Interesting overview in "The Week" over the problem that Bill Clinton presents to Hillary. When he goes out with her on the campaign trail and basically introduces her to the crowds, the crowds absolutely love him. He gets them incredibly stoked. Then Hillary comes out and basically puts them to sleep with her combination of policy wonk attitudes, canned speeches, and an inability to project any sort of warmth or true connection with the audience. So the question becomes, is he doing her more harm than good?
I dunno: At least people remember the "getting stoked" part, so that's something. Memory can be a tricky thing: Later on they might just recall the warm feeling that suffused them from Bill and attribute it to the entire proceeding, rather than focusing on the fact that Bill was jazz and Hillary was Muzak.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at August 5, 2007 08:04 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI remember a time when Bill Clinton was the one who put people to sleep. Remember that nominating speech of 1988? What a snorefest! He just spoke on and on. I think it's an experience thing, and Hillary will improve with time. I also think you're right and Hillary's people are cognizant of how much Bill's rep helps her campaign; it was the thinking behind why Peter Daou arranged that infamous "blogger dinner with Bill Clinton in Harlem" last September.
I'm pretty sure you mean an *inability* to project warmth.
Note: Republicans can disregard this and not bother to argue. You don't like Hillary, and you don't like Bill. We know that the Clinton family is to blame for every single tragedy that befell mankind. Rush Limbaugh has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (at least to his dittoheads) that back in the Garden of Eden the serpent spoke with a southern drawl and its last name was Clinton.
OK, now that we have that out of the way...
Bill reminds the voter base that if Hillary wins, he will be back in the White House. Whether right or wrong, that symbolizes to the voters a return to the prosperous years of his presidency, with a leader that strengthened ties with our allies instead of harmed them as Bush has done.
I have to agree with Scott: Vote for Hillary, and get Bill. I don't think that she'd be able to use Bill like both of them would like either, but I think Bill knows that.
I'm leaning towards Richardson. Good foreign policy experience, and he's been a Congressman and Governor, so he has some domestic policy experience, which has been neglected since 9/11.
His only negative seems to be the abuse of state owned aircraft. Anyone know how that was resolved?
Scott, this particular Republican--well, Republican turned independent anyway--has been predicting that it's Hillary's election to lose for some time, in the face of mostly Democrats telling me that there was no way they would be dumb enough (their words) to nominate her.
It's time for the Hillary haters on both sides to embrace the horror--she's almost a shoo in (only the still mind boggling example of Howard dean gives me pause on calling it a slam dunk.)
Peter raises a great point but I think this potential "problem" is nothing of the kind. It's hard for any candidate to razzle dazzle them while at the same time looking like someone who can get things done. Bill supplies the razzle dazzle in buckets. His charm has always been lost on me but there's no denying that he connects with a sizeable chunk of the voters. Then Hillary goes into her snorefest of a speech. yeah, in comparison, paint drying has the excitement of the HD DVD of 300 (will that one wet spot in the corner survive the encroaching dryness?) but the impression left is that she's a boring policy wonk.
Well, that's a GREAT combination. The message is that with a vote for Hillary you get the fun of Bill running around the world giving great speeches and shaking his head sadly when bridges collapse--an important part of our perception of what the presidency means--and we get Hillary, dull as toasted whitebread but getting the job done. That's a pretty formidible combo right there and it allows her to pick a VP candidate that is strictly for the elctoral votes he'll bring (Richardson seems to be running for VP at this point. Biden might work. Obama...I don't think she's pick him and have TWO guys around her who outshine her on the stump).
This has been a facinating election thus far but there is a growing sense of inevitability to Hillary's victory--is there any other candidate who wouldn't trade her position for theirs?
(Something else needs to be pointed out--she's been kicking ass in the debates. It's an odd thing that she is so good in the debate format and so stiff just giving speeches...maybe they should work on different formats for her to utilize on the stump.)
As an Australian, I've been watching the Presidential race (especially among the Democrats) with a detached fascination. Hillary strikes me as being rather bland and unengaging, which wouldn't necessarily make her a bad leader, but it would be nice if she could stand on her own two feet rather than always be billed as "Bill's Wife".
Now Barack Obama, there's a person one might consider emigrating to vote for!
David has a great point. Whither or not your sure you like the idea of Obama as president, you get a feeling from him on two points: One, he is very engaging as a person, like he wants to hear what you have too say and that he cares about you as a person.
Two, and to me this is very important: He acts like a President, he commands the room with his presence. With Hilary, when she walks into the room it like people want something from her. With Obama, you want to do something for him. Also when he specks, he makes me proud of America. Hilary's monotonic scretchings turn me off and make me want to leave. Also I just don't trust her.
If you've watched "Sicko", you know what I mean.
Posted by David C Simon at August 5, 2007 11:10 AM
As an Australian, I've been watching the Presidential race (especially among the Democrats) with a detached fascination.
Me too, as a Canadian, because it affects the entire world. As a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. I used to be kind of embarassed by my Canadian citizenship because Canada isn't really able to have the same impact on the world as the U.S. But after seeing the U.S. really screw up the world during the last several years, I've changed my mind about which citizenship I'm embarassed about (no offense). There isn't much Canada is to blame for, and it couldn't invade and occupy another country even if it wanted to.
So it's important that the right person gets fairly elected. I don't completely trust Hillary either. Her refusal to admit she was wrong for authorizing Iraq, as Edwards has done, rubs me the wrong way by itself. I would rather see Obama get the nomination, or Edwards, or (and I know this likely won't happen but I can still hope) Richardson.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 5, 2007 10:28 AM
...the fun of Bill running around the world giving great speeches and shaking his head sadly when bridges collapse...
If we're gonna be talking about the bridge, it's worth mentioning that the Republican governor of MN, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed a bill that would've funded maintenance of roads and bridges in 2005. He vetoed it because it would've meant more taxes. Well, this is why "tax and spend" isn't necessarily a bad thing, because sometimes spending money prevents bridges from wearing out and prevents people from dying. To say nothing of how the shitload of money that's been sunk into Iraq could've been used for domestic spending and possibly kept this from happening as well.
I just love the ability of some people to make a partisan political argument over just about anything - let’s all just dress up in white hats or black hats and choose sides.
No doubt everyone and his brother is trying to score political points on the bodies of the dead--it's the nature of politics. The reality is that nobody showed much interest in infrastructure until this happened.
One of the results of tyhe collapse was a delay in the groundbreaking ceremony for the 1.1 Billion (!!!)dollar new stadium for the Minnesota Twins. Now, one could get all prissy about how that money would have been better spent on the bridges to get the people to the stadium...but let's be honest, any politician who was running on the "let's spend money on fixing our roads" platform would have been stomped into the mud by the guy running on the "let's build a new stadium!" platform.
Politics is fundamentally reactionary and the only thing you can be sure of is that the same folks fighting tooth and nail today for some pork laden earmark that contibutes zilch to society will be the same ones bemoaning the fact that money would have been better spent on whatever the next big disaster is tomorrow.
(Something else needs to be pointed out--she's been kicking ass in the debates. It's an odd thing that she is so good in the debate format and so stiff just giving speeches...maybe they should work on different formats for her to utilize on the stump.)
This doesn't surprise me, Bill - I've seen academics and students with this exact same "problem". When she's just talking one on one, lecturing/addressing a large audience, she doesn't have someone to engage with. In a debate, she's got people on the stage she can directly engage with and react to - it gives her what she needs to come alive, as it were, and really shine.
In academia, the trick is to plant a friendly mole or three in the audience that you can talk to, who will smile and engage with you nonverbally, so you have specific targets to project yourself to. (In theatre, you either have people on the stage, or you pick a couple of folks in the visible rows to act to.) ...someone ought to share that trick with Hilary. ;-)
Politics is fundamentally reactionary and the only thing you can be sure of is that the same folks fighting tooth and nail today for some pork laden earmark that contibutes zilch to society will be the same ones bemoaning the fact that money would have been better spent on whatever the next big disaster is tomorrow.
Oh hey, Bill - given that I typically think of you as a relatively sane member of the opposition, can you drop me a line some time so I can bounce an idea off you? (Paper I'm working on involving transparency in politics and science - specifically arguing against a particular philosopher who thinks that people should hide their values-based reasons for their points of view, and just try to convince people on sheer science/reason.)
Sure thing. "Relatively sane" is the nicest thing anyone's said about me in some time.
"Later on they might just recall the warm feeling that suffused them from Bill and attribute it to the entire proceeding, rather than focusing on the fact that Bill was jazz and Hillary was Muzak."
I'm not too sure about that. Lots of people I know, staying in the music analogy, remember concerts that they went to where the headlining band sucked and/or was wildly outshone by the opening act(s). That's the way they saw it then and that's the way they still talk about those concerts now.
I think Scott Bland's idea of how some people will see it will be a stronger deciding factor for many. Bill Clinton reminds people of the 90's. The past is always better then the present and the 90's seems even better to some now then it would have simply because the 90's were pre-911 and pre-Iraq quagmire.
Barack Obama was the biggest known threat to Hillary and he's slowly burning himself out by trying to over-reach and overplay his positions on things. As policy wonked and canned as Hillary's speeches are, they seem for more adult and presidential then some of Barack's latest outburst of exuberance.
I will say this for Obama though; he's rightly saying something now that his critics are ripping him apart for even though they themselves have said the same thing. He stated the other day that we should be getting out of Iraq and looking at where OBL/Al Qaeda may have actually gone underground. He mentioned Pakistan in that speech. People on both sides of the isle are going ballistic over his declaring that we should, if the evidence warrants it, enter a) a sovereign nation and b) an ally in order to root out Al Qaeda.
This to me is hilarious for three reasons.
1) The people on the Right are the last people who should be able to whip out the "sovereign nation" argument right now. There was once this little sovereign nation called Iraq...
2) There was a lot of talk right after 911 from the people pillaring Obama now about how we should deal with Saudi Arabia and its terrorism ties. Some even advocated the Afghanistan treatment for Saudi Arabia. Last I looked, Saudi Arabia was a slightly stronger ally then Pakistan.
3) Didn't Bush's critics on the left, and even more then a few on the right, lambaste the faulty thinking of the Bush Administration's foolishness in shifting their attention from Afghanistan to Iraq because we weren't done in Afghanistan and that there was intel that said that Al Qaeda was fleeing into the mountains of Pakistan? Didn't the news also come out back then that government of Pakistan would not let America or its allies pursue Al Qaeda into its country?
Now, this story says nothing new about most media/political critics. They'll complain no matter what's said by anyone just to make their story. But I do wonder if it shows something about some of the critics on the two sides of the isle. Does this maybe show that some of the right feel that, given the choice of Clinton or Obama, that they feel that Clinton is the best candidate to run for a Republican win due to her "strongly divisive and polarizing" nature? Does it maybe show that some on the Left in media feel that Clinton is the best chance they have in '08?
I kinda wonder about that lately because of the coverage that the two have been getting. Obama, while Clinton has been taking her share of softball sized lumps, has been getting kicked a lot harder and a lot more often by the media in the last couple of months. Even when he says the same thing that some of his critics have stated in the past as a proper position to take, he's blasted for it. There has even been a number of Right-Wing critics that, while keeping their Hillary criticisms simmering on the back burner, have made the "painful" statements that, in the Clinton VS Obama dustups, Hillary was 100% right in her statements and Obama was 100% wrong (again, even when he says things that they themselves have said) in his statements.
Bill Mulligan may be right that Hillary is a shoo in here. But is she a shoo in for the right reasons?
Jerry, there's one major difference with pakistan--they have nuclear bombs.
Actually, there's another difference--Pakistan is one bullet away from a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship.
All in all, it just didn't seem very smart to be talking about invading an ally that is already at great risk of becoming the world's first pro-Al Qeada nuclear power. At the very least it opened him up to some killer lines like the one Romney delivered this morning. Unfair? Hurtful? better to find out now how he can take a punch than in the middle of the actual presidential campaign.
Are you suggesting that Hillary is being artificially boosted by people who think she will be easier to ultimately defeat? If so, they may well be in for a rude awakening. She'd be very very formidable. A lot of her critics will vote for her no matter what they say now--the Kos gang may boo her at their convention but where they gonna go? When it's either her, a Republican or Ralph Nader...where they gonna go? Her supposed "inelectability" is an illusion propagated by those who support someone else, for the most part.
Add in the indisputable fact that she can raise more money than anyone else...except maybe Bloomberg, I guess...and it would be a fool's bet to bet against her.
(and this is all disregarding the very real possibilty that she may just be the best choice, in which case she has an even stronger liklihood of becoming the second president Clinton).
Scott Bland: "Note: Republicans can disregard this and not bother to argue. You don't like Hillary, and you don't like Bill. We know that the Clinton family is to blame for every single tragedy that befell mankind. Rush Limbaugh has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (at least to his dittoheads) that back in the Garden of Eden the serpent spoke with a southern drawl and its last name was Clinton."
Scott, I'm afraid you've made yourself the object of your own ridicule. The rhetorical tactic you've employed -- that of demonizing the opposition by reducing them to a caricature -- is a staple of the Limbaughs and Hannitys of this world. The fact that you're apparently not a conservative nor a Republican doesn't somehow sanctify this behavior. The fact is, like it or not, you're exhibiting precisely the behavior you presume to mock.
Scott Bland: "Bill reminds the voter base that if Hillary wins, he will be back in the White House. Whether right or wrong, that symbolizes to the voters a return to the prosperous years of his presidency, with a leader that strengthened ties with our allies instead of harmed them as Bush has done."
The economic boom of the '90s was largely driven by an overheated stock market fueled by dot-coms not worth the paper their corporate charters were printed on, and misstated/overstated corporate profits in all business sectors. Companies like Enron are the most obvious examples of the latter but there is reason to believe there was a great deal of accounting legerdemain (pun intended) going on across the board. That Mr. Clinton presided over such an economy was more a result of good fortune rather than good stewardship. The fact is that the president doesn't have a great deal of control or even influence over the economy. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has more of an impact on the economy than does the president.
I agree that President Clinton had a much better relationship with other world leaders than does President Bush, and a great deal of that is due to George W.'s incompetence. But whoever becomes president will be inheriting a much more difficult and complicated set of foreign policy problems than President Clinton had to grapple with, and not all of the blame can be laid at George W.'s feet. The fact is that 9/11 both changed the rules of the game for the U.S. and raised the stakes at the same time. Even if we hadn't ill-advisedly squandered a portion of our military might on Iraq, members of Al Qaeda still might've managed to make it into Pakistan. And regardless of who is to blame, they're apparently there now. Rather than getting to be charming, the next president may face the between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place choice of turning Pakistan from an ally into an enemy, or letting Al Qaeda fester in a nation that possesses nuclear weapons which could someday be turned against us.
Should Hillary Clinton become president, she'll have to make some damned-if-you-do/don't choices. And let's remember that while there was every reason to believe that invading Iraq was a bad idea even before the invasion begun, most of the war's opponents didn't come out of the woodwork until after the war turned out as we all should've known it would. The American electorate is as much to blame for this war as are our politicians.
Brian: "I'm leaning towards Richardson. Good foreign policy experience, and he's been a Congressman and Governor, so he has some domestic policy experience, which has been neglected since 9/11.
"His only negative seems to be the abuse of state owned aircraft. Anyone know how that was resolved?"
I don't know, but that isn't his only negative. His handling of security breaches at Los Alamos taking place while he was Secretary of Energy was at best questionable. Even Democrats had to lambaste him for blowing off a request to testify before Congress because he needed more time to gather information. I daresay a more intelligent response would've been to appear before Congress ASAP and if he didn't yet have answers, tell them so.
Bill Mulligan: " 'Relatively sane' is the nicest thing anyone's said about me in some time."
And also the least accurate. :P
Jerry Chandler: "I will say this for Obama though; he's rightly saying something now that his critics are ripping him apart for even though they themselves have said the same thing."
I think a lot of that has to do with the nature of television, which in essence brings people into our living rooms and thus creates more "intimacy." Bold, forthright statements seem more "threatening" on T.V.
For example, do you remember the so-called "meltdown" of Howard Dean, and the famous yell that signified the end of his campaign? I saw it myself and thought it was much ado about nothing. It was a guy trying to rev up a crowd. When you're speaking to a crowd, you have to project. If you want to get them excited, you have to be exciting. But if someone's doing that in your living room, it appears over-the-top.
That's the problem with T.V. It often removes things from their context. A guy shouting to a crowd now appears as if he's shouting at you in your living room.
I happen to agree that we could use a leader who speaks plainly. We haven't had anyone like that in quite some time. On the other hand, Obama needs to be careful that that plain-talking doesn't become foot-in-mouth syndrome. For instance, when he in effect declared he was taking nuclear weapons off of the table and then stammered as he tried to backtrack, he didn't seem very presidential.
Hillary may not seem like she has much warmth while giving speeches, but she does look presidential. And also, let's not forget that her rock-star husband stumbled initially during his campaign and, for that matter, through much of his first term as president. He had a mean learning curve himself. Running for president is like threading a needle -- it always looks easier when someone else is doing it.
Bill Mulligan: "Jerry, there's one major difference with pakistan--they have nuclear bombs."
Oh. I know that. I'm not holding Obama's comments up as my own or saying that I'm in full agreement with him on them. I just find it funny that he's being ripped by critics who have expressed the same thing themselves in the last four years.
Not only does this underscore the dishonesty of any number of political pundits and critics, but it should raise a red flag for people over just what their motives really are for trying to manufacture outrage or distaste for an idea that they themselves have expressed in one form or another. If some pundits and critics repeatedly said that we should have just gone into Pakistan and after Al Qaeda themselves, why the sudden declarations of anybody saying that being naive and foolish?
Bill Mulligan: "At the very least it opened him up to some killer lines like the one Romney delivered this morning."
Missed it and can't find it. What did he say?
Bill Mulligan: "Are you suggesting that Hillary is being artificially boosted by people who think she will be easier to ultimately defeat? If so, they may well be in for a rude awakening."
Not in all quarters, no. But the statements from some in the media and on the news networks themselves lead me to think that this is the hope of some. Will everybody fall fo it? Doubtful, but it can affect some.
Look at Howard Dean in the run up to 2004. He gave one speech that was meant to rally the troops on hand and "The Scream" was played over and over and over and used to play up his instability with the masses in a way that his occasional lapses in judgment never did. Me, I always found that odd. I'm from the South. Do you have any idea how many football coaches i knew in my jr high and high school years who rallied the troops with fire and brimstone and a similar scream? Do you have any idea how many players followed suite with their own scream? And then the press slinked back out almost a year later and admitted that they kinda, sorta, pretty much over played the whole scream thing after the fact.
And that was something that wasn't really done with any real plan or forethought. How much could be done with planning and forethought to shape not only an election but the choices in the election.
Not really subscribing to or trying to start any conspiracies here, but I just find some of the reactions to Obama by some these last few months more then a little... odd.
Bill Myers: "The economic boom of the '90s was largely driven by an overheated stock market fueled by dot-coms not worth the paper their corporate charters were printed on, and misstated/overstated corporate profits in all business sectors."
You're expecting 99% of the people out there to remember and be mindful of the details rather then just remember "how great" the past was? You give people as a whole far more credit then I do.
Most people didn't want to listen to those facts when it was happening and most people didn't learn from lesson when the artificial housing bubble came along and the same warnings were be issued about that. Now you've got people hurting out there for making the same mistakes again. Why believe things will be significantly different 15 months from now?
Bill Myers: "The American electorate is as much to blame for this war as are our politicians."
And from the negative reactions that many of that electorate are displaying towards not getting instant gratification from their political choices last November, I daresay that most of them have failed to ever learn from their mistakes or choices either.
Yeah, I'm just a wee bit pessimistic and negative about it. Sue me. I work around politicians and their aids on a regular basis and get to see a lot of the electorate make asses of themselves. None of that inspires much genuine faith in either group.
~8?(
"For example, do you remember the so-called "meltdown" of Howard Dean..."
Godlike minds think alike you know.
The reasoning on Hillary is the best that I've seen. I don't particularly find her that engaging. I also think that the lack of really engaging personality is what hurt both Al Gore and John Kerry on election day. (With Kerry there were other factors, but I think many of them would have been overcome if he could have connected with people.) Mr. Gore has stated that the biggest mistake he made in the campaign was to let his 'handlers' control how he acted to much. I never had the impression that W. J. Clinton had that problem. Perhaps if Hillary could just 'lighten up' a little bit and as was stated above, learn to engage at least one or two people directly, she would connect better.
