Radley Balko doesn't like Hillary Clinton:
As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's "right" to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it'll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn't good for our republic.Neither is our overly interventionist foreign policy, or the continuing erosion of our civil liberties, be it in the name of "family values," government paternalism, the war on drugs, or the war on terror.
Activists on the left need to recognize that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic primary is the GOP's last best hope to elect a Republican to continue pursuing President Bush's pursuit of these unfortunate policies. And judging by her political career and recent voting record, they should also realize that even if they succeed in electing Hillary Clinton to the White House, it's likely that the only real resulting change in Washington will be that come 2009, we'll merely have a Democrat pursuing the same misguided policies.
In our magazine, Caitlin Flannigan is also disenchanted, for slightly more personal reasons:
Hillary started taking Socks with her on personal appearances, and a cartoon version of him was installed on the White House Web site, so that children could take virtual tours of the building with Socks as their guide. And then, of course, there was Hillary’s crowd-pleaser, Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets. The book showcases the way Hillary wanted to be seen as a first lady: not an aesthete like Jackie, not a shopaholic like Nancy, not a country-club dowager like Bar. Hillary wanted to be seen as warm, spontaneous to the point of being a little bit silly sometimes; someone who always has a twinkle in her eye whenever children are around. The book is, perforce, cloying, super-cute, and pun-riddled, and it would stand today merely as a curio if Hillary had—for once in her life—avoided her characteristic flaw. If only she had resisted the urge to drift past the homey anecdotes and family photographs, everything would have been fine. But, Hillary being Hillary, she had to turn the book into a lecture on pet care, and the person whose shining example we should all follow was none other than Hillary herself.In Dear Socks, Dear Buddy, we are hectored never to give away a pet, always to regard one as an “adoption instead of an acquisition,” and to be forever on guard for its physical safety (cold comfort to Buddy, who had barely sniffed his first Chappaqua crotch before the poor beast ran off and got killed by a car, as had the Clintons’ previous dog, the much-loved but equally ill-tended Zeke). Hillary tells us that the Clintons “didn’t take on the responsibility of our pets lightly,” and more than anything, the reader is left with a vivid impression of Socks’s central position in the heart of the Clinton family: When they arrived in Washington, they brought with them from Little Rock their “family traditions, favorite pictures, and personal mementos to make the White House feel more comfortable.” But it was only when Socks appeared on the scene—bringing with him his “toy mouse”—that “this house became a home.” (Hillary’s literary exploitation of Socks continued long after she discarded him. On the second-to-last page of her memoir Living History, she offers a dreamy, after-the-ball portrait of her family savoring their last days in the White House: wandering down to the Children’s Garden one last time, Chelsea and Hillary admiring the handprints of former presidents’ grandchildren, Bill tossing the ball for Buddy, while Socks … “kept his distance.”)
Hillary’s insistence that we follow her example in pet ownership, when she should really be on Cat Fancy’s Most Wanted list, makes her a tiresome bore. But exploiting the emotions of good-natured people (including “many of the retired servicemen and women who live at the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home in Washington, D.C.,” whose bravery and patriotism she honored by having them send out kitty-cat “greetings” to Socks’s correspondents)—well, that’s just another example of her three-decade-long drift from the girl she once was to the woman that circumstance and ambition have made her.
I have, as of yet, no real opinion about the race, except, as stated before, that I think Giuliani is crazier than a funhouse full of drunk chimps. But what I wonder about Hillary is: do Democrats really like her? Or do they just think that other people like her?
That, after all, was the main problem with John Kerry: he was a Democrat's notion of what a Republican wanted to vote for. After all, he served in 'Nam! I know of exactly one person who was really enthused about Kerry before he won the nomination--and that person worked for the Kerry campaign. Yet somehow, my friends were actually surprised when it turned out that no one else liked John Kerry any more than they did.
I get a similar lukewarm vibe about Hillary from many of the people I know. They themselves will vote for her in the general election because she's a Democrat. But the reasons that they offer that other people will vote for her are kind of lame. Like, she's female. Or she's a Clinton. Or . . . hey, have you noticed, she's a woman? Women love that. And they're half the population!
No one ever argues that they'll vote for her because she's got sound policy ideas and a winning personality, which kind of seem like the criteria Democrats ought to be using.
What's weird is, in their quest to nominate a candidate who can win, it seems like Democrats are going to pick the one with the greatest chance of losing. After the disaster of the Bush administration, it seems hard to imagine any Republican pulling a victory out of this next election. But Hillary seems like the Democratic candidate most likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Unlike the other Democrats, she has absolutely enormous negative baggage, and it's all going to come out during the general election. The only reason it hasn't already (or so I mote) is that the other Democratic candidates are trying to avoid doing anything to tarnish the nostalgic glow that currently surrounds the last Democratic presidency. The GOP candidate will have no such restraint. Moreover, I think Democrats are underestimating just how suspicious Americans will be of a presidential roster that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.
It's not that I think she's likely to lose, exactly . . . but given how lukewarm they seem to be about her ideas, I don't understand why Democrats are willing to take the chance.
Nah, we don't really like Hillary, in the way some other candidates have their groupies. We think, however, that she is the least likely to mess things up--in the campaign, or in the country for four or eight years thereafter. Do a little thought-experiment. Can you imagine Obama or Edwards seriously lousing-up a debate, or failing to deliver an effective counter-punch to the inevitable Republican attack? Yeah, I thought you could, and you don't need a novelist's flair, either. Now imagine Hillary doing any of that, even though she will be attacked more harshly and relentlessly. Can't do it, can you? Me either. This speaks to something creepy about her, of course, but I want a winner and she is it.
'As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's "right" to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming.'
I don't think the "left" will do any such thing. The left already attack her routinely, specifically her foreign policy positions, and her attitudes about power. And it isn't really a surprise when Democrats attack a Democratic president, is it.
Hillary's support is, despite your casual dismissal, from people who support the name 'Clinton' and those who want a woman president. Her policies, from a Democratic perspective, are OK, if not thrilling. Her chances in the primary are not dependent on whether her policies are good enough, but rather are they bad enough to negate her inherent advantage.
Keep in mind, Giuliani V Clinton looks like the best match up the Republicans can hope for - now. But Hillary has already been subject to the most extensive negative propaganda campaign any pre-presidential candidate has ever faced, and her numbers still look good. Rudy is known to have a few walk-in closets full of skeletons that have not been exploited yet on a national level. He will tank worse than Dole or Dukakis after the conventions.
I think most Democrats who think about it realize that Edwards would easily trounce any Republican candidate while Hillary Clinton might have a close race. I don't think that is a big deal at this point. Democrats are assuming at this point that any candidate they nominate will win, so they support who they like. If the Republicans were putting up anyone who could possibly win, the Democrats might rethink their preferences.
this speaks much to a confounding trend... people don't vote for who they want, they vote against who they cannot stand. I voted for Nader purely because I thought he would be more likely to tell the truth... and all my Dem friends complained that I was taking a vote away from Gore. "I wouldn't have voted for him either... I would have rather voted for Bill the cat and Opus." I don't mind Bush as much as I hate the team he chose. So far I haven't seen anyone on the horizon worth anything, but I see Hilly as "Bill With Clevege" There were good economic times then, but part of that was about what was neglected, and they were already ending as he left office. I don't see anything she is interested in that isn't pandering to people about what she could never hope to fund. Sure she would give me a pony, without telling me how much it would cost to keep one.
The bottom line is whoever we vote for will have to sink or swim, and the President has a very complex job. If anyone thinks a dem will withdraw from Iraq they are delisional. It would start a regional war, and possibly a world war.
Nothing is as easy as that. A politician that promises you a chicken in every pot, is neglecting to tell you that not only will you be paying for it, they are going to charge you an administrative fee as well....
Anybody who has a real burning desire to be President of the United States is overwhelmingly likely to be a Grade-A, goldplated, certifiable jerk of titanic proportions. The first test of professional competency for such people is to effectively obscure the fact that they are Grade-A, goldplated, certifiable, jerks of titanic proportions, and thus not throw away any votes. Giuliani and Senator Clinton, unlike Presidents Reagan and Clinton, utterly fail in this test of professional competency, and it is rather telling that they lead in the polls. As Casey Stengal asked, when he went from managing the late 50s Yankees, to the early 60s Mets, can't anybody here play this game?
Oh, I agree, D. I've often voted for the Libertarian candidates for President, not because I support the crazy Libertarian Party or their candidates, but mostly because I despise the Republicans and Democrats. However, I did vote for Bush in '00 and '04. In '00 I voted for Bush, despite deciding that I would dislike nearly everything about his domestic policies (a near certainty from a guy who made his pile via taxpayer subsidies and eminent domain) because I was so damned tired of all things Clinton, and Gore was close enough, and I voted again for Bush because I loathed Kerry for supporting the nuclear freeze movement of the early '80s. I am so sick of all things Bush at this point that I might vote for Senator Clinton, despite loathing her quite a bit as well, since any Republican might be close enough to Bush.
"'As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's "right" to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming.'
I don't think the "left" will do any such thing. The left already attack her routinely, specifically her foreign policy positions, and her attitudes about power. And it isn't really a surprise when Democrats attack a Democratic president, is it."
Ditto.
For me, Edwards makes the needle jump rightward on the ol' loathometer like no other candidate, and is the person most likely to convince me to vote for a Republican. The notion of a guy who made a pile in part by making phony claims regarding the cause of cerebral palsy, and now delivers lectures about "two Americas" is waaaaay to creepy for me.
Justin, the "left" will likely denouce such acts by Clinton right up until the time that Republicans start getting any traction by hypocritically attacking her for such behavior. The "left" then will likely circle the wagons and defend the tribe. We saw the same thing ten years ago. The "left" fully supported the notion that a woman who filed a sexual harrassment lawsuit should have broad discretion in the civil discovery process to delve into other sexual relationships the civil defendent had. Then, when their tribal chief was subjected to said civil discovery, it suddenly became outrageous that he was made to answer questions under oath about Monica Lewinsky.
When did "enthused" replace "enthusiastic"? And who do I have to kill to change it back?
Substantively, while I can't disagree with anything Megan wrote, Rich hints at what she's missing: Hillary seems likely to campaign well. Barack is not as tested (his Senate opponent imploded, and was replaced at the last minute by a carpetbagger nutjob), and therefore more of a gamble. Edwards has a bit more of a track record, but he lost the nomination once already and gained a hard-to-shed image as a lightweight pretty boy. From an apparent-competence standpoint, Hill's the best of the leading group.
(As for why Richardson can't get traction, I don't know, but it's a pity.)
Hillary has a certain appeal. She is a very classy lady - so says anyone who knows her personally. She comes across as thoughtful and competent to those who know her by her public record. She appears intelligent, friendly and judicious to those who only know her from her TeeVee appearences.
But to those who only know her as defined by the conservative wackoes she is the devil incarnate.
All and all she is pretty much the definition of what we want as the first woman President of the United States. I can't think of any other woman who could pull it off.
FYI, there are two l's in Hillary and you have just headlined two posts using only "l."
Holy moly, that Caitlin Flannigan excerpt is the most excruciating thing I've read in months. Of course, she is excruciating generally, so I guess that makes sense.
Hillary's "absolutely enormous political baggage" has been rehashed and scrutinized to the point that, while it surely will rile up the yahoos again and we'll see unflattering pics of her on NRO for the foreseeable future, the adults in this nation are over it. What's going to happen next - will Rich Lowry or Dick Morris write yet another 'expose' bio that goes over old ground? Did you know that she didn't bring in a new White House Travel Office team as artfully as she could have? Oh, the scandal! (Hey, maybe they'll find the pistol she used to shoot Vince Foster! Keep hope alive!)
She's not my first, or even second, choice among the Dems, but - and this is a pretty widespread sentiment - she trumps that entire freak show of a field the GOP has assembled.
"I think most Democrats who think about it realize that Edwards would easily trounce any Republican candidate while Hillary Clinton might have a close race."
Wow, it's always enlightening to see how the other half thinks.
I thought 2004 had conclusively established that Edwards was a featherweight with nice hair, who couldn't bring a single electoral vote to the ticket. And what has he done since then to change that assessment?
I can easily imagine Hillary and Obama winning vs. various Republicans. But I'd think the Rs get big dreamy smiles on their face when they imagine a general election campaign vs. Edwards. Sort of a Godzilla vs. Bambi kind of thing.
After the disaster of the Bush administration, it seems hard to imagine any Republican pulling a victory out of this next election. But Hilary seems like the Democratic candidate most likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Unlike the other Democrats, she has absolutely enormous negative baggage, and it's all going to come out during the general election.
I have two problems with the above. Hillary's negative baggage does not pose a problem at all, assuming she makes it to the general election. If roughly half the population voted for Bush in the last couple of elections, that leaves fully half to lean Hillary's way. And that half that does not like Bush, and has suffered through eight years of Bush, is going to make sure they are united behind Hillary or whomever their candidate is. On health care alone, the difference between Reps and Dems is stark, so if money and organization carry her through the primaries, she will certainly have sizeable support going against whatever Republican makes it to the big election.
It's the Republicans that have huge baggage. More than a few suffer from social convictions that leave conservative and Christian voters lukewarm. More than a few Republicans have positions that have evolved in such a full circle that they can now look their own asses in the face (and kiss them).
So we have Republicans who have flipped about, and offering the same sort of Republican "tinkering" that the general population will not get behind. If the Republicans were smart, they would at least propose a massive and complete tax overhaul, rather than trying to get this or that adjusted, or indexed or rebated or refunded or...whatever.
And we won't even count all those people who have decided that Bush has been a "disaster", and will have opportunity to drift. This would include a large number of independents.
Of course (and my second point) one really cannot determine that Bush is a disaster until his greatest policy initiatives (Iraq and Afghanistan) run their course. Any sensible analysis can't really be made for another five to ten years. But while we wait, those of us who are not so ashamed of Bush can sit back and applaud his appointments to the Supreme Court, a court that in recent years has settled as much important policy as any other branch.
I understand when Democrats are pissed and want completely different policy choices or methods, but I dislike people who voted for Bush, but now have seen the light and look at the current situation from some elevated point of surprise and enlightenment, allowing themselves to be suckered into believing that the Bush administration can be summed up (and reduced to) the unresolved Iraq sitaution.
Just wanted to back up what Megan said; I won't vote for Hilary under any circumstances just because of the B/C/B/C dynasty. Here's my voting algorithm - cross people off until you've only got one candidate left. Yes, this is purely voting for the least worst.
1) Clinton
2) Edwards [he exceeds my slimy hypocrite tolerance)
3) Guliani [the crazy thing]
4) McCain [the hypocrite thing...liberty university, and McCain-Feingold]
5) Romney [I live in Mass & I've got to hope for greener grass...he's a null set]
If I'm lucky enough to see Obama/Thompson I'll be glad to do the work to extend the list, but I won't be surprised to find myself voting for Guliani. Fortunately, since I live in Mass my vote won't matter, and I'll be able to sleep soundly.
Since the Repiglican field is composed of scumbags, evil scumbags, crazy warmongering idiots, crazy religious warmongering idiots, and Ron Paul, who has no chance of being nominated and is sort of crazy himself, going with the eventual Dem nominee is a complete no-brainer.
All of the crap cons and dingbats chuck at HRC is identical to what was thrown at her husband - and those were 8 pretty damn good years for this country, especially when compared to the endless feces-storm of the Bushpig Error. She's not my first choice. She's not even my fourth. But she's infinitely better than any of the halfwitted torture-loving Bush apologists the GOP is trotting out.
Golly gee, Moe, by your logic FDR was the worst President of the 20th century, since the years 1933-1945 were as bad as any 12 consecutive years in this country's history.
Will Allen replies: "Golly gee, Moe, by your logic FDR was the worst President of the 20th century, since the years 1933-1945 were as bad as any 12 consecutive years in this country's history."
FDR won his war. Dumbya has screwed up two of them, against much lesser opposition - and he chose to fight one in Iraq which was completely unnecessary.
But I don't expect a two-time Bush voter to see the distinction. Given your track record you'd have been much happier if we'd lost WWII.
Hey, Moe, don't get snippy with me for emulating your titanic feat of reason.
Will Allen again: "Hey, Moe, don't get snippy with me for emulating your titanic feat of reason."
You're the genius that voted for Dumbya in 2004 because of some inane 20 year-old grievance against Kerry, chuckles. Let's not pretend that you know anything about reason.
You chose to vote for a proven malignant incompetent, and now you're "sick of all things Bush." Well, look in the mirror. You should be sick of yourself, and perhaps you should sit out a few elections and try to get your act together.
Moe, Kerry was a proven incompetent as well, which is why I didn't vote for him.
Will Allen replies: "Moe, Kerry was a proven incompetent as well, which is why I didn't vote for him."
As a voter, you're a proven incompetent, so recuse yourself.
Kerry wouldn't have been a great president, but at least he could probably see a difference between incompetency and "malignant incompetency," and you can't.
Is there a reason you didn't factor the benefits of a divided government into your ridiculous choice? Dumbya's many faults were magnified by the robber baron yes-men in the Repiglican-led Congress. Kerry would have (at least) offered some balance to that. But you and your ilk chose to give a marginal lunatic four more years.
Don't talk to me about reason. You're not qualified - you can't even admit a vote for Bush in 2004 was a mistake. In many ways you're even worse than the Malkins and the Hewitts.
Moe, to read your ravings in this forum, with remarks about others' supposed unqualified status to remark about reason, is an object lesson in unintended amusing irony.
A two-time Bush voter writes: "Moe, to read your ravings in this forum, with remarks about others' supposed unqualified status to remark about reason, is an object lesson in unintended amusing irony."
Then again, you're a two-time Bush voter, so your opinion here means almost as much to me as your hamster's would.
In a just world being a two-time Bush voter would carry the same societal opprobrium being a habitual flasher does... though flashers, at least, aren't condoning murder and torture. You did.
But what I wonder about Hillary is: do Democrats really like her? Or do they just think that other people like her?
Actually, no, I really don't think Clinton's support comes from people who think middle America will love Clinton. The people she does best with are young, liberal women. Her supporters tend to be more likely to oppose the war than those of other candidates. While I think Obama and Edwards are both more liberal than she, apparently lots of people disagree with me.
hey moe, look out for the ladder... whoop, whoop...
so, since you didn't leave the country and renounce your citizenship, you condoned the torture too, right? At least if we follow the same measure... And, I wonder, did voting for FDR cause monsterhood for anyone. After all, since he got us into a war instead of surrendering, we can balme plenty on him as well. How about Kennedy or LBJ?
oh, wait... they must be exceptions...
I have to admit that I was pretty disgusted with the Clintons the last time around. So it is with some surprise and a certain degree of unease that I've discovered that, all things being equal, Hillary is at the top of my list.
It's certainly not her character that's attractive. She's as phony as a three-dollar bill and has the instincts of a piranha. She's a creep. But I can't help but notice that the two presidents in recent history who acted on the strength of their convictions were Carter and W, and things didn't go so well with either of them in charge. Character and competence may not be negatively correlated, but they're certianly not positively correlated.
The thing that attracts me to Hillary is that she's really, really smart. She makes huge mistakes--once. Then she actually learns from them. She has no illusions about the world and understands how to wield power. But she acts very, very cautiously--one might even say conservatively.
My main concern is that we're going to have a Democratic congress with some teeth in '09. Hillary navigating GOP-infested waters would be a joy to behold. I think you could wind up with some excellent policy from that kind of antagonism. But Hillary with a lapdog congress scares the bejesus out of me.
So, I don't know if all things are equal or not. I'm not sure if Rudy is "crazier than a funhouse full of drunk chimps," but he might easily turn out to be, uh, colorful. I sure would love to be able to vote for somebody I'm actually excited about. Silly me.
D writes: "so, since you didn't leave the country and renounce your citizenship, you condoned the torture too, right? At least if we follow the same measure... And, I wonder, did voting for FDR cause monsterhood for anyone. After all, since he got us into a war instead of surrendering, we can balme plenty on him as well. How about Kennedy or LBJ?"
LBJ was purged by his own party as a result of the Vietnam fiasco, and rightly so. And "the same measure" doesn't require leaving the country or renouncing citizenship - I'm not sure how anyone could be stupid enough to think that it would or that I was saying anything of the sort. But in 2004 it was plain for anyone who cared to look what Bush was, and voting for him again was a vote for war crimes to continue. Deal with it, chuckles.
Going into Iraq wasn't an alternative to "surrender," and again I'm not sure how anyone can be stupid enough to think so. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and Iraq was no more a threat to the US than Mars is. I realize a majority of Repiglicans still think there was such a connection, but that's because they're living in a fantasy world.
If you live there, too, I pity you, because you're a fool.
ML&J thinks calling people "chuckles" is funny, calling people "Repiglicans" is rhetorically effective, and calling some of the Republicans running for president "crazy . . . idiots" while calling Ron Paul merely "sort of crazy", and yet somehow he thinks other people are "living in a fantasy world".
The thing that attracts me to Hillary is that she's really, really smart. She makes huge mistakes--once. Then she actually learns from them. She has no illusions about the world and understands how to wield power. But she acts very, very cautiously--one might even say conservatively.
I agree with very little else of what you say; Hillary is not a "creep", she's someone who doesn't have a knack for public speaking, and has been trying assiduously to overcome that deficit, which comes off as "artificial". But the above is right on. Hillary isn't going to light up any rooms the way Bill or Barack can, but she is relentless, careful, and disciplined, and she knows how to charm people in person.
One of the chief concerns I have is the Bush administration's legacy of hollowed-out government agencies packed with incompetent Republican political cronies, and the generation of talented civil servants -- many of them Republican -- who have left government due to politicization and hackishness over the past 7 years. I'm voting for Obama in the primaries, but Hillary is the candidate I see as most likely to take on the tedious task of rebuilding the federal government. More broadly, Hillary is a seasoned politician; she seems less likely to allow important initiatives to crash and burn through political miscalculation or over-exuberance. She's been through that stage already. With Obama, one worries that he may be just going through it.
Anyway, I hope that explains what would make me enthusiastic about a President Hillary, even if she's not my first choice.
For some reason, the "unelectable" Hillary is leading the "strongest" GOP candidate Giuliani in almost every poll, and in most of them doing better than Obama and Edwards. (She leads the other GOP candidates by greater margins than she leads Giuliani.) Fox News/Opinion Dynamics has her seven points ahead of Giuliani in a two-way race, ABC News/Washington Post eight points ahead, etc. See http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm Rasmussen has her ahead of Giuliani in four Southern states: Arkansas, Florida, Virginia, and Tennessee. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson Qunnipiac has her leading Giuliani by six points in Ohio and three in Florida--of course carrying either of those states would have been enough to elect Kerry in 2004. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_quinnipiac_flohpa_surveys_3.php SurveyUSA also has Hillary leading Giuliani in Flrodia (by only three points--but remember that Kerry didn't even come very close there in 2004). http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=13940d24-fd93-4086-8874-693723634885
And please don't say "Oh that will change when the GOP brings up the Clinton scandals next year." People already *know* about the Clinton scandals. (They also knew about them in the late 1990s, and they didn't seem to hurt her husband's job performance ratings then...) What they don't know about--and will learn next year from the Democrats--are the Giuliani scandals (e.g., Kerik): all they know about Giuliani now is that he's "the hero of 9/11"--and he *still* trails her in the polls... There are of course a large percentage of the voters who will never vote for Hillary but that is true of the all the other Democratic candidates as well, and is also emphatically true about Giuliani.
But if the GOP wants to stick to its "Hillary can't win" (or at least "she will be weaker than the other Democratic candidates") meme, that's fine with me.
Megan, I would add that one reason that libertarians and quasi-libertarians like you and Balko and even Andrew Sullivan underestimate her prospects is that you rightly sense that she is not (even to the extent that, say, a Democrat like Bill Richardson is) a libertarian--and in your milieu, it is natural to overestimate the number of libertarian voters, and to underestimate other groups in the electorate--e.g., the economically and socially moderate blue collar voters, especially women, who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, in some instances shifted to GW Bush, especially in 2004, and are now considering voting Democratic again but want a Democrat who does not seem too inexperienced or too "soft" on national security. These people do not dominate political discussions on the Internet, but they do help to decide elections.
heh, I got a new nickname... do I get to be an evil killer clown? Care to enumerate those war crimes? And because they were plain for anyone to see, and overwelming number of people voted for Kerry, right? Except where they didn't. I'm sorry your world is so incredibly black and white, sunshine. I believe you will find much disillusionment, when your favorite Dem [whoever it is] is elected Prez. The Presisdent does what they think necessary. And that may include tangling with Iran.
You may remember that Clinto/Gore not only launched strikes into Iraq [Operation Desert Fox Dec. 1998] but also got a bill through that mandated Iraq regime change HR4655 Iraq Liberation Act. Here an exerpt from his 1998 State of the Union Address:
""Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
He also was instrumental in starting the final split of Yugoslavia, and the campaign in Kosovo in 1999.
During Desert Fox, the UN thought Clinton was a loose cannon too.
So it's OBVIOUS Clinton was living in a fantasy world thinking that Iraq was a threat too.
Right, Kent?
oh, and for what it's worth, I vote for whoever I please, I'm and Independent.
AND interestingly enough...
This election ISN't about Bush. He's over. This is another issue I see as a problem for the Dems. He is still stealing their spotlight, and he isn't in the election...
Dr. Weevil writes: "ML&J thinks calling people "chuckles" is funny, calling people "Repiglicans" is rhetorically effective, and calling some of the Republicans running for president "crazy . . . idiots" while calling Ron Paul merely "sort of crazy", and yet somehow he thinks other people are "living in a fantasy world"."
Dr. Weevil needs some remedial work in crafting sentences and should be aware that the period belongs inside of the quotation mark, like "so."
Calling Repiglicans "Repiglicans" may not be rhetorically effective, but Weevil has responded to it more than once. It seems to be getting the job done. As I've said, I'll be happy to use another term if someone comes up with a better one. I just feel sorry for the ordinary Republicans who are now outnumbered in their own party by batshit-crazy Repiglicans.
I stand by my assessment of the sad pack of critters running on the GOP side. They're having the damnedest time raising money, too, so I suspect many Republicans agree with me. The Repiglicans do not, and that makes me happy.
D writes: "So it's OBVIOUS Clinton was living in a fantasy world thinking that Iraq was a threat too."
No. Read what I wrote, chuckles. I said Iraq was no threat to the US. It wasn't, then or now. It was a potential threat to the stability of the Middle East, and that's all it was. Clinton's rhetoric was just meant to justify keeping the clamps on Hussein. That's a whole lot different from invading the place in a half-assed fashion, as Dumbya did.
My world view is as far from "black and white" as it can get. But your arguments are as poor as your prose.
Poor Moe is unaware that whether punctuation goes inside or outside the quotation marks is a matter of taste. I consider the usual (but not universal) American standard ugly and illogical, and follow the British standard by choice, though I'm sometimes overruled by editors. He also thinks I object to "Calling Repiglicans 'Repiglicans'". He's welcome to make whatever tautological statements he wants about the figments of his own imagination. I've just pointed out to him more than once that his obsessive use of his own little made-up unfunny word makes him look really stupid -- like calling people "chuckles" over and over. Perhaps he's actually a paid operative of the Bush regime working deep under cover to make Bush's critics look bad.
Weevil wobbles: "He also thinks I object to "Calling Repiglicans 'Repiglicans'"."
I don't think you object to it, chuckles. I do know that you respond to it, though, and that alone makes it rhetorically effective. Just like "chuckles."
You don't get out much, do you?
My brother goes to school in Iowa, so he's seen all of the main Democratic contenders and he thought that Hillary was the most impressive. He thought she had the most sophisticated understanding of policy and was the most capable of actually successfully implementing those policies. So there's one. Granted, most people I know are in the lukewarm to hatred realm.
I plan to cast my first vote in the Democratic primary for Obama. I think he's an honest, liberal guy. Hillary is too into the nexus of personal stroke and political office. Real people are just furniture to her. I think the best example of this is the 'White House Travel Office scandal.' The travel office guys were just doing a government job. They were dismissed, lied about, initimidated, fortunately had the fortitude to fight back and win recompense in court. Add to this the cattle futures game, the billing records from the Rose law firm being lost and then appearing in the presidential library. For those liberals that say,'But policy, policy!, remember the reason we have Bush is, after Hillary's husband, propriety was the characteristic desired above all. Do you want then another Bush after Hillary? I hope we can pass on the tic-tock, tic-tock.
michael writes: "For those liberals that say,'But policy, policy!, remember the reason we have Bush is, after Hillary's husband, propriety was the characteristic desired above all."
And wasn't that stupid?
After Bush most people want a reasonable expectation of competence and intelligence, since Dumbya has been a wholly incompetent moron - and his "propriety" has involved torture and pointless warfare.
There's not much more funny than someone bringing up Travelgate after what we've seen over the past 6 1/2 years. It's like comparing a zit to a tumor.
The problems people had with Kerry, and for which I read continued evidence of in this thread, is that most people were seriously uninformed by his unique Senate record, and his high moral character. Most people really never bothered to learn the extraordinary courage he showed in trooping on investigating BCCI (not to mention Iran/Contra and CIA drugrunning), when the entire DC establishment worked against him (as it was quite embarrassing for so many people who were implicated on both sides of the aisle). Nobody seems to know about his impeccable environmental record, which is actually stronger than Al Gore's was in the Senate. Nobody knows that he spent years in the Senate making sure those Vietnam vets adversely effected by Agent Orange were taken care of by the government that had ordered that stuff be dumped on them -- and, Kerry toiled on this knowing full well that his name would not end up on the final bill (and therefore he wouldn't get the "credit"), because it was the right thing to do. Nobody knows that he has served as chairman/ranking member of the Small Business Committee in the Senate, and understands to remarkable detail how the companies who create the most jobs in the country function in our economy. These facts are only the tip of the iceberg. I suppose we can put partial blame on the campaign for not getting more of this out there. But even if they did, is solid good work like the above going to get more than glancing attention in our 10 second soundbite media world?
For those who think Kerry would be "incompetent", I think you confuse sounding snappy on TV versus good governance. There is no doubt in my mind that Kerry would have steered the ship of America with excellent management skills and a vision of open government not seen in my lifetime (I'm a Gen Xer) -- his record in the Senate shows someone who values open democracy. Open government is key, as corruption is what causes incompetence more than anything else. That is why the Bush administration is the failure that it is; it has never nor will it ever have the people's interests in mind.
Yes, beachmom, I have no doubt that you have no doubt.
gee, Moe, I am heartbroken that you think my arguments are so poor. I guess it won't help to point out that Desert Fox flew 600 sorties in a 70 hour period... dropped about 90 Air cruise missles at $1.2 million ea. and launched about 325 Tomahawk's at $1.3 million a pop. Plus other ordanance used... He spent $500mil for cruise missles alone on a 70 hour hit, that took out most of Saddam's missile development structures, plus republican guard bases, and as much command and control structure as they could... unfortunately they didn't take out much of his ability to make warheads of different kinds, and that is why they figured he had gone on with trying to make WMDs, AND THAT WAS Clinton's itelligence gathering, NOT W's
Links?
exec summary
BBC writeup
By the by... were you going to link to proof of W's war crimes, because I would certainly like to see them...
Right, Kent?
The point of the argument isn't about Bush. It's about the power that a Presisdents Adminstration must use when they think it necessary. It was Gore who started renditions, if you want to talk torture. The UN was completely against what Clinton did, and EVERYONE assumed he was wagging the dog because of Lewinsky. Truthfully if Clinton had finished what he started, we wouldn't be having this conversation about Iraq now.
D continues: "The UN was completely against what Clinton did, and EVERYONE assumed he was wagging the dog because of Lewinsky. Truthfully if Clinton had finished what he started, we wouldn't be having this conversation about Iraq now."
Dear Stupid:
If you think Clinton started actions against Iraq, I think you need to go back a little further and discover something those of us without brain injuries call "reality."
Good luck with your recovery.
aw, Moe, you disappoint me. I had so hoped you would back up anything you have said with facts... but, alas, earwax. I only pointed out that Clinton had done this particular action in Iraq, though actually it was his second action against them. He had targeted similarly in '96 as well. All based on Saddam's failures to follow UN instructions, and the threat he was posing regionally to the oil supply and the Kurds in '96, plus his adventures in seeking WMD and his continuing interest in bombing Israel for '98.
If you wish reality, these events are historical in nature, and they are documented. Claiming brain damage on my behalf is touching, but unecessary.
Thanks very much though.
If you think Hilly won't do this sort of thing, you may be in for a surprise. She has more cajones than Bill for a start, and it would certainly frost most Jihadis to realize the the Commander in Chief of the American forces was in fact a woman... Any of the presidential candidiates would do what's necessary against an enemy. Actually, even you might, if confronted with a situation like that...
Hey, are you running for president?
D diddles again: "aw, Moe, you disappoint me. I had so hoped you would back up anything you have said with facts... but, alas, earwax. I only pointed out that Clinton had done this particular action in Iraq, though actually it was his second action against them. He had targeted similarly in '96 as well. All based on Saddam's failures to follow UN instructions, and the threat he was posing regionally to the oil supply and the Kurds in '96, plus his adventures in seeking WMD and his continuing interest in bombing Israel for '98."
So what? Are you familiar with the first Gulf War? That's when the actions against Hussein started, chuckles. The Clinton actions don't amount to an invasion and occupation, which is where the stupidity came in. Nor do they amount to thinking Iraq was a threat AGAINST THE US. I realize you think, like Dumbya does, that anyone who doesn't like us deserves to be slaughtered, but I think that attitude is psychotic.
"Any of the presidential candidiates would do what's necessary against an enemy. Actually, even you might, if confronted with a situation like that..."
A situation like what? The war on Iraq was stupid. Acting against Iran now would be even more stupid, which is why you want it to happen.
" Nor do they amount to thinking Iraq was a threat AGAINST THE US." - moe
really? so you are saying that Clinton launched 415 cruise missles, along with other ordinance... for no apparent reason? I'd counter with H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act." signed 2 months before Desert Fox. Why would you have an act like that, if you didn't think Iraq was a threat?
Anyhow, yes these are after effects of Gulf1 in which iirc... Iraq invaded Kuwait and annexed it making it actions that HUSSEIN started. However, Desert Fox was 7 years after Gulf1 had ended, and Clinton wasn't in office for Gulf1, nor did he have anything to do with it.
Who are you blaming it on anyway?
As for acting against Iran by the next President? Stupid? Certainly. But will we think it stupid to allow Iran to have nukes when their goal is Jihad? Their Imam's have called for global Jihad. What're our options on that? To dissemble long enough until they do the test that proves they have the nuke?
I'm not inviting a course of action for that, because there is no good course. That is why Iran has us in a headlock. I'm just saying it will be the next President's problem. Will you still stand behind Hilly were she to find it necessary to strike Iran? Or will you say we have to wait until they actually slag a city? What happens if they use their fissile material to construct radiologic weapons to be used against cities world wide. What is your level for justification for action? What level do you think is required for the next President to act. And no you can't be lazy and say 'not like Bush's' As I have said, Bush is over, what we are concerned with is the NEXT President...
I would also be careful with the "woman love voting for other woman" thing - I worked on a campaign for a major office for a woman, and by far, by far, the hardest group to win over were married women. Single women? Gobs of support, and for a Democratic party in which single women and mothers are an important constituency, that's huge. But married women? Astounding how critical they could be - they just did not believe that a woman could lead.
I had a theory for this, though it was just a theory. Men, I thought, believed she could lead because they do not think of the women around them as weak - they are bossed around every day by their wives, so they believe that a woman can stand up to angry legislators or whoever else needs to be bossed around at any given time. Married woman, though, often perceive a power imbalance in their relationship, not a huge one, or even one meaning that they are unhappy, but they believe that when push comes to shove, that the men will do what they want to do and they do not have a lot of control over this. That was my theory for married men were perfectly willing to consider voting for a female candidate, while married women were very cautious because they thought she would have a hard time succeeding in a masculine field.
I'm curious to see national polling data - if Hillary gets the nomination and once the race gets close enough for national polls to have meaning - to see if this trend holds true nationally.
D was born stupid and has spent his entire life perfecting that state: "so you are saying that Clinton launched 415 cruise missles, along with other ordinance... for no apparent reason? I'd counter with H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act." signed 2 months before Desert Fox. Why would you have an act like that, if you didn't think Iraq was a threat?"
I'll try this ONE MORE TIME, o obtuse one. Iraq was no threat to the UNITED STATES. It was merely a threat to the stability of the Middle East, a region the US regards as a neo-colony due to the presence of oil there.
How hard is that distinction to grasp? For you, apparently infinitely hard.
Apparently to some people trying to assassinate a former U.S. president doesn't count as "threatening" the U.S. I would have thought that any nation that tried to assassinate any ex-president, no matter how worthless (i.e. Jimmy Carter), would have committed an act of war and obligated the current president to respond. That some think he was not only not obligated to respond, but not even entitled to respond, continues to amaze me.
Weevil writes: "Apparently to some people trying to assassinate a former U.S. president doesn't count as "threatening" the U.S. I would have thought that any nation that tried to assassinate any ex-president, no matter how worthless (i.e. Jimmy Carter), would have committed an act of war and obligated the current president to respond. That some think he was not only not obligated to respond, but not even entitled to respond, continues to amaze me."
In fact there was a response, and it was measured - it was not an invasion. Nor was the "assassination" even close to being carried out, and it was to take place in Kuwait.
I'm not sure what strawman Weevil is constructing when he refers to "some," but he's using one of Dumbya's favorite rhetorical tactics. Some think that's incredibly stupid. I think it's incredibly stupid.
As for Jimmy Carter, he's been a very good ex-president. Dumbya has already announced his intentions to spend his "retirement" raking in huge amounts of cash while indulging in yet more warmongering. May he find his Pretzel Of Destiny as soon as possible so the nation and the world can be spared decades of his inane, evil gibberish.
Moe thinks other people are "incredibly stupid" and write "inane, evil gibberish"? Classic projection. Why is it relevant that Hussein tried to kill G. H. W. Bush in Kuwait? Does that somehow lessen the crime? And why is "assassination" in sneer quotes? Does Moe want to imply that there was no such plot without having to actually come out and say so? What is the evidence that G.W. Bush intends to make huge (Clinton-scale) pots of money when he retires? I could ask more questions, but Moe's gibberish is hardly worth the trouble. I note that he has been unable either to refute what I said about punctuation, or to admit that he was wrong in impugning mine. Standard practice for a troll.
Weevil wobbles: "Moe thinks other people are "incredibly stupid" and write "inane, evil gibberish"? Classic projection. Why is it relevant that Hussein tried to kill G. H. W. Bush in Kuwait? Does that somehow lessen the crime? And why is "assassination" in sneer quotes? Does Moe want to imply that there was no such plot without having to actually come out and say so? What is the evidence that G.W. Bush intends to make huge (Clinton-scale) pots of money when he retires?"
First, it has never been established that Hussein tried to kill Poppy Bush anywhere. It has been alleged. There was never any actual attempt. It's relevant that this non-event was alleged to have been planned to take place in Kuwait because Kuwait is not in the US, and the initial discussion was about whether Iraq was a threat to the US. I would also suggest that "creative" methods of interrogation are likely to have been used against the "plotters," and so yes, I do indeed doubt the conclusions. The CIA drew those conclusions, and these are the same assclowns who helped mislead us into the invasion of Iraq. Some morons still believe everything they're told, though, and some morons think the Dumbya administration still has more credibility than the Russian mob. I do not.
As for Dumbya's post-terrorist career plans, he has been very forthcoming about them in a recent interview, talking about his need to "refill the coffers," and his idiotic plan to establish some sort of "Freedom Institute," which apparently would be a think tank devoted to encouraging endless wars which won't be fought by members of his class. It should be easy enough to find for someone of Weevil's amazing stature.
By the way, here is a link to a search of Weevil's own use of "stupid" on his scarcely-traveled blog:
http://www.drweevil.org/index.php?s=stupid
That Weevil is a hypocrite is hardly unusual, since he is a conservative. But one would hope that at his age he would have some basic level of self-awareness and would avoid such obvious foolishness.
Poor stupid Moe thinks that I've argued that it's always wrong to call people 'stupid' and am therefore a hypocrite for using the word myself (and even quoting Wilkie Collins and others on my website using the word). In fact, what I have suggested is that someone as militantly stupid as Moe is in no position to call anyone else stupid. Of course, he's too stupid to know the difference.
If he wants to argue that Hussein did not try to murder the elder Bush, he needs to provide an argument, and 'I don't want to believe it, because it tends to refute what I've said here' is not an argument. If he wants to allege that the younger Bush wants to make Clintonian mounds of money after he retires, he needs to provide a link: it's not my job to back up his assertions. Of course he provides neither, though he still has plenty of insults and lies to spare. As I said, just a common troll, though ruder than most.
Weevil continues: "If he wants to argue that Hussein did not try to murder the elder Bush, he needs to provide an argument, and 'I don't want to believe it, because it tends to refute what I've said here' is not an argument. If he wants to allege that the younger Bush wants to make Clintonian mounds of money after he retires, he needs to provide a link: it's not my job to back up his assertions."
It's not my job to give you a link, chuckles. I gave you enough information so that you could find it yourself, of course. That you're too lazy or disinterested to do so doesn't matter enough to me for me to make any effort on your behalf.
I don't need to make any more argument about the Poppy "assassination attempt" than I already have. It's an allegation, not established fact, although I know you kneepads-for-Bush types gobble up every unproven bit of malarkey the guy stutters out. The simple fact is that no attempt was ever made. If that sort of "horrific plot" in 1993 seems like a good pretext for invasion in 2003 to you, again I'm not surprised. You're a groupie for warmongering idiots, and what does that make you?
By the way, I never said or thought that you argued, "it's always wrong to call people 'stupid.'" Of course you didn't. You just think it's always wrong to call YOU stupid - which may have been true at one point in your life, but since you're now suffering from male menopause and defending the Bushpigs and laying down in the gutter with Malkinites, it is no longer.
Megan,
The quality of these discussions is pretty low. Have you considered doing a bit more moderation? Childish name-calling and schoolyard taunts don't make for much of an interesting discussion, and they make the surrounding discussion of adults harder to follow.
Thanks for the compliment, Moe: I am indeed "disinterested". It's unfortunate that the man who was trying to correct my punctuation a few comments back doesn't know the difference between "disinterested" and "uninterested". Perhaps he should change his middle name from "Larry" to "Ron".
And it would be good if he would stop lying. To say that it is a "simple fact" that "no attempt was ever made" to murder G.H.W. Bush in Kuwait in 1993 is a simple lie. You can argue that the evidence for it is not absolutely ironclad, but saying that it's been proven not to have happened is quite different. Then again, that's what we've come to expect from this particular source: lies, filthy insults, and a resolute refusal to engage in honest argument.
sorry, Albatross, my bad. It's always hard to give up when you hope that all the different opinions will come together with the intention of persuading... it's in hindsight that you see exactly where it when too far. Guess we've been over this with a backhoe. Still, I think moderation with a light touch is what Megan practices. I appreciate that a lot... Thanks, M... [sorry for the mess]
Weevil again: "I am indeed "disinterested". It's unfortunate that the man who was trying to correct my punctuation a few comments back doesn't know the difference between "disinterested" and "uninterested"."
The difference is no longer important, chuckles. Buy a new dictionary. "—Usage note Disinterested and uninterested share a confused and confusing history. Disinterested was originally used to mean “not interested, indifferent”; uninterested in its earliest use meant “impartial.” By various developmental twists, disinterested is now used in both senses. Uninterested is used mainly in the sense “not interested, indifferent.” It is occasionally used to mean “not having a personal or property interest.”
Many object to the use of disinterested to mean “not interested, indifferent.” They insist that disinterested can mean only “impartial”: A disinterested observer is the best judge of behavior. However, both senses are well established in all varieties of English, and the sense intended is almost always clear from the context."
"To say that it is a "simple fact" that "no attempt was ever made" to murder G.H.W. Bush in Kuwait in 1993 is a simple lie. You can argue that the evidence for it is not absolutely ironclad, but saying that it's been proven not to have happened is quite different."
There was no attempt. There may have been a plot which could have led to an attempt, but rational human beings (who do not wear kneepads when performing party chores) can easily see the distinction.
Some more information: " As portrayed by both the alleged assassins and the Kuwaitis who grabbed them, the plot was itself deeply amateurish, dependent on the leadership of Wali Abdelhadi Ghazali, a 36-year-old male nurse, Raad Abdel-Amir al-Assadi, from Najaf, and a dozen Iraqi whiskey smugglers led by a 33-year-old owner of a coffee shop in Basra that was meeting-place for cross-border smugglers. Despite his age, al-Assadi confessed to being a colonel in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, according to the Kuwait authorities.
Ghazali, who initially said he was approached and supplied with explosives and cars by the Mukhabarat was the only person in the group who knew that Bush was the target. Other defendants confessed to transporting explosives across the border from Iraq but insisted they had no idea what they were for.
Both Ghazali and Assadi retracted their confessions during the trial, claiming that they were extracted by repeated beatings. At the time, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed strong doubts that the trials could be fair, noting that it had received credible reports of severe beatings meted out to defendants accused of capital crimes in Kuwait. Assadi insisted that he was asked by the Mukhabarat to plant bombs around shopping centers in Kuwait City.
U.S. investigators, however, reported that they believed the confessions were not coerced and noted the similarity in the construction of the bombs found with the Iraqis with one known to have been built in Iraq in 1991.
In October, 1993, however, New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh assailed the government's case as ''seriously flawed'', noting among other problems that seven bomb experts had told him that the devices were mass-produced and probably not even manufactured in Iraq. "
I have avoided providing a link so Weevil can complain about it again. But perhaps this time he'll be too busy swimming in propaganda to bother.
But once more we catch a glimpse of Weevil's amoral, brutal, authoritarian nature. Does he care if the confessions were false and/or coerced by torture and beatings? Of course he doesn't. Like all others of his ilk, he is made happier by the contemplation of such things happening.
He just wishes there were pictures.
albatross has a mouthful of fish:
"The quality of these discussions is pretty low. Have you considered doing a bit more moderation? Childish name-calling and schoolyard taunts don't make for much of an interesting discussion, and they make the surrounding discussion of adults harder to follow."
Perhaps you should try taking part in a discussion before whining about the behavior of those who do. Now put your orange belt back on and resume chasing kids around and asking to see their hall passes.
very interesting, but I don't agree with you
Idetrorce