Letters to the Editor
-
Clinton Conundrum
Polls are polls, I don't know what to make of them, anymore. And I don't know what to make of the Clinton candidacy, to be honest. The only thing I know is that she's been running a fake-Democratic candidacy, Republican Lite (e.g., running as Bill Clinton Version 2.0). That's enough to damn her in my eyes, at least as a Democrat.
So, if she wins the nomination and coasts to the Presidency, then that'll vindicate the DINO approach, and will short out the Democrats as anything but what, in practice, they've been for a long, long time -- the slightly more moderate wing of the all-powerful Corporate Party. I see that as winning the battle, losing the war for Democratic politics in America.
On the other hand, if she runs as a fake Republican against neo-fascist Giuliani, against a mobilized, energized GOP electorate goose-stepping to the polls under the "We Hate Hillary" banner, and the Democrats are trounced in the Presidential race, then (perhaps?) we'll see an end to the DLC-driven, DINO-style politics once and for all, despite continuing to lose the White House.
Although those DLC heels can explain away any loss; there's just too much corporate money thrown their way for them to completely vanish -- but my hope is that the majority of Democrats would abandon DINO politics for a real, heartily progressive platform, in the wake of a Clinton defeat.
I think that the GOP will take a drubbing at the polls in every race except the Presidency. I think they'll get creamed, and we'll see a solid Democratic majority in Congress. The GOP's policies are way out of step with what the majority of Americans actually want for this country, and a Giuliani Presidency would only magnify that difference further.
If I had to choose between a DINO president or a solidly progressive, assertive Democratic Congress, I'd take the latter, because the former reinforces the Imperial Presidency model Bush/Cheney ran with so aggressively, like "Deliver us from evil, O Great President!" versus a liberal Congress that actually holds the Leader to the Constitution and both the letter and spirit of the law, and pushes good legislation through that is veto-proof. That would be a more lasting victory for Americans, versus the symbolic victory of a White House win.
A big part of the problem with the Bush Years is that Congress went along for the ride. You don't fight an Imperial Presidency by trying to vote in a good empress, but rather, by taking apart a Imperial Presidency to begin with, and restoring rule of law and balance of powers.
-
I saw the debate last night.
Barack's point is well taken. Never mind the morass the election cycle will illuminate if the contest is between giuliani and Clinton, no matter which one of these polarizing figures is elected, this country is in for at least four more years of a "us vs. them" politics of division and meanspiritedness. This country doesn't need that on the heels of the fear mongered Bush years. I think Obama, or Dodd, or Edwards would have a much more calming effect on the other side of the isle than Hillary. The GOP hates her and will do to her what they did to Bill: attack, attack, attack ad nausea. We need to turn the page here in America and she or giuliani are not the right ones to do it.
-
The difference
Do some of you imagine thet, if someone other than HRC is nominated, that the Republican attack machine WOULD NOT be brought out in full force?
This retort...
"I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having"
is misleading. They may be obsessed, they may be comfortable with that fight, but it is also a fight that they have lost in the past, and will lose today. The very fact that they keep on fighting this old battle shows that they know that they have lost. Bill Clinton (for whatever you may think of him) is viewed very very positively today, and not only in contrast to the current president, but in his own right.
HRC is much tougher than any of those other candy-asses out there - Hell, she's probably tougher than Bill - She will destroy her opponents in the debates, her machine will run over them in the ad wars. The religious right will stay home on election day, and the Dems will sweep.
-
Hillary = the human equivalent of catnip to the Republicans....
It's not fear--it's anticipation. Senator Clinton will be a magnet that draws out voters who otherwise would have sat this one out...those voters might be lukewarm towards Rudy 9/11 - 24/7, but they'll probably force themselves to get over it, in order to make sure Clinton doesn't get elected.
And just imagine the effect that might have on everyone running on the Democratic ticket. Fabulous!
-
The GOP is only half the story
One of the GOP's secret weapons against Senator Clinton is that many on the left harbor a virulent hatred for her. The Left absolutely hated Bill, too, back in the early 1990s. It wasn't until Republicans went too far and impeached him that there was some rallying of support.
Senator Clinton will face nearly as much opposition from "progressives" as she'll get from the cons. Although people who have met her like her, and she has broad support nationally, we will do everything we can to bring in President Guiliani - and then whine about him for the next 8 years.
-
I suspect...
Hillary WILL be the next Democrat Presidental nominee. I also predict she will be systematically defeated as well.
Just as it is almost (I DID say ALMOST) inevitable that she will obtain the nomination, it is also almost inevitable that she will be defeated by WHOEVER is the Republican nominee.
-
Grieving over Hillary Clinton
I was actually quite dismayed by this article. It is an escalation on a theme Grieve wrote about yesterday.
Quote:
Barack Obama delivered the obvious retort: "Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the '90s."
End quote.
Obvious? Not by my lights. The “fight” against the Clintons by the Republicans is a “fight” the Republicans have always LOST! Bill was president for eight years you may recall, and the Republican impeachment was party line and lost in the Senate trial. Hillary won New York twice, extending her margin of victory the second time. Just exactly what about all that would make the Republicans feel “comfortable?”
Quote:
John Edwards piled on: "I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Sen. Clinton is -- Senator, they may actually want to run against you, and that's the reason they keep bringing you up."
A new Quinnipiac University poll out this morning has Clinton trailing Rudy Giuliani by two points nationally, a five-point swing away from the former first lady since the last time Quinnipiac posed the question in August. Other recent polls have Clinton leading Giuliani among voters nationwide.
End quote.
I do not understand the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs, unless you mean to imply that Edwards is right, because the pole shows Giulliani can beat Clinton. By the way, is it no longer good journalistic ethics to point out that both the former and present poll have Giulliani and Clinton tied within the margin of error; in other words there is really no statistical difference in the earlier and current poll?
For what it’s worth, you also don’t mention that Obama and Edwards are not doing any better. Obama is tied within the margin of error and Edwards is trailing Giulliani outside the margin of error.
Add your article today to the one yesterday about “the Politics of Hope” and you seem to be losing your objectivity here. You write as if Obama and Edwards are taking the high road, but there is little evidence to support you. When Edwards berates Clinton for supposedly changing her position on Iraq (which I feel is not an accurate criticism), does he really think that voting for the resolution and then apologizing is not a change of position? Do you think that apology was not somewhat expedient? It would have been very easy for Clinton to apologize as well, instead she is willing to take the heat for what is certainly not an expedient position. Who is telling the truth all the time here?
As for why Clinton is being attacked by Obama and Edwards, let’s take a look at another part of that poll you don’t mention in your article. Clinton has gained strength among Democrats nationwide and now leads Obama in the primary field 47 - 21 percent, with 12 percent for Edwards. This compares to a 36 - 21 percent Clinton lead among Democrats August 15. Enough of this Grieving about the fact that Clinton has the lead. She will make the best president of any of the candidates. She makes her decisions based on what she thinks is right, not what she thinks liberal Democrats want to hear, and she will be a strong president. As the current poll shows, as of now, she would do as well as any of the other Dem candidates and better than most in the general election.
The attention that Republicans have been giving Clinton has a number of motivations. They can’t talk about Bush and it is safe to talk about Clinton, because no one at the debate is going to criticize them for it. It makes little sense to say that they are doing it because they want Clinton to win the nomination. If they wanted that, then they would be trying to make it appear as though she is the one they least want or are most afraid of (without actually looking afraid, of course). Obama’s comment about the Republicans feeling comfortable talking about Clinton really has no substance at best and makes no sense at worst. That you think it was the appropriate response makes even less sense.