

This gibberish says so much more about you than you could ever understand. And none of it is good.

What does it say?

Posted by: Dan Kervick on July 13, 2006 at 7:25 AM | PERMALINK

When did she announce that she was running?
And if she runs and wins, the bedwetters will start screaming about illegal wiretaps, illegal spying on bank records and things. It would be worth it for that reason alone.

Posted by: merlallen on July 13, 2006 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

William Jennings Bryan.

Posted by: Mark Gilbert on July 13, 2006 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

The difference between Nixon then and HClinton now is that even Goofy would have won against Hubert Humphry, given Hump's connection to the Johnson administration. Nixon's win in 1968 wasn't a surprise--it was less a vote for Nixon than a vote against the Johnson administration.

Unless Cheney is going to run for president in 2008, there won't be a similar dynamic.

Posted by: raj on July 13, 2006 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

Well, hardly ever.

Hats off to roublen, not to mention Gilbert and Sullivan!

Posted by: Gregory on July 13, 2006 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

You want to know why Kevin Drum hasn't blogged about the latest Israeli conflict?

The suggestion that Drum hasn't blogged about the latest Israeli conflict, of course, comes as some surprise to the readers of this post.

Sheesh. Smarter trolls -- er, sock puppets -- please.

Posted by: Gregory on July 13, 2006 at 8:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'd say William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.

Personally, I wonder whether Hillary is hoping to win by pure name recognition despite a liberal backlash. Then, in the general election use that liberal backlash to convince moderates that she isn't so bad because so many on the left hate her. Remember Sister Souljah? I can't see how it could work in this case, though.

Posted by: Paul on July 13, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Watching C Span Senate Roll Call yesterday and saw her give a curt Hello to I guess was John Warner and thought of course they aren't great friends, but then I saw it was Kerry, wow the Senate is just like High School but you guys already know that.

Posted by: LimeSurf on July 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Ted Kennedy too - didn't people have strong opinions about him?

And that's the example Hillary should look at - hard. Ted Kennedy had a huge national stature and was one of the leading Senators in 1980. Then he ran and lost to Carter in the primaries. After that loss he never re-attained the prominence that he once had.

He should have stuck to the Senate in 1980. And so should Hillary now. If she runs and loses - she'll be tarnished. If she sticks to the Senate she can become a major leader in that body - and god does it ever need talented leadership.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on July 13, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Make note kids:

The netroots and Kos be damned, as of late successul presidential candidates were often individuals who were able to make a charismatic connection with the voters.

They may have been theretofore been "unknown" as with Carter & Clinton or arrived on the scene with baggage, think Reagan in 1980, but still there was a personal connection forged during the campaign that swept up blocks of voters.

Prejudging candidates based on what is known now (especially on ideological purity) may be less than helpful.

Posted by: Keith G on July 13, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Samuel, Kennedy's problems were manfold, not the least of which was vehicular homicide. I love the man, but talk about steamer trunks of baggage.

Hillery has a better shot, though not my first choice.

Posted by: Keith G on July 13, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: Yes, I plead guilty to low-grade pedantry.

Nah, I wouldn't say that. More like low-grade punditry. And high-grade paucity. And junior-grade parody.

Hillary's the real thing, though. As one of the few remaining genuine Republicans in Congress, she would make an attractive candidate for them had they not folded up shop in favor of fascism.


Posted by: jayarbee on July 13, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

John McCain correctly said that both parties sell the country to the highest bidder.

The debate over our 2008 presidential candidate is as engrossing and useless as a Sunday crossword puzzle. The historical fact is that the candidate who has raised the most money in the year preceding the election year becomes the presidential candidate. Unless our analysis of candidates is reinforced by an effective strategy to redirect the flow of contributions, we are whistling Dixie.

Hillary Clinton is very intelligent, and knows full well that we on the left are pissed off by her "hawkishness and corporate kissasity" (-thank you Shortstop). Ms. Clinton also knows that it doesn't matter much, because if she cuts the right deals, she IS the presidential candidate. Dollars decide.

