68 Comments

1. Mr. Davis:

Bill Clinton like Bush? Is that because of Clinton’s steadfastness at Mogadishu, the way he snookered the North Koreans, or his firm hand with Saddam Hussein?

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:44 pm 2. Roger:

Mr. Davis, all pre-9/11. A different world. I would read te various statements of BIll and Hillary in the last couple of years before making such sweeping generalizations. Over-simplifying doesn’t convince anybody, at least not me.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:49 pm 3. Silicon valley Jim:

I agree that Taranto did an excellent job in the post today, among other things in making the distinction between having the best chance and having more than an even chance.

I am less than fully convinced that Hillary actually holds grown-up foreign policy views just because she’s talking as if she holds them. Her husband talked like a centrist, but he governed like a left-winger (North Korea, Iraq, Somalia, Lani Guinier, Bill Lann Lee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillarycare . . .). I strongly suspect that her views on whether her statements commit her to anything parallel his.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:50 pm 4. Roger:

SVJ, what do you think of Cinton having led the charge against Milosevic? (Don’t see how Lani Guinier, etc. fit in this discussion?)

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:53 pm 5. TedM:

Jim,

For the time being, what difference. It is like a breath of fresh air to hear a Democrat not sound like Barbara Boxer or Teddy Kennedy.

Clinton has enough allies in her party to tone down the mindless foreign policy the Democrats have slithered into.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:54 pm 6. JeremyR:

People are selective when it comes to Bill Clinton. Welfare reform, Bosnia, Serbia, various free trade stuff, etc, are all places where he governed like a Republican.

Yes, he did some lefty stuff, but it balanced out. All in all, he was a moderate for the most part. If he had a weakness, it was his need to be liked. Which is why he pulled out in Somalia, afraid of bad press.

Reagan suffered from the same thing – which is why he bailed out in Lebananon after the attack that killed all those Marines and never did anything in retaliation against Hezbollah. Or the first Bush, failing to unseat Saddam the first time around.

However, I share the doubts that Hilliary will be as centrist as Bill. She probably is leftist when it comes to social problems. But I have the feeling she will be very tough when it comes to foreign policy.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:58 pm 7. JB:

Roger,

So the issue isn’t what Hillary says (no-one has ever accused her of being a dumb politician) but whether you can trust what’s in her heart. What does she really believe? What’s her vision of America? A lot of intelligent people voted for Kerry based on his talking points without deeply probing into these issues.

Feb 22, 2005 - 2:59 pm 8. Mr. Davis:

Clinton was in office for 8 years. What did he do in that time that was comparable to Bush?

I will grant you that Hillary has talked a better game, but I’m not sure I’d trust her in action. If she really wanted the big seat she should show her ability to manage things by replacinjg Pataki.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:01 pm 9. Silicon valley Jim:

I think that Clinton did, on the whole, a good job vs Milosevic.

I don’t think that Lani Guinier, etc., have anything to do with foreign policy. My point is that, having convinced American voters that he was a centrist or center-left, he then proceeded to nominate members of the far left to important federal government posts.

I guess I fundamentally don’t believe anything that either Bill or Hillary says. I believe that either of them would say absolutely anything if (s)he believed it would be to his/her advantage. I’m not sure that the concept of truth resides in his head or hers, although, to quote Bill, that depends on what the meaning of “truth” is.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:01 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

There is certainly enough time remaining to determine whether Hillary is a spotted tiger or a striped leopard. The health care debacle in ‘93 taught her that using Alinsky’s methods to arrive in power doesn’t mean that, once arrived, one can circumvent the legislative process. She’s carrying a lot of baggage and she will be facing many, many votes that will paint truer pictures than ever a word from her mouth will.

If nothing else, it will be entertaining to watch. Team Dean v. Team Clinton in a death cage match should sell a lot of tickets.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:04 pm 11. TedM:

Rick,

If you watched the Dean-Perle debate on C-Span you might have noticed a softening in Team Dean.

He is now hedging a lot.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:07 pm 12. JBR:

A potential problem with a President Hillary is that, even if she means well in foreign policy, she will have been elected with the support of millions of moonbats who clearly do not mean well in foreign policy. That support would presumably have a significant impact on what she would do as President.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:26 pm 13. Hovig:

Roger – I have to agree with Mr Davis and SV Jim above. The Clintons are talkers.

Bill was a narcissist without beliefs. Hilary has beliefs, but I feel in my heart that they’re aligned with Ted Kennedy. She’s only moderate because her ambition is larger than her vision.

When her back is against the wall during the rigors of the campaign, will the moderate Hilary stay in control, or will the leftist come through the cracks.

She’s highly intelligent, and she might just keep it together long enough to get elected, but something tells me people will question themselves before they push the lever in her column. They won’t mind electing her, but they’ll question exactly what she’ll do once she gets past the rhetoric.

Note by comparison the new tape-recorded interview of GW Bush. Analysts from both sides agreed it changed nothing. We already knew who Bush is. “What you see is what you get.” I don’t think that’s true of Hilary. The only question is not whether the veneer will crack, but when and how.

Back to Bill, tho, he’s another story. He governed in whatever style was expedient, and made whichever decision made him feel better about himself. Decent middle-manager, but not a visionary leader. As far as his record, you’d have to show me some logical consistency and purposefulness in order to make me believe there’s something meaningful to any of the trends. For every Bosnia there’s a Rwanda, Somalia, WTC, and Kenya. For every HilaryCare there’s ten Gingrich-led economic laws. Unless you can show me how his positive achievements fit with integrity into some grander arc of social or moral vision, I’ll simply argue that his accomplishments were the result of random chance.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:40 pm 14. chuck:

Ah,

But who is her foreign policy team? Bill pretty much screwed up foreign policy, IMHO, and I believe this was both from lack of interest and from lack of good people. I have absolutely no idea where Hillary stands in these matters, but I don’t see anyone in the current Democratic stable whom I would trust in foreign affairs. Part of the problem is that folks like Holbrooke pretty much disgraced themselves in the last election.

