Falsifed?
Of course, no sooner do I make my prediction about Clinton giving up, than it is arguably falsified.
For example, following "Shame on you, Barack Obama" (for his having the gall to make a counter-assertion on health care), note this past week's frontal assault by opinion-makers about regret that we might be stuck with Obama, when we really don't know what kind of vicious attacks the Republicans will make on him -- the things way too nasty for Clinton's people ever to bring up, because you know they've only been going with the weaker material, because they're that virtuous -- and besides, have you heard of Rezko? And won't the Republicans take advantage of the fact that Obama hates America, and is really kind of foreign himself, and wayyy too sensitive about the race issue?
Obama's association with Rezko is easily almost half as fishy as the Clinton's with Norman Hsu, and you know the Republicans will have a field day with Obama's questionable associations, which will hit him ten times as hard, because really, all Obama has going for him is that he is putatively not the old sleazy type of politician, whereas with the case of pardons for donations, pardons for FALN terrorists for votes, pardons for larcenous community leaders for votes, pardons for $100,000 payments made to two of Hillary Clinton's brothers, and lobbying for Kazakh uranium contracts for $10 million contributions -- there's just no way the Republicans could use that old news against Hillary -- let alone the really old news which Hillary has actually had to answer questions about, like the $100,000 commodities payoff, and her legal work furthering the Whitewater scam.
Yes, in the fall it will be the Clintons who will be wearing the teflon.
Because we already know who we're dealing with when it comes to the Clintons.
She's just too tested. And all evidence from the primary to the contrary (you know, poor strategy, wasted money, tin ear) -- and despite every poll comparing Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain -- we all know it's Hillary that can go up against John McCain in the general election.
And did I mention that she's been tested -- as only the wife of a President Clinton could be?
And that, having been "mislead" by Bush into voting for giving war a chance, Hillary is just the one to be trusted with pulling us out of it? And that, having screwed up politically and legally on health care and then losing the Congress to the Republicans, we know that only Hillary has the wisdom of experience to do it again, to completion this time?
All snark aside, arguably this last-gasp defense (offense?) is more useful in ensuring donations from red-meat liberal backers than in swaying undecided voters, and more useful in ensuring a loss for Obama in November, than in ensuring a win for Hillary next week rather than in 4 years.
Because there's no downside when you're $5 million in the hole and fading in every poll.
And who knows? Maybe she can go the distance.
6 comments:
I guess she got her $5 million back. They're claiming they collected $35 million for the month of February.
I wouldn't be surprised to see her cry for the camera again this Wednesday unless she really shines on Tuesday.
Have you given any thought to voting for McCain in November? At least he's got integrity. He's about the only national politician of either party that I feel comfortable believing when I hear words come out of his mouth, I do not agree with everything he says, but I know its what he really believes.
I don't think McCain is temperamentally suited for the Presidency. Primarily in that, like the Clintons, he has a problem with rageaholism -- angrily telling other Senators in official meetings to go F___ themselves, for example, without what appeared a significant provocation. (But as far as I know, he has never thrown anything in anger at his spouse.)
I've had a rageaholic boss, and I've seen how it leads to people keeping bad news a secret, to reduced communication of all kinds, and to ineffective and paralyzed decision-making at all levels of an organization. I think in the case of the Clintons it goes hand in hand with Bill going for a year at a time without a cabinet meeting, and reportedly going for up to a year without meeting with his Vice President. This is no way to run any organization, let alone a government -- or of course a campaign, as we are perhaps seeing right now in the Hillary effort.
And I do think age is an issue. McCain is reportedly able to keep up a grueling pace, and doesn't seem senile or anything, but he also must be expected to age and decline more noticeably than previous Presidents, all of whom except for Reagan were significantly younger. (And most people, even many of Reagan's defenders, did think he was noticeably less able in his last two or three years.)
All that said, I would be more comfortable with someone of McCain's positions regarding war. (I am unusually hawkish.)
Barring new developments, I am ambivalent between McCain and Obama, even though the latter is a leftwing dove. I would vote against Clinton in any likely scenario.
I had to laugh as I read this post. Because I'm just not quite clear how you really feel about Hillary. I mean, maybe you could be a little less opaque.
ha.
I actually liked McCain until 2004. I agreed with him on little, but I felt like he stood his ground and he stood up to his party more than most from either party. But then came 2004: silence during swift-boating, and his "Bush is the man even though he told people I had an illegitimate black baby" and after that the "Now I heart Jerry Fallwell" stuff...and I don't know. His integrity just seemed to plummet.
Actually it was the other way around in 2004 and the Swift Boat vets. Here, for example, is a column written by Joe Conason, who is well left of center:
******
Republicans' Dishonorable Charge
Now even John McCain has condemned the Swift Boat Veterans' outrageous attack on John Kerry's Vietnam record.
By Joe Conason
Aug 6, 2004
"Dishonest and dishonorable" is how John McCain described the attack ad now appearing on television in several swing states, courtesy of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Dishonest because the men who appear in the ad make false claims about John Kerry's wartime conduct and decorations. Dishonorable because these men have waited three decades to publicize their slurs, with partisan motives, during a presidential campaign.
With his passionate denunciation of the swift boat commercial and its sponsors, McCain again displayed the dignity and self-respect that once elevated him above other politicians. Calling on President Bush to repudiate the ugly anti-Kerry ad, McCain took a step back from his awkward embrace of the Republican ticket last month. "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt," he told reporters, while acknowledging that he didn't know whether Bush strategists were involved.
Oh, well done. It's funny, because what I remember is his silence. Maybe by that point I'd turned it all off in disgust?
Please find something that says that he didn't actually shower Fallwell with love. I'd love to be wrong on that one, too.
McCain and Falwell, whom McCain had called an "agent of intolerance," did indeed have a rapprochement in 2006, when McCain gave a commencement address in 2006 at Falwell's Liberty University, although I suppose that "shower with love" is a bit of an overstatement. Note, for example:
When asked by ABC News if he thinks Falwell has changed, McCain said: "Rev. Falwell came to my office and said that he wanted to put our differences behind us. I was glad to do that."
When asked if he takes back his earlier statement that Falwell was an agent of intolerance, McCain said, "I will continue to have disagreements with Rev. Falwell, and I hope that there will be areas where we can agree."
Post a Comment