Nope. She's a monster who will eat our children and not give tax cuts to the Waltons. Right, Al?

A lot of Republicans are starting to see her as their only hope, you mean.

Kevin 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".

I 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.

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. 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.

A "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,
take money from special interest groups in return for support of their - um - special interests, and consult a hundred polls before taking any action. Senator Clinton has always been a "normal" politician and will appear so safely "normal" to the average voter as to sweep her into the nomination and Presidency to inaugurate yet another four years of clueless governance.
Spare me your "normality."

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?

Ah, 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.

Complex 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?

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.

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.

I'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%.

It 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.

Actually, 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.

"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.

On 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.

Hillary'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.

I 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.

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?

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.

Kevin'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.....

As Hillary Clinton appeals more to K-Lo (and perhaps K-Drum too), she appeals less to me.

Senator Clinton is the recipient of intense media training. With practice and skillful coaching, she's been remade.

I'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.

Kevin,

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.

..... she exercised policy power... I view her ... as run of the mill political scum....Will Allen at 8:54 PM

....Can we spell Washington DC establishment....corpus juris at 9:30 PM

.... the hoards at YearlyKos aren't significantly dissimilar to "normal Americans"... DB at 9:50 PM

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.

It 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.

Kevin: 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'
By Robert Parry, August 3, 2007

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.

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.

Swaggering 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

One 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.

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.

Because Governors have worked out so well lately?

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 | PERMALINK

I think you overestimate the current power of the "netroots." I bet John Edwards would (privately) agree. Take a look at the progression of his negatives, keeping in mind that he made it through an entire presidential campaign with his popularity intact -- this isn't someone nobody knew. And then came the attacks.

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.

I 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.

I'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.

The 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.

I 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?

"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.

Just 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.

A 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.

Americanist, you took umpteen million words to say what Teresa said in one sentence up-thread...

Hey all you Republicans:

Payback's a bitch.

Sometimes quite literally.

She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!

Sorry! Didn't notice. Not Digby. BURN HILLARY!

but, but, Kevin....she murdered Vince Foster. Murdered him. How can you let that go? How? How? How?

snark: you may be onto something.

Berken,

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.

I 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.

I 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.

She 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.

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.

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.

She 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?

noel, 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.

... 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.

... 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
Neoconservative movement of the 90s) there are few candidates that illustrate the devolution of liberal politics more clearly than Hillary. Exhibit A: the Healthcare Initiative that was tabled because of dissent among insurance companies and doctors.

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 -
on C-SPAN yesterday. It pains me to say it, but he was brilliant. You may despise him personally, but he's one of the few thinkers shaping public policy. Just ask Mario Cuomo who insists he should run for President. In 20 minutes he offered more valuable ideas than Hillary has put forth in 20 years.

Unfortunately, the Democrats haven't had a Gingrich in their camp, or for that matter, a Karl Rove, a William Kristol, a
Richard Perle, a
Paul Wolfowitz and the plethora of other thinkers and ideologues who have dominated America's fate for all too long now. Granted, their vision was wrong, their actions immoral, and their tactics, to a great extent, were illegal. But they had real ideas, and plans for executing them (no pun intended). The sad truth is that since the Great Society, the Democrats have been Idea Lite.

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
in order to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack. Richardson's got experience and a level head but aims at legislatively balancing the budget. Somehow, like a substance abuser unable to completely dry out, the Democrats still resonate with the Great Society in a society resoltely dedicated to the ill-defined notion of Adam Smith's Invisble Hand. That's a formula for doom.

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
if Hillary is chosen. For in the end, as Fred Thompson's confident voice echoes across the crowds, rekindling a Hallmark sense of it being morning in America again, her crafted charisma, her meaningless voting record, and her aloof personality will only translate into a few blue states - an effort that will more closely approximate Mondale's disastrous run than Gore's almost win.

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.

I 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.*

*(Sorta the political equivalent of Elmo's intellect.)

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.

I'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.

arty 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.

"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.
The first act introduced the conflict, the second act involved recognition and development, the third act was resolution. Fitzgerald's point that Americans rush headlong into the third act, skipping thought or reflection.
As for Clinton, did anyone notice that she was elected to the Senate from New York? One of the most diverse and dynamic states in the country? As compared to the powerbases of the various mountebanks running under the GOP ticket; one issue states or municipalities, or Romney, who expresses contempt for the people who put him into office, or Guiliani, praying that no one actually talks to someone from New York.

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.

Please address these charges against Hillary:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/08/hillary-clinton-is-liar-perjurer-and.html

This 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.

I 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.

BUT 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!!!!!

I 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...

Hitlery? 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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will, 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.

theAmericanist 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.

You 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.

theAmericanist, 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.

I'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.

Uh, 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.

noel, there is no value to your opinion regarding the status quo prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

WA 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.

theAmericanist, 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.

My 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.

... you are like most statist thugs.... Will Allen at 3:00 AM

Nice to see you proving the old adage:

"When getting creamed
With no way out;
Run in circles,
Scream and shout."
Not too impressive a rebuttal, but, hey, you gotta go with the facts you invent, not facts empirical.
...let me know when tens of millions are killed, because those are the stakes...
Imagine: Bush is just a piker in some people's world.

... you know she is bounded above by Bill. She will never do better than Bill did....David at 11:00 PM

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."

Corpus, 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?

No 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).

Mike, 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.

Hey, 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!

Hitlery? I've always despised that comparison, feeling it belittles the Holocaust in precisely the same way many leftists do with their "Bush=Hitler rhetoric....

George Santayana famously advised, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

But "Rhymes With Right" seemingly warns, "Those who DO learn from history risk 'belittling the Holocaust'."

Seriously, Is there ANY utterance or analysis that could ACTUALLY "diminish" the profound significance of that tragedy? Myself, I sincerely doubt it. But some would feebly insinuate that the Holocaust is a remarkably "fragile" event, whose infamy might somehow be "trivialized" should individuals suggest meaningful historical comparisons involving Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich.

I've never heard ANYONE suggest that Bush truly IS Hitler, as the comment's shoithand implies. But I've read many a fine analyisis identifying the alarming similarities of the two rogue regimes. And the likeness CONTINUES to grow!

Do references to the Ottoman Turks somehow "belittle" the Armenian genocide of the First World War? Should we scrupulously avoid any and all discussion of those perpetrators? If so, how will we ever develop a FULL awareness of that particular holocaust (which the Turks deny to this day)?

Should we ban explorations of certain figures and periods in US history, for fear of potentially "obscuring" the barbarity of the deliberate campaign of genocide carried out against the original inhabitants of this land by agencies of the US government?

This "belittling the Holocaust" tripe is standard fare for hard-core Zionists who seek to insure that the mass murder of the Jews (among millions of others) during the era of the Third Reich is perceived as irreproducibly "unique". But that serves primarily to reinforce the state of Israel's claims to "perpetual victimhood". The very notion of quashing potentially relevant discussion of Hitler or the Third Reich for such spurious reasons is insanely illogical and utterly counterproductive to any truly humanitarian goal. To attempt to stifle or vainly sneer at the "cry of alarm" that SHOULD invariably ensue from any reasonable perception of a new "Hitler" on the rise is to enthusiastically EMBRACE the very doom that George Santayana presaged -- that of foolishly and needlessly repeating a tragic history.

Will, your imagination to the contrary, you cannot defend the notion that Iraq was a threat to the national security of the United States. The status quo was that a nation with roughly half of the world's annual military expenditures controlled the airspace of nation broken by war and a decade of crushing sanctions. For some bizarre reason you think that this situation puts the military giant in peril and so you voted for someone to take that nation from a stable basket case into an unmitigated disaster and a training ground for terrorists.

The truth is that the butchery you supported has increased the odds of the tens of millions of dead you fear because it has given would be terrorists a focal point: The occupation of Iraq. The occupation of Iraq is the single greatest rallying call for would-be terrorists, and you supported it.

The only question that remains is, why do you think your decade of ineptitude qualifies you to judge Presidential candidates?

noel, I didn't support the removal of Hussein because I thought Iraq put the U.S. in peril. I supported it because I thought the status quo of the Persian Gulf, if left unchanged, or left to very slowly change, was most likely going to lead to tens of millions killed. History is largely the story of butchery and terror, and how best to navigate the shoals of those human phenomena.

Will, you have nothing to back your claims of tens of millions of dead. I, on the other hand, can point to a very real set of hundreds of thousands of dead. The difference? You voted for immediate butchery and terror. You decided for people trying to get by that it was better for them to be butchered for some nebulous goals. That it was better for them to live in terror because you were afraid.

By the way, one has to love Will Allen, who voted for the most authoritarian President we've seen, calling someone else a "statist thug."

Posted by: theAmericanist on August 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM,

I am an idiot? You have spent pages arguing with me on a dying thread without explaining why I am a damn fool for not bowing down to Hillary Clinton. I am an American. I don't kneel to anyone.

No matter how angry you get I am never going to give any candidate a free pass. If she wants my vote, she is going to have to prove she gives a shit about me and millions of people like me.

Did you read Matt Stoller today. You might not want to. He is a lot more stridant about Hillary than me. Anyway, you ought to calm down. Your blood pressure is rising.

No, noel, FDR, for instance, was far more authoritarian. He incarcerated tens of thousands of people, allowing them to be stripped of their property, due to their ancestry. He had U.S, citizens executed, after informing the Supreme Court that the citizens would be executed regardless of how the Court ruled on their appeal, so the Court had better ponder it's future legitimacy prior to making it's ruling. He tried to pack the Supreme Court when it did not issue rulings he favored. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Also, I don't know what you mean by me supposedly being "afraid", unless you mean being afraid of what will happen to millions and millions of people in the Persian Gulf if they don't achieve self government, including government of their mineral resources. Look, I know you thing the status quo was manageable. You're a reactoionary, and reactionaries always think the status quo is manageable, like Stephen Douglas and the Whigs did in the mid 19th century.

Corpus, you ARE an idiot. I have no interest in explaining why. I merely showed you HOW -- I named a half dozen or more specific issues, and invited you to demonstrate your disagreements with Clinton on any, or each.

You. Can't. Do. It.

What you GOT, is your wounded pride. (Methinks it died long ago, and what you got is phantom pain of the ego.) You think that disliking Senator Clinton is sufficient not to vote for her, which is fine, but you want to rationalize your essentially irrational prejudice against her so that she's not for ordinary Americans, but only for rich people like herself.

That more or less marks you as delusional, or imbecilic, or both: UNLESS YOU CAN CITE the kinds of stuff I asked for, viz., d'ya think she's gonna block a minimum wage hike? Cut capital gains taxes? Repeal the 14th amendment?

What IS it with you?

Better threaded wingnuts, please.

Uh, 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

Even if that were true, its not at all the case that Hillary's formal or informal position with regard to Bill in the 1990s, is not a relationship which could have been terminated. Divorce would sever the formal position, of course, but Bill could, at will, sever the informal access and policy role, which she filled at the whim of the President just as a White House staffer given a policy role would.

Sure, she couldn't be "fired" per se, anymore than an outside, informal advisor with a substantial policy influence could be "fired", but there is no substantive difference.

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.

Most (though not all) of the divorces I've personally been a witness to are like that on steroids; at any rate, such a termination of association is certainly among the things divorce can be (though divorce would not be required to acheive that in the case of a policy relationship of the type at issue), so to state that such a termination of the relationship was impossible, as you did, is false.

Sheesh, have you ever been married, fired anybody, solicited advice or been offered advice from someone you are not married to?

Yes, no*, yes and yes.

* excluding termination of relations with contractors.

That you would equate getting divorced with firing an employee is extraordinarily bizarre.

If Bill had divorced Hillary, she would no longer have had the (formal) position from which she influenced policy, the position which you objected to since it was neither elected or subject to Senate confirmation.

Of course, the informal position from which she exerted a policy influence in the Clinton Administration could also be terminated, even more easily.

Since the position could be terminated (whether you are referring to the formal or informal position), I fail to see the meaningful difference between it and one subject to firing relevant to your objection.

I also fail to see the meaningful distinction relevant to that objection between Hillary's unelected, unconfirmed position and those of White House policy staffers or outside associates of Presidents (the latter likewise not subject to "firing" in the narrow sense, though, like a spouse, their informal relationship that provides policy influence can be terminated.)

theAmericanist, care to review the specific issues you have raised? Your posts have had a lot of anger, very few facts.

Tell you what, come over to watching those we chose tonight and we can argue. You can jump up and down, spin around on your head and spit in my face to your heart's content.

Email me the issues you claim to have raised, and I will do my best to address them point by point. We can use the comments thread on the Campaign Video of the Day -- August 8, 2007 post. That is a great video for you to look at. It was produced by Matt Stoller of Open Left. Now he is a guy who doesn't trust Hillary. When you are done with me you will probably want to go over to his blog and beat up on him.

Right now I have to work.

theAmericanist,

I am touched, you are the very first person to call me a wingnut. I am touched.

Predictions, if Hillary is elected in 2012 we will still be in Iraq and we won't have universal health care. Both will still be just around the corner.

Hillary and Bill share the same political culture, DLC ethos, donors, and campaigning partners. As her voting record in the Senate, aside from her support for the war, is anodyne, there is no reason why a Hillary presidency should not be another episode of the Clinton way.

In light of this, expect more 30K dinners at Ron Pereleman's mansion, more Telecommunications Acts and media conglomeration (she's got Rupert's endorsement), more "free trade", more NAFTAs and GATTs, more superfluous 10% tax hikes on the upper middle class, more "National Healthcare" giveaways to HMOs, more corporate welfare, more condescending empty boilerplate, more ingratiating stares and demagoguing, in short, more Clintonism.

If PC is your hobbyhorse though, you're in luck. The justices she appoints will have our kids staging mock-homosexual "marriages" in our public schools by federal mandate, (and she will not be held accountable at all. In fact, she will publicly bemoan the decision).

cmdicely, if you are or have been married, and you still cannot see the difference in no longer taking an associate's calls, and ignoring the person you share an abode with, or have children with, well, there is little to be said. If you cannot see the difference in getting rid of an employee who no longer serves your interests, and getting rid of a spouse who no longer does, well, here's a hint; it is commonplace for White House employees to have their resignation letters typed on the day they take the job, in recognition of the fact that the day may come when they are found to be expendable, and the boss wants them gone yesterday. I know of no divorce proceedings so structured, even with the strongest of pre-nuptial agreements, in the most favorable of venues.

The only vaguely similar situation is the Vice President's relationship to the President, given the VP definitely can only be removed at the behest of Congress, which is why, in my view, the trend of the past 30 years, culminating in Cheney, of increasingly involved VPs, has been a bad one. At least the President doesn't need to go to court, or have the Secret Service physically remove the VP from the White House, in order to avoid seeing the VP, however.

Since Hillary had no official responsibility, she could act without accountability.

Policy people do have official responsibilities and thus have to answer for the decisions made under their watch.

Hillary however, just loomed in the background, apparently doing government business without having to sign her name on anything that she would ever have to answer for.

That's the difference between Hillary and Cheney, although admittedly, the distinction is blurred because of the secrecy with which the Bush administration operates and the way Cheney far transgresses his official boundaries, but that's a specific anomaly of the Bush administration, not a characteristic of the way power works in general.

Corpus, you're not only an idiot, you're illiterate.

You wrote at 3:10: "care to review the specific issues you have raised?

I wrote at 2:48 "d'ya think she's gonna block a minimum wage hike? Cut capital gains taxes? Repeal the 14th amendment? "

And at 12:59 " examples of policy differences you might have with her, from the minimum wage to capital gains to immigration..."

As well as at 11:58 "what, ya think she'll oppose a minimum wage hike? Abolish the tax on capital gains? Repeal the 14th amendment?..." which also included the observation "consider the (eek!) concern that Senator Clinton has raised money from folks with a stake in health care...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."

Finally, at 8:30 this morning, I had written: "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?"

That's half a dozen specific issues, including her most recent significant legislative initiative, plus her fundraising strategy.

About any of which you haven't said a mumbling word.

Thus, my conclusion that you're an illiterate as well as a dope. See how it's done? Precision, facts, evidence, conclusion.

Try it sometime.

But Senator Clinton's negatives have long since peaked.

Heh. They are already high and don't think they can't go just a little higher, or a lot higher.

There is already roughly 50% of the American public that just will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I don't care if the Republican nominee is a can of tuna (and it well may be). Smart Republicans know this. She is as polarizing as G.W. Bush.

Why do you think K. Lopez is saying nice things about her? If you think it is because K-Lo has changed her mind, you are delusional.

Posted by: Pug on August 8, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

check your numbers; this is a myth.

just recently her posstives overcame her negatives, which is a huge deal, considering the Right Wing Machine has a had over a decade to makes those negatives what they were... then in just a few months of campaigning Hillary's defining HERSELF and smashing down the Right Wing Machine.

plus, 82% of the country THINK that she WILL BE the next President. Of course they dont all WANT her to be, but 82% think its happening. That HUGE atmosphere of inevitablitiy has got to make up for at least 25 points of her negatives!

cmdicely, if you are or have been married, and you still cannot see the difference in no longer taking an associate's calls, and ignoring the person you share an abode with, or have children with, well, there is little to be said.

And if you are have been a human being living in the real world, and you think that a spouse cannot (either with or without divorce) been cut-off from an position of influence, there is little to be said to you.

Since maintaining that position is necessary for your stated objection to Clinton's role to make any sense...

At least the President doesn't need to go to court, or have the Secret Service physically remove the VP from the White House, in order to avoid seeing the VP, however.

The percentage of marriages that end in divorce is much higher than the percentage of tenures of persons in impeachable offices that end in impeachment (and much higher than those of Vice Presidents that end that way); this suggests that it is much easier to "fire" a spouse than a person who can only be removed by impeachment, so going to court would be a lower, rather than higher, bar than the actual requirements to remove a VP.

....as for polarizing, that favorite Republican/Foxite lable for Hillary... when was the last time that 82% of this country agreed on ANYTHING?!

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1089

Here are the REAL numbers on her favorability ratings. truth is she's view around 9 points MORE favorably than unfavorably in FLORIDA, OHIO, and PENNSYLVANIA: the key swing states. Plus, she beats Rudy Giuliani when pitted against him in FLORIDA (!!) and PENNSYLVANIA; ties him in Ohio. In contrast, OBAMA loses to Giuliani in Ohio and Florida. (Both Clinton and Obama beat Fred Thompson everywhere!)

its time to cut the Right Wing Media crap about Hillary being polarizing, unlikeable, and espcially the myth that she "just cant win." You can critize her all you want on her possitions; there is infact a lot to critize! (Her vote for the IRW, etc...) But let's stop doing the Republican's dirty work for them, because saying that Hillary is viewed too negatively or that she cant possibly win the general or that she's polarizing SIMPLY ISNT TRUE.

theAmericanist, I don't find much precision in any of your comments, but I will try to respond in order. The answers to your 2:48 questions are no, no, and no. That said there is every reason to believe that she will not push a minimum wage hike.

In answer to your questions at 12:59, could you clarify do you want me to talk about her policies or Team Clinton's policies? If you want me to write about her policies could you tell me where I can find them?

As to your 11:58 comments the answers are: not publically; nobody will abolish the tax on capital gains, the issue is what will the capital gains rate be; and the rest of your 11:58 post is an incoherent rant.

I haven't looked at her health care approach since the early 1990s. That is when I worked hard for its adoption. She and Bill ran into some opposition, turned tail and ran. They haven't stopped running since. They won't stop running if she is elected.

Finally, I never said didn't like her approach to immigration.

As Hillary said yesterday whe she told Barack to shutup, it is important for her not to talk to us about what we want to talk about. It is only important for her to tell us what she thinks we need to know.

As for me being an idiot, I plead guilty. After all I have spent several minutes exchanging posts with you.

This is why Dice just amazes me, as a study in articulate stupidity. It's good thing the DNA test let him out of the zoo for our entertainment.

The objection was to a person who was not appointed, for whom we had not voted, without the usual Constitutional and legislative and elective checks on 'em, still exercising a significant degree of influence on policy. This wasn't subtle, after all - arguably (as Moynihan, who did win elections, argued at the time), the decision to go for health care reform BEFORE welfare reform cost Democrats the House and essentially defined the Clinton years, long before the Lewinsky mess. Lots of folks tried to urge a different course -- and ran up against the special nature of her authority.

The nature of First Lady Clinton's power was definitely that 'she couldn't be fired'. So Dice blithers up -- well, Bill could have divorced her, or just stopped taking her calls? and besides, Dice knows ALL about this, cuz of all the divorces he's handled.

Firing somebody properly is clean: it's not working out, goodbye. Divorces are famously messy.

And the parallel isn't to IMPEACHMENT, ye gods.

How little do ya gotta know about power, about politics -- hell, about PEOPLE -- to not understand that when a powerful official's spouse has a strong interest in something, tread lightly or not at all? Cabinet secretaries, much less staff, have serious legal and institutional levers hemming in their authority, and those levers can EJECT them. Only the President and VP are above those levers, cuz they won the election.

First ladies don't.

How dumb d'ya gotta BE to not get that neither the President, nor the VP, nor the Speaker of the House or the chairs of the respective committees, can tell the President's SPOUSE to butt out unless the President does it -- and, thus: "she couldn't be fired".

Dice, the master of misconception. He never ceases to exceed my expectations of his sublime stupidity.

Will your fear of what might have happened is without basis. You cannot demonstrate that your fantasy would have happened if you hadn't supported the slaughter of hundreds of thousands. (I'm going to ignore your FDR stuff since he wasn't on any ballot either of us voted - but you are wrong that he was more authoritarian than someone who started a war without justification and maintains the right to imprison any citizen without trial)

So now we have the irony of Will "Let's kill tens of thousands in the Middle East because I have a fantasy that it will prevent more deaths" Allen calling me a reactionary. No Will, I'm a pragmatist. And I'm a rational human being who believes that wholesale killing must only be done when there are no other choices. George W. Bush had a choice and he chose to kill people rather than help them.

Let's face it Will, you voted for mass death and think that your opinion should count for something. You are deluded.

In the end, Will Allen can repeat the "tens of millions deadn" or he can up the ante to billions or even "the whole world would have been destroyed" and it doesn't justify the murder of a single individual.

On one side of the scale we have a human being slaughtered without cause and on the other we have the wild fantasies of someone stupid enough to vote for Bush, twice.

ROFL -- you realize how dumb you are, Corpus? You're the fan in the mezzanine who keeps hollering that the catcher is calling the wrong pitches.

In the end, your objection to Clinton is that she lost... when you were on her side.

So now you want her to lose again, so you can feel justified.

You're simply not a vote she needs. It's not worth the votes she'd lose, trying to get yours -- for one thing, you don't pay enough attention (you bitch about what she's done, where are her stands on the issues -- and it turns out, she's got 'em BUT YOU DON'T KNOW OR CARE).

Say, noel, do you think that 70,000 internee/citizens of Japanese descent received trials? My, you are deluded, as well as typically illiterate, in that your original claim made no reference to people for whom we may have voted.

As far as pragmatism, if you think what is occurring in Iraq now amounts to "wholesale killing", you are historically ignorant as ever. Yes, it's pretty damned awful, but by historical scale, no, it's not wholesale killing. Now, if the people of the Persian Gulf don't achieve self-government, you'll likely get an education as to what is actually comprised by "wholesale killing".

Will, the phrase "we've seen" is from the original - did you see FDR? No? Then concede the point and shut the fuck up.

And I see you still have no defense for the fact that your support for the real butcher of Baghdad. You keep saying nonsense like "if the people of the Persian Gulf don't achieve self-government, you'll likely get an education as to what is actually comprised by 'wholesale killing'" but you never manage to support it with any facts. The plural of assertion is not data. I have, by the way emphasized the word "likely" here because even Will is here conceding that his fantasies don't represent any kind of certainty. Which means that his support for butchery is all that much more loathsome. Killing now to stave off something you don't even have the courage to claim is inevitable? Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest of your clan would be proud.

Again, on one side, the wild fantasies of Will "statist thug who supports mass killing" Allen and on the other side the real human beings. It's actually kind of sad to realize that there is someone on this board who thinks that hundreds of thousands of dead doesn't represent "mass killing."

In the end, your objection to Clinton is that she lost... when you were on her side. theAmericanist

Wrong. Anybody can lose. Its what you do or don't do when you have lost that counts. During the health care debate Hillary and Bill got kicked to the curb by some reasonably powerful people.

Instead of getting up and fighting back, they "learned their lesson." They stayed in the gutter cowering. Here it is a generation later and we still don't have universal health care in this country.

You are aware that Bill and Hillary weren't the first to lose on health care, but they were the first not to win any consolidation prize. They just cowered like wiped puppies unwilling to rally support or fight back. They were in office 6-7 more years. Nothing happened. They were beat and they learned their lesson.

I learned my Clinton lesson, too.

Actually, noel, I have seen FDR, in photos and films, and the phrase "we've seen" is commonly used in the historical sense. Look, don't blame me if you can't use the language accurately.

Nope, I don't claim certainty with regards to the future. Sue me. As to yet more ignorance on your part (it is a bottomless well, it seems) one of the identifying chracteristics of people like Pol Pot and Stalin is certainty regarding the future. Can you write even one post without engaging in base ignorance?

Aww, Corpus, and isn't that it? You got kicked to the curb... and we know how you react.

The objection was to a person who was not appointed, for whom we had not voted, without the usual Constitutional and legislative and elective checks on 'em, still exercising a significant degree of influence on policy.

Yeah, and its a dumb objection to level at Hillary, because plenty of non-elected, unconfirmed people with no more legislative or Constitutional checks than apply to the First Lady have influenced policy in every administration. Among those people are unelected, unconfirmed, but nevertheless influential White House staffers of every administration, as well as all kinds of informal advisors.

This wasn't subtle, after all - arguably (as Moynihan, who did win elections, argued at the time), the decision to go for health care reform BEFORE welfare reform cost Democrats the House and essentially defined the Clinton years, long before the Lewinsky mess.

What cost Democrats the House was the disorder and absence of vision and leadership among the Democrats in the House. The Clinton healthcare effort didn't cause that though it was one of many things in the 1993-94 period that highlighted it.

The nature of First Lady Clinton's power was definitely that 'she couldn't be fired'.

No, it wasn't. It may have been an important factor that it was perceived (largely falsely, as it turns out; since her policy role was greatly cut back) that she would not be "fired", i.e., severed from the important policy position she had been given, but that's not the same thing.

And the parallel isn't to IMPEACHMENT, ye gods.

Er, you drew that comparison. I just pointed to an error in the way you drew it.

How little do ya gotta know about power, about politics -- hell, about PEOPLE -- to not understand that when a powerful official's spouse has a strong interest in something, tread lightly or not at all?

I didn't notice the opponents of Clinton's healthcare effort treading lightly or not at all. I didn't notice them failing either.

If someone powerful signals commitment (and publicly attaching their spouse to an issue is a way of doing that), its "go high or go home" time, and no room for half-measures, not time for timid approaches.

Cabinet secretaries, much less staff, have serious legal and institutional levers hemming in their authority, and those levers can EJECT them.

Actually, cabinet secretaries much more than senior White House staff have those legal and institutional levers constraining them; the duties, obligations, role and authorities of cabinet secretaries, more than White House staff, are specified by law, whereas White House staff are virtually projections of the person of the President. Its a lot easier for forces outside the administration to bring down a cabinet secretary than a senior White House staffer.

How dumb d'ya gotta BE to not get that neither the President, nor the VP, nor the Speaker of the House or the chairs of the respective committees, can tell the President's SPOUSE to butt out unless the President does it -- and, thus: "she couldn't be fired".

Its kind of weird to say that the President can't do something unless the President does it, but, as far as the rest, none of those people can tell the President President's Chief of Staff to do so either.

Or, while they can tell them, just as they can tell the First Lady, they can't do so with any legal effect.

Nor, for that matter, can any of those people tell the same thing to a Cabinet secretary.

Firing somebody properly is clean: it's not working out, goodbye.

So are divorces done properly.

Divorces are famously messy.

So are plenty of firings, hence the popular phrase "disgruntled former employee".

Comparing one thing done in the ideal way with the something else not done in the ideal way isn't really particularly enlightening except on the fairly obvious fact that "ideal" is better than "not ideal".

Will, your willful misrepresentations of my posts aren't my problem. Neither of us have lived through FDR, and FDR wasn't nearly the authoritarian that George W. Bush is. None of your parsing games will change that simple fact. Even if they did, you would still be defending your vote for someone far more authoritarian than his opponents. Game. Set. Match.

The problem isn't that you should be sued, it is that you want the rest of the world (or at least this board) to take you seriously when you pontificate about Presidential choices. They should not for the simple reason that, when given a choice, you voted for the least competent man available. That demonstrates that you have incredibly poor judgment. When asked to justify this vote you claim that some event you imagine might happen makes your vote valid. The problem is that you have no evidence that your imagination has any bearing on reality.

As to the moral company you keep, that's not my problem either. I'm sure that Pol Pot and the rest of the members of the tribe you find yourself in thought that their killings were just as clearly justified. But, just like you, they were wrong. And just like them you imagine history will somehow vindicate you.

You stand revealed as someone so lacking in judgment that you voted for an authoritarian who would kill people you imagined needed killing. You aren't a serious person, just a seriously deranged one.

Here are the REAL numbers on her favorability ratings. truth is she's view around 9 points MORE favorably than unfavorably in FLORIDA, OHIO, and PENNSYLVANIA: the key swing states.

How do you get a +9 overall out of a +9 in PA, a +8 in OH, and a +8 in FL?

But lets look at that +9 in PA, and compare it Giuliani's +29, Obama's +24, and Edwards +16.

Or the +8 in FL vs. Giuliani's +19, Obama's +19, and Edwards' +17.

Or the +8 in OH vs. Giuliani's +27, Obama's +18, and Edwards +10.

Not much to be proud of, especially with so few undecided on her compared to other candidates.

Tell me, noel, how having 70,000 citizens locked up without trial, or having citizens executed after intimidating the Supreme Court regarding the pending' appeals, makes one not nearly as authoritarian as George W. Bush.

Appoarently, cmdicely, you truly do believe that not taking an associate's calls is similar to cutting a person off from a position of influence that they have previously held, when that person shares an abode or even a child with you, to say nothing of shared assets. This is rather bizarre.

Also, I'll note that I never claimed that impeachment was easier than divorce. I said that even a intolerably troublesome VP would not pose the same unique problems as an intolerably troublesome Presidential spouse, like, for instance, evicting the spouse from the White House, or having the President abandon the White House.

Mrs Clinton can change over and over.She has many mindnumbed robots believing her fakeiness,and has plans for america that aren't good.

Tell me Will, how does your support for the mass murder of Iraqis in the belief that this will generate a more positive future than not killing them differ from similar plans by Pol Pot and Stalin?

noel, the question you pose reveals such an ignorance of what occurred under Pot Pot and Stalin that it is usless to communicate with you, as it would be to try to discuss historical parallels with my neighbor's cockatoo. Something which appears to involve the use of language might occur, but like the bird in question, it merely , in your case, would be an imitation of higher brain function.

Now, you've repeatedly told me that my opinion was not worth consideration. Why don't you prove it by disengaging? I'm happy to do so in regards to you, and anyways, I'm out of crackers.

This Hillary bashing won't stop and it's fine if you dislike her, hate her or don't want her to be president. That is your opinion and choice. The Republicans fear her, they know that if they attack her now, they can probably bloody her for the general election. They know that they cannot swift boat Clinton as they did with John Kerry and will do with any other nominee. Obama is just a rookie politician that cannot defend himself from the right wing machine and Edwards already lost in 04 and the others are not ready to take on these attacks. Therefore, the only option will be Clinton. If you don't like her, that is your opinion, but the fact is that she is the only one that can save US from another Republican in the White House. The Republicans are saying, yeah, lets have Clinton, we will be able to beat her easily. Just remember what the Democrats wished for in 1980, they thought that by having Ronald Reagan, it was going to be easy for Carter to win the Presidency. The fact is that you have to be careful on what you wish for. Clinton is the only that is experience enough to lead us from day one. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THE OPINION. IF YOU DON'T LIKE HER, THEN JUST DON'T VOTE FOR HER, BUT STOP ATTACKING HER.

"theAmericanist": Kindly consider altering your moniker, for the sake of "truth in advertising", to the "UnAmericanist".

You're clearly a pompous, ill-mannered jackaninny -- one who plainly cannot deal in any factual manner with entirely rational rebuttals to his massively unsupported, remarkably tedious fits of demagoguery. Rather than solidly identify ANY objective basis for your own vacuous assertions -- in actuality, more self-aggrandizing advocacy than "fact" -- you childishly revert to character assassination as your preferred tactic.

Any EXTEMPORANEOUS "authority" you may claim is, to date, by NO means established. Though I've been here only briefly myself, I've YET to see you offer a single citation supporting your alleged "facts", few though they typically are. Nevertheless, your grating egotism appears utterly unparalleled on a forum virtually exemplified, on occasion, by such sneering pomposity.

Whatever it is you represent, it is NOT recognizably any form of "Americanism"! Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on the desk, shouting, "We will bury you!", is FAR more fitting imagery.

To mimic your own ludicrously juvenile demeanor, your insults directed towards corpus juris are clearly "rubber" while you're "glue". Take your ball and go home, 'Americanist'! In the final analysis, that's quite obviously your style.

LOL -- Poilu (speaking of less than American monickers), do you really have nothing better to offer? In the immortal words of Earl Weaver, can you improve, or is that it?

On the point of personal privilege: "theAmericanist" refers to the only heresy native to this country, formally condemned by the Pope in 1899. Researching the Americanization of Islam (a fav subj of mine) after 9-11 (which is how I got to know Tariq Ramadan, to lurch around a bit), I learned of the heresy from a professor at Brandeis. (naturally)

The essence of the heresy is the notion that civics in itself has a moral value, which was directly contrary to the teachings of the Vatican at the time, e.g., the Syllabus of Errors in 1854. The more I learned about it, the more I thought: that's ME. So I use the monicker in this argumentative online persona.

F'r instance, "Americanization", one of my favorite words, was originally coined by Orestes Brownson to denote reforms he advocated for the Catholic church in the U.S. It was taken up by Theodore Roosevelt after he had dinner with Cardinal Gibbon in Baltimore, and it was TR who first applied the term to immigrants.

As for citations -- I don't bother. I know what I'm talking about, or I don't speak up: a practice I advise many others here to take up. I also generally focus on the subj, viz., it fascinates me how folks in argument attribute to me (and others) things they never said and don't believe, e.g., the way Elmo and Heavy in the threads on Beauchamp collapsed in paroxyms of ego-driven fantasies.

(shrug) I do this to keep my claws sharp, and make sure my arguments IRL are tested.

But I don't do purely ad hominem attacks. F'r instance, when I note that Dice is an astonishing specimen of opinionated ignorance, it's cuz his form of this common failing is pretty typical: a (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing. His inability to reason, his lack of perspective, is alarmingly typical of baby lawyers, and far too many never grow out of it.

Consider that Dice simply doesn't understand (demonstrated over many posts) that it wasn't OPPONENTS of the Clinton health care plan who regretted that she couldn't be fired.

Having been through that time myself (and evidently with a bit more effective experience than corpus brags about), I remember vividly how from the very beginning, folks were telling her... AND the President, and everybody else involved... that the whole strategy was wrong. Writing up a vastly complex and detailed plan to be presented to Congress was to invite exactly what happened: "I can't support this unless..." which meant dozens upon dozens of Reps and Senators couldn't support it at all, especially once Gramm decided to lead the absolute opposition.

When all those other unelected officials that Dice notes, as if he has a clue what they do (and he's obviously never been one) screw up like that: THEY GET FIRED. There are levers to eject them from their positions of authority and influence.

Those levers don't exist for the President's wife -- or husband, as we may learn.

If you look more carefully, poilu, I gave corpus a bunch of chances to LEARN something, or if he was capable, to teach us (including me) something he just maybe kinda possibly knows, that we don't.

He isn't capable of either, evidently.

Put it this way: supposing his opposition to Senator Clinton has some substance, other than the wounded feelings of someone who backed her stupid strategy that failed catastrophically, who blames her for leading him on, and now wants to blame her for failing to make pleasing politically useless guys like HIM the centerpiece of what would doubtlessly be a failed campaign.

A set of substantive objections to Senator Clinton might be:

1) Having supported initiating the war, and now seeking to be the grown up in recognizing the difficulties in getting out, she may keep us there longer than necessary, AND that extra vulnerability could cause all kinds of complications, e.g., Iran. Don't linger in a mine field seems like a better plan.

2) Having sought (and looking likely to win) the Democratic nomination by the force of her presence rather than a laundry list of policy initiatives, she may win -- but without a mandate to DO anything in particular. Why not bet the election on a couple ideas, to make it worth winning?

3) Her husband is a time bomb of potential scandal, which the Democratic party does not need. And finally,

4) Senator Clinton has the skills and temperament for the Senate, where her wonkery and generally incremental approach SINCE 1993 is very effective. But the Presidency, especially starting in '09, is a job that calls for vision and and a certain 'you'll never know what hit you' approach to your opponents. The thing is -- the latter maybe what is actually happening in the nomination race, so I'm prepared to give her the benefit of at least some doubt.

Plus, she did the right thing on the immigration bill: which, I note, was news to corpus.

While I was personally in favor of keeping her in the Senate, she didn't ask me if she should run and now she looks like the nomination is hers to lose. I'm a practical guy: if that's how it plays out, then I'm vastly more likely to vote for her and wish her success than anybody else I can see.

One last thing: I actually think I'm considerably less offensive in these threads than Elmo (whose style is more to tell us how he was a gymnast and when nobody cared, resorted to telling me to get him a beer after I'd finished fellating Rove), or hell, half of the folks I beat hell out of 'round here. I'm thick skinned, particularly cuz what passes for invective 'round here is pretty low calibre.

But I DID use the word 'unAmerican' in THIS thread -- and I meant it: when somebody posted that what he really wanted in the next President was somebody motivated to hurt Republican interests, THAT is literally unAmerican.

Evidently, poliu, you disagree on all counts: typical.

......... If you want a fact-based interchange, try using some facts.Will Allen at 1:25 PM

Your understanding of important terms is lacking. For example, authoritarian places the executive as the highest authority. In the case of the Japanese Internment, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066,

....which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.[4] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, removal, and detention, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity."...

While it is regarded as an abhorent and unnecessary act today, it passed judicial review in that time. The Supreme Court was the highest authority, not FDR.

Contrast to George W. Bush. His signing statements on legislation mean that his interpretations override the meaning for the legislative branch, i.e. he is the authority. In regard to executive or judicial supremacy, George W. Bush has imprisoned individuals and denied them judicial review. In those few instances when the courts have been able to rule, they have ruled against the executive who then changed the circumstances of imprisonment instead of yielding to the law. That places the executive as the authority above the judicial. In other instances, when his employees have been summoned to testify, George W. Bush ignored their obligation to appear. That is an instance of stating the executive is above the law and therefore another instance of him holding himself as the highest authority, in a word, authoritarian.

You advocate the rather strange notion that anyone who offers opinions and advice is an influential personage. That is contrary to the facts of human relationships. All sorts of people offer their opinions, it is common on business, politics, and personal relationships, but the only ones that become 'influential' are those whose judgment has proven sound and effective, which could be anyone. No spouse, no boss, no subordinate, friend or acquaintance is of any more influence than any other unless and until their opinions have been validated by proving their value through past experience.

You are justifying the deaths of Iraqi citizens by Americans by introducing the unsubstantianed claim that millions would otherwise be killed. It is fact that the American invasion is responsible for over 600,000 excess deaths in Iraq. There is no evidence of any threat to the lives of millions had Bush not lied to justify his illegal invasion. It may be fun to pull arguments out of one's arse, but they remain groundless claims.

"The right thing on the immigration bill" -TheAmericanist

Her vote on the immigration bill, in the unlikely event that Hillary capsizes in the general election, will likely be her undoing. Once again, a disastrous Republican administration will have resulted in 4 more years of Republicanism because of the perception that Democrats are even worse.

Large numbers of poor people are a bad thing for any country. They hurt democratic processes and strain social services. They create Socialist constituencies which compromise functioning markets. Loose immigration policy means importing more and more poor people. Furthermore, since it takes time for poor families to climb out of poverty, a continuous large influx of poor people will always lead to increases of absolute numbers of poor people. If Americanist's love of mass immigration is implemented as policy, this country would be comprised of 100 million destitute 300 million otherwise by the end of this century. We would have voluntarily turned ourselves into Brazil.

Left-Wing love of mass third-world-immigration (Right-Wing love of mass third-world immigration is driven by simple greed) is but the latest in a long line of destructive delusions, such as the relaxed attitudes to crime, Unilateral Disarmament(!), Communist Sympathy, and strict adherence to failed anti-poverty initiatives, which have led to Republican dominance that could have been squandered only by the noxiousness and immense incompetence of G.W. Bush.

Whatever good arguments Liberals have (and they have several) are overwhelmed by their continual insistence on latching on to suicidal delusions and never letting go. Imagine if the Republicans were not as absurdly corrupt and conservative constituencies as ridiculously inane and gullible as they are. Liberal Governance would be extinct.

LOL -- again, with the projection.

In fact, Senator Clinton's amendment to the immigration bill was the only one explicitly endorsed by Jesus Christ himself.

I'm not kidding.

She proposed to make the spouses and minor children of LEGAL permanent residents into what's known as 'immediate relatives', which means they would no longer be separated for a MINIMUM of five years.

Christ's endorsement of this (granted, 2,000 years ahead of time) is Matthew 19:6.

My comment wasn't about Hillary as much as it is about you. The fact remains that Hillary voted for the FINAL BILL which was a DISASTER and that YOU ENDORSE IT along with several PC LIBERALS. And that dumb things like that almost nullify the Democrat's various superiorities over a corrupt Republican establishment. (Even though said establishment is high on immigration also.)

Although Hillary's amendment is characteristic of her legislative profile. Safe, unobjectionable, and sidestepping the issue at hand at the time, illegal immigration.

ROFL -- man, you don't know who you're talking to, do you?

I don't take a back seat to ANYBODY about stopping illegal immigration -- and I got the scars to prove it.

And as for Senator Clinton's amendment being "safe and unobjecitonable" -- it LOST, largely cuz of knuckleheads like we see in this thread, who have more opinions than brains, don't bother to do their homework, and shut up (finally!) only when they should SHOW up.

You know who took the lead against it? Kyl -- the chief architect of the Senate bill's final form.

LOL -- face it, BC: as noted, you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, Mike and in an environment where the Executive has taken every measure to intimidate the Court with packing schemes or simply informally telling it that it's rulings will be ignored, your distinction is without a difference. Your understanding of history is lacking, so you can't discuss the topic usefully.

You take a backseat to no one in fighting illegal immigration (I would urge folks add to that mass unskilled immigration in general) and yet you are endorsing a candidate who voted "yea" on both 1348 and 1639? And you also seemed to say that she took the right position on immigration...

You can at least see why I misapprehended the situation. What gives?

I sure as hell can see HOW -- legal and illegal, makes no diff to you: "I would urge folks add to that mass unskilled immigration in general...".

What you call "mass unskilled immigration in general" refers to FAMILIES: the husbands, wives, kids, parents, and siblings of LEGAL immigrants. The "mass" part is bullshit, too -- but I'll cut to the chase.

Fuck off until you KNOW what you're talking about. Cuz -- you don't.

….Your understanding of history is lacking.... Will Allen at 3:45 PM

It is the current Bush administration that is telling Congress and the courts that it will shuffle & shout to ignore their laws and rulings.

Large numbers of poor people are a bad thing for any country…. BC at 11:51 AM

[Content deleted. Candidate trolling]

it or ceases to amaze me how liberal fools to conveniently forget all of the shenanigans and crap of the Clinton White House. They love to whitewash the Clintons into the saviors of the 20th century. While wearing blinders to Whitewater the Waco fiasco or one of my personal favorites the appointing of Janet Reno the architect of the modern sexual inquisition. People tend to want to forget that every time the Clinton screwed up their solution to every thing was to scream a right wing conspiracy. Good old Hillary was up to her brass balls in every mess of the Clinton years.

Hillary Clinton is famous for her spewing of the liberal mantra, the richer stealing everything in getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer.
Let's deal with the real hard facts.
Freebie welfare handouts only encourage people to set on their deadbeat butts and beg or more , now they all sat around under the delusion that they are entitled to it because some rich person somewhere got their gravy.
I am amazed that Hillary as the anal retention to talk about how she is for the middle working class while supporting all efforts to keep illegal immigrants taking jobs that are decimating the American middle class.

So far the only thing I is seen out of Hillary Clinton is it she is an expert at telling stupid people what they want to hear just to get their political support. After years of watching Hillary Clinton the only conclusion that an intelligent person can come to is that she is a self-serving bitch who was only interested in power and self-promotion.
One has to stop and think outside of blowing smoke up everyone's asses what he/she really done for anybody other than her self.

Clinton said the Bush administration "is working for Americans with incomes at the very top."
Every President has done the same thing. Have you ever noticed a pay increase or more benefits after electing a President? I dont think so! or at least i havent and i have been around for almost 70 years. We should not be looking at what the Gov. is going to do for us, but what is best for the country. I hear the Black race is supporting her and she is embracing the black vote. Just goes to show you that they can be fooled as well as the white race. We are all equal and that is why we should look at who is to benefit from this, it is certianly not the people of the US, but the CLINTONS if she is elected. Look at the plan after Clinton left office, she ran for Senator in NY, and won! How is that possible when she is not from NY. The whole plan all along was to bring her to this point. Wake up AMERICA!

If we are to choose a woman to run our country, I want a woman who has a loving heart plus a brain plus ethics. Hillary has none of these traits
Thowing such remarks about our President of the U.S. is so insulting I can't believe they came out of her mouth.

My God people wake up and smell the Clinton's, all she wants is to be PRESIDENT she doen't care about us or the Country.
why not ask her what happend to HER HEALTH Program that was supposed to be so great when Bil was in hahahahha. The only thing that will she will do if she is elected is give Bill boy another shot at some intern's. Geeeee's havent they disgraced the office enough.Let not give her a chance to do more damage to it.

Hillary and the have and have nots. This is always easy to say when you are a have. How would she feel if she woke up every morning as a have not. Trying to find enoff money to feed herself and her family everyday.or raise a family and work one or two jobs. yes its easy to talk about the have and have nots. When you are a have isn't it.

What you mean she did a good enough job through bill when he was president?? I mean she is just like any other politician who says what they believe we want to hear to get our support. Shes had the power before only difference is she was in the background cause the thought of a Lady president was kinda out there back in the 90's.
FYI even Hitler when he started out made sense to people.

[Candidate trolling deleted]