All that having been said, I felt early on that Hillary was unelectible, I am still not completely sure, but the line up on the Republican side, with or without Fred, is so absolutely uninspiring that I have a hard time thinking that they are going to connect with a large portion of the middle ground people. (I put myself there, even though I am a registered Democrat.) This election may come down to who the middle grounders vote against rather than who they vote for.
(On a final note, I am an Edwards fan at the moment, I like Obama, but his lack of experience at the Federal level 'concerns' me.)
Bill Myers: "For instance, when he in effect declared he was taking nuclear weapons off of the table and then stammered as he tried to backtrack, he didn't seem very presidential."
"Hillary may not seem like she has much warmth while giving speeches, but she does look presidential."
Oh, I've said as much myself. I said above in this thread that many of Hillary's speeches seem far more adult and presidential then some of Barack's latest speeches. It still doesn't fully explain the odd 180 some in tV and radio have made on their own expressed opinions and beliefs.
"for that matter, through much of his first term as president.
ONLY his FIRST term? You're far too kind to the man. But then, it is rather hard to not stumble about when your pants are down around your ankles all the time.
~8?)
littlewolf: "Perhaps if Hillary could just 'lighten up' a little bit and as was stated above, learn to engage at least one or two people directly, she would connect better."
Yeah, but when she does do that, she just gets blasted for being fake and "sucking up" to a local crowd. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Still, I agree that she'll likely be less damned in the long run if she does lighten up a bit and quit being as scripted in some events.
Rob Brown: "There isn't much Canada is to blame for, and it couldn't invade and occupy another country even if it wanted to."
Rob, let me preface my remarks by emphasizing they are NOT directed at you personally. Instead, my remarks are intended to address U.S. relations with Canada and other nations on a "macro" level.
A great deal of the criticism leveled against the U.S. seems to be of the "Catch-22" variety. Other nations are all too happy to request our assistance when it suits them but are resentful of the power and resources that make such help possible. On the one hand, if we don't intervene in thus-and-such part of the world, it's because we don't care enough. If we do intervene somewhere it's inevitably criticized as a selfish, imperialist move.
Yeah, invading Iraq was a colossal mistake. But it's easy to criticize the U.S. from the vantage point of Canada, which by your own admission lacks the military might to do what we can do. Moreover, the U.S. appears to be much higher on the terrorists' list of priorities than does Canada. I'm not saying that that makes us more important, I'm just saying Al Qaeda and its ilk has a mad on for us moreso than any other nation other than perhaps Israel. It's easy to watch another nation suffer such a devastating attack and say, "Gee, you really reacted out of fear and made a big mistake letting your president invade Iraq." Yeah. Yeah, we did. But who is to say Canada wouldn't have made a similar mistake if that nation had been in our shoes?
It's fashionable to be ashamed of the U.S. these days. It's far less fashionable to suggest viable alternatives and solutions to the problems the world is facing. And even less fashionable for other nations to pony up substantial resources to help make those solutions into reality. I mean, why should they? That's the U.S.'s job, right?
(I'm aware that other nations do contribute money, military muscle, and other resources to help in hot spots throughout the world. I'm unaware of any nation, however, that does so to the extent that we do. I'm also unaware of any nation that is expected to do it to the extent that we do, and is as pilloried for doing it as we are.)
Again, Rob, this isn't directed at you personally. And I'm the first to admit our nation has many faults, and that with our great power comes great responsibility. Still, I think I've articulated a point-of-view that is at least worth considering.
Jerry Chandler: "It still doesn't fully explain the odd 180 some in tV and radio have made on their own expressed opinions and beliefs."
As I said, part of it is the medium of television and the intimacy it creates. Obama is being a bit too direct in the way he expresses himself. I think that accounts at least in part for the way the media pundits are reacting to him.
As far as Obama's opponents, it's not hard to see why they're pouncing at any signs of vulnerability. Hillary has widened her lead over Obama in recent polls but the only polls that count are the ones where votes are cast in caucuses and primaries. Obama is still a real threat to Hillary and the other candidates and if they sense weakness, they're gonna pounce. It's that simple.
Jerry Chandler: "ONLY his FIRST term? You're far too kind to the man."
No, I'm not. By his second term, he'd revamped his cabinet and his approach to running his administration. He looked and sounded more presidential. And despite getting himself embroiled in a sex scandal, he presided over a successful military intervention in the Balkans and got the better of the Republicans during that now-famous budget stand-off. He wasn't our greatest president but he had some strengths that are worth noting.
Bill,
That explains why the people are reacting as they are and I agree totally about his opponents. But the pundits are a whole other nut here. They don't quite fall into the same argument because they've watched others say the same thing and agreed with it before.
With some of them, it seems to be an Obama thing. The reason why it's an Obama thing is open to debate.
"He wasn't our greatest president but he had some strengths that are worth noting."
I know. I even liked him somewhat. But Bill Clinton is such an easy target that it sometimes just can't be helped.
Jerry Chandler: "But the pundits are a whole other nut here. They don't quite fall into the same argument because they've watched others say the same thing and agreed with it before."
The pundits are also human and even those who work in television are not immune to the way it shapes perceptions. I think there's some truth to Marshall McLuhan's famous statement that "the medium is the message." The way Obama is expressing himself is what's getting people wrapped around the axle, I believe.
Also, don't forget that there are legitimate questions about this guy's experience. For that reason, I think he's getting hyper-scrutinized.
Finally, while I am usually reluctant to bring up "the race card" there is always the possibility that his race is playing a role. Even people who are not consciously racist can carry with them some bigotry of which they are unaware.
I have no doubt that both his experience and, at least to a lesser degree when looking outside of the Coulter cult or KKK, his race or background are factors here. But it's one thing to hyper-scrutinized an opinion that you yourself do not hold or have not expressed. It's just plain weird looking to be on TV hyper-scrutinizing or attacking as niave and foolish the opinion you yourself have expressed as right many times before without ever having made a public break from that opinion prior to Obama (or anyone else) making it.
[b]Bill Mulligan: " 'Relatively sane' is the nicest thing anyone's said about me in some time."[/b]
[b]Bill Myers: "And also the least accurate. :P"[/b]
I dunno - relative to whom? :)
On a more serious note, can anyone explain to me exactly why Pakistan is considered an ally? I mean, they haven't been contributing to the conflict in Afghanistan, nor the mess in Iraq; they can't be counted on to vote alongside the US ambassador to the UN; they won't pull back from the brink of violence over Kashmir, despite our asking really nicely; the Pakistani government officially won't go into the mountain regions to pursue al-Qaeda, nor will they permit US forces to do so; the only voice from Pakistan I've heard that hasn't been pretty stridently anti-US is President General Musharraf - really, with allies like this, do we [i]need[\i] enemies?
(Don't get me started on the "allies" in Saudi Arabia...)
Funny thing about Bill.
Local/nationally-syndicated Far Right talk jock Neal Boortz (Kathleen can probably tell you about him - sort of a rational Limbaugh who occasionally apparently actually thinks, who hates the Clintons with a passion (in the abstract, at least - and Hillary specifically) said that meeting Bill Clinton in erson was one of the memorable experiences of hi slife in radio.
He says that what some people call "charisma" in Bill's case is that - but that, while he's talking to you, you actually feel that he thinks you're the most interesting and important person he's ever met.
Neal says that he's only ever met one other person with that sort of charisma.
I think he meant Ron Jeremy.
No, Jonathan, whichever one you may be, Mulligan was just trying to say in a vague manner that some of his relatives are, in fact, sane.
As to your serious note, if I could go into the same vein, think of Pakistan as a friend of a friend that you run into at a party. Good to talk to, some of the same interests, but neither of you will glom all the way onto whatever pet project you both have going. Also, I think it's much easier to deal with people when you call them allies than when you call them enemies.
"You're expecting 99% of the people out there to remember and be mindful of the details rather then just remember "how great" the past was? You give people as a whole far more credit then I do."
Hey, it's hard enough to get people to admit when things aren't that great NOW, you want them to think BACK? "No, everything's fine, I'm making money while Bush is in, so anything he says is fine!"
For example, do you remember the so-called "meltdown" of Howard Dean, and the famous yell that signified the end of his campaign? I saw it myself and thought it was much ado about nothing.
It was. It just happened to occur at a time when people were looking for a reason to dump him and go with the supposedly far more electable John Kerry. We all saw how that worked out. I wasn't a Dean supporter but I think he would have run a better campaign than kerry did. at the very least, I know a lot of Dean supporters never got over his losing the nomination and never really got into the subsequent campaign.
Missed it and can't find it. What did he say?
Not surprised. Who has a debate on Sunday morning? But it was this:"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
Cheap shot but the kids loved it.
Finally, while I am usually reluctant to bring up "the race card" there is always the possibility that his race is playing a role. Even people who are not consciously racist can carry with them some bigotry of which they are unaware.
It cuts both ways--would Obama have gotten this far if he was just another 1 term white guy? His personal story is an inspirational one and if he had the experience to go with it he would be very formidable. If this isn't his year just wait for another 4 or 8 years from now--his upside is tremendous.
Hillary is a egotistical power monger who only cares for herself and I will never in my right mind vote for her. In fact I would rather vote Republican or Independent in the General Election than her. With that said I am supporting Sen. Obama. I have met him several times and wholeheartedly agree with his plan to combat terrorism. We should send troops into Pakistan if needed. Pakistan doesn't have the capability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons and the only reason that they are our ally is because once 9/11 happened they knew that we would attack them for harboring those in the Taliban who fled seeing as the Taliban was supported by Pakistan unitl it was decided that Al-Qaeda was soley based in Afganistan and that we would invade them because they wouldn't give us Bin Laden.
As to the media beating up on Barack. Think this, the media that is liberal support Hillary and so does the media that is conservatives. The left wing media aka CNN thinks that Hillary is next in line and will win while Fox and other conservative sources think she will fall to the Republican nomination. Anyway I support Obama and MSNBC the only news media that isn't completely biased toward Hillary.
