Is that what is happening here? What do you guys think? It's practically official; Hillary accepts the State position.
Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say
I can appreciate Obama's penchant for Lincoln's "Team of Rivals", but now the latest is that Bill Richardson is being considered for the Commerce job? Really?
AP source: Richardson serious Commerce contender
And after picking off all the top Dem players at the federal and state levels for cabinet positions, doesn't this leave openings for the Reps to move in? Not that I'm a big party politics backer, but it does look like the same ol' same ol'. Kinda disappointed but reserving full judgment. I'm sure the conservatives are gagging while having a field day at the thought of being able to drudge up the tired, old Clinton lines again. And Letterman, Leno, Stewart and all the other comedians are screaming, "Thank you, God!"
Why Obama Wants Hillary for His 'Team of Rivals' and all the baggage that comes with it...I have a bad feeling about this.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's Obama vs. McCain
Just a short one to declare that Hillary is done. Stick a fork in it! It's only a matter of time before she unplugs her campaign, and Obama will be the nominee. Hallelujah! I said to Michelle last night that a big win in NC for Obama and a narrow victory for Clinton in IN are two losses for Hillary.
Now let's really get down to some Dem vs. Rep, liberal vs. conservative talk. BRM, I know it's been really quiet, but you have yet to respond to my earlier questions about what the conservatives have achieved for America. I refer to the Feb 28 post entitled, "Opportunity to come together?"
Obama '08! All the way to the White House!
Now let's really get down to some Dem vs. Rep, liberal vs. conservative talk. BRM, I know it's been really quiet, but you have yet to respond to my earlier questions about what the conservatives have achieved for America. I refer to the Feb 28 post entitled, "Opportunity to come together?"
Obama '08! All the way to the White House!
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Dems and Race
While I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans thrilled to see the intra-party self-destruction happening among the Democrats over race, and while I certainly see all sorts of opportunities for the Republicans to exploit this idiocy for partisan advantage, I'm so upset that it's happening and want to shake both the Clinton and Obama folks for the repulsive spillover this will have in society and our politics overall. What thoughts do you guys have on the factor of RACE in the Democrats' nomination race, and where do you think this will ultimately go?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Eliot Spitzer
I'm not at all interested in the actual scandal or its details, but here's how I see this story. It says a lot about politics and power in this country:
1) Don't piss off and send to jail a bunch of Wall Street bankers and investors. They will come after you. It seems he made too many enemies in high places.
2) When do we start separating the public life from the private life of powerful and influential politicians? Will there be anyone left to lead or to govern? Seriously, who's gonna tell me that those with power and influence don't screw around? Should someone like FDR have resigned as well for infidelity? Did that make him unfit to be president?
3) Resign over violations or corruption that directly relate to the job, not over some sordid, salacious and very expensive trysts, unless the person somehow embezzled public funds to satisfy his urges, granted technically he did break some federal laws. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2186345/
4) Don't know all the details but seems like even Democrats hated Spitzer and probably triggered his downfall. All the more evidence that most, if not all, politicians have something to hide, instead of supporting a self-proclaimed crusader like Spitzer, and that has nothing to do with partisanship.
5) Such petty politics and powerplay in NY? What was Spitzer even thinking? Probably nothing since he certainly is not the only one paying for escorts.
6) Spitzer was foolishly hypocritical. Apparently, he took down the Wall Street bankers for practices that most in Wall Street knew well and generally accepted. See Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2186249/
Surely, Spitzer sealed his own fate over lustful temptations, but I don't believe that automatically disqualifies him to be governor. It's just a given in the American psyche that any sex that is not with your own wife should disqualify you for public office. Much harder to impeach a president for it, though, we've discovered...O that Slick Willie...
1) Don't piss off and send to jail a bunch of Wall Street bankers and investors. They will come after you. It seems he made too many enemies in high places.
2) When do we start separating the public life from the private life of powerful and influential politicians? Will there be anyone left to lead or to govern? Seriously, who's gonna tell me that those with power and influence don't screw around? Should someone like FDR have resigned as well for infidelity? Did that make him unfit to be president?
3) Resign over violations or corruption that directly relate to the job, not over some sordid, salacious and very expensive trysts, unless the person somehow embezzled public funds to satisfy his urges, granted technically he did break some federal laws. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2186345/
4) Don't know all the details but seems like even Democrats hated Spitzer and probably triggered his downfall. All the more evidence that most, if not all, politicians have something to hide, instead of supporting a self-proclaimed crusader like Spitzer, and that has nothing to do with partisanship.
5) Such petty politics and powerplay in NY? What was Spitzer even thinking? Probably nothing since he certainly is not the only one paying for escorts.
6) Spitzer was foolishly hypocritical. Apparently, he took down the Wall Street bankers for practices that most in Wall Street knew well and generally accepted. See Slate article: http://www.slate.com/id/2186249/
Surely, Spitzer sealed his own fate over lustful temptations, but I don't believe that automatically disqualifies him to be governor. It's just a given in the American psyche that any sex that is not with your own wife should disqualify you for public office. Much harder to impeach a president for it, though, we've discovered...O that Slick Willie...
Friday, January 11, 2008
Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
From: Michael Busick
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:54:44 -0800
Wasn't it Michael Moore that called Bill Clinton a Republican president in one of his recent books?
I'd also heard/read somewhere that Clinton sent more money to the military than Bush 41 did.
And doesn't it seem now like that economic boom in the 90s was a false one -- given the Enron/Tyco/Adelphia/Health South/others scandals that followed.
My stock portfolio in 2000 didn't look nearly as good as it did in 1999 -- and Clinton was still president. :)
Of course, the guy that really controls our economy's performance isn't the president (though the president can really screw up our budget by giving our surplus to rich people -- who so obviously deserve it because they're already rich people), it's the Fed Reserve Chairman. :)
---------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:53:24 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
Well, now we're getting some juices flowing. :-) Actually, I think BGA was mostly tongue-in-cheek in his rant, but it managed to get a bit of a rant from BRM as well. Not exactly what I was going for with our continuing political dialogue, but I'll run with it. "YHK" comments to BRM's are below. I see now the evidence that yours and my comments below embodies the polarized opinions in American politics. I'll try my best to be civil but honest; I can't promise not to be sarcastic or a wise-ass, though. ;-)
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
> Brian:
> Sounds like you took your Bob Dole pill this morning, and I do NOT mean the one for which he does t.v. commercials.
> First, in the interest of full disclosure, my mother was a Goldwater Girl. Okay, in truth she did oppo at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill (that's DC, not Seattle!) in 1964. But I enjoy razzing her about being a GG just to get her hack up. She can say she was doing substantive politics back when Hillary Rodham's involvement consisted of touting candidates and cocktail parties.
> Second, as to your suggestion that we consider Blow-Bill-Blow a Republican, let's not and say we didn't. Let me state in no uncertain terms: We don't want him.
YHK: I don't think anyone expects the Reps to take Bubba under their wing, now or ever. I doubt Bubba would like that, either.
> Just because he decided after two failed years as a left-wing president that the only way he could do anything competent in office was to jump on board the new GOP majority's agenda train, hijack it, and take credit for it from a media quite happy to give it to him instead of to the GOP Congress, doesn't mean he's one of us. Yick! Even the suggestion makes me want to shower and wash off the muck.
YHK: This comment is interesting. Pray tell, for what should the Newt/DeLay/Lott/Frist GOP Congress get credit, and what did Clinton "hijack" from the so-called Republican Revolution? The "Contract With (On) America"? The legislative gridlock? The budget deadlock shutting down the government? The impeachment proceedings that were a complete waste of the nation's time and money?
YHK: You must mean the economic boom of the 90's. George "I hate broccoli" "41" H.W. Bush didn't oversee it. Yeah, that was all Clinton's and Dems' doing w/o any Reps help. ;-) And that's the way it's gonna be sold to the public in this election because "43" Dubya did WAAAY worse than Bubba on the economic front, not to mention the myriad of other domestic blunders and scandals. I'm sure the Reps will be more than prepared to blame the Dem Congress, but the Republican Revolution lasted a good long 12 years, so the Dems must have ruined things all in the last year. Darn.
> What a shame that someone so brilliant can have a morality grounded solely in his own aggrandizement. A legacy of which to be proud. Okay, I go that out of my system. On to other things.
YHK: As I mentioned before, GOP is licking their chops to go after Hillary with the Clinton "legacy". Good Lord, how the Reps hate the Clintons! Don't people realize it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? ;-) How much you wanna bet that that'll get thrown in her face, if she's the nominee?
YHK: I still recall soon after 9/11 that some people dared to say that Dubya could be ranked among presidents like Lincoln and Washington. Sadly for all of us, Dubya has hit new presidential lows, and his regime is too current even to be referred to as a "legacy". It's more like a living "nightmare" from the Dems and Ron Paul's perspective, which segues me into...
> Third, did Bloomberg switch BACK to the Dems or did he just go independent? I think it was the latter, but I may misremember that.
YHK: This isn't the segue I meant, but does anyone Bloomin' care about Bloomburger? I don't, unless he does the Dems a favor like Perot the Hero. Those lucky-ass Clintons; that's why the Reps hate 'em so much...
> Finally, Ron Paul...Oh, Ron Paul. The best answer he gave in last night's debate was his response to the question that he might not really be a Republican. It was a very rational litany of historically based Republicanisms. Ron Paul is a very rational guy. Unfortunately for him, I think he's also nuts. The most rational process still goes awry when it starts from lunatic assumptions or seeks lunatic results. Please don't use ANYTHING he says/writes/does as representative of the rest of us in the GOP world. Big Tent has its advantages. Ron Paul, apparently, is one of its disadvantages.
YHK: BRM, why do you think Paul is nuts? Granted, "your" Congressman, the kooky Kucinich, publicly declared his belief in UFOs (still wouldn't call DK nuts, though), but I don't see why you label Paul as nuts. Okay, if this Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stuff is actual truth and can be proven as linked to him directly, then I'll call him nuts as well. Other than that I thought he outlined his "not one of the lemmings" Republican principles quite well ("rational litany of historically based Republicanisms") in the debates last night. [Lest you think I watched Fox, I caught the highlights on the Lehrer Newshour.] I didn't see anything nutty in his criticism of the GOP having deserted the conservative ideals domestically and internationally. Yikes, a part of me must be a marginalized Republican. ;-) What's nutty is Huckabee's plan for a national sales tax! Is he serious? Hey, let's have the most regressive tax system and be like Canada. Maybe he'll go for nationalized health care, too. Come on, Huckster, you can do it!
YHK: Man, I haven't heard "Big Tent" since the "kinder, gentler" days of HW, or was it Dubya's "compassionate conservative" days? Has he made good on the "compassionate" or the "conservative" part in the last 7+ years? Tragically for our nation and the world, he is well off that mark on which he ran in 2000.
> Happy prognosticating to all!
YHK: Hear, hear! That's what I'm talkin' about!
Cheers,
Young
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:46 PM PST
Subject: Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
Hi all,
CNN is reporting that Ron Paul, in a series of newsletters, published in the 90's, rants against blacks and gays. He says things like, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
It's a hoot, check it out.
CNN Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:54:44 -0800
Wasn't it Michael Moore that called Bill Clinton a Republican president in one of his recent books?
I'd also heard/read somewhere that Clinton sent more money to the military than Bush 41 did.
And doesn't it seem now like that economic boom in the 90s was a false one -- given the Enron/Tyco/Adelphia/Health South/others scandals that followed.
