marccooper.comAbout MarcContactMarc's Video Blogs

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.

20 Responses to “Hillary And The Pips?”

  1. reg Says:

    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.)

  2. richard lo cicero Says:

    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.

  3. Eleanore kjellberg Says:

    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.

  4. Nell Says:

    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?

  5. Mavis Beacon Says:

    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).

  6. Marc Cooper Says:

    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.

  7. rosedog Says:

    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.

  8. Mark A. York Says:

    I voted for Gore.

  9. Mavis Beacon Says:

    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.

  10. Mavis Beacon Says:

    pardon the redundency. I thought my earlier post had gotten junked by Cooper’s Machine

  11. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Says:

    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?

  12. mambo italianomq Says:

    Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresmq

  13. trannies Says:

    Betting Bettingbaseball handicapping baseball handicappingbaseball picks baseball picks

  14. college football picksabn Says:

    college football picks abn college football picks abn http://college–football-picks.blogspot.comabn

  15. football bettingmmq Says:

    football betting mmq football betting mmq http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.commmq

  16. catalog Says:

    Cool site!

  17. Hillary Says:

    No more spam, man!

  18. Abi Says:

    Awesome, man

  19. limewire Says:

    Hi boys!dc103814dc1dd8d86aa78b2f7ec091d4

  20. serega Says:

    pos yourgirls