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
• 
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
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.
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 dámņëd, 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.
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 hëll 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 hëll 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 çøçk-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.”
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 šhìŧŧÿ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No electoral victory can be provided by your snarling alone. By your own account of human nature, your snarling can only backfire on Hillary.