Posted by: reason, t on July 13, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

We in the Democratic party need leadership. We don't need another exponent of self promotion. Hillary doesn't lead, ever. Instead she ask Carville and her boys to figure out where the people are and then she shouts ME TOO.

God, please, don't inflict a Hillary run on the Democratic party. It will be the party's end.

Posted by: Ron Byers on July 13, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

No question that Chappaquidick was a huge obstacle for Kennedy to overcome. But on the other hand, the Kennedy name brand in 1980 was much stronger than the Clinton brand today.

I'd say that waffling on the war is the huge weakness for Hillary - hurts her just the way it hurt Kerry.

Not to mention the "personal" connection - most people don't have warm and fuzzies for Hillary. Bill had it, Hillary really doesn't.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on July 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

The question seems to be whether anyone, Republican or Democrat, will have the power to unite the country behind them and still be loyal to the classic American virtues (you know, the original virtues of the FF's).

Hate to admit it, but I think the immediate future - say the next 10 years - tends toward more divisional politics, more patritism, economic downturn due to credit defaults on every level and eventually the emergence of Strong Leader(tm) to reinstate the Former Glory of the US(tm).

Posted by: OmniDane on July 13, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Omni Dane - anyone else scared about the use of "strong leader" restoring to former glory?

But you're right - there's no-one who's going to easily unite this country. And the biggest driver is that the current ruling class just isn't running the country well, at all. And generally ruling classes don't give up power nicely.

Check Mexico out right now if you want example. How much does anyone want to bet that Calderon really got more votes?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on July 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

"And one of the worst campaign blunders I've seen (worse than the Dean Scream, IMO) was Clark wearing sweaters. Makes him look like a namby-pamby twit masquerading as a New England elitist."

Clark put on a sweater BECAUSE IT WAS COLD!!

Jesus, why oh why must we do the Republican's work for them by repeating stupid things?

Posted by: Jim 7 on July 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Halloween 1968 I was caught taping NIXON on a neighbor's car. He had handed out Humphrey literature with candy. I still have the Life Magazine about the New Nixon. I can stil remember my 7th grade Spanish teacher's look of astonishment when the class erupted in applause when it was announced Nixon won the election. We were all raised on Wonder Bread and prime time TV and did not know any better.

Posted by: Hostile on July 13, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Raj -
Your comment on the impossibility of Humphrey beating Nixon in 68 does stand the test of history: Humphrey was gaining fast at the end - the consensus at the time is if the election had been one week later, he would have won (he barely lost). There was major relutance to go with Nixon - Humphrey waited too long to break (a little) with Johnson over the war. Also, Nixon's people had worked behind the scenes with the South Vietnamese government (illegally of course) to stop them from looking like they were ready to negotiate with North Vietnam.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on July 13, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

hopeless pedant on July 13, 2006 at 11:50 AM |

It is true that Humphrey might have won if the election had been held a bit later. Or if Humphrey had broken with Johnson a bit earlier. The primary anti-Democrat sentiment was the attack by the idiot Daley against the anti-war protestors at the Chicago convention in 1968. That is what ensured Goofy's (any Goofy, even Nixon) victory in the 1968 election.

The managers of the nominating conventions have learned to manage the conventions so as to minimize any controversy. They're charades, of course, and that is one reason why the main-stream media refuses to carry them.

Posted by: raj on July 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK
Check Mexico out right now if you want example. How much does anyone want to bet that Calderon really got more votes?

As there is no way of actually answering that question unambiguously, there's not much point in betting on it; OTOH, in an election where some people no doubt still saw the PRI as the most viable alternative to the rightist policies of the PAN, Calderon's apparent razor-thin plurality isn't implausible, though, even if true, it doesn't reflect anything like a popular mandate for his policies.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 13, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

The primary anti-Democrat sentiment was the attack by the idiot Daley against the anti-war protestors at the Chicago convention in 1968. That is what ensured Goofy's (any Goofy, even Nixon) victory in the 1968 election.

Not sure I understand you, raj? Nixon ran on, among other things, a strong law-and-order platform that included characterizing war protesters as bums, trash and anti-American subversives. Many or most of the people voting for Nixon applauded--or at least were okay with--Daley's actions at the '68 convention. Those appalled and angered by those actions were folks on the left who would not have converted that anger into votes for Nixon.

Posted by: shortstop on July 13, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton ... knows full well that we on the left are pissed off by her "hawkishness and corporate kissasity" (-thank you Shortstop). Ms. Clinton also knows that it doesn't matter much, because if she cuts the right deals, she IS the presidential candidate. Dollars decide.

As do the party bosses, alas.

Better be careful! She'll put a spell on you! She's a witch you know!

Samantha and Sabrina duly protest being compared to that Ivy League lawyer phony.

Posted by: Vincent on July 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is how HRC could win: she comes up with a single payer health insurance plan backed by a bunch of major corporations, led by the automakers and Walmart, but also supported by liberals. It is an issue voters care about, it would show she has policy ideas, and is able to reach into business for support. If she pulls that off, she has a chance.

Hillary has about as much chance of passing single-payer health care as she does of winning Miss Universe. Give it up.

Posted by: GOP on July 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Clinton won in '92 and '96 by being a centrist. He was embraced by liberals, democrats and independents. Hillary is trying to replicate the same tactic and is losing, badly. That should clearly demonstrate how far left the Democrat Party has swung in the last 5 years.

No Democrat candidate will win their party's nomination in '08 by playing to the center.

"We've bought and paid for this party, it's now time to take it" moveon.org.

Good luck in '08.

Posted by: Jay on July 13, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Jay's analysis is infantile and mentally retarded, as usual, but I do agree that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a colossal mistake for the Democratic Party in 2008. The Democrats need to nominate someone who takes the fight right to the GOP, exposing their culture of corruption and the incipient rise of corporate fascism under the worst president in American history.

Sadly, I suspect the Democratic apparatchiks will nominate Hillary, since she is the biggest fundraiser they have. By becoming a slave to money, they become nothing more than Republican greedbags themselves...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

The irony of this:

Jay's analysis is infantile and mentally retarded, ....

followed just a bit later by this:

.... takes the fight right to the GOP, exposing their culture of corruption and the incipient rise of corporate fascism under the worst president in American history.

is delicious.

Posted by: GOP on July 13, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kriz conveniently ignores the Rostenkowski led culture of corruption in '94 for the Democrats in his attempt to paint all those on left holy.

He also attempts to distract, with his corporate fascism comment, the fact that Lay, Skilling Ebbers, etc. have all been convicted under GW's watch from crimes that ensued during the Clinton tenure.

And also still needs to own this comment:

"Life was better in Iraq under Saddam"
Stephen Kriz.

Kriz, please continue to voice your opinions every chance you get. America needs to know just how unhinged the left really is. No wonder a minority of Americans self identify as liberal.

Posted by: Jay on July 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
Bill Clinton won in '92 and '96 by being a centrist. He was embraced by liberals, democrats and independents. Hillary is trying to replicate the same tactic and is losing, badly.

I think this misses an important point; Bill Clinton certainly ran on a largely centrist platform in 1992 and 1996 (less so in 1992), but he did so, at the same time, embracing a positive vision connecting those centrist policies to progressive outcomes, and, frankly, was helped in selling that vision through a huge helping of charisma.

Hillary Clinton is far less effective when it comes to selling a positive vision, whether because she just doesn't have one, or because she has far less charisma than her husband, or whatever other reason.


Posted by: cmdicely on July 13, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

This doesn't happen very often cm, but I agree with you.

Posted by: Jay on July 13, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jay,

BTW - although no opinion polls can be reliable in a country like Iraq, it does appear that the sentiment was that they preferred life before the invasion.

A horrible truth, obviously, all that money, all those lives, and in the end we and they are worse off.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on July 13, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Not that I feel any need whatsoever to prove anything to someone as obviously misinformed as jay (who apparently hasnt mastered the concept of capitalization of proper nouns yet), but in 2003, a poll was conducted by the conservative British weekly The Spectator found that Three in four of [Baghdad] residents say the city is now more dangerous than when Saddam Hussein was in power. Two in three fear being attacked in the street. Most think that [the U.S.] went to war to grab Iraq's oil and/or to help Israel.

