Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« Vorwärts, immer Vorwärts | Main | Its HitlerSpiegel Time Again »

January 12, 2008

Comments

fishbane

Oh, come on. That's just a stupid hit piece about the cold, calculating shrew who isn't getting any from the Clenis. I'm surprised I didn't see any Vince Foster references in there. It shouldn't, but it does surprise me that 10 years after the impeachment, otherwise reasonable people are still obsessed with Bill's dick, and insultingly define Hillary's candidacy by it.

I won't want to see Clinton in power either, but that article is lurid trash.

Abiola

I'm not interested in the first section with all the gossip about Bill Clinton's sex life, but the more substantive second part of the article rings true to what I've read from other Democratic Party loyalists who've worked in the Clinton White House, people who would have absolutely no political reason to badmouth her, e.g.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/
2003_archives/001600.html

You can't dismiss criticism like the above as a mere "hit piece", and there's plenty more like it floating about out there.

Kenji

This is juicy stuff. I actually think that Bill Clinton is pathological in his inability to control his libidos. I can't possibly assume that he's cleaned up his act, post-Presidency. In fact, the opposite assumption is entirely appropriate. One thing I fear about Hillary's nomination or Presidency is that the Republicans may be working really hard right now to dig up dirt on his post-Presidential extracurricular activities. I really don't want to go back to those 8 years of White House soap opera.

fishbane

DeLong makes reasonable points, the most critical, to my eye, is:

And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

I consider him someone worth listening to. And no, I don't want her as president. (I'm a U.S. citizen.) Minimaxing the options, I reluctantly go for Obama, for various reasons (likely ineffectualness, when confronted with oppositional politics from the GOP, a potential invigoration of young voters which hopefully will pay off down the road, some vague handwaving, at least, at getting back to bipartisan negotiation instead of the standoff we've had since '94, or alternately '00, depending on how you think about it).

But I think DeLong sells her short. Screwing up once, to my mind, is a learning experience. Screwing up twice is a firing offense. She was a lightweight 15 years ago. I find it difficult to believe that someone as smart and determined as her hasn't learned how to operate on a policy level in the mean-time. That, of course, doesn't mean she won't screw up if given power, and there will be many, many resources aligned against her to attempt to force just that sort of error.

But in general, I still think this is nothing but trash journalism. He's probably out of the race now (thank dog, and as a New Yorker, I mean that for reasons aside from his apparent 9/11-related Tourette's syndrome), but where is the lurid goggling at Rudy's romantic interests? Paul took a useful corrective drubbing, but media is terribly inconsistent. Why concentrate on Edwards' apparently too-effete haircuts, instead of his rather appalling record as a plaintiff's attorney? And there seems to be a serious silence about Huckabee's little rapist/murderer problem. And Mr. Mitt seems to have difficulty remembering what his positions are from day to day, to be charitable.

Just saying, there's so much dirt that a fair analysis wouldn't look like what we have now. And of course, everyone expected the cranks to attack Obama and Clinton on the obvious, mouth breather fronts, and to offer McCain a metaphorical iron lung (hoping against hope that if he actually does get elected, that he won't need a real one).


fishbane

(Oops, my formatting was stripped. Sorry for getting that wrong.)

Abiola

"But in general, I still think this is nothing but trash journalism. He's probably out of the race now (thank dog, and as a New Yorker, I mean that for reasons aside from his apparent 9/11-related Tourette's syndrome), but where is the lurid goggling at Rudy's romantic interests?"

Ah, but there's no law saying that every political article has to give equal time to all candidates in a race. Besides, at the close of the article one has this:

["Extracted from The Clintons At The White House by Sally Bedell Smith, to be published by Aurum Press on February 4 at £25."]

It would be mighty strange if such an extract devoted time to anyone other than the Clintons.

As for the weaknesses of the other candidates, Ron Paul is a racist, homophobic, antisemitic paleocon nut masquerading as a libertarian, so its just as well he's getting no electoral traction. Rudy Giuliani is a scary authoritarian, but (thankfully) his chequered private life, his pro-choice stance and his clear lack of the required animus towards gays already write him off as a serious contender with the GOP base. The bible-bashers may love Huckabee, but the man is poison to the economic conservatives and the National-Review hawk element. As for Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney, they don't come much more transparently phony than that, and at best I see the man as someone else's vice-president.

In short, there are only a handful of serious contenders in this race, and the stronger ones happen to be mostly on the Democratic Party side, so its only natural that attention should be focused on Clinton, Obama and McCain.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers