But What About HRC?

Jeff Taylor | August 6, 2006

The WaPo's Dan Balz stops to consider how Tuesday's Connecticut senate primary will affect Al Franken, wait, I mean Hillary Clinton. Hurts her for 2008, helps Al Gore. Or maybe helps John Edwards. Then again, everything helps John Edwards when reporters talk about John Edwards.

Balz maintains that Gore far outstrips other potential anti-war candidates in popularity among "grass-roots activists." Really? One global warming flick and all is forgiven for not fighting to the bitter end over the hanging chads of Florida? I thought that was still part of the activists' bill of indictments against the Democratic leadership, but perhaps not.

In any event, it all is worth a read. Gaze upon these names and despair America.

Comments

|8.6.06 @ 1:22PM|#

Gee, that bit about the hanging chads is funny. I despise him more than anything for his dangerous attempts to steal the presidency. Meanwhile, da Dem's actually think he didn't fight hard enough? What was he going to do, nuke SCOTUS?

That's despise. I merely strongly dislike him for most of what he stands for, although I can say the same about most candidates for both Democrats and Republicans.

ed|8.6.06 @ 1:36PM|#

Are we there yet?

|8.6.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Lieberman's chances can't be helped by that corpse-like photo displayed on the linked article.

D.A. Ridgely|8.6.06 @ 3:52PM|#

Personally, I will never forgive Gore for agreeing at long last with Ron Bailey that global warming is occurring. Beyond that, given how it's turned out, I'm still pretty ticked at him for inventing the Internet, too.

|8.6.06 @ 4:08PM|#

I despise him more than anything for his dangerous attempts to steal the presidency

And in other news from the mirror universe, rebel leader George W. Bush fights for our lost civil liberties against the evil, goatee-sporting minions of the ACLU.

chris joseph|8.6.06 @ 6:05PM|#

That's what I like about this place. The comments never lower to the grunts and growls of sites like LGF, even if the posts themselves seem to be heading that way.

I thought we were supposed to be bipartisan in our criticism of the other two parties (you know, us against the dems and republicans), but Reason keeps veering to the hard right. There are liberal libertarians, too, you know. My main quarrel with Al Gore is his PMRC tainted wife.

|8.6.06 @ 6:46PM|#

...but Reason keeps veering to the hard right.

That's an amusing comment given how many here have accused Reason of veering to the har left.

|8.6.06 @ 6:58PM|#

Would now be a good time for HRC to claim she was wrong, wrong, wrong to vote for the war?
Then, after the mini-tempest blows over, she could be jumping up and down on Bush's chest more or less full time about this failed war on terror for, what? two long years?
Women reserve the right to change their minds, don't they?
Hillary needs to be in touch with her feminine side, if there is one.

|8.6.06 @ 7:16PM|#

From the article: That could be felt most acutely by Clinton, who polls show is the early front-runner for the 2008 nomination and who has drawn criticism from what are known as net-roots activists for opposing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Clinton appears to have gotten the message, as she demonstrated with sharp questioning of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at a Senate hearing on Thursday.

Suppose democrats retake the house and senate in November. And suppose they include many vocal anti-war politicians calling for a timetable or some statement of concrete conditions under which US forces will leave which could be met in the forseeable future. Would this be likely to make a difference in US policy in the region? Is there any realistic chance that Bush might change his position on a timetable in response to congressional pressure?

|8.6.06 @ 7:17PM|#

" There are liberal libertarians, too, you know. My main quarrel with Al Gore is his PMRC tainted wife."

Then again, these days Gore's on the board of Apple Computer, whose iTunes Music Store has no shortage of explicit material - including most of the PRMC's Filthy Fifteen - the exceptions probably missing due to licensing issues or sheer lack of demand.

|8.6.06 @ 7:17PM|#

Anyone who thinks that Reason is veering to far to the right hasn't been paying attention. Criticism's of Bush's anti-liberty are rampant here, both in H&R staffers and those who post here in response.

I also think it funny that a post of mine can be construed as being too far to the right when I point out I hate the bulk of Rep's and Dem's. Perhpas Gore is supposed to be a centrist? Now that is an alternate universe.

|8.6.06 @ 7:38PM|#

So, disagreeing with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean makes you a member of the "hard right" now? That's funny, I thought they were members of the "hard left".

|8.6.06 @ 8:49PM|#

happyjuggler0,

Welcome to the club. FWIW, while a tenuous case can be made that Bush "stole the election", I agree with your assertion that Gore was blatantly attempting to do the same. Especially since the Bush lawsuit was to prevent manual recounts continuing with "subjective measures" (i.e. the hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimples, etc., because only weak-wristed Democratic voters lacked the strength to punch all the way through), which I'd think any good "rule-of-law" libertarian would agree with (even if you don't agree with the outcome).

|8.6.06 @ 9:04PM|#

BTW, Gore was pursuing the wrong strategy. Had he simply requested a manual recount of all ballots, using the "fully punched hole" standard, he would have won Florida by 3 votes. Using the "dimpled and hanging chad" standard he wanted would have resulted in a bigger Bush victory. The fact that he chose a losing strategy doesn't give me any confidence that his presidency would have been any more of a loser than the one we're suffering through right now. link.

|8.6.06 @ 9:08PM|#

The fact that he chose a losing strategy doesn't give me any confidence that his presidency would have been any more of a loser than the one we're suffering through right now.

Obviously, "more" should read "less".

|8.6.06 @ 9:16PM|#

Odd indeed that Gore surfaces now and that Reason twits assign him to the left. Were he that, there would have been no Nader.

Gore is doing a good job talking about Global Warming - I'm proud of him. He's seems more effective when he's out of power. His eight years of being VP told me that he's not a man to tweak the money system even a little. He's at his best when he's not pressured by the money men. Clinton thrived on the pressure, money men loved him. I assume they will love HRC too, as Rupert does.

|8.6.06 @ 9:26PM|#

Harley D,

To be honest, I'd consider voting for Gore if he gets the Democratic nomination for 2008. Most likely I'll be wasting my vote on the Libertarian candidate, but if it looks like it's going to be close again here in Ohio, and one of the more repugnant Republicans (John McCain, I'm looking at you) gets the elephant's nomination and Gore gets the donkey's, I'll vote for Gore. Unless the Democrats look like they are going to take over both houses of Congress.

Damn, this gets complicated. If the Republicans look like they will still hold both houses of Congress, and the Presidential election doesn't look close, then I vote for the Libertarian. Otherwise, it's all up for grabs.

|8.6.06 @ 9:34PM|#

In 2008, I will vote in whatever manner is most likely to do the following:

1) Cleanse the executive branch of the current junta. I'm open to voting GOP for President if the GOP nominee offers a chance of doing that, but most likely I'll have to vote Dem.

2) Ensure that neither major party gets unified control of the House, Senate, and White House.

3) In any race that isn't close in my state or district, I'll vote for any Libertarian who has a driver's license, non-blue skin, and no stories on his website about confronting cops with a knife to defend his ferret.

|8.6.06 @ 10:00PM|#

I'm with you thoreu. Its the difference between politicians wwho anger and annoy me and those who scare the shit out of me.

|8.7.06 @ 12:09AM|#

One global warming flick and all is forgiven for not fighting to the bitter end over the hanging chads of Florida? I thought that was still part of the activists' bill of indictments against the Democratic leadership, but perhaps not.

Huh? It went to the Supreme Court. Isn't that by definition, the very end? Or was he supposed to have been dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming?

|8.7.06 @ 12:14AM|#

That's what I like about this place. The comments never lower to the grunts and growls of sites like LGF, even if the posts themselves seem to be heading that way.

Am I the only one that tends to think that is because libertarians are happier, well adjusted people, as opposed to the racists and fundies on the right and panicky, masochistic, control freaks on the left? I'm sure there's a study on this somewhere (there seems to be a study out on EVERYTHING), but I'm sure somebody on the side portrayed unfavorably would write the results off as biased.

Has any one ever checked out sites such as Democratic Underground? A bunch of freakin crazies. Nobody with a life cares as deeply about politics as they do.

|8.7.06 @ 12:56AM|#

Has any one ever checked out sites such as Democratic Underground? A bunch of freakin crazies. Nobody with a life cares as deeply about politics as they do.

Democratic Underground and Free Republic are two sides of the same coin. For a fun game, read their posts while replacing "Democrat" for "Republican", "Bush" for "Clinton", etc. It gets old pretty quickly, but that's pretty much the point; the majority of people that are actually interested in politics (i.e. spend their time on websites devoted to politics) are fuckin' NUTS! ;-)

Jadagul|8.7.06 @ 4:28AM|#

Grand Chalups: It's not exactly what you're asking for, but Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom is a really interesting study of why some people don't want liberty.

|8.7.06 @ 8:27AM|#

Would now be a good time for HRC to claim she was wrong, wrong, wrong to vote for the war?

No, because it would probably resonate about as convicingly with anti-war voters as a claim that she suddenely really enjoyed going to the gun range would to NRA members.

|8.7.06 @ 8:32AM|#

as a claim that she suddenely really enjoyed going to the gun range would to NRA members.

Actually, I would love to see an anti-gun politician reluctantly go to the range with a friend, try it out, and then come out and be like "You know what? That was fun! What the hell was I thinking all these years?"

|8.7.06 @ 9:27AM|#

Actually, thoreau, I've heard of several cases. Sorry, no links at the moment.

Most report gaining a feeling of empowerment, control and, yes, fun.

|8.7.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Sorry, the cases were not actually politicians but women who had been pro-gun control but had for various reasons come to learn to shoot.

They have included writers trying to learn about guns so that they can add authenticity to their works and actresses who have wanted to learn gun handling to make their performances more convincing.

Not all of them have shed there gun-control beliefs but they almost all report a greater appreciation of the reasons for gun ownsership.

|8.7.06 @ 10:23AM|#

thoreau writes: "Actually, I would love to see an anti-gun politician reluctantly go to the range with a friend, try it out, and then come out and be like "You know what? That was fun! What the hell was I thinking all these years?""

I'd love to see a moral-values politician reluctantly go to a Nevada brothel with a friend, try it out, then come out and be like "You know what? That was fun! What the hell was I thinking all these years?"

But I still wouldn't expect the person to make the leap from enjoying it in a controlled, limited, safe environment, and thinking that prostitution would be desirable in all places and circumstances.

I'm sure lots of people have enjoyed running with the bulls at Pamplona, but they aren't likely to support having violent, angry bulls in the home.

The point being that shooting on a range doesn't really have much to do with the reasons people would support gun control. Guns on a range (a controlled, safe environment) are not really what people worry about, it's the guns in homes and on the street.

|8.7.06 @ 11:07AM|#

Neither Hillary Clinton nor John Kerry "voted for the war." They voted to hand off the authority to make that decision to the President. Kerry explicitly warned Bush not to rush to war, or go to war unnecessarily, during the flood debate. The White House and Congressional Republicans were quite clear on the point: this is not a vote for war. War is not inevitable. All Saddam has to do is disarm. The decision has not been made to go to war. War is a last resort. This just gives the President the tools he needs to conduct foreign policy.

Perhaps Clinton can do a better job of getting that message out that Kerry did in the last election.

Or, even better, perhaps someone will stand up during the Democratic primaries and make the argument that Congress shouldn't be handing off its power like that. Clinton and Kerry both seem to honestly believe that the power to make that decision needs to lie with the President, and Congress should give him the broadest discretion about war and peace, so he can be more efficient and confident in the conduct of foreign policy.

Well, they're wrong. This is one more case in which the Founders deliberately used democracy as a brake. They purposely sacrificed a great deal of that efficiency, of the ability of the president to have that latitude, as a way of restraining government.

This argument has been stagnat for 30+ years, but maybe the Iraq Debacle has created a teachable moment.

|8.7.06 @ 11:09AM|#

Grand Chalups: It's not exactly what you're asking for, but Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom is a really interesting study of why some people don't want liberty.

Thanks, its always nice to read scientific or philosophical justification for stuff I already believe anyway, lol. I just bought it off Amazon.

|8.7.06 @ 11:35AM|#

Freedom! Horrible, horrible freedom!

|8.7.06 @ 12:58PM|#

Jon H

Unless you're arguing that the only place where we can allow sex to occur is "in...[the]...controlled, limited, safe environment," of a brothel I'm not exactly sure where your argument is going.

Are you saying that it's too dangerous for couples to have sex in their own homes?

|8.7.06 @ 1:14PM|#

Jon H

Unless you're arguing that the only place where we can allow sex to occur is "in...[the]...controlled, limited, safe environment," of a brothel I'm not exactly sure where your argument is going.

Are you saying that it's too dangerous for couples to have sex in their own homes?

NoStar|8.7.06 @ 2:13PM|#

Forget Lamentable Lamont and Vinegar Joe, a draft Jennifer for Senator campaign is budding over at the Feral Genius blogsite (but not yet with her approval.)

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29908694&postID=115490585493212132

|8.7.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Hillary is the one I most don't want to see get the nomination. I came to despise her over her past corruption. I don't care about Gore either. I don't believe it has been proven that global warming is significantly caused by man's output of CO2. To sign onto Kyoto would create an economic hardship for our country with no significant benefit to the environment. I see Kerry as nothing but a flip flopping politician. His phoniness irritates me.

After having said all this, I wouldn't mind the Democrats taking back Congress this year. Maybe it would send a message to Bush and the Neocons to stop all this foreign meddling.

|8.7.06 @ 4:05PM|#

Isaac writes: "Are you saying that it's too dangerous for couples to have sex in their own homes?"

No, I was referring to the prostitution aspect.