My stock portfolio in 2000 didn't look nearly as good as it did in 1999 -- and Clinton was still president. :)
Of course, the guy that really controls our economy's performance isn't the president (though the president can really screw up our budget by giving our surplus to rich people -- who so obviously deserve it because they're already rich people), it's the Fed Reserve Chairman. :)
---------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:53:24 -0800
From: yhkpenguin@yahoo.com
Well, now we're getting some juices flowing. :-) Actually, I think BGA was mostly tongue-in-cheek in his rant, but it managed to get a bit of a rant from BRM as well. Not exactly what I was going for with our continuing political dialogue, but I'll run with it. "YHK" comments to BRM's are below. I see now the evidence that yours and my comments below embodies the polarized opinions in American politics. I'll try my best to be civil but honest; I can't promise not to be sarcastic or a wise-ass, though. ;-)
> --- Brian Menard wrote:
> Brian:
> Sounds like you took your Bob Dole pill this morning, and I do NOT mean the one for which he does t.v. commercials.
> First, in the interest of full disclosure, my mother was a Goldwater Girl. Okay, in truth she did oppo at RNC headquarters on Capitol Hill (that's DC, not Seattle!) in 1964. But I enjoy razzing her about being a GG just to get her hack up. She can say she was doing substantive politics back when Hillary Rodham's involvement consisted of touting candidates and cocktail parties.
> Second, as to your suggestion that we consider Blow-Bill-Blow a Republican, let's not and say we didn't. Let me state in no uncertain terms: We don't want him.
YHK: I don't think anyone expects the Reps to take Bubba under their wing, now or ever. I doubt Bubba would like that, either.
> Just because he decided after two failed years as a left-wing president that the only way he could do anything competent in office was to jump on board the new GOP majority's agenda train, hijack it, and take credit for it from a media quite happy to give it to him instead of to the GOP Congress, doesn't mean he's one of us. Yick! Even the suggestion makes me want to shower and wash off the muck.
YHK: This comment is interesting. Pray tell, for what should the Newt/DeLay/Lott/Frist GOP Congress get credit, and what did Clinton "hijack" from the so-called Republican Revolution? The "Contract With (On) America"? The legislative gridlock? The budget deadlock shutting down the government? The impeachment proceedings that were a complete waste of the nation's time and money?
YHK: You must mean the economic boom of the 90's. George "I hate broccoli" "41" H.W. Bush didn't oversee it. Yeah, that was all Clinton's and Dems' doing w/o any Reps help. ;-) And that's the way it's gonna be sold to the public in this election because "43" Dubya did WAAAY worse than Bubba on the economic front, not to mention the myriad of other domestic blunders and scandals. I'm sure the Reps will be more than prepared to blame the Dem Congress, but the Republican Revolution lasted a good long 12 years, so the Dems must have ruined things all in the last year. Darn.
> What a shame that someone so brilliant can have a morality grounded solely in his own aggrandizement. A legacy of which to be proud. Okay, I go that out of my system. On to other things.
YHK: As I mentioned before, GOP is licking their chops to go after Hillary with the Clinton "legacy". Good Lord, how the Reps hate the Clintons! Don't people realize it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? ;-) How much you wanna bet that that'll get thrown in her face, if she's the nominee?
YHK: I still recall soon after 9/11 that some people dared to say that Dubya could be ranked among presidents like Lincoln and Washington. Sadly for all of us, Dubya has hit new presidential lows, and his regime is too current even to be referred to as a "legacy". It's more like a living "nightmare" from the Dems and Ron Paul's perspective, which segues me into...
> Third, did Bloomberg switch BACK to the Dems or did he just go independent? I think it was the latter, but I may misremember that.
YHK: This isn't the segue I meant, but does anyone Bloomin' care about Bloomburger? I don't, unless he does the Dems a favor like Perot the Hero. Those lucky-ass Clintons; that's why the Reps hate 'em so much...
> Finally, Ron Paul...Oh, Ron Paul. The best answer he gave in last night's debate was his response to the question that he might not really be a Republican. It was a very rational litany of historically based Republicanisms. Ron Paul is a very rational guy. Unfortunately for him, I think he's also nuts. The most rational process still goes awry when it starts from lunatic assumptions or seeks lunatic results. Please don't use ANYTHING he says/writes/does as representative of the rest of us in the GOP world. Big Tent has its advantages. Ron Paul, apparently, is one of its disadvantages.
YHK: BRM, why do you think Paul is nuts? Granted, "your" Congressman, the kooky Kucinich, publicly declared his belief in UFOs (still wouldn't call DK nuts, though), but I don't see why you label Paul as nuts. Okay, if this Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stuff is actual truth and can be proven as linked to him directly, then I'll call him nuts as well. Other than that I thought he outlined his "not one of the lemmings" Republican principles quite well ("rational litany of historically based Republicanisms") in the debates last night. [Lest you think I watched Fox, I caught the highlights on the Lehrer Newshour.] I didn't see anything nutty in his criticism of the GOP having deserted the conservative ideals domestically and internationally. Yikes, a part of me must be a marginalized Republican. ;-) What's nutty is Huckabee's plan for a national sales tax! Is he serious? Hey, let's have the most regressive tax system and be like Canada. Maybe he'll go for nationalized health care, too. Come on, Huckster, you can do it!
YHK: Man, I haven't heard "Big Tent" since the "kinder, gentler" days of HW, or was it Dubya's "compassionate conservative" days? Has he made good on the "compassionate" or the "conservative" part in the last 7+ years? Tragically for our nation and the world, he is well off that mark on which he ran in 2000.
> Happy prognosticating to all!
YHK: Hear, hear! That's what I'm talkin' about!
Cheers,
Young
----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:46 PM PST
Subject: Another Rant-And the flies continue to drop...
Hi all,
CNN is reporting that Ron Paul, in a series of newsletters, published in the 90's, rants against blacks and gays. He says things like, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
It's a hoot, check it out.
CNN Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
Well, another one soon to bite the dust, I guess. If the Republicans continue to do this poorly, they might have to start courting New York's mayor, Bloomberg. Oh, that's right, Bloomberg switched to the Democratic party.
Anyway, despair not. Twenty-six years of De facto Republican rule has been a pretty good run. We'll include NAFTA loving Clinton under the Republicans.
Who will be the first Democrat to really slip up? I hope Bill can keep his pants up just long enough...Actually, he is already screwing things up for Hillary undermining Barack, highlighting Obama's inexperience-As if, Hills former job consulting with the White House Executive Chef over the Christmas menu, or her inability to get a health care compromise, is experience enough. How many times did it take her to pass the NY bar exam anyway? Oh, yeah, that's right, she didn't. She had to go to Arkansas and test there, instead.
Oh well, life's a bitch when you describe yourself as a former Goldwater girl. At least she's trying to get to the top the old fashioned way, through marriage, money and connections.
Monday, January 7, 2008
NH Debates, etc.
[Note: This thread goes in chronological order.]
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 AM
Pardon the length, but I feel you're into this as much as I am...
I missed the Repub debates because the Jaguars/Steelers game was much moreinteresting. ;-) Plus, I hope that the GOP end up with a long drawn-out war ofattrition for the party nomination.
Hillary, I must admit, sounds intelligent and more than capable at the debates, buther angry, dark side just does not help her image at all. Just saw that one NH pollshows a two-person race of Obama-Hillary as 1-2, Edwards a distant 3rd. Edwardssounded way too sound-bitey and wrapped up in personal outrage, IMO, but at leastyou know where he stands. I certainly don't expect him to make it through theprimaries, but he's the only one who's gonna keep Obama and Hillary in check (Iprefer to call her by her first name because Clinton means "Bill" to me, and thatname judges her unfairly--more to come). As for not putting the losing VP from theprevious ticket on the new ticket, probably true by CW, but a losing VP candidatecertainly isn't discouraged from running for prez in the future. And it is not atall likely that Hillary would accept a VP nod.
Here's why I don't think Hillary is "electable", that nebulous and mercurial butcritical factor that can swing many voters. The following are my observations ofthe electorate, not necessarily my personal opinion of Hillary:
1) Given the voter sentiments of 2000 and '04, half of the country hate gays, areanti-abortion and love guns. How does a woman like Hillary fit in to that worldview? Not well, if at all.
2) Unfortunately for Hillary, with all of her talents and abilities, she must carry
the Clinton baggage, more like dragging a ball and chain. I am sure the Republicansare chomping at the bits for Hillary to get the nomination. Do you think theextreme wing of GOP supporters will hesitate at all to dredge up the Clinton years,Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's failed attempt to reform health care, etc.? They willmost certainly succeed in painting her as a bleeding-heart liberal. Some people have forgotten what a lightening rod Billary was for conservative scorn and vitriol.
3) The only way Hillary could hope to win is to succeed becoming the theme of thiselection, "the agent of change". However, who is most identified with that monikerand distinction so far, at least among the Democrats? Obama. Should she manage tofight off Obama, will she get the young and independent votes who are currentlybacking Obama? I certainly hope so, if we are to avoid yet another four years of aRepublican administration. However, I feel it's an uphill battle for the Clintonname to get the "agent of change" title because they had already been there for twoterms.
I, too, am encouraged by the young and "first timer" participation in Iowa. Thisdefinitely serves to benefit Obama and the Dems most. He is looking more and moreelectable, day by day. I also feel that the country may be more prepared for Blackmale president than a White female one. One case in point, think of the supportthat Colin Powell would have garnered had he chose to run.
Still not sure how effectively Obama can win the center of the electorate. As Ilearned many years ago in a UW poli-sci course on U.S. Elections, all elections comedown to the battle for the center, after solidifying one's base, left or right. Ibelieve Obama's weakness is his lack of experience as an executive leader, which maynot sit well with moderate voters. I accept the opinion that governors are moreidentified as being presidential by voters than senators. By my count the lastsenator who won a presidential election is LBJ, and even he was a VP first. Thatmakes JFK the last president who was not a governor or VP first. Heady odds forsure.
I certainly am going to enjoy this election cycle. Definitely going to participate in the Dem caucus here and in the primary, of course. Thanks for reading.
Young
----------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:14:11 -0500
Not only was JFK the most recent candidate to go directly from Senate to White House, but throughout the history of presidential elections, only a couple senators have been elected President of the United States from their senate seats. "Heady odds for sure" is an understatement! And yet, each election cycle we see a myriad of senators contemplate it and at least a handful give it a shot. One thought on Obama and the center: Obama will have trouble catching the center not because he is a senator, but because his proposals are way left of center. I followed him very closely from September '06 through his formal announcement, waiting to see if the details he professed would follow his rhetoric about coming together. Once he started filling in the blanks last January, though, it was quickly apparent that folks on my side would interpret his rhetoric as just that and nothing more, for the policy proposals that followed the talk about folks coming together to solve the nation's problems carried the implicit message, "If only the Republicans and conservatives would stop getting in the way of our proposals and join our effort to make policy the way we think it should be made, all would be well." That's not any more sincere call for people working together than if Duncan Hunter made the same suggestion from the right wing. You make good points about Hillary and electability (or unelectability). However, you leave out one factor that improves her chances considerably, anamely, if the GOP nominate a bad candidate and/or far right candidate. Hillary has high negatives that are solid. She won't win these folks over no matter what. But she also can appeal to the center - as you rightly point out, the real battle ground in this year's fight - much better than either Obama or Edwards can do. She ran a risk-reward campaign, banking on her viability (ability to be nominated, as opposed to electability in the general election) and maintaining a more moderate political persona that would leave less ideological ground to make up come general election time to get back to the center. A sound strategy, but unfortunately for her, it appears her presumption of viability may have been premature.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Busick
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:17 AM
I'm also thinking the GOP can't wait for Hillary to get the nomination because then they could also hammer the point that Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Anything she tries to say about US getting out of Iraq is going to be labeled as "flip-flopping" and I think we all remember how that played out in 2004.
--------------------
From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:21:26 -0500
A little secret from the GOP world: as much as folks are chomping at the bit to unleash on Hillary, people are REALLY looking forward to letting loose on Obama if he gets the nod from the Dems. The Hillary assault would be more personal than political (exempting things like the 90s health care stuff) and is not new, just juicy. Attacking Obama, on the other hand, gives the GOP spinsters the chance to Dukakisize him. The lesson on 1988 was "Define your opponent before s/he defines her/himself." In some ways, Obama is like the Gary Hart of 2008, known superficially but not in detail. Folks on the right can't wait to get started defining what "Change" would really mean in an Obama White House.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Reflections on Iowa - Brian A.
Okay, here is the skinny on last nights New Hampshire Debates.
The dems looked tired but, Clinton, Edwards and Bill sounded the best. The dems answers to the question about the probability of a U.S. city facing a nuclear attack, in the next ten years was horrendous. Further, they lacked the serious emotion that the American public was longing for. All but Clinton failed to inspire confidence in her response to that question.
On the Republican side, Huckabee and Ron were fantastic. Willard and the X-Mayor did not impress as they were constantly scowling and hiding behind the mantle of Ronald Reagan.
Lastly, the debates were a success because they highlighted the differences and similarities between both parties. Additionally, the debate was entertaining. Did the debate, make our choice of who to vote for any easier?
No, however, it did bring America a little closer together, if only for a few hours on a Saturday night.
May the best man, or woman win!
B.
The dems looked tired but, Clinton, Edwards and Bill sounded the best. The dems answers to the question about the probability of a U.S. city facing a nuclear attack, in the next ten years was horrendous. Further, they lacked the serious emotion that the American public was longing for. All but Clinton failed to inspire confidence in her response to that question.
On the Republican side, Huckabee and Ron were fantastic. Willard and the X-Mayor did not impress as they were constantly scowling and hiding behind the mantle of Ronald Reagan.
Lastly, the debates were a success because they highlighted the differences and similarities between both parties. Additionally, the debate was entertaining. Did the debate, make our choice of who to vote for any easier?
No, however, it did bring America a little closer together, if only for a few hours on a Saturday night.
May the best man, or woman win!
B.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Caucus Results - the email that started it all
So what do you think of the Obama and Huckabee winning? I know it's very early yet. A bit surprising on the Dem side, but the young-uns love Obama. Glad that Edwards came in 2nd, albeit a close 4rd for Hillary. I'm still hoping for Edwards to stay for the long haul, but I wonder if he'd accept a VP nod again. I think an Obama/Edwards, or vice versa even, would be a solid ticket. Edwards should just make his RFK transformation complete and go down in a blaze of glory. If he's gonna be out, so be it! Speak up for the Left!
It will obviously come down to the moderates vs. fundamentalists for the Repub. Huckabee will be in it for the long run, but I don't think Romney or Giuliani will be gone soon, not to mention McCain.
To BRM, disappointed about Thompson's showing? How do you see the GOP race shaping up?
As an aside, I took part in the 1992 Democratic Caucus here in Seattle when itturned out to be a Bush/Clinton/Perot race. At the time, I did not support Clinton initially because of my bias against yet another Southern Democrat. I think it came down to Tsongas and Clinton at my caucus. I don't recall who I ended up supporting (probably Clinton), but I do remember not being happy with the choices. Mike, did I tell you about the caucus back then?
Appreciate your thoughts,
Young
It will obviously come down to the moderates vs. fundamentalists for the Repub. Huckabee will be in it for the long run, but I don't think Romney or Giuliani will be gone soon, not to mention McCain.
To BRM, disappointed about Thompson's showing? How do you see the GOP race shaping up?
As an aside, I took part in the 1992 Democratic Caucus here in Seattle when itturned out to be a Bush/Clinton/Perot race. At the time, I did not support Clinton initially because of my bias against yet another Southern Democrat. I think it came down to Tsongas and Clinton at my caucus. I don't recall who I ended up supporting (probably Clinton), but I do remember not being happy with the choices. Mike, did I tell you about the caucus back then?
Appreciate your thoughts,
Young
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)