"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
You'd think the guy who's biggest threat to his campaign is his own membership in what could be unkindly described as a "freaky bigamist cult" would be a bit more thoughtful about when he decides to belittle an argument versus engaging it in an adult manner.
On a personal note, after four years of hearing some people endorsing Bush's invasion of Iraq by saying that if Al Gore had been president, he would've invited bin Laden over for a tea party after September 11 (in those exact words, and with that exact lack of logic), I think that anyone who describes any kind of diplomatic process with a hostile power as a "tea party" should be barred from government. If Romney has that much contempt for settling differences with words that he'd imply anyone who even tried was a girly little wuss, how in God's name can he expect to function in a democratic system? It's not like he can move in the troops and invade congress if they don't comply with his demands.
Clinton was reportedly eager to campaign for Gore, but Gore refused because of the impeachment, and no one denied that refusing Clinton's help hurt Gore. If Hillary is making bolstering her credibility her first priority (which gives her more of an edge than Kerry after the swiftboat attacks cowed him away from his hero-candidate position), coming off as boring in contrast to her husband isn't necessarily a mistake on her part.
I'm leaning towards Richardson. Good foreign policy experience, and he's been a Congressman and Governor, so he has some domestic policy experience, which has been neglected since 9/11.
Richardson's Energy Department tried to coerce Wen Ho Lee into confessing by leaking his name as a suspect to the press, and siccing on him all the Americans who tell non-whites to go back where they came from. When your scapegoat for a rocket science breach receives an apology from the judge trying him -- even after pleading guilty to mishandling data -- you will help your country by retiring from public service.
A lot of her critics will vote for her no matter what they say now--the Kos gang may boo her at their convention but where they gonna go? When it's either her, a Republican or Ralph Nader...where they gonna go?...
[The Dean scream overplay] just happened to occur at a time when people were looking for a reason to dump him and go with the supposedly far more electable John Kerry. We all saw how that worked out. I wasn't a Dean supporter but I think he would have run a better campaign than kerry did. at the very least, I know a lot of Dean supporters never got over his losing the nomination and never really got into the subsequent campaign.
Kerry was not the choice of the Kos community going into Iowa, Dean was.
If Hillary, at the right time in the general election, were to campaign on reforming a system where insurance company profits increase with the denial of care, I agree the presidency would be hers to lose, and would look forward to her victory. If she doesn't, she will have the same vulnerability going into the general election as Kerry in 2004.
The occasion Hillary was booed -- her publicly reserving the privilege of accepting lobby-contributions, where Obama and Edwards waived them -- is a strong indicator she's preparing to run the same kind of campaign that lost Kerry.
It's easy to watch another nation suffer such a devastating attack and say, "Gee, you really reacted out of fear and made a big mistake letting your president invade Iraq." Yeah. Yeah, we did. But who is to say Canada wouldn't have made a similar mistake if that nation had been in our shoes?
Canada does not have a vice president who took $73 million from the dictator whose country it invaded. Canada would have waited to see if any actual threat absent from all known intelligence turned up from the impending weapons inspections.
"Finally, while I am usually reluctant to bring up "the race card" there is always the possibility that his race is playing a role. Even people who are not consciously racist can carry with them some bigotry of which they are unaware."
Oh, I'm certain that Obama's race, and his heritage in general, are both playing a part in all of this.
On another forum, there's a fellow who only refers to Obama as "Hussein", yet fails to see the bigotry involved with playing the 'terror' card on the man's Arabic middle name. It's really quite sad that people think in that manner.
"On another forum, there's a fellow who only refers to Obama as "Hussein"..."
Look, how many times do I have to tell you... That's only a vicious rumor. Sure, her hands are abnormally large for a woman and she's got an Adam's Apple that would make Abe Vigoda jealous, but no one has as of yet actually proven that Ann Coulter is/was born a "fellow." Until such a time, you should keep such libelous postings to yourself.
The nerve of some people around here.
Somewhere, stuck in the moderation queue, is a picture of Mitt Romey with a sign saying that....
I have to agree that race is playing a major issue in this campaign. But I think that class is even more so. Look at Hillary's numbers and where they are coming from. They are coming from people making 50,000 or less and think they will have Bill Clinton again. Most people say that women are supporting Clinton but in reality it is women who either haven't recieved a College Degree or even a High School Degree. The people who support Hillary don't know who they even support and for that matter don't know who their options are. Don't take any polls seriously when the people who are being polled don't even know who the candidates are. That's why Hillary is up in the nationals but neck and neck in the important primary states.
Posted by Rob Brown at August 5, 2007 12:14 PM
If we're gonna be talking about the bridge, it's worth mentioning that the Republican governor of MN, Tim Pawlenty, vetoed a bill that would've funded maintenance of roads and bridges in 2005. He vetoed it because it would've meant more taxes. Well, this is why "tax and spend" isn't necessarily a bad thing, because sometimes spending money prevents bridges from wearing out and prevents people from dying. To say nothing of how the shitload of money that's been sunk into Iraq could've been used for domestic spending and possibly kept this from happening as well.
Um....I do not recall anybody claiming the bridge was unsafe or "worn out" The bridge had inspections in 2005 and 2006 though it was noted that it needed to be replaced by about 2020.
Actually, they have not come out with a cause for the collapse and will not have one for quite a while if they are able to find one.
Claiming a vetoed tax increase as part of the problem is just plain stupid.
It wasnt the evil conservatives' fault.
Hmmm. Nostalgia is a pretty damn strong emotion and the nostalgia that most Americans have for the 90's should benefit Hillary.
Pat Nolan: "Um....I do not recall anybody claiming the bridge was unsafe or 'worn out.'
Well, somebody did. It was graded "structurally deficient" two years ago. Moreover it is a "non-redundant" bridge, meaning the failure of a single part could cause a collapse.
Pat Nolan: "Claiming a vetoed tax increase as part of the problem is just plain stupid."
Not necessarily. While I would agree that finger-pointing serves no one, I think it is fair to ask whether increased funding for infrastructure projects could prevent future disasters.
Posted by: Steve
Look at Hillary's numbers and where they are coming from. They are coming from people making 50,000 or less and think they will have Bill Clinton again. Most people say that women are supporting Clinton but in reality it is women who either haven't recieved a College Degree or even a High School Degree. The people who support Hillary don't know who they even support and for that matter don't know who their options are. Don't take any polls seriously when the people who are being polled don't even know who the candidates are. That's why Hillary is up in the nationals but neck and neck in the important primary states.
Keep whistling while you walk past that graveyard, son. You'll convince yourself you ain't 'fraid of no ghost yet.
If Hillary's support is so overhwelmingly lower-income, not-so-bright women, as you claim and/or imply - where's the money coming from?
Were you aware that the law firm of which Whitewater persecutor-i-mean-prosecutor Ken Starr is a partner has made Very Large contributions to the Clinton campaign?
I think it is fair to ask whether increased funding for infrastructure projects could prevent future disasters.
It is ALWAYS fair to ask this.
And sometimes it may not have a thing to do with what's happened in the past.
Mike I hear what you are saying but have you seen the contribution numbers. Obama has for both quarters raised more primary money than Hillary and yes that is while she is raising money from PACs and Lobbyists. Guess what though, Obama isn't doing that. So in short what you get is regular people supporting Obama and people maxing out on their donating capabilities for Hillary. And if Hillary wasn't maxing out all the rich people she and her friends know than her campaign would look even less impressive to Baracks 250,000 + donors. Thats all I have to say about Hillary. Her whole campaign is afloat because of her media support and her rich friends. If it wasn't for them and especially if it wasn't for the fact she is Bill's wife she would be a Senator from New York that know one even cared about.
Pat Nolan: "Um....I do not recall anybody claiming the bridge was unsafe or 'worn out.'
Bill Meyer: Well, somebody did. It was graded "structurally deficient" two years ago. Moreover it is a "non-redundant" bridge, meaning the failure of a single part could cause a collapse.
I realize that Bill, I need to be more clear.
It would not have changed a thing if MN. had an increase in the gas tax every year for the last 10 years. The bridge still would have collapsed.
Actually the bridge was graded "structurally deficient" 17 years ago (Which by the way, at the time we had a Democratic Gov and a Democratically controlled Senate and House but Im not pointing fingers) but we still dont really know what "structurally deficient" means considering roughly 17% of the nations bridges are graded as such but are still being used.
Im betting that the "non-redundant" construction aspect of this will show to be the major factor in this tragedy.
Pat Nolan: "Claiming a vetoed tax increase as part of the problem is just plain stupid."
Bill Meyer: Not necessarily. While I would agree that finger-pointing serves no one, I think it is fair to ask whether increased funding for infrastructure projects could prevent future disasters.
Fair point, however, as is the case in MN. The funds do not always go to the infrastructure. We are having a major battle over Taxes right now and unfortunately this bridge collapse is already being used as an "I told you so..." In 2006 a constitutional ammendment to our vehicle excise tax was voted in diverting at least 40% but up to 60% of that money from the highway fund to mass transit which in MN means light rail which in turn is a boondoggle.
Well, I hope people look at the history...
Around Washington state, folks have been asking for more funding for two big projects for years. We've known the Alaska Way Viaduct could come down in an earthquake (and has cracks in in it now); the 520 bridge is too small and needs updating.
Yet the anti-tax fools keep blocking tax increases, the NIMBYs keep blocking construction, the esthetics want a Perfect Solution, and they all wonder why it the costs keep skyrocketing every year. Hello???? Clueless ones???? Deferred maintenance NEVER means less costs!
Her whole campaign is afloat because of her media support and her rich friends. If it wasn't for them and especially if it wasn't for the fact she is Bill's wife she would be a Senator from New York that know one even cared about.
If , if if...but you might as well face the reality that she IS Bill's wife, she IS the most well known of the candidates, she CAN raise bucket loads of cash on a whim, she IS the only one of the candidates to have virtually already run for president(twice)(and won), etc. etc.
She's so going to win. The only suspense left is who she'll pick for VP...I really though Obama would be a good pick but they seem to have developed a genuine dislike for each other and Hillary does not easily suffer the company of perceived enemies.
Pat Nolan: "It would not have changed a thing if MN. had an increase in the gas tax every year for the last 10 years. The bridge still would have collapsed."
Even if that money had been actually used to correct the structural deficiencies identified during the last inspection? Are you sure about that?
Pat Nolan: "...but we still dont really know what 'structurally deficient' means..."
Yes, we do. According to the Federal Highway Administration, "Bridges are structurally deficient if they have been restricted to light vehicles, require immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or are closed."
According to the FHWA, a bridge that is "structurally deficient" is not necessarily unsafe, but "does require significant maintenance, rehabilitation, or sometimes replacement." In 2005, however, the Minnesota Department of Transportation rated the Minneapolis bridge "structurally deficient" because it was in poor condition that rendered it ill-suited for current traffic loads. Yet that wasn't enough to even get the state to restrict traffic on the bridge.
It is worth noting that repairs were being conducted on the bridge at the time of the collapse. Too little, too late, it appears.
I think we have reason to reconsider how we rate the fitness of our nation's bridges and related infrastructure. It is worth asking whether the states are on "the same page" as the federal government in terms of ratings criteria, and if not, whether they should be. It is also worth asking whether the MN DOT's 2005 findings that the Minneapolis bridge wasn't structurally sound enough for current traffic loads should have been more cause for urgency.
It is true that hindsight is "20-20." It is also true that only a fool refuses to learn from past mistakes.
Pat Nolan: "Im betting that the "non-redundant" construction aspect of this will show to be the major factor in this tragedy."
Well, yes, of course. It's not like that was an unknown variable, though. The MN DOT knew how the bridge had been constructed and what the implications of its design would be. That doesn't necessarily absolve everyone of blame.
Pat Nolan: "Fair point, however, as is the case in MN. The funds do not always go to the infrastructure."
Then it is up to us as citizens to put pressure on our elected leaders to do the right thing.
Back on topic: I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton is reviled by many because she openly pursues power, whereas Nancy Reagan, who wielded a fair amount of power behind the scenes during her husband's administration, are highly regarded. It seems there are many who are still frightened of a powerful woman.
While I do not see eye-to-eye with Ms. Clinton on a number of issues, I respect her choice to openly pursue political power rather than to wield it in the shadows.
Bill Mulligan: "She's so going to win."
Yeah, just like Bill Clinton lost the Democratic presidential nomination in '92 like everyone knew he would.
Oh, wait... he actually won that, didn't he?
Seriously, I apologize for the sarcasm but I felt it necessary to make my point. There's plenty of time left in this race and life is delightfully unpredictable, my friend.
Hillary Clinton is reviled by many because she openly pursues power, whereas Nancy Reagan, who wielded a fair amount of power behind the scenes during her husband's administration, are highly regarded. It seems there are many who are still frightened of a powerful woman.
It's a good thing i wasn't drinking when I read that...Nancy Reagan was openly despised by lots of people. It wasn't until later, when she gained so much sympathy during her caring for reagan during his long illness that she became a sympathetic figure.
There's plenty of time left in this race and life is delightfully unpredictable, my friend.
True enough but no guts no glory. Not that predicting a Hillary victory is exactly putting the mortgage on a long shot. I just don't see a very likely scenario where she loses, at least given her current competition (and I think it's safe to say that it's too late for anyone to enter the fray on the Democratic side.) She has money, power, influence, experience and she has won the debates, IMO. Also, she has a quality that the others lack--an aura of inevitability about her. She's something like 20 points ahead of Obama in the latest poll. She's beating John Edwards by a 4 to 1 margin. And the rest are here on Gilligan's Isle.
Pat Nolan: "Fair point, however, as is the case in MN. The funds do not always go to the infrastructure."
Bill Meyer: Then it is up to us as citizens to put pressure on our elected leaders to do the right thing.
Amen!
Myers not Meyer, Myers not Meyer, Myers not Meyer
Sorry Bill!
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
Hillary Clinton is reviled by many because she openly pursues power, whereas Nancy Reagan, who wielded a fair amount of power behind the scenes during her husband's administration, are highly regarded. It seems there are many who are still frightened of a powerful woman.It's a good thing i wasn't drinking when I read that...Nancy Reagan was openly despised by lots of people. It wasn't until later, when she gained so much sympathy during her caring for reagan during his long illness that she became a sympathetic figure.
Well, sorta.
OTOH, the same people who revile Hillary for being "power-hungry" are the ones who didn't mind anything Nancy did woman-behind-the-curtain-wise, as long as she "knew her place".
That is, two steps behind and one to the right.
Shave off Hillary's hair shave the beast and you will see what your really voting for.
Considering that while I vote Democratic, I never had any intention of voting for Hillary to begin with, it doesn't matter to me.
And for the record, while I have no problem with the basic concept of a female president, I just don't think Hillary would ever make a decent one even if Bill wasn't a factor in her life and campaign.
Bill Mulligan: "It's a good thing i wasn't drinking when I read that...Nancy Reagan was openly despised by lots of people. It wasn't until later, when she gained so much sympathy during her caring for reagan during his long illness that she became a sympathetic figure."
I concede the point. Although Nancy Reagan wasn't "openly despised" to the same extent as Hillary Clinton, and not for the same reasons, so the comparison still supports my hypothesis. I think a woman who openly pursues power is going to draw more criticism than one who wields it in the background.
She's something like 20 points ahead of Obama in the latest poll. She's beating John Edwards by a 4 to 1 margin.
You'd think John Kerry never won the democratic primary, or George Bush wasn't so threatened by John McCain's upset in New Hampshire his staff didn't spread rumors McCain fathered a black baby in South Carolina.
Being a republican, you might have missed that the early frontrunner taking the party nomination is only a republican trend.
Hey, she might lose. Anything is possible. Stuff happens. But my prediction is that she wins it and so far everything that is happening supports that prediction. Anyone who finds that threatening had just better get used to the idea.
There is no Democratic candidate who would not gladly switch their position with hers if they could...unless they subscribe to some kind of superstition that, logic be damned, it's better not to be the Democratic front runner with huge name recognition, national support, a limitless war chest, and the active 24/7 support of the party's single most popular member.
But my prediction is that she wins it and so far everything that is happening supports that prediction.
Everything except the trend of upsets in democratic presidential primaries.
Bill Myers:
You completely missed everything I was trying to say. The warning to Republicans was not to characterize or demean... it was just saying "yes, I know you disagree with what I'm about to say, but that doesn't matter. We're talking about who Democrats and some moderates will vote for, not who Republicans will vote for. There's no way in hell you will vote for Hillary, so your opinion really doesn't count in this case."
As for my Hillary = Bill statement, I said (but maybe not plainly enough) that this was the association people would make, right or wrong. Many people believe we were better off under Clinton, and even if they weren't, that belief is going to be very strong and could very well swing things in Hillary's favor.
I think it's an experience thing, and Hillary will improve with time.
**********
SER: She will improve but she will never become a Bill Clinton -- we won't see the likes of him again in our lifetimes (like him or hate him, you have to concede that he is a master politician).
I don't think Hillary connections to people (especially minorities) the way Bill does. I think minorities like and appreciate Hillary for her policies, but Bill is the guy who could stop for dinner at a soul food restaurant and have it seem perfectly natural because it... well it is for him.
Hillary just strikes me as Al Gore 2000. I respect her but I don't see her as someone who electrifies the crowd (maybe Hillary will have the election stolen from her and then become more engaging as a result).
Posted by Bill Myers at August 5, 2007 09:10 PM
A great deal of the criticism leveled against the U.S. seems to be of the "Catch-22" variety...
Plenty of good points, Bill. On the one hand, there's criticism over invading Iraq and on the other there's criticism about doing nothing about Darfur.
If we do intervene somewhere it's inevitably criticized as a selfish, imperialist move.
If the U.S. does it alone, yes, it is. Rightly so, if they're doing it over the objections of the majority of the rest of the world.
It's fashionable to be ashamed of the U.S. these days. It's far less fashionable to suggest viable alternatives and solutions to the problems the world is facing. And even less fashionable for other nations to pony up substantial resources to help make those solutions into reality. I mean, why should they? That's the U.S.'s job, right?
No, it isn't, and I have to disagree with anybody who says that. I'm not even sure I've heard anybody aside from pundits say that sort of thing. I feel that anything as major as taking military action against a country like, say, North Korea should be done with the U.N.'s approval and the participation of the majority of the U.N.'s members (including the U.S.) or not at all.
Yeah, invading Iraq was a colossal mistake. But it's easy to criticize the U.S. from the vantage point of Canada, which by your own admission lacks the military might to do what we can do. Moreover, the U.S. appears to be much higher on the terrorists' list of priorities than does Canada. I'm not saying that that makes us more important, I'm just saying Al Qaeda and its ilk has a mad on for us moreso than any other nation other than perhaps Israel. It's easy to watch another nation suffer such a devastating attack and say, "Gee, you really reacted out of fear and made a big mistake letting your president invade Iraq." Yeah. Yeah, we did. But who is to say Canada wouldn't have made a similar mistake if that nation had been in our shoes?
There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. You simply do not fire the first shots in a war, you do not make preemptive strikes, you do not kill civilians, no matter what, period. If Canada ever did that under any circumstances, even after taking a nuclear strike, I'd be ashamed to be Canadian. It is simply not right, and it is more acceptable to be killed than to do something evil to prevent your death.
Not necessarily. While I would agree that finger-pointing serves no one, I think it is fair to ask whether increased funding for infrastructure projects could prevent future disasters.
It takes something big to make something a priority. Anti-terrorism wasn't a big priority at all in the first year of two of the Bush Administration. Obviously that changed.
I dare say that after this, if somebody were to run on a "fixing bridges and roads" platform against somebody who promised a new stadium, the guy who was in favour of fixing the roads would win hands down, whereas before this bridge collapse people wouldn't go for it. If the candidate raised the possibility, they'd probably just roll their eyes and say "Yeah right, like a bridge is just gonna fall down spontaneously one day if we don't spend more on upkeep. Whatever, you delusional freak."
Posted by mister_pj at August 5, 2007 12:27 PM: I just love the ability of some people to make a partisan political argument over just about anything - let’s all just dress up in white hats or black hats and choose sides.
It's the job of the politicians to take tax dollars and spend them on things that keep people safe! If they can't do that--if they lower taxes in order to keep their constituents happy, or if they just spend it on pork projects, or if they blow it on something useless like building a fence across the border with Mexico--then they don't deserve to be in office.
This is political, make no mistake. Katrina was political too, because it could have been prevented if the people in charge had any clue how to do their jobs. The death toll from this bridge collapse is obviously much, much lower than that of Katrina, but the bridge collapse could've been prevented too, and somebody should be held accountable for this, because somebody dropped the ball.
There's no way in hell you will vote for Hillary, so your opinion really doesn't count in this case.
Except that's incorrect. Republicans will vote for her, some of them anyway. There are some god reasons to do so. From a foreign policy standpoint, Hillary might be more likely to please the neo-cons than anyone the Republicans are likely to nominate.
As for Hillary having fear any front runnner curse, I'd say she is more in the mold of Mondale in 1984 or Gore in 2000. They began as frontrunners and after brief thrreats from a dark horse candidate (Hart and Bradley respectively) they won their nomination with ease.
At any rate, this election is such an unusual one that any reliance on supposed trends is of minimal use. For one thing, there is no true incumbent (though Hillary is as close to one as a person can be without actually being an incumbent).
But time will tell if my prediction holds true. If it does I will not consider it any evidence of superior deductive reasoning on my part and if I'm wrong it will not adversely affect my self esteem in any great way.
...if I'm wrong it will not adversely affect my self esteem in any great way.
I'd hate to see the error that does.
Rob Brown: There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. You simply do not fire the first shots in a war, you do not make preemptive strikes, you do not kill civilians, no matter what, period. If Canada ever did that under any circumstances, even after taking a nuclear strike, I'd be ashamed to be Canadian. It is simply not right, and it is more acceptable to be killed than to do something evil to prevent your death.
Sounds like your playing a video game.
So, if say for example Iran were to build their nuke and in their wacky crazy rational way of thinking were to bomb Canada just to show the big evil USA that they could do it. You would be against your country taking retaliatory measures because it could cause the death of civilians?
You do know that after a nuclear strike it wouldnt be considered preemptive?
Im really glad your Canadian....
I'd hate to see the error that does.
Well it would certainly be about something other than mere electoral politics. I think part of the problems we have is that some people have so identified with the politicians of their choice that they have irreparably welded themselves to the actions of others--a pretty precarious position to find oneself. As Roger Simon says "People identify their very selves with their political views. To say this is not good is an understatement. Besides making it almost impossible for people to change their minds, it makes it exceptionally difficult for them even to talk to each other, let alone reason together."
Fortunately, hate is both exhausting to the haters and boring to the rest. I expect things will settle down in a few election cycles and the extremists on both sides will have ridden out their allotted time in the spotlight.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at August 7, 2007 09:36 PM
Sounds like your playing a video game.
So, if say for example Iran were to build their nuke and in their wacky crazy rational way of thinking were to bomb Canada just to show the big evil USA that they could do it. You would be against your country taking retaliatory measures because it could cause the death of civilians?
You do know that after a nuclear strike it wouldnt be considered preemptive?
Im really glad your Canadian....
If it could've been traced back to Iran beyond any shadow of a doubt, yes, Iran would have started the war and it would be appropriate to strike back.
If a nuclear weapon hit a Canadian city and nobody knew where it came from (if it was the work of a terrorist group that had acquired one, for example) and there was evidence pointing to said terrorist group being based in Iran but nothing to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, I would be completely against attacking and conquering Iran just to get at them, because it would almost certainly mean killing a lot of civilians who'd had nothing to do with the plot.
If this sounds simplistic or overly black and white to you, so be it. The kind of terrorists who make up groups like al Qaeda are willing to do anything for their cause, cross any line. They feel the means--any means--are justified by the ends. To me, that's what makes them so despicable. That's what makes the difference between, to paraphrase mister_pj from earlier, those in the white hats and those in the black. Once you become willing to cross any line for your cause, whether that cause is remaking the world into a different place or simply ensuring your own safety, you become as bad as them.
...if I'm wrong it will not adversely affect my self esteem in any great way.
I'd hate to see the error that does.Fortunately, hate is both exhausting to the haters and boring to the rest.
Embracing the notion of your own humiliation to nurture affection is very hospitable of you, but I don't consider depending on the misfortune of others a viable option.
I expect things will settle down in a few election cycles and the extremists on both sides will have ridden out their allotted time in the spotlight.
Perhaps, if we give basing our peace on the tolerance of dissent and diversity instead of basing it on conformity.
oooookay........
Back to the topic at hand; Hillary turned in another impressive performance at the debate yesterday. yes, she got booed for going after Obama in his home town but at this point she is actually benefitting from being willing to take heat from constituants. she shows that she is willing to risk anger from special interest groups to do the right thing.
What was interesting was that Biden now seems to be clearly running for Hillary's VP. He (and Dodd to some extent) really went after Obama, letting her stay mainly above the fray. I had thought that Richardson would be the ideal VP cabdidate for her but Biden would be a most intiguing choice.
oooookay........
Back to the topic at hand; Hillary turned in another impressive performance at the debate yesterday. yes, she got booed for going after Obama in his home town but at this point she is actually benefitting from being willing to take heat from constituants. she shows that she is willing to risk anger from special interest groups to do the right thing.
What was interesting was that Biden now seems to be clearly running for Hillary's VP. He (and Dodd to some extent) really went after Obama, letting her stay mainly above the fray. I had thought that Richardson would be the ideal VP cabdidate for her but Biden would be a most intiguing choice.
yes, she got booed for going after Obama in his home town but at this point she is actually benefitting from being willing to take heat from constituants.
If, by benefiting, you mean getting you to switch parties to vote for her in the primaries, sure.
If it means doubling Hillary's support within the party, she'll feel free to offer the vice presidency to Obama or Edwards. But doing so now would be foolish, since her role as the top-tier hold-out recipient of corporate contributions simply means removing one of them would send his support to the other. Those two, on the other hand, are free to team up their support with no incompatibility whenever one of them feels like giving the other the primary.
Biden probably hurts the credibility of her anti-war resolve in the primaries, so she wouldn't make him an offer unless she has a clear party-win on her own, and Richardson can only help out in securing the support of cock-fighting patrons, whose favor he curried in his gubernatorial reelection by waiting until after his win to outlaw it.
It seems Hillary is at the disadvantage of not benefiting from bringing on a vp candidate until after she wins her party free-and-clear on her own.
Hmmm. My prediction is that Richardson will be on the Democrat ticket as the VP no matter who gets the nomination. With the growing Latino presence in many swing states, he is a natural choice. Further, he has plenty of experience.
From a political perspective, the only one that could be better would be to get Bill Clinton on the ticket for veep.
Although the idea of Bill Clinton as a Vice-Presidential candidate is amusing, it would never happen even if it is constitutional.
First, I believe the Constitution states that the Pres & VP have to be from different states. I strongly doubt the Clintons maintain separate legal addresses. And that doesn't even touch on the issue that Bill Clinton served two terms as POTUS.
More importantly, Hillary Clinton is not going to make Bill her VP candidate in a million years. She has worked hard to establish her credentials as a politician separate from him. Although she will always be associated with him in people's minds, making him the VP candidate would destroy whatever reputation she has built up of independence. Also, any benefits that she would garner from him in such a position she pretty much has from simply being married to him. Before Darth Cheney established the Fourth Branch of Government(TM), the VP served mostly as a good will ambassador and (if he was lucky) a trusted advisor. Bill Clinton can do all of that without being vested with the duties of the VP. If Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, her choice of VP will almost certainly be one of her opponents that she thinks can deliver a block of voters that she wouldn't get without them. Bill Clinton simply does not meet that criterion.
Finally, even if he could be VP, he couldn't take over the office if (God forbid) something took out the President. I think the Constitution is clear on that one. The Speaker of the House would be next in line, and I don't think any candidate willing to let House of Representatives choose who's a single heartbeat away from the Presidency instead of making that choice themselves actually disserves to be President. Not that I think that the House would necessarily pick a Speaker who couldn't fill those shoes, but that it can't be known. I like to think that more thought goes into choosing the VP than "Let the House work that out. I'm sure that anyone who can be Speaker can also be President."
If, by benefiting, you mean getting you to switch parties to vote for her in the primaries, sure.
No, by benefiting I mean up 8 points in two weeks. There's also the poll released today from quinnipiac showing Hillary with a 30 (!) point advantage over Obama in delegate rich Florida, (Edwards is at an anemic 8%), a 25 point lead in Ohio and a 16 point lead in Pennsylavania. Somehow I don't think she will lose much sleep over the "disadvantage" of having to wait to see which of the losers get her nod for VP.
Hmmm. My prediction is that Richardson will be on the Democrat ticket as the VP no matter who gets the nomination. With the growing Latino presence in many swing states, he is a natural choice. Further, he has plenty of experience.
I agree, but I just wonder if Hillary will be willing to take the chance...she's already breaking ground, why push it? Frankly, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be well nigh unbeatable but there's the possibility that I'm 100% wrong and there are enough people who don't want a woman or a Black to make it a risky move.
I am amazed that Hillary keeps racking up those good numbers. Of course, I'm equally amazed that Giulliani hasn't self-destructed, too. Although, his daughter throwing her support to Obama had to sting.
It looks like a Clinton vs. Romney match-up as of now, although the primaries are still long road ahead, so I'm not making any final predictions. Anything can happen. We've seen lots of candidates who seemed to have a major lead only to fizzle out pretty quickly (Dean in 2004, McCain in 2000).
I can't say that any candidate has really impressed me yet, but I'll tell you that what the democrats need is someone who can project optimism and revive that good old "can do" American attitude. I think the voters are hungry for that as they grow weary of the Republican mantra of "be afraid, be very afraid."
No, by benefiting I mean up 8 points in two weeks. There's also the poll released today from quinnipiac showing Hillary with a 30 (!) point advantage over Obama in delegate rich Florida, (Edwards is at an anemic 8%), a 25 point lead in Ohio and a 16 point lead in Pennsylavania. Somehow I don't think she will lose much sleep over the "disadvantage" of having to wait to see which of the losers get her nod for VP.
When asked about Hillary's national lead, the Obama camp rightly responded that the top-tier candidates are more or less tied in Iowa. If Hillary comes in third in Iowa, her national lead won't save her. If Hillary is counting on raw domination in the national polls to create voter-awe in Iowa, as you seem to think, she is toast and she deserves to lose.
Upsets are more common in the liberal party because liberal voters seem to hold out on committing until the last minute, apparently so their vote is backed by authenticity of their spontaneity. This approach has problems translating into a win in the general election, as Kerry backing away from presenting himself as the hero-candidate his party chose him as, to perhaps nurture this spontaneity in his supporters, demonstrates.
But if Hillary can't grasp that "I'm dominating the national polls, I'm entitled" is the most inauthentic stance she can take to Iowa, she should start carrying candy in her pockets in the hope she'll at least make a decent piñata when she busts.
Ok this is gonna be my last comment on this blog from Mr. David. I don't think she gets the nomination especially if Edwards grows up and becomes Obama's second. Secondly if she does she won't get a dime from me or my vote, neither will the Republicans. If she wins the General Election I am moving out of this country because, and I don't care if she is a woman or not but I think there is an inherent evil in that woman's eyes and I don't want to be around to let her run our country. Peace to all of you and good luck to your candidates.
Bye, Steve.
I hear that Perth is lovely this time of year. Might be a good place to start looking.
~8?)
If the current anti-war Dems can find it in their hearts to forgive Hillary for her yes vote to the war, maybe she will get the nod. I dont think she has heard the last about that. It seems the more she tries to explain it the deeper it puts her.
As for her choice of vice (no pun) No way will it be Obama, They're getting pretty nasty trying to take each other out. So much so that I dont see Obama forgiving her. I think a Edwards or as everyonr else here thinks Richardson.
As for the final run it will be Hillary vs Thompson and Im hoping Thompson but it will probably be Hillary with absolutly no questions to the vote count.
Pat Nolan: If the current anti-war Dems can find it in their hearts to forgive Hillary for her yes vote to the war, maybe she will get the nod.
If she looks like the best overall person to beat the Republicans, she'll get the nod no matter what. That's the fun thing about partisan politics, you keep your people so scared of the other side that they'll vote for you no matter what. Look at all the support the Dems have, despite Pelosi completely backing out on her promises after she got what she wanted (Speaker of the House). Yet Dems still fanatically support her. Why? Because it's either her or a Republican, and the Republican is even worse in their eyes.
As for her choice of vice (no pun) No way will it be Obama, They're getting pretty nasty trying to take each other out. So much so that I dont see Obama forgiving her. I think a Edwards or as everyonr else here thinks Richardson.
You have to think like a politician, though (and that's not a fun thing to do). I've never understood it either, but apparently you can viciously go after people in these debates, tell everyone what a shitty candidate they would be for President, yet when it's over one of them is supremely qualified to become your Vice Presidential candidate.
Personally, I'm hoping Edwards gets the nod. He seems pretty solid, and I'd like to see him get some years as experience as VP and then run for President after 8 years.
If Hillary comes in third in Iowa, her national lead won't save her. If Hillary is counting on raw domination in the national polls to create voter-awe in Iowa, as you seem to think, she is toast and she deserves to lose.
No, I rather doubt that the 30% lead she may have in Florida will suddenly vanish as Floridinians suddenly are confronted with supporting someone wo came in third in Iowa. That's the sort of old school thinking that might have been valid before but is unlikely to hold true now. Different times.
Now, I can see where the Edwards supporters would LIEK to beliec=ve that Iowa could kill off Hillart. Edwards has practically lived there since 2004. His strategy, not a bad one, is to win Iowa, win Nevada, take a close loss in in NH and go into the super tuesday contest as the candadate with momentum. But for all his work he is now in a virtual 3 way tie in Iowa. If he fails to win it will be considered a major, possibly fatal, loss.
Again I ask--is there anyone who thinks that Edwards, Obama, or any of the others would not gladly trade their position for the one Hillary is in?
I don't think she gets the nomination especially if Edwards grows up and becomes Obama's second.
I don't see Edwards wanting to be VP. He'd be better off waiting for the next election (and secretly hoping the Democrats lose this one). I also don't see any great reason for anyone to WANT him for VP as he didn't set the world on fire during his last run.
An Obama/Edwards ticket has the disadvantage of 2 one term senators running together. Obama would be better off with someone who is considered a repected elder statesman, a Lloyd Benson type.
If she wins the General Election I am moving out of this country because, and I don't care if she is a woman or not but I think there is an inherent evil in that woman's eyes and I don't want to be around to let her run our country.
Oh good grief. She'll be fine. Where is this mythical country that people always threaten to go to where election always go the way they want them to?
Pat Nolan: If the current anti-war Dems can find it in their hearts to forgive Hillary for her yes vote to the war, maybe she will get the nod.
I'm with Scott on this--whatever they say now, they will enthusiastically support her when push comes to shove. The few who actually are true believers will be tossed overboard--look at how Cindy Sheehan became persona non grata at dialykos after threatening to run against Pelosi.
Now, I can see where the Edwards supporters would LIEK to beliec=ve that Iowa could kill off Hillart.
A sentence for the ages. :)
Curse this windows visa and its inabilty to let me use Firefox with built in spell check!!!
I suppose I'm going to be forced to use the alternate method of actually going back over what I wrote before hitting the post button.
Typing on a laptop with a keyboard built for hands the size of an oompah loompah's doesn't help either.
If Hillary comes in third in Iowa, her national lead won't save her. If Hillary is counting on raw domination in the national polls to create voter-awe in Iowa, as you seem to think, she is toast and she deserves to lose.No, I rather doubt that the 30% lead she may have in Florida will suddenly vanish as Floridinians suddenly are confronted with supporting someone wo came in third in Iowa. That's the sort of old school thinking that might have been valid before but is unlikely to hold true now. Different times.
Florida is 5th in line. When the rest of the nation looks like they are choosing between 2 democrats, Florida is not going to withhold its influence on its pick of them out of dedication to anyone.
Now, I can see where the Edwards supporters would [LIKE] to [believe] that Iowa could kill off [Hillary]. Edwards has practically lived there since 2004. His strategy, not a bad one, is to win Iowa, win Nevada, take a close loss in in NH and go into the super tuesday contest as the candadate with momentum. But for all his work he is now in a virtual 3 way tie in Iowa. If he fails to win it will be considered a major, possibly fatal, loss.
I take it you don't consider Edwards vulnerable in South Carolina. A South Carolina victory, plus a lack of veterans in the top-tier of primary candidates, might be enough for Edwards to recover even from third in Iowa.
I take it you don't consider Edwards vulnerable in South Carolina. A South Carolina victory, plus a lack of veterans in the top-tier of primary candidates, might be enough for Edwards to recover even from third in Iowa.
Since South Carolina is his birth state, one would hope that he might be able to pull off something there. It's the only state he managed to win in his last presidential bid. A thin rope indeed upon which to hangs one's hopes for ultimate victory.
But since you brought it up...the latest poll I've been able to find, (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index-2.html) from South Carolina has the following: Obama--33% Clinton--29% Edwards--18%
Oh dear...
Curse this windows visa and its inabilty to let me use Firefox with built in spell check!!!
It's not the lack of spell check, Bill, it's that you forgot that you must think in Russian!
Scott is right. Clinton and Obama are going hard at eat other simply because they are the 1st and 2nd leading candidates so far. Politics is a rough and tumble game, but the ones who succeed in it are the ones who don't take what's said on the campaign trail seriously. There's no requirement that the president and VP like each other. It's well known that Johnson hated the Kennedys and thought they were spoiled brats. In fact, prior to this administration, the VP has always been the least important member of any administration. Usually, he's not a long term crony of the president or even someone he (or she) knows well. The VP nominee has historically been someone picked to provide geographic balance to the ticket to help, say a northern president do better in southern states.
What makes Cheney so different from past VPs is that he appears to have his hands in virtually every policy decision made by the Bush administration. Most of the time, the VP is kept "out of the loop", as GHW Bush once said. For example, Truman didn't even know about the Manhatten Project until after FDR died.
So, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is a definite possibility. Obama can help with the warm and fuzzy campaign stumping that isn't exactly Hillary's strong suit. The only problem with that is all the shots they're taking at each other now will be used by the republicans against them. I can the ad now: "Why would Hillary put a man she considers 'naive' a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
I doubt Edwards will take the VP slot. While I think Kerry, being such an abysmal candidate would have lost w/o Edwards, he's too tied to that losing ticket in the democrats mind. Richardson would get the nod before him.
But since you brought it up...the latest poll I've been able to find, (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index-2.html) from South Carolina has the following: Obama--33% Clinton--29% Edwards--18%
Oh dear...
Well, Obama is another top-tier democratic candidate who is not Hillary Clinton. The page you link to shows Obama leading in Iowa, South Carolina, and tying for New Hampshire. Since the evidence you provide confirms them, it's a wonder you're challenging any of Hillary's vulnerabilities I mentioned.
It's also certainly nice to know attributing black children to a candidate only seems to influence republican primaries in South Carolina.
It's also certainly nice to know attributing black children to a candidate only seems to influence republican primaries in South Carolina.
really? that happened? Gee, I'm surprised you never brought it up before!
If only Edwards COULD father a black baby, it might help him negate the disadvantge of being a white male that Elizabeth Edwards pointed out. It's worth a shot, nothing else seems to be getting much attention.
Well, Obama is another top-tier democratic candidate who is not Hillary Clinton. The page you link to shows Obama leading in Iowa, South Carolina, and tying for New Hampshire. Since the evidence you provide confirms them, it's a wonder you're challenging any of Hillary's vulnerabilities I mentioned.
Only if you cherry pick the polls. Yes, she is not ahead in all of them. I never said she would win them all. But I predict she will win the nomination. She's ahead in CA, NY, Alabama, SC, New Hampshire (Had you gone to the more recent polling on Realclearpolitics you would have seen that the current poll has it Clinton 36, Obama 19, Edwards 15) Iowa (again, going to page 1 of realclearpolitics gives you the recent data--I linked to page 2 only because it had South carolina, the state in question. the most recent Iowa poll has Clinton--27 and Edwards and Obama tied at 22), Florida, Ohio, etc, etc...and in the general election she leads 40 to Obama's 21 and Edward's 13...
Such vulnerability!
And once again, I point out that I doubt that any of her opponents would not gladly trade their current positions for hers. She is the favorite to win. As the old saying goes, The race does not always go to the swift nor the battle to the strong...but that's the smart bet.
But we will see all too soon. There's always the possibility of some kind of disaster on the scale of Gary Hart's "follow me around, you'll be bored" or George Allen using a new word to add to your vocabulary.
Edwards' problem is that he's been pegged as the rich lightweight. At this point, more people probably know how much he's paid for a haircut than they do his stance on Iraq or healthcare. He's tried to position himself as the champion of the poor, but Sean Hannity and other radio gasbags have effectively neutralized his ability to even be taken seriously on it.
"Ooo! How can he seriously care about the poor when he pays $400 for a haircut!"
Yeah, like anyone thinks Sean Hannity gets his hair done at Supercuts.
Then there's, as I predicted, the fact that the Hannities have managed to create the impression that he's used his wife's cancer as an election strategy. Now everything she says is fodder for their shows.*
It's a shame. I did have hopes for him, but he's stumbled so much and failed to respond to the numerous slams on him. He's clearly out of his depth politically.
*Quick question: What do FDR, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all have in common?
Answer: Their political enemies all attacked them by go after their wives. I've often wondered why that tactic is so popular among the he-man macho republicans.
Answer: Their political enemies all attacked them by go after their wives. I've often wondered why that tactic is so popular among the he-man macho republicans.
Fred Thompsan and Rudy Gulliani have had their wives sniped at recently, so it isn't a one party problem. And Nancy Reagan certainly had her share of attacks.
As for Elizabeth Edwards, I think she ought to be the one running. Almost everything of interest out of that campaign has been from her.
Calling Thompson's wife a "trophy wife" is hardly comparable as the nastiness that Teresa Heinz-Kerry endured. I mean, calling her too attractive for Thompson isn't really much of a "snipe".
As for Giulliani, the slams haven't been so much about his current wife, but about how he's a serial adulterer who dumped wifey number 2 on TV. So, the sniping about her is more of a direct attack on HIS actions.
Even so, the republicans are the ones who love to pump themselves up on testosterone and proclaim that they're the macho he-men who will protect us from them "terrists" and that the dems are a bunch of effect francophiles and defeatists. Makes me wonder then why so many of these manly men go after their opponents by attacking their wives.
It's also certainly nice to know attributing black children to a candidate only seems to influence republican primaries in South Carolina.really? that happened? Gee, I'm surprised you never brought it up before!
In the 2000 primary, the Bush campaign phoned and arbitrarily asked republican voters how their learning McCain had fathered a black baby would affect their vote, and McCain's loss in South Carolina has been attributed to this tactic. I don't consider inconveniencing the privileged by disregarding their taboo against discussing ethnicity a reason why it shouldn't be cited in qualifying the president as a scumbag. If anything, the only virtue of such privileges and taboos is to shelter the dysfunction.
Being a republican, you might have missed that the early frontrunner taking the party nomination is only a republican trend.But my prediction is that she wins it and so far everything that is happening supports that prediction.
Everything except the trend of upsets in democratic presidential primaries.As the old saying goes, The race does not always go to the swift nor the battle to the strong...but that's the smart bet.
Again, if Hillary announces her intention to reform the system in which insurance companies increase their profits by denying care, she will have adopted an agenda most people have already made up their mind needs to be done and she is as qualified to fulfilling as anyone else -- the election would be hers to lose. But her reserving the privilege of accepting lobby-dollars suggests she will not do that.
Otherwise, as extraordianry as parleying her husband's infidelity into a senate seat is, there is no infidelity severe enough to carry her to the white house. Her current lead may be accounted for by the hopeful projections by American liberals, but I don't see hopeful projections carrying her through the crush of the primaries starting 6 months from now.
Oh dear...
Such vulnerability!
No electoral victory can be provided by your snarling alone. By your own account of human nature, your snarling can only backfire on Hillary.
Poor Mike. Inconvienence him with facts and he calls it snarling.
That you would think that Hillary's senate victory can be attributed to simply New Yorkers "parleying her husband's infidelity into a senate seat" indicates a slight disconnect with reality.
This mental block you have against Hillary seems to be far beyond the usual and normal disagreement over politics. You seem to feel a need to deny truths which are evident to anyone. What will you do if she wins--cover your ears and sing Jimmy Crack Corn for 4 years (maybe 8)?
But ok, I think we've made our points. I think Hillary is doing very well and will win. You think she is very vulnerable and will not win unless she stops taking lobby-dollars. Time will tell.
We've known the Alaska Way Viaduct could come down in an earthquake (and has cracks in in it now); the 520 bridge is too small and needs updating.
Yet the anti-tax fools keep blocking tax increases, the NIMBYs keep blocking construction, the esthetics want a Perfect Solution...
And let's not forget the Mayor who's hell-bent on replacing the Viaduct with a tunnel -- next to Puget Sound -- behind a seawall that's being damaged by nematodes -- with no escape routes if things go wrong -- in a city where, during the storms last November, a person drowned after getting stuck in his car in flooding under the Aurora Avenue bridge -- for at least a billion dollars more than would be required to simply replace the Viaduct...
...and he can't see anything wrong with that plan...
Den : "Edwards' problem is that he's been pegged as the rich lightweight. At this point, more people probably know how much he's paid for a haircut than they do his stance on Iraq or healthcare. He's tried to position himself as the champion of the poor, but Sean Hannity and other radio gasbags have effectively neutralized his ability to even be taken seriously on it."
That's one of the things that amazes me about the sheer stupidity of a portion of the electorate. Edwards gets knocked as being a rich lawyer and as being privileged. His haircut became some kind of symbol of how he couldn't possibly relate to the "common" people. The thing was (as you touched upon in your posting) that the people whipping this idea up, while claiming to represent the common man themselves, are all overpaid gasbags with multi-million dollar book, radio, newspaper and TV deals. Hell, Rush, who banged away on Edwards haircut as a sign of being out of touch with the common people, has boasted on his radio program about the fact that he won't pump his own gas and always pulls into the full service pumps. And this was while people were complaining about the $3.00+ gallon of gas price from the early summer.
Never underestimate the stupidity of some people or at least the desire to believe what they want to believe no matter how hypocritical or contradictory.
Den: "Answer: Their political enemies all attacked them by go after their wives. I've often wondered why that tactic is so popular among the he-man macho republicans. "
Which, as victims go, puts them in the company of Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd.
Bill Mulligan :"But ok, I think we've made our points. I think Hillary is doing very well and will win. You think she is very vulnerable and will not win unless she stops taking lobby-dollars. Time will tell."
Which also points out the sheer stupidity of another portion of the electorate. Hillary got roundly booed for stating that she will not refuse to accept lobbyist's cash, a portion of the Democrat's voting block goes goofy and then all the Democrat candidates go and pander their butts off to a lobby sponsored debate. The AFL-CIO is, like it or not, a lobbying body. Teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, fire-fighters, etc. are all groups that the candidates, all the candidates from both sides, run to for public endorsements and money. The same people jeering Hillary because "lobbyists" = "Big Business" are the same people saying that all of those groups I mentioned, as well as others, need more and better representation, money, support, etc. All the candidates that are sticking it to Hillary over her comments are the same candidates running to kiss the backsides of those same groups, those same lobbying bodies, for money and endorsements.
Makes you wonder who's worse...
Are the politicians worse because they're so transparent in their hypocrisy (due either to their own stupidity or the belief that we're that stupid) or are many of the voters on both sides worse for being that stupid, allowing themselves to be that blind and mindlessly regurgitating every bit of nonsense that they're feed via the sound-byte?
Sorry, but Edwards and Obama are playing verbal games when they say they don't accept money from "lobbyists." According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, "While they don’t accept money directly from federal lobbyists, Edwards and Obama are not above benefiting from the broader lobbying community. Both accept money from firms that have lobbying operations, and Obama in particular has tapped the networks of lobbyists’ friends and co-workers. Obama, a former state senator from Illinois, has long accepted money from state lobbyists."
When Hillary is perceived as being dishonest, she gets slammed. When she's honest, she gets slammed. Some people want to eat their cake and have it, too.
Frankly, I find her stance on lobbyists refreshing. While I too would prefer that lobbyists were taken out of the picture, at least she has the guts to be up front about what she's doing. Obama and Edwards are being mealy-mouthed twits.
Jerry, it's the zealots who act this way and it's mostly just because they will say anything to get their candidate elected, even if it directly contradicts what they said the day before yesterday. Some of these folks are like those people you see who root for a college sports team and actually take it personally when they lose (or act like they were out on the field performing feats of valor when they win). They've invested too much of their own personal identity into others.
Did anyone watch the gay issues debate last night? Not a great format and surely there was no reason Melissa Ethridge needed to be one of the questioners...the last thing we need is to encourage the cult of celebrity...but to their credit some of the questioners really held the candidate's feet to the fire (although I wish more of them in all of the debates would just repeat "You're not answering the question" when the candidates go off topic, as they do on virtually every opportunity.)
Richardson is probably wishing he'd gone fishing with Biden and Dodd instead of showing up. They asked him if he thought homosexuality was a choice or bilogical. he said choice. You could almost feel the temperature in the room drop. I was witing for a buzzer to sound. Bleeerrrgh! "Oh, I'm sorry. The correct answer was "Biological". Thanks for playing, here's some swell parting gifts."
Zealots... Idiots... Mindless twits... Pretty much just different names for the same thing. Like I told Megan over on the spider bite thread, we like to confuse the issues so much that way. It's kind of like what I was telling Myers the other day. He says Northerner, some say Yankee and I say uncultured, collinearly deprived city monkeys. Same thing really.
He says Northerner, some say Yankee and I say uncultured, collinearly deprived city monkeys. Same thing really.
As much as I want to agree, being a transplant to Dixie and all, I can only reply: Boiled Peanuts.
What. The. Hell.
Jerry Chandler: "He says Northerner, some say Yankee and I say uncultured, collinearly deprived city monkeys."
Jerry, the Civil War ended over one hundred years ago. The North won and the South lost. Get over it.
P.S. Jerry, there is a joint in Upstate New York called the Dinosaur BBQ, and they have the second-best ribs in the world. My girlfriend does the first-best.
P.P.S. It's not my fault that you live in a log cabin with a dirt floor and have neighbors named "Bi