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
• 
I 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 ášš 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 ášš 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 dámņëd-ìf-ÿøû-dø/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. 😛
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 áššëš 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. Ðámņëd if she does, dámņëd if she doesn’t. Still, I agree that she’ll likely be less dámņëd 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.
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.
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.
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 dámņ 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
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?
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!