As to domestic matters, I am sooooo tired of anything whatsoever that smacks of PC. I don’t see how Hillary can escape the general trend of the Democratic party here.

We will have to wait and see who the competition is, but if the Republicans don’t sucumb to their darkside and actually pick someone toward the center, Hillary won’t be getting my vote.

Feb 22, 2005 - 3:55 pm 15. jedrury:

David Geffen was right the other day when he opined that “Hillary can’t win.”

Her negatives rival Teddy’s, and, lest we forget, Robert Ray.

Who’s he?

The last independent prosecutor who concluded that Hillary lied before the DC grand jury but that he was not going to prosecute her.

Her candidacy will resurrect Bubba’s pardon scandal, their theft of gifts and the tawdry nature of Clintons.

Writing that red state hatred of Hillary will help her is nonsense. Her candidacy will drive red state turn out.

Taranto is merely playing the game of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox on this column.

Is this column another Karl Rove trick?

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:00 pm 16. chuck:

what do you think of Cinton having led the charge against Milosevic?

I don’t think he did very well. He struck me as almost incapacitated by panic and McClain was the one I looked to for reassurance. Likewise, turning Kosovo over to the UN and the EU was probably a scewup driven more by foolish idealism than any reality. The status of Kosovo was a difficult one to deal with, and he just kicked it on down the road.

Clinton also did poorly with Somalia, Rwanda, and North Korea. Now this doesn’t mean Hillary would do equally badly, but she is tainted by association. It sure make me uncomfortable, anyway.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:09 pm 17. Terrye:

I don’t think Hillary is that far left, but I don’t think she can win becasue so many people just can not stand the sight of her.

Bill Clinton supported Bush on Iraq, which is more than can be said for most of the Democrats.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:10 pm 18. Gabriel Gonzalez:

I have always been a moderately enthusiastic Hillary fan and would continue to support her, as long as she does not get too contaminated by the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party. That’s because I agree with the general thrust of her expressed positions on foreign policy, health care, education, childcare, etc. I also think she is a pragmatist.

She has a lot of negatives – Republicans hate her – but she has the advantage as pointed out in the Journal article that she is one of the few, perhaps the only, plausible moderates to get through the nomination process. Even Michael Moore supports her.

A Hillary Condi match could outdo the Thriller in Manila. (Frankly, I don’t know which one I’d vote for.)

Final point: Hillary has enormous respect abroad.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:29 pm 19. Pat Curley:

She’s being very savvy, using the triangulation strategy that worked so well for her husband. And Taranto’s right, she’s about the only person in the Democratic Party who can thumb her nose at the radical left wing and not have to pay a price for it.

I still say she’s unelectable. As in the past (with Congress, the Senate and the Governor’s mansion), the first woman president will be a Republican.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:34 pm 20. Terrye:

I know a lot of Democrat men who will not vote for Hillary. There is something about her that a lot of men can’t stomach. I know there are a lot of guys that are afraid to admit that, but tis true.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:44 pm 21. AlanC:

Roger,

I think that I understand where you are coming from given the timing of your “eyes opening” experience, but, I must question your response to Mr. D……

“Mr. Davis, all pre-9/11. A different world. I would read te various statements of BIll and Hillary in the last couple of years before making such sweeping generalizations. Over-simplifying doesn’t convince anybody, at least not me.”

But, Bill HAD his 9/11 when the bad guys tried to bring down the WTC way back in ‘93, what did he/they (let’s add Hill) do? Is the fact that they weren’t smart/lucky enough to actually bring them down relevant, or is it the intent that counts? Of course there were the embassies and the Cole etc. too. Nope, don’t trust her or him, they are too enthralled by those oh so sophisticated Euros and UNiacs for my taste.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:44 pm 22. Patrick Tyson:

For every HilaryCare there’s ten Gingrich-led economic laws.

That’s the kind of comment that would set me off were we actually in the midst of a campaign. What fiscal responsibility there was during the ’90s was due first and foremost to one man and that man is Ross Perot. Then it was due to the 43% who voted for Bill Clinton and the 19% who voted for Ross Perot in 1992. My guess is that Newt Gingrich voted for neither.

As to foreign policy, before 9/11 there was little to no difference between the Bush foreign policy and that that had been pursued by two previous administrations. If I’d been emperor, we’d have ousted Saddam in 1991, stayed in Somalia, intervened much earlier in the Balkans, intervened period in Rwanda and taken out the Taliban if they hadn’t turned over bin Laden after the African Embassy bombings and damn the consequences. Thankfully, I’m not emperor and neither is the President of the United States.

End of rant.

Feb 22, 2005 - 4:45 pm 23. David Thomson:

And Taranto’s right, she’s about the only person in the Democratic Party who can thumb her nose at the radical left wing and not have to pay a price for it.

Does Taranto believe in the tooth fairy? The radical leftists control the Democratic Partyís presidential nomination process. Senator Clinton must either goes along with their agenda—or they will destroy her. These ideological purists will instinctively opt for a scorched earth policy. John Kerry was as right wing as they could swallow. Remember this cold fact of life: every presidential nominee must first run through the gauntlet of their own partyís hard core activists before the general public gets to take a serious look at them.

Feb 22, 2005 - 5:24 pm 24. mudmarine:

Well to start.. I never liked/trusted Bill Clinton. I then proceeded to vote for him twice. Oh well. (GWB this time, just to clarify.) Fortunately I am no longer a ‘ticket’ voter. Very liberating to begin to think for ones self, too bad it took 57 years to do so. And, by the way, I saw nothing in the eight years of his presidency to change my mind concerning my initial ‘gut’ feeling.