In reply to GOP:

A conservative like you wouldnt know irony if it jumped up and bit your withered pecker off.

Have a good day, losers.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 13, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: you are likely correct about the chrisma business, but right now we are comparing apples to nothing. To me, it remains to be seen how effectively Hillary can sell from a position as a national politician running for office. Her health care initiative was not just hers, but her husbands, and he was selling right along with her.

I find that she can be quite persuasive. The view that many have of her is the result a huge investment by conservative forces in this country. I don't listen to the pawns of Richard Mellon Scaife and the like, I'll decide for myself.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on July 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for a history short-cut, Kevin. I came here in January of '73, didn't "retool" to Am.Eng. (from Brit. Eng.) until about October, and the hearings caught me being clueless (in Poland, all US Presidents -- with the exception of Washington, FDR and Kennedy -- were considered to be scum. Why Nixon was more scum than others was unclear to me, even though my DH *said* it was so)

I certainly hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination; over the past 5+ yrs, she's become too much to the right of centre for my taste. But I wouldn't mind giving Gore a second chance. Accompanied by Wesley Clark (though I can see that 2 candidates from the South would not a winning ticket make )


我向大家推荐:北京 三面翻广告机 厂向广大客户提供三面翻广告机产品及三面翻广告机服务。中国 包装设计 网,打造包装设计领域专业搜索平台,提供全球包装设计品牌公司及产品展示。北京 企业形象设计 厂向广大客户提供企业形象设计产品及企业形象设计服务。上海 标志设计 公司专业生产标志设计产品,欢迎选择标志设计。VI设计 网上批发市场,为您提供优质低价的VI设计,丰富VI设计行业资讯助您成交。外观设计/家电设计 网上批发市场,为您提供优质低价的外观设计/家电设计,丰富外观设计/家电设计行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 包装设计 吗?请到中国包装设计网来寻找包装设计。中国 工业设计 网,打造工业设计领域专业搜索平台,提供全球工业设计品牌公司及产品展示。中国 广告设计 网,打造广告设计领域专业搜索平台,提供全球广告设计品牌公司及产品展示。包装设计 网上批发市场,为您提供优质低价的包装设计,丰富包装设计行业资讯助您成交。

Posted by: jack on July 13, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary generates so much angst amoung each party's "base" largely because she, and other centrists, are gaining power and influence without "base" support. The next president will command a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans. Wingnuts and Moonbats will be relegated to their traditional - and much preferred - spectator functions. The beauty will be in hearing both liberal and conservative heads exploding for eight years.

Posted by: CT on July 13, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

And, Jack, could you give us an interpretation. I can't read Japanese. Thank you!

Posted by: CT on July 13, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK
Hillary generates so much angst amoung each party's "base" largely because she, and other centrists, are gaining power and influence without "base" support.

No, she doesn't.

First, because centrists aren't "gaining power".

Second, because Hillary's problem is not that she is a "centrist".

The next president will command a coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans.

That's quite possible, if that President is a charismatic moderate with a strong vision; someone like Bill Clinton, or Howard Dean not viewed through the lens of the Iraq War.

I've seen no evidence that Hillary Clinton fits that description. That she happens to be married to someone who, when he was campaigning, did doesn't cut it.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 13, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jay on July 13, 2006 at 1:03 PM |

Bill Clinton won in '92 and '96 by being a centrist.

Not really. BClinton won largely because (i) he was a good-ole-boy and a snake-oil salesman, and (ii) regarding Bush Sr, his opponent in 1992, the perception of the lingering recession and breaking his 1988 "no new taxes" pledge, and regarding Dole, his opponent in 1996, the perception that Dole was whiney and mean. BClinton's winning had little to do with his being a centrist.

Posted by: raj on July 14, 2006 at 5:33 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly