Hillary, Genius

David Weigel | January 15, 2008

I've never been convinced that Hillary Clinton was a strong Democratic candidate, seeing all the hype and smoke and trembling about the "Clinton machine" as a band-aid for conservatives' own deep problems. After this week, though, I'm convinced. The number one thing you want in a political candidate—assuming you can't make them a war hero or a Kennedy—is pure, Sam Peckinpah brutality. You want someone who has no compunction about attacking and can keep the opponent off his/her game. You want someone who can control the debate. Daniel Radosh explains (in a theory I like even more than he does):

Think about it. All of a sudden, Obama is being reduced to "the black candidate" he never was before. Bill even called Al Sharpton's radio show to "apologize" for his remarks -- thus linking Sharpton's name with Obama for perhaps the first time ever. Indeed, it seems like every African-American politician is being called for comment, driving home the point that Obama is "one of them" rather than "one of us" (where us means all America)... For the first time in the primary, she's running against "the black candidate" rather than Barack Obama.

I'm not sure how a Barack Obama would neutralize John McCain's positives with voters. He might simply try to ride over him with his own positives. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't. Only the Clintons could concievably turn the hero of the Hanoi Hilton and the Straight Talk Express into a lurching pile of scum. "Hey," says a Clinton surrogate in March. "McCain was in a lot of pain in the 1970s. Did he take any drugs?" If that story's beyond the pale, another surrogate asks innocently about his wife's drug habit. And hey, what about his black daughter? You said she's Pakistani? No problem: They've got a lot of surrogates who can inject this stuff into the conversation then resign, mission accomplished. And I assume they've got a lot of printers for untraceable fliers.

David Mark wrote in a 2006 reason cover story that "attack ads are good for you," and I still generally think that's true, but the maximum value of negative campaigning is in exposing the actual, ugly record and decisions of opponents. The Clintons have done a little of that with Obama (attacking his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate) but it's mostly been character stuff, identity politics stuff. The way it's working now, I'm putting together this scenario:

Clinton faces McCain in the general election, picks up all the Kerry states plus her home state of Arkansas and Hispanic-heavy New Mexico and Nevada. All eyes turn to Ohio. But black Democrats are embittered by the primary and turnout is light in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties. About forty thousand fewer black voters turn out than turned out in 2004, and Clinton loses the state by 10,000 votes. McCain wins the White House, 270 to 268 electoral votes.

UPDATE: In the comments, people argue (like they did in Radosh's comments) that the time to ghettoize Obama as the "black candidate" was before Iowa. Maybe, but it's never too late! The Clinton team doesn't expect to win South Carolina, and the best way of cushioning a blow right before Super Tuesday is to make the subliminal argument that Obama's victory only happened because half of the electorate was black. It would make the run-up to the victory less dramatic and gird the ever-shaky "Hillary's the best general election candidate" argument for the following nine days.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

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

|1.15.08 @ 10:41AM|#

don't worry, nothing will convince about 40% of the electorate that Hillary is any more than a lying POS scumbag.

VM|1.15.08 @ 10:43AM|#

"But black Democrats are embittered by the primary and turnout is light in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties"

as opposed to Hamilton County where they're still not allowed to vote!!

[ducks]

hell - there's a chance in the eastern side of Cuyahoga county will be buried under wet, sticky lake effect snow.. :)

Abdul|1.15.08 @ 10:45AM|#

nothing will convince about 40% of the electorate that Hillary is any more than a lying POS scumbag.

Doesn't the other 60% of the electorate know who she is by now?

|1.15.08 @ 10:51AM|#

Someone snarked the other day that "the most dangerous place in America is between the Clintons and public office".

|1.15.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Wouldn't have been smarter to label Obama as "the black candidate" before Iowa and New Hampshire rather than before Nevada and South Carolina?

|1.15.08 @ 10:55AM|#

It looks like the Clintons and Obama are stepping back from the brink, though. Cooler heads are prevailing.

|1.15.08 @ 10:57AM|#

I am a bit jealous of the Republicans.

They don't have these problems, now do they?

|1.15.08 @ 11:00AM|#

As someone in Radosh's thread asked, wouldn't this have made more sense before Iowa and NH, as opposed to the SC primary? I think this is much more about spinning an inadvertent comment than any pre-planning. That said, I think Radosh is right about the desired narrative -- it was a line of attack that the Clinton campaign was ready to use -- and this particular set of circumstances allowed them to use it now. But I'm not clear now is the ideal time for it, and the real question is whether it will stick -- which will depend on Obama's showing in NV.

Anon

Only the Clintons could concievably turn the hero of the Hanoi Hilton and the Straight Talk Express into a lurching pile of scum.

Wha??? Surely the "hero of the Hanoi Hilton" can't be the same John McCain who was regularly pilloried here as a clear and present danger to free speech, shill for the steroid police, etc.

|1.15.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Tonio,

They look at that as a good thing. You have to remember John McCain killed Matt Welch's puppy and repeatedly beat him up and took his lunch money as a kid. McCain therefore gets special scorn in Reason world. Beyond even people like Hillary, who also supported McCain Feingold.

|1.15.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Only the Clintons could concievably turn the hero of the Hanoi Hilton and the Straight Talk Express into a lurching pile of scum.

He wasn't exactly being named Grand Marshall of parades after Rove and Hughes got through with him in South Carolina eight years ago.

|1.15.08 @ 11:07AM|#

You might have a point about Hillary looking at Super Duper Tuesday rather than Nevada and S.C. Especially since she's losing both of them but leading in national polls.

|1.15.08 @ 11:10AM|#

Obama has a not-so-secret super hero ready to lay an ass whipping on the Clintons... Oprah Winfrey.

|1.15.08 @ 11:11AM|#

I am suprised that Democrats aren't more negative against Clinton. My opinion is, as long as the Democrats run anybody besides Clinton, they will win. Heck, if an Obama was the Democratic candidate, I might be willing to swing a vote to the Democrats, just to make sure some of these Republican candidates don't become president. But on the other hand, I rather have any Republican than Hillary Clinton.

Why do the Democrats love Hillary so? You are a big Democratic supporter joe, perhaps you could give us some insight in the Democrat mindset?

|1.15.08 @ 11:16AM|#

My feelings are just like yours, Rex. I'm tired of the war monger Republicans, so if Obama is the nominee, I might just vote for him. It would be the first time I ever voted for a Democrat for president. If Hillary wins the nomination, then not only do I want the Republican to win the presidency, but also for the Republicans to retake the House and Senate, just to teach Democrats a lesson not to ever nominate a crooked bitch like Hillary again.

|1.15.08 @ 11:19AM|#

Why do the Democrats love Hillary so?

Because they refuse to ever admit they were wrong?

[background music]
Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere.
[/background music]

|1.15.08 @ 11:20AM|#

Rex Rhino,

There isn't much love for Hillary Clinton among Democrats, except among a segment of African-American and women voters. For the most part, people think she's o.k.

The important part here is that there isn't a lot of hate, either. Democrats have watched Clinton haters for sixteen years, and don't want to get in bed with those people.

|1.15.08 @ 11:23AM|#

"You might have a point about Hillary looking at Super Duper Tuesday rather than Nevada and S.C. Especially since she's losing both of them but leading in national polls."

The ABC/Washington Post poll shows that Obama has closed the gap nationally with Hillary in the last month from a 30 point deficit to only 5 points behind. The latest CBS poll, however, shows that Hillary is still 15 points ahead.

What if Hillary loses the recount in New Hampshire tomorrow? Kucinich has paid $2000 for a recount, not for himself, but just for fairness. He said that he heard "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of the primary results. Overturning the New Hampshire results could hurt Hillary in two ways by showing she was not the winner afterall and that there might have been some cheating by the Hillary forces.

|1.15.08 @ 11:26AM|#

Clinton reminds me of Bob Dole; a sure loser candidate that wins the nomination because they have the most money and for no other reason it is their turn. I would be surprised if Obama beats her. Single, childless women are a big part of the Democratic base and Clinton owns their vote in a way that no other candidate owns any group's vote. She doesn't have to win any individual group, just win that one like 90 to 10 and be competetive in the rest.

|1.15.08 @ 11:28AM|#

"Hillary, who also supported McCain Feingold."

Hillary supported McCain Feingold because she knew it would make other people play by new rules that she would ignore giving her a money raising advantage.

|1.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#

Cactus Jack,

As I understand it, Obama eliminated Hillary's national lead entirely after Iowa, but it has since reappeared.

And Kucinich just filed that challenge in an effort to find enough votes to allow him to keep being invited to debates. "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" is boilerplate whenever someone files for a recount - you have to say something.

|1.15.08 @ 11:34AM|#

But black Democrats are embittered by the primary and turnout is light

The other day, I stumbled across an interesting piece (I had a quick look, but couldn't find it) about the Clintonistas' last minute tactics in New Hampshire. A swipe at Obama's "pro-choiciness" (the "present" vote business) and removal of his supporters from polling places; apparently, a lot of Obama's people are so pissed off they say they won't lift a finger to help Hillary.

The Clintonista reply: "Get over it."

Hillary supported McCain Feingold because she knew it would make other people play by new rules that she would ignore giving her a money raising advantage.

She supported the McCain-Feingold ~~Campaign Finance Reform~~ Incumbent Protection Act because she is, hold ont to your hats, an incumbent.

|1.15.08 @ 11:35AM|#

That's a great theory, but Hillary was on record in favor when it was first proposed in the 90s.

some dude|1.15.08 @ 11:36AM|#

What could Hillary use to attack RON PAUL?

|1.15.08 @ 11:36AM|#

If Democrats nominate Hillary they deserve to lose for being stupid. They need to look past their own party to the independent middle and realize Obama is getting a lot of independent support and every single Democrat would vote for him against any Republican. Yet if Hillary is the nominee that throws all independents up in the air and makes it a much closer race and a potential Democrat disaster in Congress as well if enough independents decide "I voted for a Democrat to end the war, but they didn't so screw them, screw Hillary, I'm voting Republican just to show these hacks they better do what we tell them to next time."

I don't know any Independents who have a problem with Obama AT ALL, yet a majority of independents and all Republicans HATE her. Nominating Obama means a win for sure. Nominating Hillary makes a loss very likely, if not inevitable.

R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 11:38AM|#

The number one thing you want in a political candidate-assuming you can't make them a war hero or a Kennedy-is pure, Sam Peckinpah brutality.

I was hoping for principles, ethics, and maybe just a touch of humanity, myself.

|1.15.08 @ 11:40AM|#

"removal of his supporters from polling places"

How did they do that P Brooks?

|1.15.08 @ 11:42AM|#

David Brooks makes an interesting point in the NYT today. Hispanics don't like Obama at all and are to put it politely, reticent to vote for a black candidate. First, what do black Democrats think if Hispanics torpedeo a black candidate in the primaries? Second, what happens to the Hispanic vote if the Republicans run a pro immigration candidate against Obama. If Obama were to get killed in the general election among Hispanics, would that mean that people would have to admit that some people besides white people are racists? Boy that would cause some knashing of teeth.

|1.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#

"What could Hillary use to attack RON PAUL?"

Abortion, de-regulation, he's a Republican and all Republicans are evil, he's old, he is accused of being racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic, you know, basically everything everyone else uses.

Accusations usually do a lot of damage especially if you mention them all the time, even if they aren't true.

He's a congressman and she's a senator. She was President 1A for 8 years. She will have him killed if she thinks it's necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if she has Obama killed. She's that brutal.

|1.15.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Cactus Jack- it had to do with putting observers in polling places. Some arcane rule.

I'm really sorry I can't come up with a link; I got to it via Google News. I thought it was in either Slate or Salon, but I couldn't find it. It may have been in the NYT politics blog.

|1.15.08 @ 11:48AM|#

If Democrats were smart, they would just nominate Obama and offer Edwards the VP. I don't have faith in the intelligence of 50% of Democrats just based on the fact they have not done this already. The fact they put up the world's most unelectable candidate against W in 04 (where any reasonably liked candidate would have won) and still haven't figured this out, means they are not deserving of top two status.

Republicans, on the other hand have an ignorant base yet the leadership is brilliant in how they operate. Rove, Cheney...evil, but brilliant.

|1.15.08 @ 11:50AM|#

Why don't Hispanics like Obama? Do they like him less than McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee? I would think they'd like him more than Romney, Thompson, or Paul.

|1.15.08 @ 11:52AM|#

I don't think David Brooks knows what he's talking about, John. Wishful thinking by Republicans looking to get the slime of the Southern Strategy off their backs can be a powerful thing.

Obama just picked up the endorsement of the heavily-Hispanic Nevada Culinary Workers Union.

And if Obama is seen as the wonderful, nonthreatening black man that even Joe Scarborough and Bill Bennett can describe as "one of the good ones, not like those other blacks," why wouldn't that extend to how he's seen by Hispanics as well? Much of his success is owed to the fact that he's not perceived as being like traditional African-American politicians. He's even got the immigrant thing going on.

Second, what happens to the Hispanic vote if the Republicans run a pro immigration candidate against Obama.

I didn't know the republicans had a pro immigration candidate

|1.15.08 @ 12:00PM|#

Obama would probably be a better general election candidate than Hillary, but don't overstate how much. In the matchup polling, they both beat all the Republicans, and he only performs a couple of points better than she does.

You could argue that those are what the polls look like before the Noise Machine really goes to town against the nominee, but what are the Republicans going to throw at her that they haven't been throwing for the past 17 years?

|1.15.08 @ 12:06PM|#

The fact they put up the world's most unelectable candidate against W in 04 (where any reasonably liked candidate would have won)

No candidate has ever unseated an incubent during wartime in American history, but Kerry should have won? In fact, Kerry came closer to doing so than any candidate, ever.

Wartime incumbents are like the New England Patriots; it's possible they could be beat, but it hasn't happened yet, and they have to be considered the favorite, regardless of the circumstances, until somebody beats them.

Hillary was booed at an MLK rally yesterday in NYC. She received only tepid applause. Her greatest applause came when she mentioned her opponent, Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination, she may be in trouble in counting on the black vote to put her over the top.

|1.15.08 @ 12:08PM|#

What are the odds of a Clinton/Obama ticket?
"It'll will give you eight years of experience as my veep, then you'll be the first black president."

|1.15.08 @ 12:09PM|#

"In the matchup polling, they both beat all the Republicans"

I saw a recent poll that had McCain 5 points over Hillary, but losing to Obama.

"I am a bit jealous of the Republicans.

They don't have these problems, now do they?"

You mean with race and gender issues? I think you have to have some variation for those two variables for your group to have a problem with them...

|1.15.08 @ 12:17PM|#

Wisconsin's also dicey in a Clinton/McCain matchup. McCain-Feingold benefits the Arizona Senator here, if only by association with Feingold. Russ as a running mate, of course, seals the deal.

SUSA's mid-December matchup polling had Hillary getting thumped, while Obama was a point ahead. The Ds easily won matchups with all other Rs. I'd expect Obama to fade some once word got around he's even more of a gungrabber than Clinton.

|1.15.08 @ 12:22PM|#

That's a great theory, but Hillary was on record in favor when it was first proposed in the 90s.

joe, Hillary has been a de facto incumbent ever since 1992. But you know that.

It is nice to see you defending everything every democrat does though. In an uncertain world, I like that there are some things that I can rely on. ;-)

|1.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Ah, a "de facto" incumbent. OK.

Blah blah blah democrat blah blah blah. It must be nice to have a shortcut like that. I spend so much effort trying to think about things.

|1.15.08 @ 12:27PM|#

Someday, I'm going to start posting under another name, just to see how blank the comment threads are when "You're just saying that because yoor a partisan" isn't available as a comeback to my points.

|1.15.08 @ 12:30PM|#

I was at the county Republican meeting last night. The chairman seems pretty excited about this year. He's talking about the Democrats are talking about race and gender and very little about ideas, and the GOP is fighting with each other mainly over ideas. An interesting point.

|1.15.08 @ 12:35PM|#

While not rational, I could live with an Obama presidency. I think Clinton, Volume 2, would suck pretty hard. In fact, Obama makes me less nervous than McCain, the authortarian I think most likely to get us into a shooting war with Iran.

Russ 2000|1.15.08 @ 12:35PM|#

If that story's beyond the pale

LOL

R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#

That's a great theory, but Hillary was on record in favor when it was first proposed in the 90s.

Of course, her husband was an incumbent then, so perhaps the theory still holds. She may not have been a de facto incumbent, but more of an incumbent-in-law.

Or, perhaps she is just willing to stomp on the First Amendment even when it has no immediate advantage to her, personally?

Obama just picked up the endorsement of the heavily-Hispanic Nevada Culinary Workers Union.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the political calculations of union leadership reflect the preferences of the rank and file.

|1.15.08 @ 12:47PM|#

R C Dean,

I love "incumbent-in-law." May I steal it?

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the political calculations of union leadership reflect the preferences of the rank and file.

Of course this is a good rule of thumb, but different types of unions work differently. Unions that represent poor people - UNITE-HERE, or the culinary workers' union - tend to be more democratic than, say, the UAW.

highnumber|1.15.08 @ 12:52PM|#

He's talking about the Democrats are talking about race and gender and very little about ideas, and the GOP is fighting with each other mainly over ideas.

Well, what kind of argument over race and gender could the Repubs have, anyway?
And none of the Repubs' ideas are getting anybody fired up, excluding the Paultards, Paulistas, and Pauliannas.
I think your county chairman is going to be disappointed.

|1.15.08 @ 12:55PM|#

I suppose "Don't they believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?" counts as an idea.

|1.15.08 @ 12:58PM|#

Hillary is a scumbag and will do anything for power? Wow, I'm so surprised.

jag|1.15.08 @ 12:58PM|#

And here I thought I had finally found a liberal who I really wanted to see as President. I fully expect the Democrats to return to their segregationist roots this year.

The Clintons are destroying their own legacy and the Democratic party.

highnumber|1.15.08 @ 12:59PM|#

Next up from Huckabee's camp:
Mormons believe Jesus was a woman and that she gave birth to an illegitimate black child.

|1.15.08 @ 1:01PM|#

The Clintons are destroying their own legacy and the Democratic party.

The Clintons are the Democratic Party.

I think your county chairman is going to be disappointed.

I think he's most optimistic about the WA state governor's race, where Dino Rossi may in fact unseat the mole with a woman's face attached to it, Chris Gregoire.

jag|1.15.08 @ 1:03PM|#

Cesar: The Clintons might be the DLC machine, but their smear strategy against Obama is going to destroy the Democratic party's base - I can see millions of minorities, liberals, independents, netroots, people who would have voted for Obama, staying home rather than support Hillary.

|1.15.08 @ 1:05PM|#

Jag-sometimes I wonder if they care, so long as the can prevent a Democrat from becoming President who doesn't have the last name "Clinton" or is in some way part of their power base.

Even if Obama by some miracle gets the nomination, watch the Clinton Machine snipe at and sabatoge the Obama campaign from the sidelines.

jag|1.15.08 @ 1:11PM|#

I think I've found a free-market way to hedge the inevitable anger and sadness I'll feel if Clinton gets the nomination with her racist tactics - put a decent sum of money on buying the "2008DEM.NOM.CLINTON" futures contract on Intrade. It's currently trading at 57... wonder how much money it's going to take to compensate for losing hope for this country.

|1.15.08 @ 1:15PM|#

I thought I'd never vote Republican in 2008, but I might hold my nose and do it just to break the sickening dynasty-ism in this country's politics.

For God's sake, I thought dynasties are for Third World basket cases, not industrialized democracies!

|1.15.08 @ 1:17PM|#

So which anti-dynastic candidate would you vote for? Admiral McCain's son or Governor Romney's son?

|1.15.08 @ 1:18PM|#

Not quite the same thing as being the spouse or child of a President. Particularly since its been Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton if Hillary wins.

If the last 20 years had been McCain-Clinton-McCain-Clinton you might have a point.

|1.15.08 @ 1:21PM|#

"And if Obama is seen as the wonderful, nonthreatening black man that even Joe Scarborough and Bill Bennett can describe as "one of the good ones, not like those other blacks," why wouldn't that extend to how he's seen by Hispanics as well?"

Because Hispanics don't have the guilt white people do. They don't give a shit. They never were responsible for slavery or segregation. Once more, they have their own racial axe to grind. The tension between the black and hispanic communities is one of the untold stories of the last 20 years.

|1.15.08 @ 1:25PM|#

Because Hispanics don't have the guilt white people do. They don't give a shit. They never were responsible for slavery or segregation. Once more, they have their own racial axe to grind. The tension between the black and hispanic communities is one of the untold stories of the last 20 years.

Good point. The old idea of the "people of color vs. The Evil White Man" is just more than a little outdated. Thats why its pretty stupid of the Republicans to give up trying to appeal to hispanics, thinking they will vote exactly the same as blacks.

|1.15.08 @ 1:28PM|#

The tension between the black and hispanic communities is one of the untold stories of the last 20 years.

Not in LA. They are quite aware of it.

Not quite the same thing as being the spouse or child of a President.

Yes, there is a difference of degree. Sort of like supporting a Duke's claim to the throne instead of a Prince's.

John,

It is true that the racial issues in the Hispanic community are different from those in the white community. Nonetheless, Obama's "racial exceptionalism," so to speak, is still relevant, since the squabbling between African-Americans and Latinos you mention has been almost entirely a phenomenon involving slave-descended African-Americans.

The Clinton campaign is supporting, if not actually inciting, a Nevada State Teachers Association lawsuit against the Culinary Workers Union. The reason? The Culinary Workers Union has arranged for its members to caucus in their workplaces, to cast their votes in the hotels and casinos that support that state's economy instead of taking time off to get to polling places--at the risk of getting fired. That lawsuit was filed right after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. Gosh. What a coincidence."

You got to love Hillary.

jag|1.15.08 @ 1:30PM|#

joe: I'd rather vote for Huckabee than Clinton. Anti-dynastic enough for you?

|1.15.08 @ 1:31PM|#

Yes, there is a difference of degree. Sort of like supporting a Duke's claim to the throne instead of a Prince's.

I really, really want kin limits. Now. Families should have to wait at least a generation before they can have one of their members be President again.

GILMORE|1.15.08 @ 1:31PM|#

Rex Rhino | January 15, 2008, 11:11am | #
I am suprised that Democrats aren't more negative against Clinton. My opinion is, as long as the Democrats run anybody besides Clinton, they will win.

Cactus Jack | January 15, 2008, 11:16am | #
My feelings are just like yours, Rex.

jag | January 15, 2008, 1:03pm | #
I can see millions of minorities, liberals, independents, netroots, people who would have voted for Obama, staying home rather than support Hillary.

Agree with all 3 here.

My money has been that the GOP WANTS hilary more than anyone else, since they know that there are a good chunk of people all over the spectrum who simply will not abide by HC as president. Not because she's a woman = because she's Hilary.

I will vote for a communist moose corpse before her.

|1.15.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Damn, that's harsh.

Next thing you know, she'll be trying to get improperly-marked ballots thrown out, even when they express a clear preference.

Or demanding photo IDs, knowing that her voters are less likely to be without them.

Voter suppression, procedural hurdles, using well-placed allies to stack the deck - I wouldn't put anything past that jerk.

|1.15.08 @ 1:34PM|#

I'm not voting for her under any circumstances not because shes a woman. Not because shes Hillary, even. But because shes a Clinton. If she had divorced that adulterer after he basically humiliated her on the national stage, I'd still have some grain of respect for her.

|1.15.08 @ 1:35PM|#

Cesar,

I'll see you and raise you: no immediate family members of presidents, VPs, Senators, or Governors.

jag,

When you're claiming divine right, I guess you don't need direct male descent.

|1.15.08 @ 1:38PM|#

I'll see you and raise you: no immediate family members of presidents, VPs, Senators, or Governors.

Sounds fine to me. If Hillary wins and shes a disaster of a President, you might see a real movement in this country toward an Amendment that would do that.

I don't mind if the family waits 20 years like the Adams family did. I don't mind if they wait 30 years and are distant cousins like the Roosevelts. But when they are direct family members and consecutive it makes my stomach turn.

|1.15.08 @ 1:43PM|#

Here's one for you, Joe. I'd rather have Bill Clinton for another four years than his wife. For all of his flaws, he was a helluva politician and a pragmatist.

|1.15.08 @ 1:56PM|#

More and more, I see Hillary as the real life Servalan (from Blake's 7). Maybe I'll start liking her too.

Servalan compilation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=reGGD8N7Rl4

|1.15.08 @ 2:04PM|#

Not quite the same thing as being the spouse or child of a President.

How about the son of a mill worker?

|1.15.08 @ 2:09PM|#

but what are the Republicans going to throw at her that they haven't been throwing for the past 17 years?

Why would the Republicans throw anything at her now? Hillary Clinton is the last great hope of the Republican party. I wouldn't be suprised if the Republicans are secretly behind some of the anti-Obama dirty tricks that are sometimes attributed to Hillary.