As for Hillary.. I believe the point about her being a moderate, who could somehow keep the far left of the party in the background, would and perhaps will, lead to her receiving the nomination. My ‘gut’ feeling about her is similar to what I felt about Bill. I will not vote for her unless I see substantial changes in her avowed policies, which we are beginning to see in foreign affairs and defense, whether these changes are real or not is another story.

I do think that she will stand an extremely good chance of winning if she should run. The Dem’s managed to garner 48% with JF’nK, I believe they may do better with Hillary. That is of course, if enough men can overcome their reticence to vote for a woman.

Unless, that is, the Repub’s nominate Condi Rice. I have read the discussions here in regards to this subject. I still think she is a viable candidate. I just can’t see any male republicans on the radar who could defeat Hillary. I think she would hold the edge.

So for me, 2008 is possibly going to be even more interesting and exciting that 2004. It could be bigger than the “Thriller in Manila” as “Gabriel Gonzalez” said above.

Feb 22, 2005 - 5:54 pm 25. Rick Ballard:

“What fiscal responsibility there was during the ’90s was due first and foremost to one man and that man is Ross Perot.”

That’s odd. The first bill proposed under Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ was called the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I suppose one might argue that the Contract with America which helped tremendously in the 54 seat pickup that delivered the House to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years was a Perot product, even though half of it was drawn directly from Reagan’s ‘85 State of the Union. Surprisingly, the alternative argument that Gingrich was fulfilling Reagan’s promises is accepted in some quarters.

Feb 22, 2005 - 5:57 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

Putting aside pre 9/11 (why? that’s a big part of why we’re where we are today)…

I cannot wait to see Hillary try to run to the center while Dean tries to keep his hard left supporters, that he was hired to bring on board, on the boat and pumping out money. Remember, this time, the Democratic primary candidates won’t have the hate-Bush card; they have to whale on each other. Hillary-Gore-Kerry would be better than midget wrestling.

I cannot wait to see Hillary try to run on being strong for defense, and then hearing from the troops she made stand in line for an hour and a half while she and her entourage ate breakfast.

I cannot wait to hear about her indicted campaign finance manager some more…

I cannot wait to hear her position on abortion. She’s already got two.

What I can wait to hear about is Hillary Rodham (Clinton optional, Bill looks like hell these days) trying to run a foreign or domestic policy. Because she’s a lawyer. And in eight years in the White House, neither she nor her husband ever learned how to behave as anything different. A lawyer wrote the the Hillarycare health bill. A leader would have realized a plan with a 1400 page preamble was both doomed politically, and impossible to implement practically. A lawyer treated the War on Terror like a criminal prosecution. Refusing to accept a major terrorist leader as a prisoner, or attacking terrorist bases, because there was no probable cause. Well, we have the probable cause now. Thank you, Ms. Clinton. My brother would like his lungs back. A leader would have realized you don’t treat global terrorism like raiding a crack house. Now she’s going to run on a foreign policy of “me too?” How about we stick with the party that said, “me first?”

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:00 pm 27. Terrye:

I may live to eat these words, but Hillary can not do as well as Kerry. Not because she is stupid or unqualified, but because she is Hillary and there are men of both parties who run screaming at the sight of her.

I am done.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:01 pm 28. Paul:

The Clintons are poster children for “all about me” narcissistic boomer contingent. It’s all about power to them, and I don’t trust Hillary any farther than I could throw all of Bill’s bimbos put together. The last thing we need at this point in history is a president who puts their vanity and ambition ahead of the national interest. We narrowly escaped calamity at the hands of just such a treacherous phony in November, and the GWOT has not reached a crescendo yet by any means. A Donk president and cabinet in this war would be like trying to fight a lion armed only with your farts.

Remember her speech, or should I say screech, from a year ago or so castigating Bush and the Republicans? She made Al Gore look almost a model of composure by comparison. No red faced screamers need apply, thank you.

Read Lt. Col Buzz Patterson’s “Dereliction of Duty” for an inside look at the Clinton White House by someone who was there and able to witness their behavior when their guard was down. These people need to be kept as far away from the levers of power as possible.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:03 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

Terrye,

I actually think she might win against a weak Rep who had to endure the probable battle royal of the primaries. Only if the economy was also deep in the tank at the time though.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:13 pm 30. jedrury:

Roger’s riposte to Mr. Davis:

Does it really matter what Hillary ever says? Words, words, meaningless words.

Her Winter 2005 tactic establishes an image of moderation. She goes Iraq to do a interview with McCain and chit chat with Russert on Sunday morning. No aspiring politician can not support the troops and not get aboard the Iraq stabilization train now that the president has done the heavy lifting.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:19 pm 31. Silicon valley Jim:

But, Bill HAD his 9/11 when the bad guys tried to bring down the WTC way back in ‘93, what did he/they (let’s add Hill) do? Is the fact that they weren’t smart/lucky enough to actually bring them down relevant, or is it the intent that counts? Of course there were the embassies and the Cole etc. too. Nope, don’t trust her or him, they are too enthralled by those oh so sophisticated Euros and UNiacs for my taste.

It’s probably clear to everybody here that I’m a big GWB fan and not a big fan of either of the Clintons. I therefore find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of defending Bill Clinton. The events of 1993 didn’t register with me to anywhere near the extent that the events of September 11, 2001, did. I can speculate why, but that’s not really germane to my point. I may be unfairly generalizing, but I don’t think that they registered with most Americans to anywhere near the extent that the events of September 11, 2001, did. It’s speculation, of course, but I don’t think that GWB would have reacted to the 1993 bombs much differently from the way that Bill Clinton did. The popular support wouldn’t, I think, have been there.

Whether Bill/Hillary/Gore/Kerry would have done much the same things as GWB in response to September 11, 2001, is a different question.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:39 pm 32. Terrye:

Rick:

Like I said I could be wrong, but a Dem might win, if that Dem is not her.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:42 pm 33. Kevin P:

Roger:

Hilary has been running since she wrote her book. ‘08 is a long time from now and anything can happen but I think she would be very hard to beat. She can run towards the center because the left knows she is just being political and is a liberal behind closed doors. Bill’s hounddog behavior built up a lot of sympathy for her that helped soften her harsh image and although she didn’t say anything substancial during the Russert interview it sounded great, She hit all the right beats and gave the appearence of being thoughtfull. She didn’t pin herself down to anything and left the possibilitiy of ripping Bush if things go sour. She is a real pro and will be very hard to beat and any Republican,I’m a registered independent, that doesn’t think she will be hard to beat is fooling themselves. I can’t see myself voting for her unless the republicans put up some Buchanon type but she is playing this like a hall of famer.

Feb 22, 2005 - 6:46 pm 34. jerry:

Taranto is merely spouting conventional wisdom. Hillary is not going to be the nominee. Her time is past. George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party through proxies like moveon.org. They view HRC as a old news and a sellout to boot. If you supported the war and opposed Al Qaeda then you are rightwing extremist. She must tack to the far left if she has any hope of making it through the primaries. If she does that then she becomes unelectable in the general election. There is one more factor then will keep her from getting into the White House. I doubt that the electorate really wants to trade a Bush for a Clinton again. I think we are all ready to move on from Bush-Clinton dynasty.

One more thing. I don’t understand why people continue belief that US intervention in Kosovo was good thing. The Albanians who control the province are either run criminal gangs who control the European drug trade and are major sex traffickers or Salafist terrorists. If they ever get control of Kosovo they will drive out or murder all non-Albanians left in Kosovo. Their stated goal is an ethnically pure greater Albania.

Feb 22, 2005 - 7:14 pm 35. rastajenk:

When listing Clinton-era “achievements,” (usage hat-tip: Reuters) don’t forget to mention bustin’ down the door to grab a kid from his family; burnin’ down the house to get a bunch of religio-wackos; and shootin’ through the house to take down some kind of rugged individualist. But hey, I forgot, it’s Bushitler that leads the modern version of the Nazis, isn’t it? Even though nothing W’s ever done even comes near the level of tyranny put on display in those events.

Feb 22, 2005 - 7:51 pm 36. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. Hillary would win the primary with ease. All the other potential contenders have mostly burned their bridges with the moderates in order court the Deaniac cash machine.

2. Hillary is staking out a position to the *right* of Bush on illegal immigration. The single biggest contentious issue is illegal immigration. The single biggest unknown issue is the actual real cost of illegal immigration. It costs money to police, arrest, deport, incarcerate criminals, educate children, run emergency rooms and free clinics, medicare, medicaid, welfare, housing assistance, etc etc etc. None of this stuff is known. A California report estimated that illegal aliens cost California taxpayers about $700 per *legal resident* to accomodate illegal aliens. What it is on a national level or state by state, I have no idea.

But I’m willing to guess it’s an enormous number. Possibly as high as $200+ billion per year. This is because most illegal aliens do not pay any taxes to offset their costs.

Then there’s the issue of illegal alien kids using “diversity” rules to gain preferential treatment at colleges. That alone would make people froth at the mouth.

3. The President and the current GOP aren’t really doing anything on the conservative agenda. I can’t think of any particular program that does fit the conservative agenda. The only thing that comes to mind is judicial appointments. And if Bush jerks conservatives around on that, say goodbye to a lot of conservatives.

I for one would have no problem voting against the GOP in 2006 just as a reminder to the GOP to stop screwing around.

4. A lot of people hate Hillary. But it’s not a permanent hate. First off time does pass and the angry memories do tend to fade. Then take into account the fact that the GOP doesn’t really value conservative voters all that much. They might say they do, but I don’t feel the love. Might I point out that Rick Santorum hasn’t been showered with goodness? Or that Arlen Specter was promoted over his conservative opponent.

If Hillary stakes out positions to the right of Bush, and is able to control the whack-nut anti-conservative idiots in the Democratic Party, she could slice off a huge chunk of conservatives. Particularly because she would *need* the conservatives and would pay through the nose to get their help.

….

Don’t count her out until she’s dead, and even then shove a stake through her heart and make sure. Until then Hillary does have the ability to slice the GOP into fragmented ribbons. The GOP has a number of distinct fault-lines and is more vulnerable than most might think. I personally know of about thirty conservatives that didn’t vote for Bush because of his stated position on illegal aliens. I know of a few conservatives that held their nose to vote for him, I’m one of them. But it wasn’t an enthusiastic vote by any means.

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:02 pm 37. Kevin P:

Jerry:

The move-on crowd was supposed to win the primaries for Dean but that didn’t pan out. They make the most noise but their ability to actually controll the party is more talk then reality. If Clinton was a no name I would agree that she would need to tack left but Clinton has the recognition and if Soros decides to back someone else she still will have no problem raising money. Her PAC has been raking it in for years and being the first serious female candidate for President, assuming Condi doesn’t run against her, will be a major vote and money getter. A million things could happen between then and now but she is going to be very hard to beat. I don’t see myself ever voting for her and I think much of what she says is calculated to get into office and is no barometer of how she will act when she gets there. Her recent comments on abortion and religion are pure BS but they poll well. She is going to be very tough to beat. The very fact that she didn’t jump on the Boxer- Kennedy pull the troops out right away gambit is a sign that she has a better read on the country then most of her possible opponents. But while not backing Kennedy she left herself lots of wiggle room to hammer Bush if things go south. She is a smart pol and is getting better every year.

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:03 pm 38. Terrye:

The first woman elected to the presidency can not be this woman. She will have too many things to overcome.

I mean come on guys, if all that was necessary for a woman to win was that she have a grasp of the issues and experience and vision we would not be entering the 21st century without a woman president elected to office, ever.

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:25 pm 39. Hovig:

Jerry – Hilary will most probably win if for no other reason than that the Dems don’t have anyone else remotely palatable to the public; but also please recall the nonsensical movement established just about exactly a year ago to nominate Kerry because he was so-called “electable.”

