New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | August 3, 2005

Tim Cavanaugh feels Hillary Clinton's pain, then washes his hands thoroughly.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← My Bad Ethics | Main | The CIA's Rebellion-Fomenters →

See all 37 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Phil|8.3.05 @ 7:02PM|#

Sure, these iron rules of presidential electability are a dime a dozen, and the open 2008 race�in which, for the first time since 1928, neither party will be running an incumbent president or vice president . . .

This presumes that Cheney will continue to be vice-president up through November 2008. I don't think that will be the case. I'm willing to wager, say, $100 that sometime prior to 2007, Cheney's heart problems will suddenly become significant enough for him to retire, allowing Bush to appoint a new veep that's a mortal lock for a 2008 win.

|8.3.05 @ 7:07PM|#

In the article, Hillary's affiliation is given as "(R-N.Y.)", is that humor or a typo?

|8.3.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Among Republican governors, the two with the best chances in a presidential race are both from the Northeast -- New York's George Pataki and Massachusetts' Mitt Romney.

Bill Owens of Colorado. His term-limited term ends in 2007. You heard it here first.

|8.3.05 @ 7:16PM|#

Though I disagree with some of Tim's assertions on what the dismal prospects of Senators means in a pair of elections that were won almost by less than the margin of error...His analysis of those dismal prosepects was spot on.

I laughed my ass off all the way through it.

Favorite lines:

Americans, who generally don't see "bipartisan" as the cussword it is...

...is there enough garlic and holy water in America to keep the presidential hopes of John Kerry (D-Mass.) from rising out of the grave?

...but following him out of the clown car are such sub-luminaries as...

(T)he current crew of presidential hopefuls in both parties reveals...former political stars in varying stages of reputational decay.

...charisma vacuum Frist is already running against 98-pound weakling Dennis Kucinich...

So why the interest in colossal bores like Clinton and Frist?

And they wonder why people are disillusioned by politics.

As an aside, I'm always mystified that ANYONE thinks that politics these days is really anything more than a simple popularity contest.

|8.3.05 @ 7:20PM|#

Living in Colorado, and thereby having near daily exposure to Bill Owens, I am baffled by the number of people who think he's electable to the presidency.

|8.3.05 @ 7:33PM|#

Well Phil ruined it by pointing the serious scenario, for say, V.P. Condi Rice in 2008, but I for one, welcome new cyborg president Cheney...

|8.3.05 @ 7:39PM|#

<offtopic>

I'm wondering if I should even bother pointing this out, but the URL for the link to this story in the left column needs to be http://www.reason.com/hod/tc080305.shtml instead of http://www.reason.com/hod/tc080205.shtml.

</offtopic>

|8.3.05 @ 7:49PM|#

The junior senator from New York turns out to have many appealing qualities (if we define "appealing" as broadly as her husband defined the verb to be).

"appealing" is an adjective in that sentence.

|8.3.05 @ 7:53PM|#

that is, unless the parenthetical is meant to be if we define...defined the verb "to be", in which case it just doesn't fit the facts. Clinton was trying to limit the meaning of "is", not broaden it.

|8.3.05 @ 9:02PM|#

Phil,

You're on. Although; my doubt is probably influenced by wishful thinking because I fear that the replacement will be even more statist than Cheney. I'm thinking like, Rudi G. Chaney's a terrible war hawk and now even allows how that attacking Iran might be "necessary" but I can imagine a replacement being a lot more obnoxious vis a vis domestic stuff. If you win the wager, things will be more interesting but of course; "may you grow up in interesting times" is a Chinese curse.

(off topic, but in a thread a while back, you recommended a volume on Punk rock. Could you be so kind as to name it on this thread and save me searching thru the archives?)

Phil|8.3.05 @ 9:46PM|#

No problem, Rick -- it's Please Kill Me: An Oral, Uncensored History of Punk. It's a must-read. (So is England's Dreaming if you haven't already, as well as Lydon's No Dogs, Blacks or Irishmen.)

|8.3.05 @ 9:53PM|#

Tim also needs to heed Monica's example and wash his MOUTH out thoroughly after "bad-mouthing" the junior senator from NY.
All of us should hold our fire at least until Cathy Young gets around to the same navel-gazing.
Okay, I can't hold my fire either.
The pendulum do swing. The reason we're stuck with Dubya now is that he's not into getting his dick sucked by much younger women. By the time Billary is ready to run, we'll be so sick of this "swagger stick" of a President, we'll be looking for anyone as opposite as possible. That starts with "H" and rhymes with Billary.

|8.3.05 @ 10:01PM|#

semi-off-topic

Just starting reading Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail of '72. I'm only 100 pages into it, but I keep making comparisons to the 2004 election.

I expect 2008 to be a particularly dismal presidential election.

|8.3.05 @ 10:07PM|#

From the essay: "The United States Senate isn't just the world's greatest deliberative body and car wash ... "

What does that mean? "Car wash," that is.

|8.3.05 @ 10:12PM|#

My early prediction: No Hillary nomination; if nominated, she loses. She's way too divisive, in my reading. Yes, she has a lot of support among rabid Demo-zombies^W^Wliberal Eastern Democrats, but that is not the constituency the Democrats need to play to. She's female (a strike against her, in the world of Realpolitik), closely associated with a highly divisive President (another strike), and still has little real political experience (strike 3). I don't see her positive qualities outweighing those.

|8.3.05 @ 10:16PM|#

My early prediction ... if nominated, she loses.

Don't you mean, "if nominated, she will lose"? This isn't a cheesy sports broadcast.

|8.3.05 @ 10:28PM|#

I'm sure I've said this before, but don't we have anyone in this country without a family connection to a previous president who can run for office? Almighty Zeus, please no Hillarys, no Jebs, no Ron Juniors, no, no, no. I mean, what are there, 150 million other people eligible for the office? Surely this is one issue that the left, the right, and we libertarians can all agree upon.

How about a Smith? Can we find someone named Smith to be president? Never had one of those. Seems wrong somehow. I bet Smith will have principles and won't "position" himself (or herself) for election. America could use Smith and his candor and his lack of gravitas. Vote Smith.

|8.3.05 @ 10:32PM|#

What does that mean? "Car wash," that is.

Actually, "body and car" are both modifiers of "wash", think along the lines of 'tub and tile cleaner'.

On a side note, was anyone else scared shitless by Hillary's disembodied head on the main page?

|8.3.05 @ 10:57PM|#

Eddy,
Not as scared as I was of Hillary's eye-lasers

|8.4.05 @ 12:58AM|#

"I'm willing to wager, say, $100 that sometime prior to 2007, Cheney's heart problems will suddenly become significant enough for him to retire"

I'll take that wager Phill.

|8.4.05 @ 12:59AM|#

Love this thread, what with Tim's great writing, and the disembodied head and the laser beams. Anyway, I think the Republicans are in real trouble if *Pataki* suddenly seems electable. He's been governor for like forty years now, and yet he remains a complete cipher. He's one of those guys who walks into a room and nobody notices. As for Romney, well there's the Mormon thing. Americans might be put off by some of the more batshit crazy things that Mormons believe in (dumb! dumb! dumb!).

|8.4.05 @ 1:05AM|#

I can't wait til 2008

|8.4.05 @ 1:21AM|#

Very good article by Mr. Cavanaugh.

As far as Phil's Cheney prediction goes, I'm thinking back on all the slick tricks that Bush has pulled off in his political career. Like maybe, zero? My impression is that Bush decides what he wants to do and then goes out and tries to get it done. Frequently effective, but not exactly slick.

Just from my own casual observations in my lifetime I don't even think that most Presidents spend much time worrying about who'll be elected after they've served. As far as Bush goes, I seriously doubt such a transparent scheme will be the sort of thing he'll be interested in expending his energy on so late into his last term.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.4.05 @ 1:23AM|#

Anyway, I think the Republicans are in real trouble if *Pataki* suddenly seems electable. He's been governor for like forty years now, and yet he remains a complete cipher. He's one of those guys who walks into a room and nobody notices.

Don't misunderestimate Pataki's ability to thrive by being misunderestimated in exactly this way. He's seemed like an empty suit all his life, but he's got a lot to brag on: He can more or less take credit for all the resurrection-of-NYC stuff Giuliani has to his credit, but without Giuliani's personality issues. In fact, he's even ahead of Rudy in that respect, since his purview included not only the world's de facto capital city but a state that encompasses Great Lakes pseudo-Canadian regions, rural areas that are as backward-ass as anyplace in the country, a big chunk of the rust belt, and that hell unto itself that we dare not call Long Island.

His poll numbers are supposedly low right now, and I certainly don't think he'll be good for whatever's left of the conservative ideology of the GOP, but Pataki's no pushover. He's been a phenomenally successful governor in a phenomenally screwed-up state, and he delivers the Republicans one of the few regions of the country they don't already own outright.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.4.05 @ 1:50AM|#

Dept. of Editing:

1. Hillary's affiliation typo is fixed. Thanks for the heads-up.

2. Point raised by crimethink duly noted; the phrase stands as written.

3. "greatest deliberative body and car was" = just a funny.

|8.4.05 @ 2:05AM|#

As long as we are quoting favorite lines:

No U.S. president has been elected from the Senate since John F. Kennedy in 1960, and not one has been elected in a legitimate vote since Warren G. Harding in 1920.

Oooh--I can already think of several Democratics I want to start a fight with tomorrow with that line...

Thanks for an amazing and funny article. I just spent the last hour comment-arguing with a Kossack over why Kelo is so scary; I needed to come here to cleanse my mental palate.

|8.4.05 @ 2:46AM|#

Phil,

Wow. I asked you to repeat a book recommendation and you gave me two more as well! Thanks!

B.D.|8.4.05 @ 9:08AM|#

Hm, I think we're over analyzing and over estimating. Over estimating the amount of thought and consideration most people put into choosing who they want to be president. Despite receiving much ire from my political junkie friends, I've yet to be convinced that the American public does anything more than either vote for the person that they like the most or dislike the least. It explains the popularity of both Reagan and Clinton and the relativly low popularity of the 2 term Bush.

Over analyzing because it will come down to exactly this issue of personality in the general election (primaries are a different matter). Other issues are side dressing to the personality.

Tim alludes to the personality issues surrounding Hillary and correctly so, I believe. She is not her husband in this regards. There might be a tie in with personality and whether or not one is elected governor or a senator. A person elected governor might become elected senator, but rarely does a senator leave office to become elected governor. As Tim notes, rarely does a senator become elected president as well.

|8.4.05 @ 9:22AM|#

It may be a bit late for this question, and I'm sure someone else has already answered it brilliantly during the past decade, but can anyone sum up for me why so many people see Hillary as some sort of feminist icon?

She got her current fame and position through one of the traditional routes that powerful women throughout history have. Once upon a time, the only way a woman could rise to prominence was by having a prominent father, son, or husband. Come on, the only reason anyone outside of Little Rock even knows her name is because she married Bill Clinton. How is this a model of women's progress?

|8.4.05 @ 9:40AM|#

why do so many people see Hillary as some sort of feminist icon

She's a power-hungry battleax. Look around at the other feminist "icons" out there, and you will find that they are all, yes, power-hungry battleaxes.

|8.4.05 @ 10:55AM|#

Tim,

OK - I admitPataki has done a *decent* job -- not spectacular, IMO. I don't know how much of NYC's recent success to lay on his feet. He did lower state income taxes somewhat. However, upstate NY remains a total basketcase. Yet I still believe he has almost no chance of success outside of NYS. He just doesn't have much of a personality. And yes I agree with B.D. up there - most people vote on personality.

|8.4.05 @ 11:37AM|#

"for the first time since 1928, neither party's primary will feature an incumbent president or vice president" No kidding, I had not realized that.

It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton leads the polls today. The Democratic Party has primaries, not coronations. If she doesn't have the minimum of charisma, she won't win the primary.

As far as the problem Senators have with a history of sausage making, I'm not sure this will be a problem for a Democratic Senator who took office during the period of Republican control of the Congress and White House. There really haven't been opportunities for Democrats to engage in the accommodation that comes with governing in a pluralist democracy, because the Democrats have been more or less shut out of governing under this majority. Notice how few Democrats are talking about any sort of compromise on Social Security, for example.

"can anyone sum up for me why so many people see Hillary as some sort of feminist icon?" Because her enemies have spent the last decade and a half building her up into one.

|8.4.05 @ 3:06PM|#

"It doesn't matter that Hillary Clinton leads the polls today. The Democratic Party has primaries, not coronations. If she doesn't have the minimum of charisma, she won't win the primary."

Er, John Kerry?

|8.4.05 @ 3:41PM|#

The guy who came within 3 points of unseating a sitting president during wartime?

Kerry's charisma was a C-, but he cleared the bar.

|8.4.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Tim, you meant #2 to read grammar nazi, right... ;-)

|8.4.05 @ 5:41PM|#

The guy who came within 3 points of unseating a sitting president during wartime?

A sitting president does not have much advantage during a war that was/is going very, very badly, at least compared to original expectations. Nixon would almost certainly still have won had Johnson run for reelection in 1968, and had it not been for a flurry of Union victories on the western front in 1864, Lincoln may well have lost to McClellan in the election of that year.

Not that I'm a fan of Bush the Younger these days, but Kerry was

|8.4.05 @ 9:33PM|#

2004 wasn't 1968. Bush, and the war, still had net positive support numbers on election day.

And the Civil War was very unpopular at the beginning, much moreso than the Iraq War.