Hillary's Solution
I've had a few hours to rework my initial, instant response to Tuesday's
elections (which has drawn 1500 comments).
Here's my more elaborate, final and filed version as it appears in my latest L.A. Weekly column.
Here's a teaser graph:
"I have no doubt that as Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary spent many, many anxious nights alone by the phone at 3 in the morning, but I don't remember ever reading exactly which world crisis she solved while sitting around in her jammies. I can think of a few she helped ignite, like, say, Iraq, but I guess that wouldn't be fair to bring up. Might be sexist."
And my conclusion, in short: Democrats, get ready to lose.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
ABC/Washington Post Poll: Obama over McCain by 12. Clinton over McCain by 6. Mister Straight Talk leaks 30 % of “Conservatives” and is trusted by only 41 %. (Obama wins this by being more trustworthy to 56 %.)
What I’m saying is simple. All those worrywarts seeing another “Chicago 1968″ are probably having acid flashbacks. The fact is more people voted in the Texas PRIMARY yeasterday for Dems than voted for Kerry in the GENERAL in 2004! Once again turn-out was off the charts. And the caucuses were madhouses (where Obama “Won” BTW) with so many people turning up.
People are getting involved. Look for new records in Pennsylvania and Oregon in April and May. This is a good thing! Why cut it short.
Meanwhile did you see the great kiss of death given to McCain by Bush today?
Marc, as in 1998 when you and “Guru” Pat Caddell predicted gloom and doom over impeachment get ready to eat crow!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
The turnout thing rlc notes is, indeed, an amazing fact of this race and is the most heartening evidence that the Dems may have, as a party, turned a corner electorally.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
If Hillary wins, all of those youth votes which are spiking the counts will dissapear. Clinton is tearing her party a part so she can win.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The whole thing is a mess. I hardly see how SuperDelegates are less “democratic” than a system where the losing candidate in some states (like Texas and Nevada) gets more delegates than the winner. Obama needs to grow a pair and show some killer instinct; this whole “I’ve wrapped up the ‘elected’ delegate” schtick is the type of thing that a tired boxer who thinks he’s ahead on points does when he coasts through the last rounds of a fight against a knockout puncher.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
My god Marc. You blog and HuffPo has taken an awful tool on this lady.
She looks like McCains mother.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Marc; gotta be honest. Read your whole LA Weekly column but that one paragraph you tease with strikes me badly. I think it comes off a touch too close to tacky, if not actually sexist. Thought the rest of the column was very good stuff. You make several solid observations, especially the critique about the ‘3 a.m.’ as using GOP turf and handing Republicans a campaign strategy for free.
Very perplexing situation.
Here’s Michigan Gov. Granholm saying maybe to a caucus but no way to another primary.
http://tinyurl.com/337kj3
Michigan’s broke and the cost of a ‘do over’ will be hammered over the heads of Michigan Democrats in November.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
God Bless Hillary Clinton! And Bill, too!
March 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am
This is interesting - and unsurprising.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Ben Smith/Politico:
‘”When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton,” Wolfson said. “I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”‘
Damn.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I don’t think Marc is sexist in the least. I think Marc dislikes the Clintons, and I can understand that. I am more disturbed when those in the mainstream media who claim to be unbiased demonstrate clearly that they are, whether it is for Obama or against Clinton. I am more disturbed when commentators–including Marc–do not discuss this issue: if Obama represents a “new” kind of politics of hope, inspiration, and getting along, why has he been attacking Clinton all along and now talks about being negative, and then is not called out for being hypocritical? And don’t say it’s because he’s being attacked. Either he is what he says he is, or he isn’t.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hillary has solved a crisis! When the nut with flares tied around him busted into a Clinton office and wanted to talk with her, the police handled the whole thing and took him back to the crazy house. But, during the “crisis,” HRC made some phone calls from hundreds of miles away. The MSM called her “presidential” and “regal” and said that this proves that she can handle a crisis. Would she like a pillow?
March 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
This, also, was interesting:
March 6th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I appreciate links to Talking Points Memo from you Woody. (Credit where credit, etc. etc.)
March 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.”
You can say that again…
http://tinyurl.com/38snyo
March 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Funny but Hillary had no problem being Missus Starr when she insisted, back in 2000, that Rick Lazio release his tax returns.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Jeez, first I defend McCain, now HRC. Marc, the pic is a little awkward. She’s 60, DOB 10-26-47. That’s not more than a couple of years older than you.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
“Only somehow this evolved into a story about the Obama campaign giving such reassurances.”
I wonder if the Obama camp’s clumsy response to this stemmed from the fact that they weren’t sure at first just what they were responding to. At least I hope that explains it.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Off topic Marc, but I believe your buddy Hitch jumps the shark with this.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Oh, geez, RP…thanks for that!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
You sure he isn’t being fitted for Depends? Maybe all that Gin . . .
March 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
And one more thing. Re my comment above on the record turnout all year in the primaries (with nearly HALF the eligible Dems of Rhode Island showing up at the polls for a primary!) we now have further confirmation. Barack Obama’s people annoince today that he raised $55 million in Feb - 45 mil of that on-line from a total of over 750,000 donors - 385,000 of them first timers. Average was lessm that $100. That’s more than John McCain raised all last year BTW. And Hillary has raised an additional 4 Million since Tuesday.
John McCain? Now that he’s the nominee the money is rolling in - $12 Million for Feb!
So let us recap: Hillary (loser of 12 straight till 3/4) raised nearly three times what mr “straight Talk” managed. And Barack is 4 1/2 times up on the tailhook kid.
Yes, those poor Dems are really in disarray - they’re doomed!
March 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Anyone else here remember when Jerry Brown tried to run a national campaign on donations of a hundred or less? He was just ten years too early! This really sets campaign finance reform on its head and can I note that it is John McCain who is running afoul of the laws (some of them his own creation) in his vain attempt to keep up.
Not that the media will tell you that “Straight Talk” is violating campaign finance laws. He must thank God for his “Base”.
Gee, maybe Barack and Hil coulf throw the boys and girls on the bus a bar-b-que!
March 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Ah, someone in the Obama camp agrees with me.
I admire Obama’s campaign for its accuracy and honesty, as evidenced here.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I read that Congressional Democrats representing the NYC area received advance letters and pictures of the military recruiting station that was bombed this morning. I guess Hillary didn’t answer the phone at 3:00 AM.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:49 am
I’m not defending Hillary and her asinine ad, but one had nothing to do with the other:
Also, while these were mailed in advance, they were not received in advance.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:26 am
…investigation of the bombing…the timing of the letters an “incredibly unbelievable coincidenceâ€
If I were an investigator on this bombing, nothing like the advance mailings would be considered an incredible coincidence.
I’m really not suggesting that the elected officials would have understood or even had time to read the letters before the bombing, but you can bet that the Clinton’s or the Kossacks would accuse them if they were Republicans. (Oh, wait. The “right” has already been accused of this over at Kos.)
If Hillary is the great decider and White House switchboard operator, besides being the smartest woman in the world, she should have antiicipated this. Otherwise, she can shut up.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The radical wing of the tolerates, the freedom of expressioners, the equal righters, the pie throwers, the University speaker assalters, the Congressional Committee disrupters, the military hate squad…….. the ‘human rights’ monitors, have struck again.
Straight out of our critical thinking, logical, educated, intellectual and ‘enlighted’ leftwing university madrassas is my ‘experienced’ guess.
Taking their emotionally preceived assalts on their indoctrinated ‘religious’ beliefs to their final solution.
Remind you of the wackos in other religions………anyone.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:44 am
If I were an investigator on this bombing, nothing like the advance mailings would be considered an incredible coincidence.
That’s why they leave it to the pros.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Yes, Jim R, must get rid of those educated folks. Pol Pot and you shoulder to shoulder.
Also what is your problem with “freedom of expressioners?”
My own view on the affair? Co-intelpro.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
On another note, I’m no fan of QUANGO “humanitarian intervention” fan Samantha Power, but the way she’s being thrown to the wolves is abhorrent, considering that Hillary has people saying far nastier things about Obama.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Samantha Powers “resigned” today from the Obama Campaign as a Foreign Policy Advisor. I have two questions:
What part of “off the record” doesn’t the SCOTSMAN understand?
I think pols release too much private info but why was Hillary’s request that Rick Lazio release his tax records OK in their 2000 Senate Race while Obma’s request that she do the same smack of Ken Starr?
March 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
RLC “Great Minds” etc.
The Scotsman’s defense, however, is compelling. She should have said “off the record” before she made the statement. The ethics are solid, even if its an asshole move on their part.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
AP - There’s apparently no link between the bombing of a military recruiting station in New York’s Times Square and letters sent to Congress saying “We Did It,” law enforcement officials said Friday. The lengthy anti-war letters — which arrived with photos of a man standing in front of the recruiting office before it was damaged…. …the timing of the letters an “incredibly unbelievable coincidence”….
Uh, huh. Maybe we need to redefine “pros” or find new ones. You don’t have to be Monk to see a connection here.
(Did that man look like Randy?)
March 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Oh, we were all so hoping that Bill Clinton would do the right thing.
USA Today:
And, maybe this will explain why Hillary was talking about celestial choirs and the heavens opening over Obama: “I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth.” Righhhhht. I thought that she got her inspirations from the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Frankly Woody I don’t give a damn about his thinking on pardons. I’m just glad you agree he used rationation which is surely more than can be said of the current CinC.
BTW where are the notes on all thoise Energy policy meetings? I think they’re a tad more important to the republic (if we’re still one), don’t you?
March 7th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Uh, huh. Maybe we need to redefine “pros†or find new ones. You don’t have to be Monk to see a connection here.
Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat.
As for this statement:
(Did that man look like Randy?)
Go bf a duck, Woody. Don’t even joke about shit like that. I grew up with my best friends the sons and daughters of career military people. I’ve worked for the US military.
To even joke about that hits new lows - even for you.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
When Al Queda, based in Afghanistan, attacks NYC, Hillary agrees to invade Iraq.
When the phone rings at 3 a.m. I know I want someone who will react by bombing somebody, anybody.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This Power thing is very bad, not in and of itself, but because - as Josh Marshall, I think, said - the Clinton campaign is getting inside the Obama campaign’s heads. Up to now it seemed like the reverse was true. Obama needs to turn this around quickly and make his message central again. If it becomes a back-and-forth with the Clinton campaign, it hurts Obama because it drags the guy who is perceived as bringing something new to the table down into the routine muck. He’ll get drowned there if he can’t counter AND raise the stakes against her in terms that at least appear to move his message forward while she’s simply engaged in trying to take him down. For Hillary, that muck is her proud trademark as a “fighter” against sundry enemies.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
That’s Hillary’s genius: She can be called a Monster and, with a silent prayer of gratitude, play Sister Victim. Then she can turn on a dime and attack. Mark pen knows how segmented the market is. The whole picture is fuzzy and contradictory, but it makes sense to the segments.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
rlc, if you were asked to give candid policy advice to a President, it’s likely that the advice would be more honest and helpful if you knew that it would not be publicly disclosed. However, giving advice to the wife of a President on health care is an entirely different issue.
Randy, Jane Fonda worked for the military once, too–North Vietnam’s.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Reg makes a hugely important point. HRC is demonstrating that she cannot differentiate one enemy from another. Despite her paeans to harmony in the last two debates, she and her campaign are attacking Obama like he is Newt Gingrich or, ahem, Kenneth Starr.
When she made that claim that both she and McCain had passed through some threshold that qualifies them to be commander-in-chief, but not Obama, she was triangulating as if Dick Morris were still whispering in her ear.
I am made uneasy by the tone of some of Marc’s recent discussions of Hillary, but right now she is justifying the worst that has been written about her or Bill.
For those who think that the “campaigns, both of them” are going negative, just think of all the arguments Obama has eschewed: Monica, the Chinese financial backers, firing of the travel staff [a Hillary-inspired move], refusal to release Rose Law Firm records, evisceration of welfare w/o an adequate safety net, the pardons, not to mention the fringe allegations like drug-dealing and murder.
And now let’s itemize the attacks on Obama that Hillary hasn’t endorsed: he’s a Muslim [oh, wait, she's not so sure???]…anything else?
She has successfully knocked Obama off message and he is rattled right now. While there is something to be said for fighting back, on balance that is what surrogates are for. Btw, John Kerry did a great job last night (as did Ed Rendell for her). Obama needs to state firmly that he has his eyes on the issues confronting the people, and then get back in touch with the transformative message that he is in this campaign to deliver.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
One other thing about Hillary’s endorsement of McCain’s “readiness”…well, maybe two things. First, someone or other is going to compare her statement to Obama’s observations about Ronald Reagan’s transforming the political dialogue in a way that others [including Bill Clinton] hadn’t. RONALD REAGAN IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2008 [much as the Repubs wish he were]….But Obama did the unforgivable: he implicitly tarnished the Clinton legacy. McCain is merely the roadblock to change for the next generation.
Second, who says McCain is ready to take the reins? Yes, he has been in the military and shone there, and yes, he has a Congressmember’s measure of experience with military and foreign affairs, but he has one huge weakness that could defeat all the worthwhile traits: his temper. I’m not sure I want someone with his reputation for explosiveness answering the “red” phone at 3:00, be it am or pm. Not with the “football” within hailing distance.
And for those who believe that a military man will make a better commander-in-chief than one who is not, just remember how close Gen. MacArthur came to the reins of power, not to mention Walker and Curtis LeMay in the late 50s and 60s. For better or worse, the commander-in-chief and the diplomat-in-chief are one-in-the-same here, and must excel at both all at once.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Anyone still doubting the venality and unbridled lust for power of the Clintons anymore? Anyone?
She’ll adopt a scorched earth policy with the Democratic party. She’s started already. Hell, McCain’s her buddy, she is probably fine with him winning. I think she believes this nomination is owed to her, and she’d rather see McCain win it, than be denied herself. That’s pure conjecture, but it’s not the worst explanation around.
There are NO circumstances that could induce me to vote for her putrid candidacy. If McCain weren’t such a scary war-monger it wouldn’t even be a close call for me. And frankly, I’m not so sure she isn’t a scary war-monger herself. She’s precisely the kind of frightening Dem who thinks they have to butch up on national security cred. Just the sort of thing that makes a few war crime missiles lobbed into some dismal backwater country seem appealing.
Experience….whatever. Is Obama really such a naif for suggesting that he might *gasp* talk to some leaders around the world? Could it be that the same old bullshit paint-by-numbers realpolitik is the reason we have the same god damned problems around the world year after year after year?
Anyway, she’s proving to be everything her detractors on this blog said she was, but worse. I fear she’s only just begun.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
No problem with Clinton’s integrity, huh? With gains like this, no wonder the Clinton’s are afraid of public disclosures.
Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China
“The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.
“Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.”
That beats Hillary earning $100,000 on a $1,000 investment in one year.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Your article regarding HC being called a “Monster” is absolutely correct. The writer should not have been fired for that statement as the HC camp has done far worse without repercussions– Still is. The Democrats are still doing what the Republicans want: Self destructing, and HC is really showing her true colors. She will do anything to get into the White House and failing that, put McCain in there.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:38 am
“I am made uneasy by the tone of some of Marc’s recent discussions of Hillary, but right now she is justifying the worst that has been written about her or Bill.”
And how is this different from what many “rethuglicans” have been saying since 1993?
Glad to see some real Democrats (as opposed to members of the Democrat Party) standing up to be counted.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Actually I’m not worried. Barack Obama will finish the campaign with the most pledge delegates and, almost surely, the most votes. I think the Superdelegates will recognize this and - added to her “praise” for McCain - the decision will be easy.
Relax. Enjoy the contest. It is free media for the Dems and will stir up more excitment!
March 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Randy, Jane Fonda worked for the military once, too–North Vietnam’s
Then she moved to Georgia and became a born-again Christian.
Peckerwood jackass.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Randy, Jane Fonda worked for the military once, too–North Vietnam’s
Then she moved to Georgia and became a born-again Christian.
Peckerwood jackass, I worked for the US military, dipshit.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am
can’t help wishing Hunter S Thompson was still alive. “It’s 3 AM and the red phone rings. Who do you want to answer it, someone who just woke up?”
March 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Willie Brown, on Hillary’s campaign weaknesses. Double-plus funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Lp5VdE16U&feature=user