Um, this is par for the game and the Democrats use these kinds of tactics all the time. They have a hard time using this kinds of tactics against Republicans given the way places are gerrimandered... but in places where Democrats are the only party in town (say Detroit city elections), the big political-machine Democrats use every illicit tactic in the book to crush the more independent reform-minded Democrats.

I know you see the world in Republican vs. Democrat, and you were trying to make a subtle insult towards the Republicans, but the Republicans learned most of their dirty tricks from the urban political-machine Democrats. Everything the Republicans did to the Democrats in the 2000 election the Democrats have been doing to other Democrats much worse for generations.

I wouldn't put it past Hillary to fix elections so she can win the primary. Unfortunatly for you (who is "Democrat at all costs"), Hillary can't fix a national presidental election the same way she can fix a Democratic primary. She can intimidate Obama voters in areas controlled by the Democratic political machine, but it is much much more difficult for her to intimidate Republican voters.

|1.15.08 @ 2:13PM|#

If Obama is going to lose, I hope it is to Hillary in the primary. If he loses the general election, the rage in some quarters will be unbearable. If he loses to Hillary they will have to just blame the Clintons. Although, imagine if Hillary beats Obama in a very close dirty primary campaign and goes on to get creamed in the general elections. Can you imagine the recriminations over that? The damage to the Clinton legacy such as it is? The Clintons would be more unpopular with Democrats than Ralph Nader.

|1.15.08 @ 2:18PM|#

Let's cut to the chase:

Hillary is a miserable cunt.

I rarely invoke that word (I think "Ann Coulter is a malignant cunt" was the last example), but sometimes nothing else will do. Like now.

Gus|1.15.08 @ 2:53PM|#

"The number one thing you want in a political candidate-assuming you can't make them a war hero or a Kennedy-is pure, Sam Peckinpah brutality. You want someone who has no compunction about attacking and can keep the opponent off his/her game."

Well, if you're an asshole who doesn't give two fucks from thursday about our country, then sure. That's what you want.

R C Dean|1.15.08 @ 3:07PM|#

I love "incumbent-in-law." May I steal it?

Anything for you, joe.

Brett|1.15.08 @ 3:18PM|#

Anything for you, joe.

A real peace in the Middle East cannot be far behind.

|1.15.08 @ 3:43PM|#

"I don't mind if the family waits 20 years like the Adams family did"

When were Gomez, Morticia, or Uncle Festus ever president?

|1.15.08 @ 3:58PM|#

"I think I've found a free-market way to hedge the inevitable anger and sadness I'll feel if Clinton gets the nomination"

I think I've found the ideal way to deal with it if she wins the general election...........

Have a Budweiser truck parked out front of my house for 4 years.

|1.15.08 @ 4:02PM|#

"Even if Obama by some miracle gets the nomination, watch the Clinton Machine snipe at and sabatoge the Obama campaign from the sidelines."

I hope if Obama wins or if the Republican beats Hillary, I hope that's the last we see of her running for president.

|1.15.08 @ 4:05PM|#

"What could Hillary use to attack RON PAUL?"

The primary process, which weeds out candidates unable to win delegates.

* Ducks

|1.15.08 @ 4:42PM|#

Rex Rhino,

Why would the Republicans throw anything at her now? I was talking about the general election.

As for the rest, no, I wasn't making a point about Red vs. Blue. I was making a point about John shedding croccadile tears for people being disenfranchised by Clinton's efforts, with his history of taking to the barricades to defend the propriety of Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court.

|1.15.08 @ 4:43PM|#

John | January 15, 2008, 2:13pm | #

If Obama is going to lose, I hope it is to Hillary in the primary. If he loses the general election, the rage in some quarters will be unbearable.

So, which quarters would those be?

|1.15.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Someday, I'm going to start posting under another name, just to see how blank the comment threads are when "You're just saying that because yoor a partisan" isn't available as a comeback to my points.

You have already and you were caught doing it because you are a partisan hack...a partisan hack who also has a distinct identifiable style.

And if the odd comment did get by the joe detectors the post would be flamed harder then if your name was actually on it. Many, myself included, just let the crap fly by out of being dulled to the endless drone of it when we see your name attached to a post. A new name would not get that same luxury.

|1.15.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Actually, I have never done that, joshua. What are you talking about?

But I think everyone already knows you presume to know much more than you actually do.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements