The New Republic

Has anybody else noticed that Hillary is essentially running a Bush-style campaign?  It's all about obfuscating the policies, dodging the questions, and distorting the words of others.

This should bother us more.  The Bush Administration is not just bad for the country because of its policies, it's bad because of the dishonesty and the way they manipulate the press.  It's not okay for Hillary to do it just because she's a Democrat.

- ejbenjamin

November 1, 2007 at 2:18pm

I disagree.  We've all been whining about Bush and Cheney for seven long years.  Even most Republicans have regrets about Bush-Cheney.  The GOP candidates certainly are not running to continue his legacy.  The anti-Bush rhetoric, which is Hillary's meat and potatoes, is all dated material.  Bush is not on the ballot.  

The candidates are much more effective when they're contrasting themselves with Romney, Giuliani, or Congressional Republicans.  In that sense Bill Clinton, as charismatic as he may be, is not really relevant himself.  He's old news.  THanks for your service, no thanks for your bj-seeking behavior, now go and do ex-President things like play golf, give speeches, and raise money for charity.  It's nearly 2008 and we need to pick a FUTURE leader.

- stgla

November 1, 2007 at 2:22pm

No, that's not true.  Bill Clinton and George Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008.  THey are both old news. If anything, George W. Bush's presidency was made possible by the backlash (of irrational hatred) against Bill Clinton, so I'll be happy to put both the Clintons and the Bushes in the history books and start over in 2009.

- stgla

November 1, 2007 at 2:27pm

The dislike of Bill Clinton was based upon fairly solid ground. He came to represent everything that is distasteful about politicos to be perfectly summed up in, " It depends upon what this meaning of Is, is." He was a piece of work. Probably won't see the likes of him for quite some time. Um....Bushie boy obfuscates, not by reason of a silver tounge(har-har) but by virtue of pretty much saying nothing but occasional red meat one offs. That meat gets more rare with every passing day.

- boxofrox

November 1, 2007 at 2:47pm

And the comparison between him and Bush serves Hillary pretty well? yeah, and how? because she is married to him she should then become President? I am despising the woman more and more and as much as I hate it I refuse to vote for her in any circumstance besides Rudy being on the other side, in fact, if it is McCain I will vote for him, Supreme Court being demolished be damned. She has run such a vile and self seeking campaign.

I like Bill Clinton a lot, think he was a great President, but that does not mean I will transfer my feelings about him to her. I just hope enough Democrats realize what a train wreck she is and vote for any other Democrat come the Primaries.

Is there anyone who can tell me what the upside of another term of a bitterly divided country is, with Republicans believing Dems voted for Hillary simply to spite them (if she in fact somehow managed to win in 08)?

- blackton

November 1, 2007 at 2:48pm

boxofrox

You seem to be unaware of the strong positive view most Democrats have of Mr Clinton.  If he had ever been as disliked as you imagine, he would surely have been impeached, regardless of the merits of the case.  

As it happens, he survived that attack and remains the most popular Democrat alive, by my reckoning, even outshining Mr Gore.  Ask any group of Democrats who they would like to have running this year - Bill Clinton would be the runaway favorite.

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 3:32pm

You know, considering the crap Repubs give Democrats--all the Democrats--I am not sure a non-HRC Dem winner will reduce the bitter division.  I think the bitterness and division require the next Dem pres. to do right in the job, not seem right while running.  In fact Edwards said, in the debate, regarding primary-speak and general-speak coming from HRC, that the "speak" should just be truthful.  It is on that count, shown in the debate--BY EDWARDS--that I have a problem with, not some invented division.  I think Edwards should get the nod!  And, is Richardson just a dumbass?  He sure comes off as one!

- rishy

November 1, 2007 at 3:37pm

Neil -

Agreed. Bill Clinton is beyond reproach. Democrats don't even want to hear about his affairs. At this point, they think back on his affairs with great admiration for his lady killing skills or with quiet amusement. And then many (like myself) peer towards Hillary and say, "Yeah, she's ok, I guess."

Hillary Clinton is a very smart and capable person, but without Bill's name and legacy, her appeal diminishes. For what it's worth, without Hillary, Bill would probably also be nothing - not without her in the background leading the PR effort against his many mistresses. She was good!

- virginiacentrist

November 1, 2007 at 3:42pm

Oh and I'm sick and tired of this crap about Hillary winning two Senate terms in blowouts. Yeah, Rick Lazio is hard to beat! Was she even opposed last time? And it's hard to win a Senate seat in a deep blue state with the Clinton last name. Give me a break. This is not evidence of her strength.

- virginiacentrist

November 1, 2007 at 3:45pm

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree.

Hillary is an excellent candidiate , an excellent politician and a highly commendable person.

She embodies democratic policies and has devoted her life to public service with  power-seeking thrown in.

Gee, after performing flawlessly in debate after debate, she got tripped up some on one issue (that she presumably had not been briefed well enough about ) after two hours of concentrated pounding on her, how terrible is that.

What errant nonsense!

So much of the criticism  of her is ridiculously ad hominem: she's whiny; her voice is irritating; she glowers; she is thin skinned; she's bitchy; she has no authentic self; and on and on and on.

What superficial silliness.

Does anyone think apart from--in your wild and wacky country with its 2 year election campaigns-- the necessary obediences any candidiate with a shot has to pay to the powers that be, and apart from the fact that at this level politics as an incredibly rough and tumble business, that in policy terms her head and heart are not in the right democratic place. Does anyone think she is not disciplined, and smart, and undistractable.

She was right to sign on to the resolution calling Iran's Revolutionary Guard terrorists: both in principle and as a mattter of poltical claculation.

Any candidate who is so gutless as not call that particular spade a spade is going to get McGoverned come 2008.

- basman

November 1, 2007 at 3:53pm

Basman:

"she's whiny; her voice is irritating; she glowers; she is thin skinned; she's bitchy; she has no authentic self; and on and on and on."

You're making stuff up. No DEMOCRATS are saying that (that's right-wing nonsense). This is exactly the kind of spin that the Clinton campaign wants to pull. Whenever someone attacks Hillary, they'll say, "Don't attack the woman!" It's really quite sad for the feminism movement...just as Clinton staying with Bill was also sad.

Hillary supporters are failing to recognize that LIKABILITY is a key factor in all elections. Clinton won in 1992 because he was a likable guy - not because he was a centrist panderer (that came later). Hillary combines the two qualities that people didn't like about Al Gore and John Kerry - the aloofness of John Kerry with the crude political calculation of Al Gore. This is a fact and it's pretty much not debatable, in my opinion.

As long as Hillary is just answering easy questions and not facing any frontal assaults (from MEN! GASP!), she's fine. She can activate laughter program 1.0 and cackle her way around the occasional barb. But when she faces heat (like she will from the GOP), she melts down. She melted down on Tuesday. You could see it in her face.

I'm not saying she won't learn from this experience. It's possible. But when a candidate has fundamental problems with expression of human emotions (like Al Gore) and aloofness (like John Kerry), they're going to be handicapped.

That's why the smart money is on John Edwards or Barack Obama. Do they have their weaknesses? Yes. But can they connect with the American people on a visceral level. YES.

- virginiacentrist

November 1, 2007 at 4:29pm

basman

I was not criticizing Hillary's voice -- I agree that is superficial.  

But she does come across as arrogant - not unlike Mr Bush in that regard.  Her non-answer about the records bearing on her claimed experience in the White House was certainly arrogant.  

She also came across as dishonest in this debate -- maybe she only mispoke, but her non-answer to the drivers license question seemed evasive and sneaky.  

I've always been sympathetic to Hillary in view of the absurd and nasty Hillary-hatred out there, but lately I have come to have strong reservations about her character and leadership ability.

Honestly, after last night, I cannot see how she can be the front runner much longer.

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 4:36pm

VC

I said she is whiny and thin-skinned. I did also say she was dishonest and arrogant. Largely based on her disastrous performance the other night.

I didn't say she was bitchy - that must have been someone else.

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 4:41pm

She hath not the experience or temperment to be President.  I don't think Obama or Edwards do either, but both are more likeable than HRC.  And that REALLY matters.  Kerry did not win for a variety of reasons, but all the things y'all bitch and moan about W were well-known by Nov '04.  Why, then, did JFK not carry the day?  One big reason was that he was not likeable in the way the American people want thie leader to be.  HRC isn't either.

- butchie b

November 1, 2007 at 4:55pm

virginiacentrist

For goodness sake listen to yourself.

You say:

"she's whiny; her voice is irritating; she glowers; she is thin skinned; she's bitchy; she has no authentic self; and on and on and on."

You're making stuff up. No DEMOCRATS are saying that (that's right-wing nonsense). This is exactly the kind of spin that the Clinton campaign wants to pull. Whenever someone attacks Hillary, they'll say, "Don't attack the woman!" It's really quite sad for the feminism movement...just as Clinton staying with Bill was also sad."

But then you say:

". She can ... cackle her way around the occasional barb. But when she faces heat (like she will from the GOP), she melts down. She melted down on Tuesday. You could see it in her face."

"Cackle"?

And by the way where was the melt down? She kept her cool the whole night save for the one awkward answer on the drivers' licences. Big deal: especially when except for Dodd no one else had a principled disagreement with the main thrust of her comments, their awkwardness granted.

Archival disclosure: you have got to be kidding!

Only Obama has any chance to beat her for the nomination and I don't, generally, find his answers any more specific and concrete than Hillary's; and he is not a very good debater in these forums based on the evidence to date. I guess like Maximillian Glick, Edwards has a slim outside shot of prevailing, but woe to democratic chances if he does.

Yeah likeability counts for something, but it is way overdone , and to overemaphasize it leads to the superficiality of so much of the analysis of her.

And what: no comment on her willingness to call  the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, in my view an essential ingredient of a view of foreign affairs that will be a necessary condition of democratic electability?

Too busy worrrying about her "cackle "I suppose, or tripping out on her non-existent melt down.

- basman

November 1, 2007 at 5:33pm

purcellneil:

Oh I'm not unaware of the fondness for Billy boy. I simply find it amazing. Most of the significant legislation he passed was basically republican stuff with a centrist spin.

Look. You must admit that he had an uncanny ability to beat the pubs over the head with their own words and deeds while presenting his ideas as fresh and original and filled with heart even when they differed only in byline. He was something. Slick indeed.

Can you imagine the howls which would have accompanied any intern BJs with a Pub in office. It would have been an issue of mysogeny of the nth degree. As it was I heard stuff to the effect from partisans that they might well consider sucking on little willie if the opportunity was right. What the hell is that? Integrity? Or some sort of strange fandom that requires so little of its hero?

Don't get me wrong. I'm no prude. Hell I've even had my share of sexual satisfactions which I made sure cost me nothing in obligation or strings. Sometimes calculatedly, sometimes by virtue of my own inclination to seeing things only my way. I'm not nor have I ever been a saint. But please...generally speaking I know when I'm being full of shit. I'm at the age where I try the best I can to avoid that bloated full of shit feeling.

I wonder if he raped Juanita Broderick? She looked and sounded pretty damned convincing to me.

All of that said I think Hillary would do just fine as President. Basman lays out those things which show she is smart and calculating and while it won't appeal to the more dramatic of us it may well serve the presidency fairly well.

- boxofrox

November 1, 2007 at 5:49pm

What rishy said. Look at the S-CHIP nonsense and the "Defeatocrat" BS. It wouldn't matter who the Dems run, if we offer a plan to sever the link between employment and health insurance, or argue for more subtle diplomacy than just "playing offense", we'll be on the receiving end of a blizzard of BS from the GOP.

If you want to unite the country, then tell it to us straight-- why single-payor's the logical solution to our mess, what you propose we do in Iraq, why you think abortion should not be outlawed, etc. But don't pretend that mushy happytalk can sweep disagreements under the rug. We're divided because we care about these issues and have different beliefs that we hold passionately. To pretend otherwise is to patronize the voters and trivialize the process.

- teplukhin2you

November 1, 2007 at 6:07pm

"then tell it to us straight-- why single-payor's the logical solution to our mess, what you propose we do in Iraq, why you think abortion should not be outlawed, etc."

Doesn't Hillary *more or less* do this while keeping her options powder dry? If she doesn't, where doesn't she?

- basman

November 1, 2007 at 6:18pm

I believe she does, basman, which is why I don't really have a problem with her or her candidacy. We know what her priorities are, what she intends to do, what her stands are on most issues. This is exactly what the process is designed to evoke.

There's something really childish about the American hankering for a candidate who will make all our disagreements go away, who will somehow appeal both to people who believe the world was created in 7 days and who favor scientific explanations of the natural world, or appeal both to people who think the invasion of Iraq was criminal and to people who think it was justifiable and necessary but botched.

We're a divided nation. So be it. Recognizing that doesn't make you a nasty, "divisive", un-American hatemonger. It means you're an adult.

- teplukhin2you

November 1, 2007 at 6:25pm

To all three of :Teplukhin; Teplukhin 2; and Teplukhin 2 to me:

First paragraph: agreed;

Second and third paragraphs: agreed, well said and an important point, I think.

- basman

November 1, 2007 at 6:36pm

The case against Hillary just cannot be that she doesn't have chops. She's outperforming Edwards and Obama on a daily basis. If she has a weakness, it's the "person-like-me" test, as Judis said the other day.

She's not my first choice because I have worries about her personality. But I've been consistently blown away by her performances in the debates. She speaks with a level of mastery and confidence that makes everyone else seem green or just underwhelming by comparison. I don't like her hawkish fp (Crowley convinced me she really did support the Iraq war), but other than that and the personality/gender worry, she's the best talent and the biggest bruiser we've got in the race.

That said, given the superficiality of presidential politics, the personality/gender worry is a serious one, which is why I just cannot get excited about her candidacy.

- ralphnelle

November 1, 2007 at 6:41pm

ralphnelle, you say HRC is the "biggest bruiser we've got in the race" - in what sense? At the last debate she was on the receiving end of the bruising, and she wasn't bruising back.  If it's bruising you want, go for Edwards.  He was a successful trial lawyer, and that's the best preparation for this type of thing.  

- psantillana

November 1, 2007 at 7:31pm

psantillana, Edwards belongs on Sesame Street; he's not a bruiser, far from it: $400 haircuts, youtube videos of him primping and applying hairspray--he's about as far from gritty as one can be.

Hillary defended herself pretty well in the debate, that is, until the license debacle. Look, she's not my favorite, but she's a hell of a lot more convincing than Mr. Simmons (Edwards).

- ralphnelle

November 1, 2007 at 7:59pm

yes we are a divided nation but why the hell would Democrats nominate a candidate who comes across as an affront to Republicans? Choosing a President is not like choosing a car, there is far more of an emotional aspect to it, this is the person who will essentially lead the free world for the next 4 years, positions are important but take a backseat to character and leadership ability.

Basman, we are not a nation of Vulcans, which strikes me as the planet she is most likely from.

Hillary is a bright woman, capable, yada yada but can she lead? I am a Democrat and I despise her because I think she is putting her ambition ahead of the interests in the country.

- blackton

November 1, 2007 at 8:15pm

Blackton, the polling data from Rasmussen indicate that HRC actually GAINS about 20 or so points from Republicans-- Republican women, that is. She loses about 20 points from Democratic _men_.

The issue with HRC isn't really her politics, it's her image as a (take your pick) strong/bitchy, non-doormat/strident, smart/arrogant _woman_.

Me, I don't really care much for her voice, and find her legs really painful to look at, and FWIW I've never gotten along with any woman in a position of authority (teacher, superior, nun) over me. But none of that matters. We need someone who's clever, tough, savvy, and progressive on most issues. She passes the test.

- teplukhin2you

November 1, 2007 at 8:24pm

Yeah Tep and those same polls showed Kerry winning, and the Dems winning the Senate race in Tenn. (on polling people claimed they were willing to vote for a black but when it came time to pull the lever different story)

Put Hillary in as VP, I have no problem with that. I just think the Dems are taking way too big a risk in nominating her for President. I despise her for putting her own ambition ahead of the country because another Republican presidency would put the Supreme Court in the red for a generation.

We need someone most who can win. If Republicans wise up and nominate a McCain Huckabee ticket we will get slaughtered, and you know this. Our only hope against this ticket would be in contrast with youth in either Edwards or Obama.

- blackton

November 1, 2007 at 8:40pm

"mysogeny of the nth "

please make that 'misogyny'. That little slip was just kind of rolling around and from a deep sleep awakened.Drat and double drat. A moment of minor foolishness....for which I am gratified that none of the local smartasses came forth to impeach my integrity on such shallow grounds. Mayhaps this place is getting better.

- boxofrox

November 2, 2007 at 4:43am