It was clear to me on the day he won on those terms that the Dems had lost the race, because while they didn’t know what they were doing, it was intuitively obvious to the remaining 80% of the country that Kerry was not electable at all. (Tho, I admit, he sure did come close.)

I see the Dems today as a party with no understanding of the democratic process. They have no idea what they’re doing, and so will nominate Hilary easily, because they think it’s the “right thing to do.”

There’s a whole other aspect to this issue about whether the Dems will hand her the nomination of a sense of entitlement. A coronation, I think is the term.

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:32 pm 40. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó yeah, but the notion of Ladybird on her fourth term is kinda scary…

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:44 pm 41. ed:

Hmmmm.

“I see the Dems today as a party with no understanding of the democratic process. They have no idea what they’re doing, and so will nominate Hilary easily, because they think it’s the “right thing to do.”"

Actually the single primary problem with the Democratic Party is their over-reliance on the MSM to cover for them.

Basically politics is the Law of the Jungle without the overt bloodshed. Those politicians that can handle the competitive pressures will succeed. The tougher the competition and harder the pressures, the stronger the candidates. Conversely the lesser the competition and lower the pressure, the weaker the candidates.

This is why the Democrats fielded a group of nine rather useless, colorless and pointless candidates for the 2004 Presidency. The overall pressure exerted by the MSM was so low a threshold that the level of competition was minimal. This is also why a Democratic candidate for the Senate seat in Wisconsin couldn’t handle a live on-camera debate with an audience. They cut out the live part, then the audience and finally the debate. This is after she spewed out a diatribe, about her Republican opponent, and then ran out of the studio.

On the other hand Republican candidates are generally very good politicians because there are no second chances. While Kerry was allowed to re-take sound bites and photo-ops, Republicans didn’t have that luxury. Make a mistake, and out you go.

In the end this results in tougher/stronger Republican politicians and weaker Democratic politicians. It also explains Hillary Clinton as she got a chance to experience the MSM at it’s worst, which toughened her up quite a bit.

Modern American politics is clearly a Darwinian process that forces appropriate levels of competitive pressure on potential candidates. Where that pressure is strong, strong candidates result because the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out. Where that pressure is weak, much weaker candidates remain in play because the pressure isn’t enough to clear the field of all pretenders.

*shrug* which explains the 2000 election, 2004 election and the current Democratic cannibalism.

Feb 22, 2005 - 8:57 pm 42. Hovig:

Interesting thoughts, Ed.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:21 pm 43. thibaud:

If Hillary can appeal to latinos– the ultimate purple state swing voter category– in large numbers, then she’s got, er, legs. Whoever carries the latino communities in San Antonio/Rio Grande, NM, AZ, CO will likely win in 2008.

But in Hillary’s case I can’t see it: too much feminista baggage. Then again, “safe legal and rare” is a sure winner, and she seems determined to reprise it. I wouldn’t count her out, but I’d still guess that Bredesen’s the best hope for the Dems. Haven’t we had enough of both the Bush and the Clinton families? Time to move on, as ’twere

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:34 pm 44. someone:

Roger, you’re wiser than this. chuck hits the nail on the head: Hillary can say what she wants, but bottom line is that upon election we’d have the same failed Democratic foreign policy crew who were pulling Kerry’s strings. What vertebrates are left in the party to fill a war cabinet? Lieberman at State, perhaps. That’s it.

As for the politics of it, I defer to Jay Cost, whose unbelievable election-period insight earned a lot more trust than Taranto will ever have. He’s stopped blogging, but nothing’s changed since he said:

[T]he buzz among Democrats will be that Hillary is “in” for the 2008 nomination. Do not count on it. The Democrats are notoriously unreliable in granting the nomination to the candidate who has “earned” it. They are unlike Republicans — who in the last 52 years have had a person named Nixon, Bush or Dole on every ticket but one. They are always inclined toward the upstarts — Kennedy in ‘60, Carter in ‘76, Clinton in ‘92.

I’d bet on Glenn Reynolds’ fave Bredesen long before laying money on Hillary.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:36 pm 45. thibaud:

What ed said. The wimpiest candidates come from the Senate, which has become a gazillionaire’s club devoted to shmoozing and back-scratching. The guvs have far more experience in the snakepit that is dealing with single-interest groups and fighting for dollars from Washington. Bet on a governor– never a senator.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:37 pm 46. thibaud:

someone,

Reagan was an “upstart” in ‘76 and even in ‘80. Had the Republicans gone with an establishment figure in 1980 they would have selected that ultimate insider, Mr George Herbert Walker Resume, not his right-wing matinee idol opponent.

But I agree re. Bredesen. I’d put money on that dark horse.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:41 pm 47. Paul:

While it’s undoubtably true that the Republicans are forced to field stronger candidates due to a much more intense level of scrutiny

from a hostile press, I believe an even more important issue is the fact the Democrats’ socialist-leaning ideology has been repudiated by history. True, the MSM and the revisionists have managed to obscure this fact rather successfully, but it is increasingly clear to an increasingly larger percentage of the electorate that this is indeed the case. With the waning influence of old media and the exposure of the poisonous anti-capitalist-democracy culture of much of academia expect this trend to accelerate over the next four years.

Between now and ‘08 Iran and N Korea will have to be confronted. I’ll be extremely surprised if we do not take some sort of military action against Iran. Much of the political climate of the next election may be predicated on the outcome of our dealings with the two remaining members of the axis of evil.

Feb 22, 2005 - 9:51 pm 48. kparker:

Rastajenk,

I understand your point, but you gotta get the details right: “shootin’ through the house to take down some kind of rugged individualist” happened under Bush I.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:42 am 49. David Thomson:

I find it fascinating that few people truly grasp the extent of the radical liberal control of the Democratic Partyís presidential nominating process. The general public is unlikely ever to decide upon her alleged worthiness. Hillary Clinton will not be able to survive the gauntlet placed in front of her by Howard Dean and George Soros.

Feb 23, 2005 - 3:49 am 50. jerry:

2008 is a long way away. The only reason that Hillary appears to be the front-runner is that she is the only candidate that you can name. When we talk about possible Democratic candidates we only come up with names that ran in 2004. There will be others by 2008.

Sure the moveon crowd failed to select Dean last year but it was their first try. They used Dean’s candidacy to take over the party in same way that the McGovernites used the 1968 race to take over from the long time Party bosses like Richard J. Daley. They are in control this time and will set the tone of the campaign. Like Daley in 1972, the Clintons will be largely irrelevant in 2008.

Feb 23, 2005 - 4:46 am 51. rastajenk:

kp, I appreciate the correction. See how easy it is to slip into “false-but-accurate” mode? “Facts? We don’t need no steenkin’ facts.”

Feb 23, 2005 - 4:49 am 52. Curmudgeon:

Roger:

I vote Republican, so I suppose that makes me one.

I don’t have an irrational hatred of Hillary, but I do have a very rational distrust of her. She has a long record as an extreme leftist when she can get away with it, and crooked, unprincipled opportunism. Still, if forced to choose between her and Kerry or Dean, I would choose her in a New York minute.

Feb 23, 2005 - 4:55 am 53. AlanC:

SVJ re: Clinton’s 9/11

Of course you are right that ‘93 didn’t register like ‘01. Why? Cause the terrs were unlucky/incompetent and didn’t bring down the towers AND the MSM and Dems didn’t say anything.

But, isn’t this where leadership is supposed to step in and say WTF? I disagree that Bush would have reacted the same way as Clinton, but, that is useless speculation. The Clintons had their chances and blew it big time (cruise missles blowing up empty tents? )

They demonstrated no understanding of what was going on when they were in the position to set the agenda and take the lead. When Bush took over he immediately started a review of the whole situation. If I recall correctly the report was due to him on 9/12.

Feb 23, 2005 - 6:22 am 54. Percy Dovetonsils:

What I think people are missing is the cautionary point I take from Taranto’s post: anyone running against Hilary is going to have to establish a firm line between vigorous, fact-based opposition, and frothing anger. There’s plenty of ammo to train upon her without dipping into Michael Moorian territory. If people start coming out of the woodwork with half-baked Vincent Foster theories, Hil can start measuring the White House for new drapes.

I remain convinced that Dubya won in no small part because of the unhinged nature of many of his opponents – some people were voting against them as much as they were voting for Dubya (to a certain extent, that explains my vote). Don’t underestimate the unpopularity of an opposition that comes to be seen as a mob.

Feb 23, 2005 - 7:26 am 55. Kyda Sylvester:

Did 9-11 change foreign policy Hillary as it did so many of us? Maybe. But she’s going to have to do a whole lot more to convince me.

Is domestic policy Hillary more lefty than moderate? Absolutely, beyond a doubt. When asked what she learned from the HillaryCare debacle, she replied “baby steps”. In other words, she still thinks HillaryCare is a fine idea. Her failure was in trying to do too much at once. Utilizing “baby steps”, we’ll get to HillaryCare eventually. And who can forget last year’s pronouncement that “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”? Certainly not me (yeah, yeah, I know she was talking about taxing the wealthy, but there’s an old saying: Whenever politicians talk about taxing the rich, the middle class better duck). Among Hillary’s soul mates are Saul Alinsky, Ira Magaziner and Marie Wright Edleman, any one of whom is enough to send me shrieking into the night.

Is Hillary smart? No doubt about it. She is expert at marshalling facts and figures and preparing reports. But she is the most pedestrian of thinkers. Unimaginative. Uninspiring. Entirely earthbound.

What should one always bear in mind about both Clintons? Everything, everything, first passes through the filter of how does this affect me (us) and my (our) ambitions. It is always the first consideration and, more often than not, determines the course of action.

I have much to say about Hillary Clinton (obviously) and no doubt in the coming months will have much opportunity to say it. For now, two main points: I, too, have the idea that time has passed Hillary by and she will not be the Democratic nominee. And, I take three main issues into the voter’s booth with me–foreign policy/national defense, taxation and judicial appointments. Clinton fails on all three.

PS. Does anyone else have the feeling that this is shaping up to be the most contentious debate we’ve had here to date?

Feb 23, 2005 - 10:17 am 56. ed:

Hmmm.

I think people should keep in mind that Bush isn’t really a conservative, he’s a moderate. That’s really what “compassionate conservatism” is. It’s just being a moderate while using the word “conservative” as part of the description. My point is that Bush hasn’t actually done *anything* to promote the conservative agenda. Right now the conservatives are waiting for judicial nominations as their payoff. But if Bush doesn’t come through, then his entire terms will largely be non-conservative.

So right now Hillary could slice off a large chunk of disaffected conservatives.

Bush and the GOP don’t think they need to “pander” to their conservatives. They certainly act like they don’t. If Hillary makes a play for conservative supporters then she can assure them that she will pay the price for it. And pay through the nose. In such a situation being attacked rabidly BY Dean, Soros and the other whack-nuts will be a positive, not a negative.

If she can exchange $1 of hard-left funding for $1 of conservative funding, then she’ll not only own the centrist position, but she’ll also mortally cripple the GOP in 2008. You can promote Condi Rice all you like, but without conservatives the GOP is dead.

And a LOT of conservatives are really pissed off about illegal immigration. I’m a serious conservative and it was all I could do to convince myself to vote for Bush. To give him another chance. Quite a few conservative friends didn’t bother.

In 2006-2008 the GOP’s hold on conservative voters is extremely tenuous.

Feb 23, 2005 - 11:07 am 57. jerry:

ed:

Where do you get the idea that Conservatives would ever vote for Hillary. Just because she has staked out positions on immigration and superficially on national security that are compatible with conservative voters does not make her appealing to conservatives. She is still a leftwing radical who wants to socialize the national health system and create a high tax/low jobs European style economy.

Even her anti-immigration platform is not inconsistent with the traditional left wing objectives. The only reason she supports immigration restrictions is because today’s new Americans are increasingly Republican Americans who come here to succeed not go on dole. Unlike the rest of the party she sees Hispanics moving into the Republican column. Her biggest fear is that blacks will catch on. Restricted immigration plays well in the black community because they pretend that these immigrants take jobs away from them.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:06 pm 58. ed:

Hmmm.

“Where do you get the idea that Conservatives would ever vote for Hillary.”

1. The budget for the Border Patrol has been slashed, not increased.

2. Bush is intent on his “guest worker” program, which is nothing more than an amnesty in disguise. If this isn’t an example of GOP contempt for conservatives, what is?

3. Hillary has 3 years to continue to reposition herself. That’s plenty of time.

4. The GOP hasn’t done hardly anything for the conservative agenda. So far conservatives have written it off by telling each other that the judicial nominations are more important. But once Bush slaps conservatives in the face over this issue, and I expect he will, then what?

5. The current GOP view conservatives of “you don’t have a choice, who would have you?” is entirely misplaced. Bush fought for Arlen Specter against a conservative. Did Bush go out of his way at all for any conservative in 2004? Will he in 2006?

*shrug* I haven’t seen the current GOP being all that pro-conservative. Instead it’s more of a case where conservatives are really being taken for granted. Just watch how enraged conservatives will be when Bush chooses a moderate to the US Supreme Ct over a conservative. Watch how enraged conservatives will be over Bush trying to ram through his illegal alien amnesty program.

6. Name me a national level conservative Republican that is held in high esteem by the GOP. Name me one that might be a contender for the GOP nomination for President in 2008.

…

Won’t vote for Hillary? I think you’re making assumptions that aren’t warranted. I’ve talked to, and read, a large number of conservatives that are extremely annoyed at the GOP over illegal aliens. Hillary is taking a position to the right of Bush on this issue. There is also the fact that Hillary won’t take conservative voters for granted.

Conservatives have a couple hot-button issues that the President, and the GOP, are leaning the wrong way on. If they go through with their vision, it’ll absolutely induce conservatives to defect. And by that time Hillary could easily scoop up those disaffected conservative voters.

Feb 23, 2005 - 12:36 pm 59. jerry:

Ed:

You missed the entire point. Hillary is not “to the right” of Bush on immigration. She is to the left of Bush. The left doesn’t like immigration because they think in depresses wages. They are getting over their enfatuation with the idea that immigrants will vote left. They viewed immigration as importing the prolitariat. They now see that as immigrants become successful they move to the right.

Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism? Nonsense, they will stay home. Besides, she isn’t going to be the nominee anyway.

Feb 23, 2005 - 1:36 pm 60. Paul:

Jerry’s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any “movement to the right” by Hillary is nothing more than a cynical ploy to get her foot in the door…she’s smart and calculating enough to know the Moveon moonbats cannot win a general election…but were she to actually gain power she would do everything she could to implement her leftist agenda.

How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please….

Feb 23, 2005 - 2:18 pm 61. someone:

Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you’re a paleocon.

Feb 23, 2005 - 2:52 pm 62. Kevin P:

Roger:

When I say that Clinton would be hard to beat it is not because I plan to vote for her. But I think republicans are fooling themselves if they think she will be a slam dunk loser. I agree that her moderate offensive is not genuine but I think it will be effective.

And the republican loathing factor should not be ignored. If any of you remember the Harvey Korman character in “Blazing Saddles” when he begins foaming at the mouth. The lefts attacks on President Bush this year often resembled this look and it rebounded back on them in the eyes of the non-political voter. I had that attitude towards President Reagan in the 80’s (this was in my ignorant leftist moron days) and I witnessed this in the 90’s against the Clintons and I fear it would happen again when Hill runs. I think if the republicans stick to the issue’s she will lose but if they revert to re- running the scandals of Billy the moderate voters will blanche at that and vote for her out of sympathy.

Feb 23, 2005 - 6:39 pm 63. richard mcenroe:

Roger — I’ve been letting this percolate for a couple days now, but… isn’t drawing a line between Hillary pre and post 9/11 kind of like running Neville Chamberlain for Prime Minister in 1941 and saying, “This is not your 1938 Neville?”

Feb 23, 2005 - 8:13 pm 64. ed:

Hmmm.

1. “You missed the entire point. Hillary is not “to the right” of Bush on immigration. She is to the left of Bush. The left doesn’t like immigration because they think in depresses wages.”

Frankly I don’t care if she’s left, right or center. If she’ll fight illegal immigration then she’s got one up on any of the current GOP contenders.

2. “Do you really think Conservatives will trade a more agreeable position on immigration for socialism? Nonsense, they will stay home. Besides, she isn’t going to be the nominee anyway.”

Ummm. Like a Prescription Drug plan?

Look I don’t speak for all conservatives, not by a long shot, but the simple fact is very plain. The current GOP has done almost *nothing* for conservatives. And now Arlen Specter looks like he’s going to screw conservatives over the judiciary. Conservatives fought over this and were assured, by the GOP, that Arlen would not stand in the way of conservative judges. Now it looks like he’s going to do whatever the hell he feels like, as conservatives warned, and the GOP is going to do nothing about it.

Want to see conservatives get really frigging angry? Just wait until Arlen screws with the judicial nominations and the GOP rolls over.

Get “socialism”? We’re *getting* “socialism” as it is.

3. “Jerry’s right. Conservatives HATE Hillary and for good reason. Anyone can tell any “movement to the right” by Hillary is nothing more than …”

I’m not saying that Hillary is conservative. I’m saying that Hillary can BUY the conservative voters by promising the right things. The very things that the GOP has NOT delivered. The GOP currently is acting like they don’t need to pay for the conservative voters. This is wrong headed.

4. “How can anyone on the right believe the woman who railed about the VRWC for all these years has suddenly had a conservative epiphany? Please….”

Again. I’m not saying that Hillary is conservative. I’m also not saying the Bush is conservative, he’s most definitely not. But Hillary can acquire the conservative voters by adopting the major portions of the conservative agenda. An agenda that, so far, the GOP has not delivered on. Lots of promises, no delivery.

The biggest three items that Hillary could promise that would get her the conservative voters are:

a. State by state resolution of abortion. Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.

b. Eliminate illegal immigration and seriously crack down on illegal aliens. The best way is to change the law so that being an illegal alien results in an automatic 50 years sentence, with 48 years probation, and absolutely no chance of ever becoming a citizen. Couple this with a charge-back program whereby the person’s country is responsible for paying any imprisonment charges.

This alone would get Hillary a bundle of voters.

c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.

These three things would buy an enormous amount of conservative support.

5. “Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you’re a paleocon.”

So what? He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire. So he cut how much in taxes? $50 billion? $100 billion? And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement? That’s a gain? That’s a plus?

Estate tax? So what?

How about some more of that “etc”. Because from where I’m sitting, the list ain’t impressive.

Feb 24, 2005 - 4:45 pm 65. jerry:

Ed:

You make some interesting political points here:

For example: “a. State by state resolution of abortion. Let each state resolve for itself how abortion is to be handled.”

You mean overturn Roe v Wade? That will play well in the Democratic Party.

and: “c. Actively counter the anti-Christianity prevalent in the DNC today.”

Surrender to the radical religious right? Surely you jest.

or: “5. “Bush cut marginal rates, is ending the estate tax, etc. Nothing for conservatives? Only if you’re a paleocon.”

So what? He cut taxes, but then implemented a $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Right when the baby-boomer generation is about to retire. So he cut how much in taxes? $50 billion? $100 billion? And then added $200+ billion per year entitlement? That’s a gain? That’s a plus?

Estate tax? So what?”

Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.

So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory? You have future as Democratic consultant.

Feb 24, 2005 - 5:43 pm 66. ed:

Hmmm.

1. “You make some interesting political points here:”

*shrug* I’m stating my opinions. Any validity depends on circumstances and decisions beyond my control. How it all plays out depends.

2. “You mean overturn Roe v Wade? That will play well in the Democratic Party.”

The Democratic Party, as currently configured, has maxed out it’s political power. There isn’t any more untapped. The key to winning is to change that configuration. How many people are hard-core pro-choice? How many people are hard-core pro-life? How many are people that are kinda in-between and want to actually get a chance to decide?

This is might cost Hillary some votes, but it would buy an enormous amount from the conservative side. While many, mostly religious conservatives, would prefer an outright ban, they’ll gladly settle for a chance to fight it out in the state legislatures. That alone would buy Hillary an enormous amount of prestige and would plant her directly in the center. Pro-life, pro-choice and, most importantly, pro-voter.

The pro-choice crowd will settle for nothing less than pro-choice. The pro-life crowd will settle for a negotiated settlement by diverting the contention into the state legislatures. At this point Hillary gains everything, loses very little. The pro-choice people will get pro-choice laws in blue states. The pro-life people will get pro-life laws in red states. People will simply travel to get their “cosmetic operations” as necessary. And everyone, save for the ultra-extremists, goes home happy.

3. “Surrender to the radical religious right? Surely you jest.”

Heh. I know. It’s crazy isn’t it? I’m not a Christian, but I absolutely respect it for the great good it has done in the world. To disrespect Christianity is a disservice to the world.

All Hillary really has to do is come out openly against the anti-Nativity people. Christmas is Christmas, not “Winter Holiday”. All Hillary has to do is point that out, repeatedly, and she’ll win big points. Nothing infuriates the religious conservatives than the hypocrisy of calling Christmas “Winter Holiday”.

4. “Oh yes conservatives will love the higher taxes to pay for Hillary care.”

Heh. Excuse me but we’ve got Medicaid. We’ve got Medicare. We’ve got Prescription Drug. We’ve got most of the elements of Socialized Medicine already. As for the taxes, haven’t you kept up with Bush’s plan for Social Security reform?

Look. The tax breaks were good for jump-starting the economy. But we’re adults here. We all know that the taxes are going to go up again. We all know this because $200-$300 billion is going into Iraq and $1 trillion is going into the drug plan. There’s only so much that can be borrowed and so taxes are going to have to rise again at some point.

An emphermal win, isn’t really a win.

If Bush seriously cut expenses, then I could believe that the tax cuts were real. But the spending just keeps on rising at ever increasing rates. And anyone who thinks, for even a second, that the “guest worker” plan won’t cause a MASSIVE increase in costs, is fooling himself.

5. “So you think that alienating the non-loony Democratic voter and raising taxes is a formula for victory? You have future as Democratic consultant.”

Heh. I was a Democrat. My family still ARE Democrats. Most of my conservative friends WERE Democrats. Many people, who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004, are STILL registered as Democrats.

The simple fact is that most conservatives have always been, and possibly still are, Democrats. We were brought up as Democrats. Our heritage is FDR. Truman. And then Ronald Regean.

The conservative loyalty to the GOP is skin deep. If that. We’re all Democrats just waiting for the Democratic Party to either wise up or die.

And the GOP is forgetting this.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:23 pm 67. jerry:

ed:

you said: “Heh. I was a Democrat. My family still ARE Democrats.”

And that is why you don’t understand the conservative voter.

Feb 24, 2005 - 6:42 pm 68. ed:

Hmmm.

“And that is why you don’t understand the conservative voter.”

That’s pretty funny because I’ve been a conservative all my life.

What’s even funnier is that you don’t have any sort of reply to my points.

Feb 24, 2005 - 7:48 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: