Hillary And The Pips?
I highly recommend Matt Bai’s latest piece in The New York Times Magazine. In exploring the possible Democratic candidacy of Virginia’s Mark Warner as the “anti-Hillary,” Bai does an excellent job of showing just how tough it’s going to be for anyone to take on the Party’s entrenched establishment
Warner, if he runs, would essentially be reprising Bill Clinton’s 1992 strategy against the latter’s wife.
One great phrase from Bai describing the contour of the current Hillary-dominated field of presumptive Democratic candidates: Gladys Knight & The Pips.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
If we should have learned anything from both the Clinton presidency and the Gore or Kerry campaigns, it’s that obsessing on the purity – or trying to hard to second-guess the intangibles of “electability” – of a presidential candidate is a fool’s errand. Democrats need to focus on regaining strength in Congress and Statehouses. Barring some incredibly inept “accidental President” like Bush, the Presidency is overrated and tends to be least-common-denominator, regardless of party. We can get the lesser evil, but without a strong presence in Congress of honest, innovative legislators who can reach the level of catylists for change, not a whole lot will ever happen. That said, one of the things that is most evident from the Bush2 fiasco is that having ideological wackjobs, the blatantly corrupt and hubristic incompetents in key advisory and management positions under a weak, ill-informed, insecure, over-compensating Commander-In-Chief – i.e. Cheney, Rummy, Norton, Chertoff, etc, etc – really can drive the country into a ditch and create a domino-effect of disasters. Whatever else one might say about Hillary, she would never stock her administration with such marginal types. Even her cronies would be a better class of cronies. (Although, I’ll admit that Bill’s appointments to the CIA and FBI were uniformly awful – one crank and two bumbling careerists.)
March 13th, 2006 at 11:46 am
I again refer all to the straw polls on KOS that give an idea of what activist sentiment is toward the nomination. Here Hillary is in single digits. The reason, I believe, is the war and I think the primaries will bare this out if we are still seriously involved in Iraq.
March 13th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Gladys Knight & The Pips–why not Bette Midler and the Harletts?
They say you need a 200 million dollar entry fee to be taken seriously and to really have a “shot” in the big presidential race–Hartletts its a much more fitting name. And then if you manage to win the primary; you will probably lose anyway thanks to Mr. Diebold.
The American voter has better odds in a Vegas casino. We need CAMPAIGN REFORM and voting ballots that cannot be compromised.
March 13th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
So, Marc, from previous post we can assume you’d never support Sen. Clinton.
You think Matt Bai’s right that it’s all decided, nothing to do with us yokels, two years out.
So are you a Warner guy, going with a third party, or taking a “screw-’em-all” not-voting approach?
March 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the article, Marc. I knew Hillary was the favorite, but I had no idea the others were so far behind and how much of the Dem establishment had already lined up behind her. Very disappointing.
That said, his portrayal of Warner didn’t get me very excited about him either. I’m absolutely fine with a Dem that doesn’t walk with me lockstep on everything, but I really have a problem with an anti-gay candidate. It’s all along way away, but if California looks strongly Dem, like it usually does, this may be another year to go Green (especially if they don’t run Nadar).
March 13th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Nell… I dont feel compelled to “support” anybody. I don’t think I could ever pull the lever for Hillary. Warner doesnt do much for me either. He might be a better candidate than Hillary– but I dont know.
In a match-up between McCain and Hillary I would…um…er…go fishing.
March 13th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore.
Ahem….now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
PS: Thanks for the tip to read the Matt Bai piece, Marc. I’d set it aside, but finally read it late last night after I saw your post.
March 13th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I voted for Gore.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Interesting article. I didn’t realize Hillary was such a heavy favorite – I didn’t know the party machinery was so committed already.
On the other hand, I Bai didn’t sell me on Warner either. I’m not going Hillary, but it’d be nice to have somebody to get excited about. We’ll see if Warner’s the guy, but I have a tough time getting jazzed about anybody who’s anti-gay. Just one of those issues for me.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
pardon the redundency. I thought my earlier post had gotten junked by Cooper’s Machine
March 16th, 2006 at 2:42 am
Yeah, Bush is down below 40% — until there’s a question of who is better…
Luckily for Leftists, he ain’t runnin’ again.
Nov. 2006 is gonna be interesting; see how many keep claiming Iraq is a disaster. As compared to what?
July 20th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresmq
July 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks
September 12th, 2006 at 6:09 am
college football picks abn college football picks abn http://college–football-picks.blogspot.comabn
September 12th, 2006 at 7:09 am
football betting mmq football betting mmq http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.commmq
October 6th, 2006 at 1:36 am
Cool site! http://alfika.com
January 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
No more spam, man!
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 am
Awesome, man
September 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hi boys!dc103814dc1dd8d86aa78b2f7ec091d4
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
pos yourgirls