I read two diametrically opposing views about the likelihood that Hillary will run successfully in 2008. Dick Morris, who has spent his life in politics on both sides of the spin isle, thinks she can win, just because she’s a woman:
She definitely can win…and probably will. She is uniquely able to expand the electorate to bring in millions of women, mostly single, who will vote overwhelmingly for a female Democrat. The feminization of poverty, long decried by the left, will finally lead unmarried women to show up at the polling place and vote their short-term economic interest and vindicate their gender bias. In 2000, only 19 million single women voted. By 2004, their turnout rose to 27 million. With Hillary in the race, the single-female vote will probably go up to its proper ratio of the adult population — 33 million votes.
Can white men outvote single women? Despite the intensity with which white men tend to oppose Hillary, they can’t vote twice.
The enthusiasm that will grip many Americans — women in particular — at the cultural implications of a woman president will probably sweep through the primaries and cause many to overlook Hillary’s flaws and dismiss her defects. The generic of a woman candidate will prove so attractive that millions of voters will overcome their objections to the specific person who is running.
Jonah Goldberg is more optimistic:
And, of course, there’s the Hillary Clinton candidacy, soon to come to you as the visually oxymoronic bumper sticker “Hillary!” The two most important things a Hillary candidacy had going for it, from a liberal perspective, now seem increasingly stale. First, she’s a woman and – golly – wouldn’t that just be so exciting! Second, a vote for Hillary would be a vindication of the Clintons generally. Mean-spirited conservatives picked on those poor Clintons, so making her president would be a comeuppance for the bad guys and an attempt to restore the mythic grandeur of Clintonism. The problem for Hillary is that the shelf life on this stuff is running out. People may like the idea of returning to what Charles Krauthammer has called the “holiday from history” that was the 1990s. But nobody wants to return to the politics of the 1990s — or the 2000s, for that matter. Clinton-worship and Clinton-hatred alike feel dated, like fights over Richard Nixon.
As for the first-female-president thing, that’s still got oomph, but much less than it did in the 1990s, when such vanity voting was cost-free. After 9/11 and Iraq, voting for a candidate because she’s a woman seems just plain frivolous. Moreover, Hillary Clinton is in the ironic position of no longer seeming like an affirmative-action candidate. She’s more of a person, less of a category. And the person’s baggage crowds out the category’s appeal.
I hope that Goldberg’s right; I fear that Morris is.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Presidential elections

del.icio.us
digg it





well book, for starters i don’t even think that she should be the candidate.
i know she’s in the lead now but people like kucinich and clark have been far more consistent than her over the last few years in terms of laying out their views on iraq and the course the country should take. and they are far more electable imo as well.
reactionaries such as yourself would be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a hillary win, while you may just settle down enough to actually listen to someone like clark.
and then there’s always the wildcard of obama. if his momentum stays strong, we might not even be talking about hillary this time next year.
in any event though, i think the dems will have an shot at fielding a very strong candidate and the repubs are going to be hard pressed to come up with anyone (who will satisfy their fringe at least) who would be an odds on favorite. giolianni? fergeddaboutit.
peace
Dagon, you are amusing if for no other reason than your creative spelling. By the way, when he label me as a reactionary, what exactly do you mean? That is, what constellation of political traits do you group under that old-fashioned Leftist insult?
Well, one has to admit that Hillary being elected as President would prove to be the crowning achievement of a woman whose entire career history was built solely on the coattails of her husband. Dick Morris thinks that if she wins, she will chose to be referred to as President Rodham–now there’s the ultimate bait-and-switch for you!
err book,
what about this definition doesn’t suit you?
“adjective
1. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reactionary
peace
That’s a sterile dictionary definition, dagon. What I asked you was what constellation of beliefs you think I endorse. And then I’d like you to explain what’s so offensive about my beliefs. You hurl adjectives and labels, but you’re shy on facts.
reactionary IS an adjective book, and you ARE, by definition a reactionary. there are no facts to be presented in this case.
if you do however wish to discuss your beliefs with me, i would be happy to participate in that separate discussion. it just seemed that you wanted to tip toe around the semantics of the word reactionary.
and if you accept the definition of reactionary, what i find offensive should be self evident. you oppose progress and change, instead preferring an immutable set of ‘values’ and beliefs which are invariably based on an authorian religious tradition.
your rhetoric is often punitive, ascribing your own circumstances and opportunity upon those who for whatever reason, differ from what your views of the ‘norm’ should be (be it sexuality or the west’s role in the radicalization of islamic states).
put simply, i think you are part of the problem. the rhetoric and mindset that you embody has NEVER led to the elevation of the human animal. it just results in more circular cycles of bloodshed and oppression. lasting peace cannot be won through unilateral or authoritarian initiatives.
and while i am aware that you reluctantly tolerate some societal necessities such as abortion, it appears that is perhaps because of some personal or professional experience rather than a belief which could be broadly applied to the suppression not just of women, but all people who exist under less than ideal situations worldwide.
peace
Dagon, you’re still insulting me and hurling labels, but no facts. Pick a topic, tell me what I saw and then tell me what you’d say. Then explain why your “progressive” view is a good or even better thing than what you characterize as my reactionary view. I now know what you think, but I still don’t know what you know. Educate me, don’t insult me.
dagon.
Yeah, BW wants to talk about whether Hillary is electable…
But you’ll notice that BW has not commented on the electability of Jeb Bush. Maybe because everyone knows that despite his superior intelligence and political skills (as compared to his brother) he will never get the chance to become President because of his brother’s embarrassing incompetence and failures over the last 6 years.
It was sad watching HW Bush cry yesterday when speaking of his son Jeb’s loss in the governor’s race in 1994–which basically put George W (rather than Jeb) in the driver’s seat to be the next Bush President. With Jeb, I am confident that he would have at least asked his father some questions before considering invading Iraq like…..
“Why did you decide against an all out invasion of Iraq during he first gulf War?”
“In your opinion, is it a good idea to invade Iraq?”
“I have a strategy to overthrow Saddam, do you think I should have a plan for what we’re going to do after the invasion and how we’re going to stabilize the country and institute a government?”
“Should I make sure this plan is in place before we consider the invasion?”
“how many troops would you recommend?”
“is overthrowing saddam and invading Iraq a good strategy to fight the war on terror?”
And at the very least, maybe Jeb would have had enough respect for his father (and intelligence) to not put Donald Rumsfeld (a person who HW Bush despises) in as Secretary of Defense.
Maybe if Jeb would have become the next Bush President..maybe HW Bush wouldn’t be so sad.
Then again, despite George W’s failures as President, you have to admit ……
He’s come a long way from Whiskey and Cocaine.
sorry book,
i didn’t think i was being insulting, just expressing my opinion about what my perception of your views are.
perhaps this is best suited for another thread but i think the current ruling on same-sex marriage is a good place to start for a discussion.
as you might imagine, i’m totally for same-sex marriage however i think the decisions about whether or not to allow it should remain at the state level. since i believe that bush’s pandering to the extreme right on this subject with his ‘constitutional amendment’ proposal was singularly discusting, i would be just as appalled if a liberal president tried to force a similar amendment proposing that these unions be recognised based on federal fiat.
marriage is a civil contract in this country and while faith is still a major component for many couples, it is hardly the defining one. as an agnostic, i can be married without any mention or sanction by a diety or church and i am every bit as much married as someone who’s faith demands that extra sanction.
as such, the ban on same-sex unions (which IS based on articles of faith) violates not only equal protection but the separation of church and state. a dangerous situation for all of our liberties and for our growth into a great and lasting nation; which we presently are not.
peace
I realize I’ve posted this quote by C.S. Lewis before but please forgive me because I think it applies directly to the discussion.
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
Dagon seems to be arguing that anything new is either good and/or progress and there are those of us who understand that this is not the case. Many of the people who he calls “reactionary” are, in fact, people who have the intellectual capacity to understand that new or different isn’t always better and can often be bad for society. I am amused when so-called “progressives” conveniently overlook the fact that “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it” (obviously a byproduct of the new “progressive” public education.) They all seem to believe that they are so much more clever than their predecessors–that they can “tweak” failed social policies to “make them work this time.”
Well I have news for you, if a reactionary is someone who is against change for change’s sake–count me in. I happen to possess the intelligence and maturity necessary to understand that some social and political policies are not “harm neutral” and therefore a “lets try it–what can possibly go wrong attitude” can lead to disaster.
So Dagon, the advice I give to other “progressives” who post here is, if you feel that the world around you isn’t fair, feel free to do your part by setting a personal example. However, I will vehemently disagree with you when you assert any right to force it on to others through coercion and government intervention.
Feel free to call me a reactionary, an ultra-conservative, or any other clever rejoinder that may pop into your mind. After all, name calling is the last bastion of solace for a bankrupt argument, isn’t it?
Cheers
Hillary (two “l’s – named for Edmund Hillary, don’t'cha know – apparently her parents didn’t christen her until she was three) is little but trouble. She still polls over 50% negative – which is to say that 50%+ of the populace wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances.
Which is why we’re suddenly hearing about Osama Obama, as that drunk from Massachusetts referred to him. The dems themselves know that Hillary is very problematical, the most polarizing figure in the country. She cannot tell the truth about anything – including her name – and her record of actual accomplishment is zilch. At least she has that in common with Obama.
On the other hand, she’s done zilch in six years, he’s done it in only two. She’s three times as experienced as he is at being a waste of time.
But I would imagine she’ll try, an ego that massive will stand for nothing less. And if the dems are stuck in a deep enough hole, they’ll give her the nomination. (Right now the hole is pretty damn deep. Clark? Kerry? Gore? Kucinich? Mother of God!!)
On the other hand, whoever they run may be almost irrelevent to them. The democrats stand for nothing, therefore they vote in lockstep. Winning is the only point. If Jack the Ripper was the party nominee, they’d all vote for him. If John Wayen Gacey had “democrat” stamped across his forehead, they’d vote for him.
The republicans actually seem to demand some standards – and if McCain manages to elbow himself into the nomination, a lot of them will not vote for him simply because he’s the republican. They’ll sit it out, because he’s a egomaniacal bozo: they will NOT hold their noses and pull the lever.
Historically, in this country we do not regard the senate as a proving ground for much of anything. We tend to like governors, people who’ve proved they can actually run something; and we like vice-presidents next best. (Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson – all governors and VPs. Kennedy and Eisenhower were anomalies (war heroes are their own dynamic, vide Jackson, Taylor, Grant, et al)- and Kennedy was the only senator.)
You don’t have to know how to run anything to be a senator. (I don’t, in fact, know what you do have to know how to do to be a senator. Make, marry, or inherit money, I guess; they all seem to be wealthy.) But the people seem to be wise to this: we don’t elect senators directly to the White House. We make them be VPs first.
Hillary’s qualification is that she’s married – or whatever that is – to Bill. If Mike Huckabee of Arkansas gets organized, he’ll have a better shot, because he’s established an ability to run a state. If Giuliani gets organized (or cares) he’ll have a better shot, because running NYC is as or more complex as running several states – NYC is bigger than several states. That’ll be seen as being analagous to being a governor. Somebody who actually knows how to do something.
The democrats know this. Which is why the road is beginning to look a litle rocky for Madam. They don’t like her all that much either, and now that it begins to get real, there’s some rethinking going on.
[...] [Discuss over at the Bookworm Room…] [...]
Kevin Said:
“some social and political policies are not “harm neutral” and therefore a “lets try it–what can possibly go wrong attitude” can lead to disaster.”
Yes Kevin, you just summed up the entire Bush strategy to to fight the war on terror, and especially the war in Iraq.
yes exactly big al,
the hubris required to state that the republicans are the party of maturity and reasoned action while the dems are reckless gunslingers, in light of all the missteps this country has endured over the last few years is beyond laughable.
i’m not a democrat and i won’t be carrying the water for them either. but thanks jj for giving us all a glaring example of the rank partisanship and malleable ethics that is the stock and trade of many modern so-called ‘conservatives’ such that you would excuse all of the graft, corruption, failed policies, loss of life and erosion of good-will toward america and it’s citizens in the name of simplistic sloganeering such as ‘the dems would be worse’. priceless.
peace
kevin,
what makes you think that i would give a damn about any advice that have to offer myself or other progressives?
i’ve been checking in here long enough to know that YOU haven’t been right about ANYTHING, from wmd, to the democratization of iraq, to tom delay, harriet miers, scooter libby, terri schiavo or the abramoff mess.
maybe it is you who needs to do a little re-evaluating and listen to the views of those whose track records have proven them to be markedly more astute than yourself.
peace
Conservatives were right about Harriet Miers — that’s why we asked Bush to withdraw her nomination, so that he could put in a better candidate. We were right about Scooter Libby, who was dragged through the mud, his career and finances destroyed, for something that turned out to be nothing (although I’ve never cared one way or another about the utterly false Plamegate except to the extend liberals thought they could get some mileage out of it). We were right about Terri Schiavo — or right if you consider it immoral not to starve and dehydrate a living being to death. And as for Abramoff, I don’t think people whose party representatives keep cash in the freezer, conspire with the Soviets, get involved in drug deals, get impeached as judges, etc., really ought to be throwing stones. The fact is, where there’s power there’s corruption, and that, sadly, spreads to both parties. As for Iraq, I still think it was the right thing to do — and would have been done well if it weren’t for the Democratic drag on the military’s ability to wage a war.
