 |
 |
 August 7, 2007
HILLARY vs. HITLERY....Over at National Review, Kathryn Jean Lopez comments on Hillary Clinton's performance at tonight's Democratic debate;
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I'm going to unleash some snark about Lopez not being normal. And sure, that's tempting. But not tonight. Instead, I want to make a serious point: she's right. The audience for presidential debates is still small, but obviously it's growing as we get closer to the primaries. And a lot of people who have vague, media-fueled recollections of Hillary as a conniving, ball-busting uber liberal, are starting to watch these debates and realize that.....she seems pretty reasonable. Pretty normal. Not at all the Hitlery of wingnut fame. What was all that nonsense about, anyway? Anyway, I've mentioned this before. Just thought I'd repeat myself. An awful lot of people are effectively seeing Hillary for the first time ever following a very long hiatus, and they're not likely to see any resemblance to the fever swamp creation of Rush Limbaugh ravings from the 90s. Her negatives are never going to be as low as, say, Obama's, but I betcha they go down five or ten points by the time this is all over. —Kevin Drum 8:17 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (152)Comments
Nope. She's a monster who will eat our children and not give tax cuts to the Waltons. Right, Al? Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on August 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINKA lot of Republicans are starting to see her as their only hope, you mean. Posted by: calling all toasters on August 7, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum: media-fueled recollections of Hillary as a conniving, ball-busting über liberal If I thought that was an accurate description, I might think she was a good candidate. "Conniving" and "ball-busting" can be useful qualities - they remind me of FDR. And in today's climate "über liberal" means anyone to the left of the John Birch Society (although I think they're pinking up too). Instead we have someone who offers vague platitudes on UHC, instead of specifics like Edwards or Kucinich (not to mention the enormous sums she gets from the Rx and insurance industries). Someone who, unlike Obama, voted for the Iraq War. Someone whose idea of job creation is to get Tata a sweetheart deal learning bioinformatics from SUNY Buffalo. At best, she's Republican-lite. Pedantic note: You forgot the umlaut in "über". Posted by: alex on August 7, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKI think the wingers have overplayed their hand re Clinton. Everytime she appears and doesn't have a devil's horns and pitchfork she'll exceed some folks' expectations. Now how she'll overcome the press' (Matthews, etc..) obvious hatred of her is another question. Posted by: Teresa on August 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINKThe only problem I ever had with her personally, beyond that of any other national politician, is that she exercised policy power from a position that she had neither been elected to or was subject to a confirmation hearing, and from which she could not be fired. That hasn't been in play since she was elected to the Senate, obviously, so I view her these days as run of the mill political scum. Hell, she'd probably be a better President than John Edwards, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Joe Biden, or any other Senator running. The scariest thing about the '08 election is that we are more likely to get a U.S. Senator elected this time. The odds of that working out well are pretty slim. Posted by: Will Allen on August 7, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINKA "normal" politician is someone likely to get us into another pointless and disastrous war in order to look tough, consult with insurance companies on how to deal with the health care crisis, Yeah, because the clown you voted for twice worked out so well, right Will? How's that destroy the a Middle East nation to stave off the deaths of tens of millions plan working out for you buddy? Posted by: noel on August 7, 2007 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. Whoa. Whoa there. We're talking about Hitlery, right? Of Billary fame. The woman who threw a pms tantrum in the white house and began throwing vases at Bill? The loser who can't hold on to a husband. The woman who believes children should be able to sue parents and have the legal rights of adults? The woman who wants to surrendur to the terrorists? That woman? You want that trainreck in the white house? Your even loonier than I thought. Posted by: egbert on August 7, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINKComplex hypothetical: Suppose there is a Clinton/Obama '07 ticket, and it wins. And then suppose someone invents a time machine and travels back to Washington DC circa 1807 and says, 'I have two things to tell you. First, I came here in a time machine. Second, in two-hundred years this country will be governed by a woman and a black man." Which statement will the people of the past find harder to believe? Posted by: lampwick on August 7, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINKI think of Hillary as being the current driver of Team Clinton's entry in the Presidential NASCAR circuit. I think she and Team Clinton are all about the Presidential Race. Nothing else matters. What she might do as President is completely unknown. Your guess as to what she might do as President is as good as the next persons. Posted by: corpus juris on August 7, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINKI've got to admit Hillary really won that round tonight - especially with Obama, and with what he said about invading Pakaistan. That really was a moment when being uninformed really bit him in ass. And it seems that Obama knew it too, because after that his voice noticablly trembled and he knew he had lost that round, he lost it big time too and never recovered. And Lopez is right too - If American WERE normal, but with Bush and Cheney, and all the out-right horrors of the Bush administration, with all the criminal nastiness of the Bush administration - I bet alot of people WILL, NEVER, EVER vote Republican again, EVER. Hillary is right - it time to get a broom, it's past time to get a broom. I guess Lopez is tired too, of lying for Bush and Cheney, it's been a full-time job for the NRO to help Bush and Cheney lie 24/7. It does nothing for NRO to have to kiss Bush's ass when he's at 28%. Posted by: Me_again on August 7, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINKIt depends on what our media do. Nobody could live down to the absurd caricature that they painted of Al Gore, but he still ended up with, and maintains to this day, ridiculously high negatives, and an image with a large chunk of the population that is at odds with the actual man himself. To paraphrase Obama, if people turn on the TV and see a conniving Hillary, if they pick up a magazine and see a conniving Hillary, then she will be a conniving Hillary. Posted by: Martin Gale on August 7, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKActually, I just read over at Taegan Goddard's Political Wire that all the cable news debates this year have had higher viewership than 2004, the NH debate had 3 million viewers, "the 4th most watched debate in cable history" - so it may be early but they have lots of viewers.
