The Truth About Hillary Clinton

TheDad · June 14, 2005, 12:30pm

Xiggi, fwiw, I tabbed Bill Clinton as both the candidate and ultimate winner in early December of 1991, approximately two months before the first primary. That was an easy call, though the Jennifer Flowers thing was an unanticipated bump in the road that could have changed things but didn’t. The geometry of that race was clearly Clinton/Tsongas/No one, once Mario Cuomo decided not to run and Jesse Jackson obligingly decided not to stir up the waters.

That was a year of little knowns, however. 2008 is different. There are several well-known qualities: John Edwards, Wesley Clarke, a possible reprise of John Kerry. There are the well-marked wannabes trying to catch lightning in a bottle: Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsac.

IF she decides to run, there is no way that any of them will beat Hillary. No one can come close to matching up in fundraising, staff personnel, organization, and, for lack of a better word, star power. Most of them would have trouble filling a conference center in a Holiday Inn with 100 potential supporters…HC can get the crowds anywhere she goes.

John Edwards is the best speaker that I’ve heard since Bill Clinton. He could conceivably be the “last man standing” in a “anybody but Hillary” movement…btw, there is much more wariness of HC among the “Deaniac Progressives” than anywhere else in the party…they despise her for being an accommodating centrist…shrug, we can all use our Sister Souljah moments…but I don’t see from what vantage point John Edwards can run. It’s awfully hard to do as a private citizen four years out of office without a powerful pulpit. Plus, the weakness with Edwards, as with the gubernatorial wannabes, is credentials on defense/security. You could argue that Wesley Clark could play that card…and fwiw I sent him $$$ early last time…but I’ll make book that if Hillary runs, he will not, choosing instead between running for governor of Arkansas or being HC’s shadow Sec/Defense.

I find God’s Own Party harder to handicap. I flat out don’t think that McCain or Giuliani survive the Republican primaries and I’m doubtful that Chuck Hagel can as well. The latest bumps in the road over judges and Bolton notwithstanding, I think the nomination is Frist’s to lose, save for one scenario, where Dick Cheney allows himself to be drafted into the race for “the good of the country” as the true believers would have it.

Certainly a Cheney-Clinton race would be a choice, not an echo.

If not Frist or Cheney, I’m not sure who emerges…Brownback has the talk, would need to see if he has the walk.

I agree, but not the way you think. The upper Midwest has good Democratic potential…holding Minnesota, taking back Iowa are both extremely doable. Jim Talent’s 2006 bid for reelection to the Senate in Missouri will give a snapshot of what’s possible there. I think Arkansas is doable for the Dems.

New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Montana all have reasonable Dem chances.

As long as the theocratic neocons hold sway, most of the Confederacy is going Republican and I’m not going to lose sleep over it.

Btw, anent the Hispanic vote, you should be looking around in California as the GOP consistently machineguns itself in the foot. First Pete Wilson, now Ahnold with the immigrant bashing.

Oh, and I’ll make book that Antonio Villaraigosa is the next Senator from California when either Boxer or Feinstein retires.

xiggi · June 14, 2005, 2:02pm

TheDad, if you picked Clinton to WIN not only the nomination but the election in December 1991, you are indeed a mastermind at this game. Especially since that was more or less two months after Clinton’s announcement that followed the early withdrawals of Cuomo and Gore.

It was also only a few weeks after Clinton was still trying to save face in his own backyard.

Quoted from Meredith Oakley - Oct. 4 1991 - His word is dirt: Basking in Clinton’s false and empty light.

"Clinton has never been known for keeping his word. There is a Scottish proverb that fits his particular code of honor: He never lies but when the holly is green.
If there remained any doubt about that–rather, if there remained any hope that even Clinton would not betray a pledge made before a statewide television audience–it gulped its last breath at the moment those fateful words of wishdom rang through the trees of the Old State House.

“Will you guarantee all of us,” asked newsman Craig Cannon on Oct. 15, 1990, “that if re-elected, there is absolutely, positively no way that you’ll run for any other political office and that you’ll serve out your term in full?”

“You bet,” Clinton declared. "I told you when I announced for governor I intended to run, and that’s what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna serve four years. I made that decision when I decided to run. I’m being considered for as a candidate for governor. That’s the job I want. That’s the job I’ll do for the next four years.

His word is dirt.
Not a statesman is he, but a common, run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen politician.
A mere opportunist.
A man whose word is fallow ground not because it is unwanted but because it is barren, bereft of the clean-smelling goodness that nurtures wholesome things.
Those of us who cling to the precepts of another age, a time in which a man’s word was his bond, and, morally, bailing out was not an option, cannot join the madding crowd in celebrating what is for some Bill Clinton’s finest hour.
We cannot rejoice in treachery."

In addition of being a political seer, you were also a very forgiving man. A quality that must have served you well in the following eight years.

Oh well, enough of this. By now, you know where I stand on the Clinton’s. My only consolation is that the history books won’t be as kind as the former president contemporaries seem to be, unless they focus on his post-presidential exploits.

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 2:24pm

Actually, I think the history books will confirm what everyone already knows about Bill Clinton: one of the most naturally-gifted, charismatic politicians to have ever come down the pike.

Al Gore cost himself the presidency by distancing himself from Bill Clinton.

Enjoi · June 14, 2005, 2:35pm

Al Gore cost himself the presidency by distancing himself from Bill Clinton.

Having relations with Bill Clinton doesnt help much. Bill Clinton also helped Kerry with his campaign but did that help did it?

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 2:43pm

Actually, Kerry’s campaign was already wearing toe-tags on a gurney in the morgue by the time the Cintonistas muscled in and shoved the Dukakis/Gore “strategists” to the sidelines.

Kerry never had a prayer in the last election. The worst candidate since Dukakis – from the wrong state, with no record, no ideas, and no political communication skills whatsoever.

He’s been my senator forever and I can’t think of a single thing he’s ever said or done. He’s been a ghost, even in Massachusetts.

My personal opinion is that the Clintons really didn’t want Kerry to win. Four more years of a Bush administration is much more favorable for a Hillary '08 election bid.

Enjoi · June 14, 2005, 2:54pm

Kerry never had a prayer in the last election. The worst candidate since Dukakis – from the wrong state, with no record, no ideas, and no political communication skills whatsoever.

Remember, the election was a close one. Kerry needed Ohio to win. As fas as his communications and ideas are concerned, i think he made them clear in all three presidential debates. :)

I do agree with you over Bill Clinton not wanting Kerry for President. But do you know WHY he’s unfavorable for Hillary’s 08 bid? Its because Kerry would have been a much better president than Dubya, and it would be hard for the Clintons to get him out.

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 3:22pm

Yes, I do know why.

Because neither party is able to put together a platform that addresses the concerns of the broad center and inspires positive support, the only successful “message” in American politics today is “throw the bums out”.

The party out of power has an inherent advantage in campaigning with that message. It’s easy to see this dynamic at work as we watch Republicans stumble around as the majority party.

BTW, the 2004 election wasn’t that close. The outcome was never really in doubt. Not because of any strong support for Bush, but rather because the election was fought solely based on the dynamics of the war on terror. Any challenger would have faced an uphill battle to convince the electorate to change horses in mid-stream.

Lacking the ability to develop and communicate a coherent alternative strategy, Kerry had no prayer. The lack of political instincts among his warmed over Dukakis/Gore “strategists” and the general distain of the Democratic Party poo-bahs towards shaping an effective centrist message compounded his problems. They made it child’s play for the Republicans to paint Kerry as a fringe left-wing candidate.

The only thing that even gave the election the appearance of being competitive is the fact that Bush is also a notably uninspiring candidate. A lot of voters had to hold their noses to vote for anyone in the 2004 election cycle. There were no “great communicators” this time around.

TheDad · June 14, 2005, 3:28pm

Xiggi, I did indeed call it so, at an early holiday party. Bit’s of fluff like the article you cite do not distract me from looking at underlying fundamentals. In your copious spare time…hah!..I commend to your attention a book, QUEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY: 1992, written by a team of Newsweek reporters and published by Texas A&M Press. It’s OP but you can find it on Bookfinders or Amazon or Powell’s easily enough. They had an unusual access to people from not only the three ultimate candidates–Bush, Clinton, Perot–early on but also everyone else, including Tsongas, Wilder, Bob Kerrey, etc. Excellent reading and the best dissection of a campaign season I’ve ever read; its multi POV approach reminds me a bit of Cornelius Ryan’s THE LONGEST DAY in the way it flips back and forth among the various POV’s.

Enjoi, Kerry started to pull it together once the Clintonista staffers came on board but it was too little, too late. I disagree with Idad about Kerry’s chances. He made two critical mistakes that cost him. First, he made his convention all one note: his Vietnam service. This gave Karl Rove and the wingnuts a simple mission: call into question that single pillar and you knock the entire candidacy off track. Kerry needed to establish several facets as a raison d’etre for his candidacy, not just one. [Side note: the whole “I voted before it before I voted against it” thing was a ridiculous self-inflicted wound. I know exactly what he meant: he voted for the funding in an early draft before the final version was loaded with poison pills that made it unacceptable. A common political tactic used by both sides. Shrug. Explain it that way and move on.]

The second thing was following that !@#$%^&*! Bob Shrum’s advice and not responding to the Swift Boad Liars ads for three week. Three effing weeks, in which, in the absence of a response, Kerry was defined to too many people. Against all that, running against a so-called “war time” incumbent, he came within a hair’s breadth of winning.

Enjoi · June 14, 2005, 3:33pm

TheDad, I completely agree with you. At least Kerry learned something from his mistakes!! Swift Boat Liars make me sick to the stomach!!

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 3:34pm

That was symptomatic of the fact that Kerry was devoid of any other “notes” to play. The convention actually served to highlight the fact that, in 25 years of public service since VietNam, he had no track record of accomplishment.

Combine that with his weak politcal communication skills and it adds up to a weak candidate.

Enjoi · June 14, 2005, 3:37pm

I think Kerry was a good communicator and everyone was well aware of his plans as president. No wonder why he blasted Bush in all three presidential debates.

zagat · June 14, 2005, 4:05pm

I’m surprised no one has mentioned Kerry’s blue blood patrician air. Most of the Country just couldn’t relate. A blue blood Massachusetts liberal? What were the Dems thinking?

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 4:17pm

Precisely my point.

The problem is that the “poo-bahs” of the Democratic Party are uncomfortable with the DLC-style centrist candidates like Carter or Clinton. Those candidates fight an uphill battle in the nomination process, just as moderate Republican candidates are marginalized by the rabid fringes of the GOP.

The ultimate example that the Dem. Poo-bahs don’t “get it” was the selection of Boston as the site for the convention. What exactly were they trying to accomplish with that? They surely weren’t worried about solidifying the base in Massachusetts? Yet, they played right into the hands of Karl Rove, giving him a perfect symbol of the things centrist voters don’t like about the dems.

ariesathena · June 14, 2005, 5:24pm

“A blue blood Massachusetts liberal? What were the Dems thinking?”

EXACTLY!

In a lot of ways, Democrats need the South. As mentioned in an earlier thread, they need to put up someone who can manage to not talk down to half the country. IMO, Edwards doesn’t help much- the rural South at least must completely hate the whole malpractice thing (speaking as someone who lives in a rural area, can say that we are all very scared of the few doctors we have leaving for any reason). I can imagine a lot of the people down there looking at that duo and just thinking, “No.”

Bottom line: in 2008, the Dems need to put someone on who:
a) gets the South*
b) has some sort of track record. Kerry, as mentioned above, didn’t have a track record of anything. Ted Kennedy, as much as I don’t like him, at least gets stuff done in Massachusetts. HC, much as I dislike her, at least is visible and putting her name on stuff. Many people will go for the devil they know over the one they don’t know - witness 2004.

*Notably, one who can actually win his home state. Al Gore lost TN in 2000, and Kerry/Edwards lost NC in 2004. Clinton won Arkansas both years.

ariesathena · June 14, 2005, 5:26pm

Why has no one mentioned Mitt Romney for 2008 for the GOP? I would personally LOVE to see Condi run and, IMO, she’s the best person stratigically to defeat Hillary.

Enjoi · June 14, 2005, 5:28pm

Condi said she won’t run.

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 5:35pm

I believe that Mitt Romney is pro-choice. There’s no place for that in the G.O.P.

I actually think he’d make a terrific running mate for Hillary.

ariesathena · June 14, 2005, 5:48pm

“I believe that Mitt Romney is pro-choice. There’s no place for that in the G.O.P.”

He’s done what Kerry SHOULD have done: pointed out that abortion is inconsistent with his religious views but he does not seek to ban it for a myriad of reasons, such as back-alley abortions being worse than the current situation or leaving the moral choice from a woman. Pick a reason, any reason - lots of Americans understand separation of the private self from what you want to legislate.

There is a fairly strong group of libertarians who don’t want to go Democrat but are really not a fan of this whole religion thing that the Bible-thumpers are promoting. Mitt is mostly a business guy - Bush carried the GOP ticket on religion, but Mitt could get it on the classic (i.e. pre-Christians taking over the right) Republican mainstays: small business, promote econ. growth, small gov’t. The libertarians would be all over that. Bible-thumpers are actually a minority of the GOP, just a loud, vocal, obnoxious minority (a la Michael Moore).

You are right about a Hillary-Romney (or R-H) ticket being solid.

interesteddad · June 14, 2005, 6:06pm

That’s what I said! Romney has no prayer of running the red-meat guantlet to the Republican nomination. Heck, they’ll probably make the nominee sign a loyalty oath opposing the teaching of evolution.

They’ll run Romney out of the party just like Bill Weld before him.

BTW, it’s getting a little preposterous for Republicans to run on the issue of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. If the Dems were smart, they’d bludgeon them to death on the budget issue since a Democratic pres. is the only one in the last quarter century who has managed to balance one. But, they’d have to nominate their own centrist candidate first.

coureur · June 14, 2005, 6:07pm

It’s better than it was. If you watch old footage of him, he used to have an accent that was pure Thurston Howell III.

The Truth About Hillary Clinton

CONNECT WITH US