Letters to the Editor
-
yeah, people hate Bill Clinton
That 65 percent approval he left office with, and still has; the fact that he would have crushed The Idiot in 2000; the fact that he would crush any of the GOP clown-car brigade even worse this time. The only people who care about these supposed 'soap operas' are the media types who think anyone else gives a shit. A whole lot of people would want to see Bill Clinton travel the world and undo some of the catastrophic damage to our country's standing done by the guy the press helped 'elect.' And I say this all as no fan of Hillary.
-
2004
I would have crawled over broken glass to get Hillary elected. I spent one hell of a lot of money and time driving to Yuma from San Diego and in the sweltering heat stood in front of supermarkets registering voters in Arizona (a swing-state).
Not again.
From voting for the war to allowing Bush to spy on us to her capitulation to the health insurance companies Hillary can go to hell.
And so can any other Democrat who caves to the Republican traitors.
-
Damn right she'll tank -- next summer after she's got the nomination sewed up
There's a full moon eclipse on slickwillie's birthday next year. I've got a long time bet with some other astrologers that HRC's MC (sorry 'bout the jargon) is 25 Leo, the degree of Bill's Sun -- meaning, if I'm right about this, some sort of Billcentric embarrassment (too much $ from the wrong sources, some of which is a poison pawn? falls into the viagra triangle and is caught with pants down again?) astrologically threatens to crumble her campaign like a cheap lawn chair ... she'd better have a really charismatic v-p
on the other --
Draft Gore
-
one more Bill to be paid
Unbelievably missing from this account is the incredible likelihood that Bill is STILL playing around -- with his charm, with his energy, with his freedom, how could he not be? Sooner or later Bill's current affairs will be unearthed, and we'll have to relive all the sanctimony again.
-
Weakest part of the argument: Bill.
No matter how the Ds scratch and fight and rumble and grumble, if any of them meet Bill Clinton, they say "Thank you, sir." He's a liability to virtually no Dems.
All the rest are very possible.
And, BTW, Tangerine, I like the "Republican clown car o' candidates" line, and have used it in numerous LTEs!
-
What a nightmare.
I sincerely hope she doesn't get the nomination - she's the only candidate that I'd opt not to vote at all if it was a choice between her and a Republican. I distrust anyone who so baldly appeals to the lowest-common denominator, and her record of restricting liberties in order to make the government a babysitting operation is something I just can't support. Obama, great. Edwards, fine. Clinton . . . nope, just can't do it.
-
Negatives outweigh the positives
Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman, and a fine candidate of her own accord. She is also, unfortunately for her, not a candidate on her own. She is inextricably linked to her husband, and her own activities during his presidency are likely to be blown way, way out of proportion. This is added to the fact that she has a less than stellar voting record as a Senator, pleasing neither the left or the right wing, and leaving the middle to wonder where she really sits.
The connection to Bill is the most damaging, and most powerful, asset in her possession. He is well thought of, loved in fact, by the left wing of the party, and, he is the greatest campaign asset anyone could ever have, he is the best. But, there are many, many people on both sides of the party divide that don't cotton to his style or just him in general. Thus, the out of expected range of negatives for Hillary. She is going to be judged, fairly or not, by the deeds and misdeeds of her husband first, and her own record second.
That record leaves much, much to be desired in a primary season. In contests where the voters are more likely to be partisan, opinionated and demanding on their candidates, candidates who stick to the middle stand out in all the wrong ways. As Shapiro points out, in a race with only one or two electable options, that might not be dangerous. This campaign boasts three, at a bare minimum, and probably four or five electable candidates. Again, I think Shapiro is on the money when it comes to Iowa caucus goers giving their low performing candidate votes to somone, anyone, other than Hillary.
The nightmare scenario for Hillary goes like this: Come in first in Iowa, but by only single digit margin. Obama or Edwards make enormous jump over polls for one to place second, or worse still, create a three way race with not more than 5-10 points separating the top from the bottom. The story in the time between Iowa and New Hampshire is not Hillary in a landslide, but the suddenly vulnerable Hillary against a resurgent Obama. The momentum swings. It would take an enormous margin in New Hampshire to change the press story.
Now, damaged, in the defensive, Hillary goes down to South Carolina, where both Obama and Edwards have a real chance of beating her. That chance exists right now, imagine what it would be if one, the other, or both were up and coming. Now Hillary has to get nasty, and that would be the end of her campaign. The American people will not vote for angry Hillary, period. Shapiro points out correctly that now winning an early state would be the end, I think that even winning is not enough.
The front runner in the last election cam unglued in Iowa. It has happened before, and out here on that limb, I'm telling you, it will happen again.
-
some good points but
geez, what's with all the penny-ante psychologizing about her baseball rooting? That says precisely nothing about her other than she grew up in Chicago and now lives in New York. There are even Chicagoans who root for the White Sox and the Cubs. Rabid fans of either team despise them, but so what? This is how you pick a president? Please. Anyway, both teams are gone now, so who cares?
I'm with the Daily Howler. What is it about liberals that we can't resist repeating the mindless drivel of a conservative media elite?
You want to talk about her hawkishness, her campaign ties to Big Pharma, I'm all ears. These are legitimate issues, but why indulge in the stupid stuff.