I should have added that, anyone doubting the degree to which the media can and do shape opinions about candidates need look no further than John Edwards' newly mushroomed negative ratings. Posted by: Martin Gale on August 7, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK"What she might do as President is completely unknown. Your guess as to what she might do as President is as good as the next persons." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Hillary will oversee a moderate Dem administration. You have obviously failed to look at her past some 30 years in politics and have fixated on some cardboard cutout of a person to dislike. I don't agree with all of her positions, but she appeals to me the most. On the whole, I think she comes off the best in these debates because people watch her and can see her as an effective president. Posted by: Pragmatic Liberal on August 7, 2007 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINKOn second thought if you want to know what Hillary will do as president just looks at the roster of Team Clinton owners. Can we spell Washington DC establishment. As for tonight, I think Obama lost. I think Edwards did what he had to do. Posted by: corpus juris on August 7, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINKHillary's rehabilitation is all part and parcel in the ongoing collapse in the wurlitzer's credibility. After giving us the chimp and his war, it's getting tuned out by the low-information swing voters. And without a potent propaganda machine the GOP is nothing. Looking forward to seeing the Corner's collective heads explode during the Clinton/Obama inaugural. Of course the real revenge will come when we get to their second inaugural in '12. Posted by: jimBOB on August 7, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINKI don't dislike Hillary. I just don't see her as being much of a change agent. If she is nominated I will certainly vote for her in the general. As for the cardboard cutout line, I worked in the Clinton health care campaign back in the early 90s. I have never felt so betrayed as when Hillary and Bill tucked tail at the first sign of trouble. Remember Bill brought us NAFTA which was poorly drafted to help a lot of Washington insider types get rich while sending jobs to Mexico. I would have supported NAFTA if it had worker rights and environmental protections--if it actually promised to deliver a better world for average Mexicans. Instead it has proved to be nothing except a way to make Mexican, Canadian and American billionaires richer. Posted by: corpus juris on August 7, 2007 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINKWhoa. Whoa there. We're talking about Hitlery, right? Of Billary fame. The woman who threw a pms tantrum in the white house and began throwing vases at Bill? The loser who can't hold on to a husband. The woman who believes children should be able to sue parents and have the legal rights of adults? The woman who wants to surrendur to the terrorists? That woman? You want that trainreck in the white house? Thanks, Egbert! I knew we could count on you to provide the complete text of the wingnut Hillary-monster for us. When you actually have some proof of that creature's existence other in your hate-filled fantasies, get back to us, okay? I think of Hillary as being the current driver of Team Clinton's entry in the Presidential NASCAR circuit. I think she and Team Clinton are all about the Presidential Race. Nothing else matters. Oops, I forgot that there was a less frenzied version of the Clintophobe mythology out there. Thanks, Corpus, and, again, when you actually have evidence that this monster actually exists, feel free to bring it forward. Or, at least, demonstrate for us that mind-reading machine you are using that convinces you that the ambitions of the Clintons are notably more fanatical and amoral than those of other individuals running for public office. The only problem I ever had with her personally, beyond that of any other national politician, is that she exercised policy power from a position that she had neither been elected to or was subject to a confirmation hearing, and from which she could not be fired. And here, from Mr. Allen we have the third and most low-key aspect of Hilary-bashing, in which her effect on public policy is somehow vastly more sinister than that of, say, Elanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Betty Ford, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Bill Kristol, or any of the thousands of other family members, friends, clergymen, and political and personal advisers who have advocated positions to politicians of their aquaintence over the years. Gosh, an American citizen using access to someone in power to advocate their political views! Next thing you know, we'll have an actual democracy in this country. Perhaps we should have a law forbidding presidents to discuss issues only with elected officials and civil servants? There, I've provided all the sarcasm necessary for this topic. Carry on with the reasoned commentary. Key point: try to sort out the difference between: "Hilary did something bad" and "Hilary did something and its bad because she's Hilary."
Berken What do you know about Hillary? I mean what do you actually know about her? She might be the second coming of Joan of Ark but we would never know it. That said I have to admit I don't know that much about any of the candidates. None of us do. Posted by: corpus juris on August 7, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINKKevin's observations are interesting, and can be extended a bit. NRite Lopez is saying that Hillary Clinton sounds okie dokie on many issues to normal Americans. Now remember, Clinton is speaking at YearlyKos. From an NRite perspective, doesn't it follow that if Clinton is sounding okie dokie for "normal Americans," she must be doing badly in front of the looney left hoards at YearlyKos. oops, she's not, is she? She's one of several players, but she's certainly not doing badly. And that suggests that the hoards at YearlyKos aren't significantly dissimilar to "normal Americans" or so implies Lopez hmmmm..... Posted by: DB on August 7, 2007 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINKAs Hillary Clinton appeals more to K-Lo (and perhaps K-Drum too), she appeals less to me. Posted by: JJF on August 7, 2007 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINKSenator Clinton is the recipient of intense media training. With practice and skillful coaching, she's been remade. Posted by: Slothrop on August 7, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINKI've always kind of liked Hillary. Her willingness to hang with Bill no matter his behavior, using realpolitick in her own marriage, shows me she is a pragmatist. She's experienced, having spent a fair bit of time in the White House already. Well connected. Etc. The Dems could do far worse. Posted by: Swaggering Jingoistic Goon on August 7, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Your post was spot on! Truth be told, I barely knew Hillary and recent exposure to her has left me open to voting for her in the primary, something I never thought possible before. That said, I am a sucker for the flavor of the month, having been enamored of Barack, then of John Edwards and now Hillary, as if queued by the media. So, the superficial stuff aside, the remarks I heard about health care policy have made me think she gets it in a way better than the other guys. But I'll never know for sure. Posted by: david in norcal on August 7, 2007 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK..... she exercised policy power... I view her ... as run of the mill political scum....Will Allen at 8:54 PMIf only bachelor presidents will do, only monks and nuns can run for office; because, heaven forfend, no president should take advice or listen to anyone besides the gods or the guys that bought the office for him. It's equally obvious that anyone who thinks they can do people some good by acquiring political office is "political scum." When childish commentary is posted, Will Allen is delighted and proud to have his name on it. ....Can we spell Washington DC establishment....corpus juris at 9:30 PMThat same establishment that told every imaginable lie about the Clinton? The Broder, Matthews, establishment? It difficult to believe anyone could forget the personal animus against the Clintons from the sneering DC establishment: it wasn't that long ago. .... the hoards at YearlyKos aren't significantly dissimilar to "normal Americans"... DB at 9:50 PMActually, they are a pretty moderate bunch of middle class citizens. It's h-o-r-d-e-s Posted by: Mike on August 7, 2007 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK Just an observation about political mechanics: it is easier to drive up the negatives of someone unknown than someone the voters have already recognized. That is, if Democrats nominated a new face in '08, a chunk of the Republican party would set about defining that new person for a significant chunk of voters in a way that'd cause 'em to vote the other way. Since it is much harder to raise the positives for any candidate, whether known or unknown, much of our politics is based on this simple dynamic: issues are vehicles for images. Create and sell a negative image of your opponent, and it will be exponentially easier for your guy to win. But Senator Clinton's negatives have long since peaked. She's not unknown. Virtually every likely voter has long since formed an impression of her -- and a very large percentage of those impressions are negative. I wouldn't say that well is dry -- but it's way past diminishing returns on an old message. Senator Clinton is the stern mom image now, a grownup whose negatives are proven out, the experienced professional who, we all know, is painfully unlikely to make the same mistakes twice -- because we're sure she's felt our pain at um, things that we did together (falling for Bill) which while we wouldn't necessarily all agree were mistakes, definitely had painful moments. Her Democratic rivals don't have negatives that have proven out. Obama is new, but he's missing gravitas. Edwards lacks traction. Dodd, God love him, is running for Secretary of State (and having a ball). The fact is, her rivals are going to help her win. McCain, et al, are going to help each other LOSE -- because they will drive up the eventual nominee's negatives. Posted by: theAmericanist on August 7, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINKIt depends on what our media do. The Al Gore treatment gets a fast and vile reponse from the netroots these days. They have indeed become a force to be reckoned with. So to talk about someone's hair for instance, and thus go OFF point, gets massive, immediate negative blowback these days. Posted by: Me_again on August 7, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINKKevin: I can't say that Hillary Clinton strikes me as REMOTELY "reasonable" in the exchange covered below. Now admittedly, there's possible political "posturing" involved here. But if her stated position was disingenuous, it would seem she's more than willing to "play to her audience" just to score points. And if she was completely on the level, WHOO BOY!! The LAST thing we need in this country is yet another nuclear-armed "loose cannon" in the White House! Personally, I find this deliberately "belligerent" facade increasingly exhibited by candidates of BOTH parties remarkably disconcerting. I believe we need far more earnest exhibitions of genuine statesmanship and far less of this "super-bad-ass" play-acting (IF it's actually that). I certainly won't vote for any self-proclaimed "nuclear gunslinger", sincere or otherwise. The stakes are MUCH too high for that!: Hillary's Nuclear 'Tough-Gal-ism' For years now -- arguably for decades -- the dominant ideology of Washington has been what could be called "tough-guy-ism," which usually consists of politicians and pundits competing for the most belligerent pose on any given foreign policy issue. ... Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is now indulging in what might be called "tough-gal-ism" as she berates rival contender Barack Obama for allegedly showing his inexperience by not brandishing nuclear weapons against possible al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Sen. Clinton of New York, who often touts her White House experience as an informal adviser to President Bill Clinton, actually has positioned herself as a more belligerent nuclear warrior than her husband, and much closer to George W. Bush. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or non-use," Sen. Clinton said on Aug. 2, chastising Sen. Obama of Illinois for saying the idea of attacking suspected terrorist targets with nuclear weapons was "not on the table." However, Obama's position -- foreswearing nuclear attacks on non-nuclear adversaries -- appears to be more in line with President Clinton's policy than Sen. Clinton's position. In the 1990s, as part of a non-proliferation strategy, the Clinton administration adopted a policy of no nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear states. ... Kevin, What you are forgetting is that no one is going at her. She's had a virtual free pass from the Democratic field and she's got Obama on his heels, trying to defend perfectly reasonable policy position. When the Democrats turn on her or the Republicans start their slime machine, her negatives will go above 50% and she'll lose the general election. Sad, but true. Posted by: Expat Teacher on August 7, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINKGive me a candidate that is right about Iraq, or right about health care. I don't really care which. So far Hillary isn't it. Posted by: Boronx on August 7, 2007 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINKSwaggering Jingoistic Goon: I've always kind of liked Hillary. ... The Dems could do far worse. "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -Harry S Truman Posted by: alex on August 7, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINKOne thing I find kind of interesting about Hillary is how little being a woman seems to be affecting how the public perceives her. I guess I had predicted it would be a significant issue for her. So far, I have no sense it's having an impact on any level -- except maybe that she's getting more than her share of women voters. And while she seems to have some built in negatives, so there's a ceiling to how many voters will plunk down for her, it's worth noting that it's probably going to be hard for the Republicans to increase the number of voters who simply won't vote for her as well, because they've pretty much inflicted whatever damage they could on her already. All in all, I'd say she's a pretty safe bet to win in 2008 if nominated. Of course just about any Democrat would be reasonably sure to win, but maybe only Gore if he ran would be a more certain winner. Posted by: frankly0 on August 7, 2007 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINKThe scariest thing about the '08 election is that we are more likely to get a U.S. Senator elected this time. The odds of that working out well are pretty slim. Because Governors have worked out so well lately? Posted by: ckelly on August 7, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINKThe Al Gore treatment gets a fast and vile reponse from the netroots these days. They have indeed become a force to be reckoned with. So to talk about someone's hair for instance, and thus go OFF point, gets massive, immediate negative blowback these days. Posted by: Me_again on August 7, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK
http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm These people can still largely do what they want, because only a tiny percentage of the population pays attention to the internet. And the people the population does pay attention to know it. Posted by: Martin Gale on August 7, 2007 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINKI used to have a primitive, instinctive, gut revulsion toward Hillary; but, hey, after Bush and the warmongering neocons....she's looking pretty good! One political insider claims she is most like Richard Nixon. Posted by: Luther on August 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINKI've never thought Hillary was anything like the Limbaugh caricature, BUT she does have a strong imperious streak, which I thought came out tonight and led to a devastating Obama hit on her. I refer to her statement that candidates for President can't always say what they think to the public, to which Obama responded that the issues being debated are among the most important foreign policy issues and should be shared with the public not only discussed between Washington insiders. Hillary got roundly boo'ed and deservedly so when she made that profoundly antidemocratic statement. Obama received deserved cheers when he hit back. Posted by: Leon723 on August 7, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINKThe problem with Hillary is that you know she is bounded above by Bill. She will never do better than Bill did, regardless of what she might do. And that is really quite a low standard, for really, Bill did not do much. He kinda of kept us out of wars (but not really), he kinda of balanced the budget, but these were not very important things. No universal health care, no advance in social programs, and all the while he was defending himself against blow jobs. It was a really sick, unproductive time dominated by right-wing opposition, and if Hillary is elected she will face the same right-wing opposition, in spades. She will be entirely demasculated, and we will be back in 1995-2000. Who needs it? Better to elect Obama and be faced with an entirely novel set of years, instead of Clinton-lite. Generally I think HRC is ok. However--and maybe it's irrational--the dynastic characteristics really bug me. Two families in control of the executive for 24-28 years. Hmmm... maybe we should try and limit this to one POTUS per immediate family per century. Posted by: has407 on August 7, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINKI don't mind getting a U.S. Senator as president, but what I do mind is electing one [Hillary] whose actual senatorial record is very thin. Why is her actual record of non-leadership in elected office so off limits to investigative reporters? Has the media [and even the blogosphere] swapped doing substantive reporting for some sort of sports announcer role? Posted by: Donna on August 7, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK"Her willingness to hang with Bill no matter his behavior, using realpolitick in her own marriage, shows me she is a pragmatist." Nice point, Swaggering Jingoistic Goon "Senator Clinton is the stern mom image now, a grownup whose negatives are proven out, the experienced professional who, we all know, is painfully unlikely to make the same mistakes twice -- because we're sure she's felt our pain at um, things that we did together (falling for Bill) which while we wouldn't necessarily all agree were mistakes, definitely had painful moments." Smacks of the truth, Americanist "Give me a candidate that is right about Iraq, or right about health care. I don't really care which. So far Hillary isn't it." I agree with Boronx. Hillary is great, I like her. But even more I want a President who makes the right calls. Posted by: tomtom on August 7, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINKJust wait until sometime soon when Obama really provokes her and that shrill, loud and obnoxious be-otch persona rears its ugly head once again. People don't change. The country needs someone to bring it together and lead. She isn't that person. The GOP is salivating, hence, all of the good press from Drudge, NR, etc. Posted by: MIchael B on August 7, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKA lot of Republicans are starting to see her as their only hope, you mean. "calling all toasters" nailed it. [HRC] exercised policy power from a position that she had neither been elected to or was subject to a confirmation hearing, and from which she could not be fired. Same as Rove....
Berken . . . What do you know about Hillary? I mean what do you actually know about her? She might be the second coming of Joan of Ark but we would never know it. That said I have to admit I don't know that much about any of the candidates. None of us do. A very good point of discussion. Learning something about Hilary is like trying to learn something about, say, UFOs, or the Freemasons. There might be something nasty about her personality or her ambitions, but trying to find out what it would be through the dense fog of Clintophobia is hard work. A follower of the Skeptics movement can spot the bogus arguments easier than he or she can tease out the legitimate ones. When people comdemn her for being ambitious, but never say why her ambition is much more damning than anyone else's ambition, that sets off my bullshit detector. When she is condemned for doing something hundreds or thousands of other people have done without bringing on public outrage, then someone should explain why her action is so much more sinister than everyone else's. I never here that from the dedicated Hilary-haters. They don't try to convince you that Hilary is evil, they just KNOW she's evil and therefore every word or action from her, however mundane, is further proof of her sinister nature. You also have the entire anti-Hilary mythology, which, like UFO and Kennedy assassination mythology, gets repeated over and over again in thousands of letters like Egbert's and shelf-loads of tedious books over at Barnes & Noble. Less credible than the UFO and Bigfoot material, actually, as the writers on the those topics seldom get as venomous as the Clintophobes. My own feelings about Senator Clinton are neutral. Based on the most general and public records, she came from a mundane middle-class background, has consistently favored slightly left-of-center political policies, tries to help the poor and working class, loves her daughter, is a tolerable good boss and is amazingly tolerant towards a husband who deserved a lot less loyalty than she's given him over the years. Her financial and legal affairs have been checked out by Federal investigators with budgets of tens of millions of dollars and allocated time of thousands of billable man-hours, and they have not been able to find any real dirt on her. Hell, based on that evidence, she may be the most scrupulously honest person to run for president in the last thirty years. It is kinda like having a certificate of sanity from the doctors at the asylum, but it still puts her one up on most of Washington. Virtually all the negatives I read about Hilary have the hyper-emotional, illogical stink and implausibility of gossip repeated by an ex-spouse with a serious grudge. That leads me to defend her more than I might another candidate. She wears the scars of fifteen years at the public flogging post and has had the strength to keep on going with her dignity and moral purpose intact. Whether I'll ever vote for her is an open question, but I refuse to not respect someone who has been through so much. Posted by: berken on August 7, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINKAmericanist, you took umpteen million words to say what Teresa said in one sentence up-thread... Posted by: elmo on August 8, 2007 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINKHey all you Republicans: Payback's a bitch. Sometimes quite literally. Posted by: digby on August 8, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINKSorry! Didn't notice. Not Digby. BURN HILLARY! Posted by: R.L. on August 8, 2007 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINKbut, but, Kevin....she murdered Vince Foster. Murdered him. How can you let that go? How? How? How? snark: you may be onto something. Posted by: bobbyp on August 8, 2007 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINKBerken, I didn't know I "hated" Hillary Clinton. I don't, but I don't love her either. I do know one thing, America is being presented with a set of challenges that are going to require new thinking--thinking that is clearly outside of the box. She needs to prove to me that she is more and better than Bill. She needs to prove to me that, unlike Bill, she can be bold and forward thinking.
"One political insider claims she is most like Richard Nixon." Except I hear she actually likes jews. Posted by: bobbyp on August 8, 2007 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Boronx. Hillary is great, I like her. But even more I want a President who makes the right calls. Fair enough. But I'm also looking for a president who's going to hurt Republicans, Republican interests, and Republican donors. Hillary has potential in that department. Posted by: Tyro on August 8, 2007 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Boronx. Hillary is great, I like her. But even more I want a President who makes the right calls. Fair enough. But I'm also looking for a president who's going to hurt Republicans, Republican interests, and Republican donors. Hillary has potential in that department. Posted by: Tyro on August 8, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINKShe should have said "gal" instead of "girl" and she would have had another good debate. It may seem trivial, but I think that could turn some people off. You dont want to be thinking of a girl as Commander in Chief. Posted by: Jonesy on August 8, 2007 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKBut I'm also looking for a president who's going to hurt Republicans, Republican interests, and Republican donors. Hillary has potential in that department. Since HRC leads the Dems in stealing donors and support from the Republicans, I rather think that she is unlikely to do much damage to them. Bill Clinton was the greatest Republican President since Ike. The modern autocratic, kleptocratic, sociopathic Republicans therefore had no use for him. Sadly, for the Republican Party even some of their sociopaths are coming around to the idea that letting King George wreck the military might not have been the best idea and perhaps a return to competence might not be the worst thing that ever happened to the nation. HRC has her problems, but compared to the slate of incompetents running the government and the slate of goobers offered up by the RNC she is a godsend. Posted by: noel on August 8, 2007 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINKShe is still a government firster, a progressive.
I think what Matt means is that HRC is not part of the idiot brigade that brought you "government isn't the solution, government is the problem" and then proceeded to give us Reagan/Bush/Bush to demonstrate that when you put in people who hate the notion of government as a force for good then you get bad government. Yes, HRC believes that government should establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. But that's a rather conservative notion, don't you think? Posted by: noel on August 8, 2007 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINKnoel, let me know when tens of millions are killed, because those are the stakes. berken, let me know when any of the other Presidential spouses tried to effect, and become main drivers of, policies in the sweeping manner of Hilary Clinton. Political spouses should follow Denis Thatcher's model; they should realize that they haven't earned any power, and thus should keep their mouths shut and their mugs off the television. If they want to effect policy, they should run for office. Mike, you are like most statist thugs in that you convince yourself that your overweening desire to push people around springs from your heartfelt love for them. Posted by: Will Allen on August 8, 2007 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK... the entire anti-Hilary mythology, which, like UFO and Kennedy assassination mythology, gets repeated over and over again in thousands of letters like Egbert's and shelf-loads of tedious books over at Barnes & Noble. ... You mean, you actually BELIEVE in that incredibly cockamamie "lone gunman" story? Arlen Specter's ridiculously implausible "magic bullet" theory (made "remotely conceivable" ONLY through Gerry Ford's autonomous alteration of Kennedy's back wound location)?? Oswald being "conveniently" silenced by Mob affiliate Jack Ruby (allegedly out of "sympathy" for the widow), who ALSO "coincidentally" managed to wind up dead before he could spill the beans??? SHEESH! (There really IS "one born every minute".) And I suppose the totally inexplicable collapse of WTC Building 7, attributed to MINOR fires within, on September 11, 2001, is just ANOTHER "amazing coincidence", huh? I got a GREAT bridge I could sell ya, Berken ... CHEAP! One wonders what K. J. Lopez, a self-styled Mistress of War, views as a normal American. The Irony is that it's K.J. Lopez's America that still believes in the caricature of Hillary the Left-Wing Banshee, and that will continue to believe it. Lopez is effectively admitting that the Republican base is not composed of "normal" people, but deluded misfits. I suspect 2008's going to be worse for Republicans than most anticipate. Posted by: BC on August 8, 2007 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK... let me know when any of the other Presidential spouses tried to effect, and become main drivers of, policies in the sweeping manner of Hilary Clinton ... Um, Will Allen? SEE: "Disputo on August 7, 2007 at 11:37 PM" Certainly close enough in MY book! Bush and Rove may not be actual spouses, but somebody in that relationship is clearly serving as the other one's "bitch". (And it's Rove who seems the inevitable "dominant" -- he's the single "brain" between them.) What we know for a fact about Hillary's life is that she's one of the most prominent politicians to have proved F. Scott Fitzgerald wrong. Indeed, there are second acts in American life, and now for her, a third act, which doesn't promise to end very well, especially for America. First, she followed her heart and married a Democratic opportunist while switching from Republican to Democrat. Then in the midst of what now is commonly perceived to be a very successful Democratic Administration, she and her husband switched from uniformily following political ideals to being political chameleons, steadfastly guided by focus groups (see Joe Klein) and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which gutted much of the post FDR liberalism instituted by the Great Society. If you're graphing the Social Darwinist bent that swerved from Michael Harrington and John Kenneth Gailbraith in the 60s to Arthur Laffer, Neomonetarism, and Free Trade in the 80s (which eventually morphed into the PNAC/Weekly Standard Was that normal? Well, it was normative in the sense that the country as a whole moved to the center, but it certainly wasn't normal for a traditional Democrat to abandon so many core principles for the sake of political expediency and popular acceptance. In polite circles that's now called waffling. On board the Bounty, however, it was called mutiny. And yet the Clintons emerged relatively unscathed. It seems that the alarming incriminations over a few indiscretions with Monica have blinded many to the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Bill was a reasonably good Republican President. Now, with Hillary's amorphous Healthcare plan and no real urgency to withdrawal troops from Iraq before Q4 '08, the country's faced with the prospect of electing another Republican president in the guise of a liberal, one ineffectual Senator by the name of Hillary. And somehow, that appeals to 48% of Democrats. Wow! Forget Iraq, the war America is losing is an ancient one; Appearance has trumped Reality. Impressions have triumphed over profundity. A half-baked politician who everyone will tell you is "intelligent" has found an army of Dick Morrises and she is proving that you can fool most of the people most of the time. It was quite sad to see Newt Gingrich - the Clinton's political nemesis and conceptual ally - Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't had a Gingrich in their camp, or for that matter, a Karl Rove, a William Kristol, a Edwards is quite smart, but he's tapping 19th socialism for his core policies. Obama has come close to offering an LBJ-type of conciliatory politics that will break the gridlock in DC, but then he has to polarize As courageous and as ingenious as Kucinich is, Americans don't want to hear that he's still living in the house he bought for $26,000. Hasn't he gotten the memo that it's nearly acceptable now to keep five times that amount in your freezer? Granted, Hillary's a different breed - a more steamlined Democrat who doesn't gravitate to kissing babies, handing out cheese and marching on union picket lines. And that makes her appear to be a wise centrist. In fact, the cool detachment is a distinct sign of resignation in which personal aims are elevated aboved public welfare, popularity prioritized over deeply held principles, and the appearance of intelligence accentuated at the expense of meaningful inquiry. But then, the American people can sense that about her character, which is why she carries an insurmountable negative rating. She may be leading the pack heading into the home stretch, but she's unelectable beyond NY and her own party. Prepare yourself, you true believers, for another eight years handed over to the opposition As I've said before about Hillary Clinton, Republicans should have no problem with a tough on crime, tough on terrorism, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, economically conservative New York politician who wears dresses and pearls -- after all, they're already backing Giuliani. Posted by: Stefan on August 8, 2007 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINKI worry about this sorta thing: Corpus writes "She needs to prove to me that she is more and better than Bill. She needs to prove to me that, unlike Bill, she can be bold and forward thinking. " She's not running against Bill. Compare her to actual opponents -- is this so complex? It's like folks who wished she'd stay in the Senate. I thought the Senate suited her -- too late now. Tyro is even worse: "I'm also looking for a president who's going to hurt Republicans, Republican interests, and Republican donors. Hillary has potential..." What a literally unAmerican thing to say.*
theAmericanist, I am not worried about the campaign. I am worried about what she is going to do as President. I want a President who is bold and forward thinking. I want a President who deeply cares about real people, not in a lip service way, but so deeply she is willing to spend political capital making sure something good happens for average Americans. Talk to me when you have evidence that Hillary gives a shit about Americans who aren't rich like her. Posted by: corpus juris on August 8, 2007 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINKI'm sure you do, corpus. But so what? This is the Nader temptation, the idea that somebody running for office has to be pure and noble or else they are unworthy. I don't object to the aspiration. But I know Nader, and as a practical matter he's simply not what he thinks he is. He's not about 'empowering' Americans who aren't rich. He's about taking power from voters and giving it to lawyers. I really do think Clinton would have made a very good Senator over a couple terms. Her combination of skills (the wonkery) and persona (tough and smart and capable of learning, plus everybody knows Her Problem, which makes her less rather than more vulnerable) was perfect for the Senate. Her campaign at this stage is a 3 and a half yards per play thing. She doesn't want to give up anything much, and while she's prepared for contingencies, she plans to have the nomination sewed up early. Attacks like yours, Corpus, will HELP her in the general, by showing she's not a creature of the left. I doubt there are enough votes there to give away 2008 the way Nader gave away 2000 -- but it's worth condemning the idea early. You don't like her health care approach? Okay, bitch about it -- but add, too, that she's had some experience with the politics of it all. You don't like her approach to immigration? Then do explain why she was the LEADING Senator to speak up for the wives and kids of LEGAL immigrants. Got something against the marriages of people who obey the law? You don't like her take on taxes, on spending, on you name it? Then SAY so -- as specifically as you can. Cuz I doubt you can. You're an 'issues are a vehicle for images' sort. The EFFECT of holding any candidate to some bullshit standard of "deeply cares about real people" is to take power away from those real people (most of whom make real decisions in a real way, as opposed to this reified obnubility), and that's the standard you should hold yourself to, corpus. Posted by: theAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINKarty kraft: an excellent statement. Based on fundamental principle--that in a country with 300,000,000 people, we should not have dynasties in the WH--Hillary Clinton should not be running for president. The fact that she has chosen to run demonstrates that, regardless of credentials, power is more important to her than prinicple. Hillary Clinton was never, ever Hiltery, but neither is she uniquely qualified to be President. When I hear that HC seems "reasonable" to normal America--these would be the same people who elected Bush twice--I think, oh, swell. But at least she isn't an ex-substance abuser with a history of failed businesses. Responsible should count for something. At least she can deal with the Supremes, and we might have a competent civil service again. If she has an unspoken agenda to deal with media bias, to expose the vast right-wing conspiracy that made Clinton 1996-2000 such a hell, that might help. But things won't be easy. She will start off with a lot of suspicious, hostile citizens, and, lacking charm, eloquence and vision, is apt to disappoint a lot of others. Posted by: PTate in FR on August 8, 2007 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK"What we know for a fact about Hillary's life is that she's one of the most prominent politicians to have proved F. Scott Fitzgerald wrong. Indeed, there are second acts in American life, and now for her, a third act, which doesn't promise to end very well, especially for America." That's not what he meant. But does anyone actually like Hillary? If Americans by and large can't stand her, what about the rest of the world? Will they want to work with her. When she was in the White House her husband's staff had a lot of problems working with her, Gore certainly did..and these were her closest partners. Posted by: Steve Crickmore on August 8, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKPlease address these charges against Hillary: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/08/hillary-clinton-is-liar-perjurer-and.html Posted by: reliapundit on August 8, 2007 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINKThis comment thread is pitiful. Most of you sound like barrio Argentines trying to convince yourselves that Peron's latest wife will make a 'reasonable-sounding' president. Or credulous Hindu farmers asserting that whatever surviving daughter-in-law named 'Gandhi' should lead your nation. This is third-world thinking. No one named 'Clinton' or 'Bush' should be seriously considered for president on any other merits than those of the puppet of a political dynasty or machine. Anyone who cannot clearly perceive this is a democrat with neither a capital nor a small 'd'--but instead richly deserves to live in the banana republic they are acquiescing to. Wise up. The woman is an abused Nixon in skirts. Posted by: KTV on August 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKI am sick of the media pushing hillary down our throats. She has no more experience than the other candidates. She avoids the questions. Yet, they try to make her out like she is God. For heaven sake we saw the debate. She was not that good. Maybe they should brain wash us so we will agree with them. Posted by: Ethel on August 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINKBUT FOLKS, remember nothing Hillary (or any other candidate) says means ANYTHING until Chris Matthews (and his "ilk") tell you what it really means, how they did, WHO WON THE DEBATE!, and on and on ad nauseaum!!!! Sadly, the audience that KLO and others of HER "ilk" write for don't fall into the "thinking public"...they WANT someone to tell them what the candidates really say, really mean, really FEEL, and will really do...GROW UP!!! Every American should have the assignment to pick up Orwell's 1984 and read (and highlight) it over and over (clever) ...granted the last four words do, creepily, forecast what is becoming all too prevalent in some sectors of our great land...but it's the 3 slogans that should TERRIFY...we don't need foreign terrorists in America...we have the right-wing and the Bush gang...WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and most insightful...IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!!!!! Posted by: Dancer on August 8, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINKI only saw bits of the debate, and to me she looks like the same old Hillary..I'm rather surprised that Kevin thinks she has changed...I think she has just got more like ourself and if she becomes President she will show no restraint to those who cross her.�"She has the most powerful war machine that has ever been developed and it is led by people who have been to hell and back."� Hell hath no fury... Posted by: Steve Crickmore on August 8, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINKHitlery? I've always despised that comparison, feeling it belittles the Holocaust in precisely the same way many leftists do with their "Bush=Hitler rhetoric. Personally, I prefer Hildebeast, demonic consort of Billzebubba. :) Posted by: Rhymes With Right on August 8, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINKAnd a lot of people who have vague, media-fueled recollections of Hillary as a conniving, ball-busting uber liberal, are starting to watch these debates and realize that.....she seems pretty reasonable. Well, certainly that's the strategy Hillary is trying to take cure her massive negatives and give herself a semblance of electability, since despite being far and away the primary frontrunner, her major weakness is on electability, since she is the only top tier Democratic candidate that polls keep showing at risk of losing to top tier Republican candidates. OTOH, she's mostly managing to do it by having empty, substance free rhetoric where her competitors have substance. Politically, the challenge for her is to avoid losing any attraction she has on the left while disarming well-entrenched negative feelings on the right, and that doesn't seem very easy to do. First, because people with well-entrenched negative opinions aren't going to be inclined to see her as "normal" just because her rhetoric is politics-as-usual rather than fire-breathing liberalism, they'll be inclined to view her through the light of the negative preconceptions. And even those that do see her as the empty suit her current rhetoric sets her up as rather than the fire-breathing liberal she fears she is viewed negatively as currently often aren't going to see her positively for that. Not at all the Hitlery of wingnut fame. What was all that nonsense about, anyway? Like most right-wing attacks on fairly moderate, popular liberal figures as insane extremists, it was a calculuate bludgeon to neutralize and get her to cut to the right and stop being an effective voice for liberal causes. Her subsequent cut to the right and cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, the lobbyists for entrenched interests that killed the Clinton health care plan in the early 1990s, and the very rhetoric you now point to as "normal" all demonstrate that that attack had its desired effect. Hillary has caved in and allowed herself to be neutralized by the Right. The attack never had substance. It was an intimidation tactic, and Hillary gave in to it. Anyway, I've mentioned this before. Just thought I'd repeat myself. An awful lot of people are effectively seeing Hillary for the first time ever following a very long hiatus, and they're not likely to see any resemblance to the fever swamp creation of Rush Limbaugh ravings from the 90s. Nor, for that matter, are they likely to see any resemblance to the liberal icon of the same time. Unfortunately for Hillary's prospects of being the next President of the United States those ancient negative impressions that underlie some (but far from all) of Hillary's staggering negative ratings are probably more resistant to change than the ancient positive impressions that underlie much of her support. Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2007 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINKThe only problem I ever had with her personally, beyond that of any other national politician, is that she exercised policy power from a position that she had neither been elected to or was subject to a confirmation hearing, and from which she could not be fired. Assuming by that you mean the office of First Lady of the United States, divorce is still legal in this country, and except for "could not be fired" (which is, of course, inaccurate for the reason mentioned) the same is normally true for a wide number of White House staffers (whether nominally "policy" or "political") in every administration, and also true of lots of people outside of government from whom Presidents seek advice on an ad hoc basis. Its also true of unelected leaders of social movements and interest groups. So, really, your "problem" seems bizarrely selective. Posted by: cmdicely on August 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINKWill, the problem with the stakes you claim is that it's all in your head. You have no proof, only your fear. So while you imagine that the butcher you've supported for the last decade is doing good, the reality is that hundreds of thousands of real people have died. Those are the real stakes. The Iraqi people are paying the price for your stupidity. The truth is that you looked a field with a competent VP and a moron with an incredibly thin resume combined with a history of failure and chose the moron. You then looked at a field with a monster whose unprovoked assault killed tens of thousands and a war hero with a sterling record of service and decided that the warmonger was the best. You have chosen the worst candidate possible for President at every chance in the last decade. You have no credibility when giving advice on who to pick next. Posted by: noel on August 8, 2007 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM you are angry with me. Here is the deal. My bitch with Hillary is that the one thing we all know about Hillary is that she she is beholden to the rich and powerful beltway insiders--the same big business AIPAC lead crowd that George Bush tries to please. It is not chance that Madeline Albright supports Hillary and Condi Rice works for George. They were both "children" of the same foreign policy vision. Of late she and Bill have alternately been sucking up to Rupert Murdock and to keep people like us off balance, calling him names. Team Clinton has taken $400,000 in beltway lobbyist money so far in this cycle. Just like George Bush she will do everything possible to advance the agenda of the rich and powerful. It is what they do and have always done. It is the Clinton way. Because she is extremely competent she will do it better. All the while America is in a state of decline. Serving the needs of the rich and powerful isn't going to solve any of the problems facing real Americans. It is time for an American revival. I just don't see Hillary leading one. That is my bitch with Hillary. I am afraid she will squander her presidency sucking up to the rich and powerful, just like Bill did both in Arkansas and in the White House. Her job is to convince me and millions like me that she is better than Bill and she will use her power for the good of America, not just the folks writing her contribution checks. Posted by: corpus juris on August 8, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINKYou do know, corpus, there wasn't a single actual specific in your post? Not one. She's a candidate for President... who raises money? Damn, we gotta put a stop to THAT. It pisses me off when folks who know nothing about actual issues, much less practical politics, announce that they wish campaigns would be MORE about 'em -- then bitch about "sucking up to the rich and powerful", without, er, IDENTIFYING when X did it, and why it was such a bad thing with some better alternative. What, you think democracy is EASY? Or simple? Bill Clinton was sorta the Mickey Mantle of the Presidency -- boundless talent, but he never quite delivered as much as he could have. (Like Mantle, he also played at a very high level for a very long time under a lot of pain.) So I'm with Casey Stengel -- I'd leave Bill Clinton off the all-time list. But it's just shallow to the point of imbecility to huff about how Senator Clinton isn't up to some unstated standard: what, ya think she'll oppose a minimum wage hike? Abolish the tax on capital gains? Repeal the 14th amendment? Ya got a complaint about her SAY WHAT IT IS. If you can't, face it: you don't. Your bitching reveals more about you, than her. As a f'r instance, consider the (eek!) concern that Senator Clinton has raised money from folks with a stake in health care. Besides that this is how democracy works (elections cost money), consider that it might also be a very solid step toward actual reforms. NOTHING makes a person, or an interest, more cooperative with an elected official than a campaign contribution. Naturally, most folks see it the other way -- BigBucks Industries gives money to Candidate Corrupto, and of course that means the Candidate will do what BigBucks wants. But to really get somebody's support and cooperation, don't do THEM a favor. Get them to do you one -- cuz that way, they have a stake in your success or failure. I'm real cynical about the practice of politics -- and so, I think, is Senator Clinton. Which is how to get things done. Whatever else she might be in the White House, she won't be Mickey Mantle. Posted by: theAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist, if you don't want people like me looking for candidates that are going to do serious damage to Republican interests and Republican donors, you should tell Republicans do stop being such destructive, immoral forces of government. The past 6 years have convinced me that a lot of Republican interest groups need to be cut off at the knees and have their access to money and influence strangled out of them. That's the best way to ensure we don't end up with rapacious loons like Bush/43 and Cheney taing office again. Personally, I think John Edwards will do a better job at hurting Republican interest groups, though. If you don't want people supporting politicians that are going to specifically hurt Republicans, Republicans have to learn to be a lot less destructive... because the last thing I want, given my experience of the last 6 years, is to worry about these guys having continued influence on the political scene. Posted by: Tyro on August 8, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKI'll focus on this point raised by Kevin: "And a lot of people who have vague, media-fueled recollections of Hillary as a conniving, ball-busting uber liberal, are starting to watch these debates and realize that.....she seems pretty reasonable. Pretty normal. Not at all the Hitlery of wingnut fame. What was all that nonsense about, anyway?" I'm not sure how one measures pro- and anti-Hillary sentiment among the newbies coming up and focusing on politics for the first time. Right, polls and all, which likely capture name recognition and effective (and odious) tarring and feathering. Explains her reliable 40 percent in the polls plus her high negatives. As for Hillary being "pretty reasonable" and "pretty normal," of course she's both those things. Reasonable and normal. With some extraordinary intellectual and personal gifts. And she is lucky too. Imagine picking a future president out of a crowd in law school and having the self-discipline and wifely virtue to stick with the guy after everything. This is admirable, in my view. Knocks on her ambition are ludicrous and sexist, and just feed into ridiculous white-around-the-eyes wingnutty fears of voracious, conniving women--fears that most normal and reasonable newbie voters should and likely will reject. We'll see. Anti-Hillary Dems should be alert to these attacks and be merciless in counterattack. Here's my point. A lot of people are reasonable, normal, lucky, self-disciplined, and virtuous. You saw them last night on the stage at Soldiers Field. But which candidate will be an agent for real change? Who will jettison the loony centrists taking this country down? I don't believe Hillary will be that change agent, in spite of all her hard work, her smarts, her gender, her long service to the right causes. Yes, she sounds normal. Normal is not enough--not to get my vote. Oh, and Obama pushed back last night on the foreign policy business. Good for him. Point to Obama. But Edwards is still my guy, fwiw. Posted by: paxr55 on August 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKUh, no, cmdicely, divorce is in no way similar to informing an employee that they are out of a job, and thus will no longer have access to the President of the United States, and thus an opportunity to influence policy, and divorce is in no way similar to a Presdident no longer soliciting advice from parties outside of the Executive branch, or taking their calls. Sheesh, have you ever been married, fired anybody, solicited advice or been offered advice from someone you are not married to? That you would equate getting divorced with firing an employee is extraordinarily bizarre. Posted by: Will Allen on August 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKnoel, there is no value to your opinion regarding the status quo prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein. Posted by: Will Allen on August 8, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINKWA asks Dice: "Sheesh, have you ever been married, fired anybody, solicited advice or been offered advice from someone you are not married to?" That scarcely starts the list of things Dice has never done, nor heard of, with which he has neither practical or theoretical experience, yet about which he has abundant and argumentative opinions which he will ceaseless share and defend.... huffily. Posted by: theAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKtheAmericanist, your comments have been very long on emotion and very short on facts. The burden is not on me to prove Hillary is a wholey owned tool of the elite, the burden is on her to prove she isn't. As to facts supporting the notion that she is a tool of the elite, what about the all the money she has taken from federally registered lobbyists this cycle. Edwards and Obama are right, I don't have a lobbyist on payroll, but I bet you every fortune 500 company does. As to my references to Bill, like a lot of folks I have a hard time separating Hill and Bill. We both agree that Bill's presidency was far less than it should have been. What leads you to believe Hillary's presidency will be differnt. Posted by: corpus juris on August 8, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKMy parents live in New York now, and both swore they would never, ever vote for Hillary for the Senate. My Mom has voted for her twice, and my Dad did the second time she ran. Hillary is apparently a very good campaigner. Posted by: Greg VA on August 8, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK... you are like most statist thugs.... Will Allen at 3:00 AM Nice to see you proving the old adage: "When getting creamed ... you know she is bounded above by Bill. She will never do better than Bill did....David at 11:00 PM So widows who inherit and run business never exceed their spouses achievements? I'd ask my mother, but I know the answer, Posted by: Mike on August 8, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK Did anyone else try to wade through reliapundit's linked screed? I can't even begin to parse out whether it's a compelling charge, the writer is apparently clueless as to the definition of "narrative." Posted by: uri on August 8, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINKCorpus, you're an idiot. The burden is not on me to prove you are (your posts do that), but on you to prove you're not. Oy, gimme a break. If you've got an actual problem with Senator Clinton, SAY WHAT IT IS. Hell, I've given a dozen examples of policy differences you might have with her, from the minimum wage to capital gains to immigration. Which is it? I think the key is simple: Clinton understands who she is, both personally and in politics. She could certainly have been beaten before she declared for the nomination, and she might could be beaten NOW -- but it's gonna have to be with SOMETHING that we haven't seen yet. I wonder what that could be? Ya know, there IS an Elephant in the room... and she's waiting for the right timing. Not before September '08, certainly: these things take timing... and some time. As a f'r instance: when Tim Russert was Pat Moynihan's campaign manager, somebody brought him a press release from a Republican primary candidate in which the guy, who had served in the Army during Vietnam (in Okinawa, IIRC) had claimed to be a "Vietnam veteran", not a "Vietnam ERA veteran". The guy who brought it to Russert wanted to attack right away, since the Republican was a potentially tough opponent if he got the nomination. Russert waited -- not only until the guy had gotten the nomination, but until there were just a few weeks left before the general election. By then, what was essentially a typo in a press release had become a standard item in his campaign bio -- so Russert made a couple phone calls to local press. They asked questions, the guy denied he had 'ever' misrepresented his record, reporters found the original release and a dozen copies of the bio dated over a period of months, the guy talked of nothing but this negative story for weeks: Moynihan was re-elected before noon on Election Day. Could something like that happen to Senator Clinton: any takers? Posted by: theAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKNo more Bushs and no more Clintons please. I think Obama's "Bush-Cheney Lite" hit the nail on the head. We don't need another DLC middle-of the roader. We need a true progressive. Not necessarily left-wing mind you; but for REAL CHANGE. Otherwise, we will be setting ourselves up for 8 years of the right-wingers screaming of why have a "Republican-lite" when you can have a true 'conservative' mantra. It's not all Hillary's fault but she is NOT the candidate to get us out of the American decline (domestic and foreign policy wise). Posted by: Brian on August 8, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKMike, this is how you engaged me... "If only bachelor presidents will do, only monks and nuns can run for office; because, heaven forfend, no president should take advice or listen to anyone besides the gods or the guys that bought the office for him. It's equally obvious that anyone who thinks they can do people some good by acquiring political office is "political scum." When childish commentary is posted, Will Allen is delighted and proud to have his name on it. " .....there are no "facts" here to respond to, only the battle with a strawman in which it is implied that I stated that only non-married people should hold office, or that there exists such a thing as prominent politician, except is the more rare occurrences, whose strong desire for political office is completely unrelated to a desire to have people submit to their will, for the sheer ego-boosting joy of it, which is, yes, scummy behavior. If you want a fact-based interchange, try using some facts. Posted by: Will Allen on August 8, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKHey, Mike, you want to supply that link again, which, to you, establishes that authoritarianism and majoritarianism cannot overlap? Your use of "facts" is always amusing, if only in an unintended way! Posted by: Will Allen on August 8, 2007 at 1:28 PM | | |