By the way, I agree with Kevin that a progressivism that amounts to nothing more than blindly and aimlessly breaking away from old positions, is nothing to boast about, and not a glass house you want to be living in with nothing more than a rock arsenal at your side.
err book,
“And as for Abramoff, I don’t think people whose party representatives keep cash in the freezer, conspire with the Soviets, get involved in drug deals, get impeached as judges, etc., really ought to be throwing stones.”
i’m not a democrat.
i’m a registered independent. the dems better watch their back with all of the corruption too. but i am curious how a small government ‘conservative’ such as yourself thinks it’s any of your business to get involved in the schiavo case. thanks for showing your real colors though. it saves me a lot of time.
peace
and btw book
“By the way, I agree with Kevin that a progressivism that amounts to nothing more than blindly and aimlessly breaking away from old positions,”
–when did i ever state that this was the sort of action that i advocate? i’m for turning away from FAILED positions and using reason and long-term thinking to inform our foreign policy and domenstic decisions; all with the main goal being the greater benefit of the american PEOPLE.
your description above is just a paraphrasing of ‘kevin’s own baby crying’ and your wish and hope that you had a strawman with which to attack that would stick.
peace
Ah, the wonderful sounds of diversity and inclusiveness from the side that genuflects to these concepts–I so enjoy the hysterical sounds of hypocrisy; It sounds like victory.
So Dagon, may I assume that by disagreeing with my advice that you are implicitly saying that you don’t (or won’t) live by your progressive values until the government forces them on everyone else?
Dagon–
Please enlighten us as to your political position? Who do you vote for in elections–I typically vote Republican but have been known to vote Libertarian for certain races.
book
see this is what i mean about living in an authoritarian dream world of your own choosing:
“As for Iraq, I still think it was the right thing to do — and would have been done well if it weren’t for the Democratic drag on the military’s ability to wage a war.”
–you’ve asked me for clarification, now please back up that statement. you are basing this on exactly WHAT?
it’s funny, because even the hawks and the neo-cons who were the architects of this war (kristol et al) aren’t saying anything so patently ridiculous. they are placing the blame where most of it lies, with cheney, rumsfeld and bush. so i guess you’ve got better intel on this so please elaborate.
peace
“i’m for turning away from FAILED positions and using reason and long-term thinking to inform our foreign policy and domenstic decisions”
Dang, did I miss something over the last 200 years? Didn’t the United States become a superpower and a major world economy using those “failed policies” that you advocate changing?
kevin,
i test out as a left libertarian. while not a complete isolationist, i am in favor of securing our borders and restricting illegal immigration.
i actively opposed NAFTA and GATT and was very active locally in chicago to oppose clinton’s support of both initiatives.
domestically, i am a big advocate of states rights although i believe some fundamental things should have federal oversight such as education and health care.
i agree with warren buffett about the need for a more progressive tax code.
etc.
peace
kevin,
“Dang, did I miss something over the last 200 years? Didn’t the United States become a superpower and a major world economy using those “failed policies” that you advocate changing?”
–which ones would those be. again you’re having a conversation with yourself.
our foreign policy has changed DRASTICALLY over our short nationhood, so have a pletora of our social contracts. so what exactly is it that you’re talking about.
ask a question, i’ll answer it.
peace
Dagon – BW is no reactionary, but she does have intellectually sound reactions as she views the real world around her! And I don’t get the whiff of moral superiority from her essays as I do from yours.
There is no example in history of the long-term beneficial outcome of the politics and programs beloved by the left/socialism/communism that you espouse. Since human nature never changes they keep reappearing generation after generation, now it’s called ‘progressive’. These bankrupt idologies have left millions upon millions of souls in Eastern Europe enslaved with no hope their entire miserable lives, not to mention Fidel’s Cuban economic paradise. Facts. ‘Progessives’ in our own colonies tried socialism (I think it was Jamestown)and it was just a big a bust then. Fact. And don’t tell me that Nazism is an example of the ‘reactionary’ right – extreme nationalism is just another twist on the tyranny of the left. Fact. The U.S. went nuts for a real conservative (that would be Ronald Reagan) and so did the economy and we elected him twice and The Wall came tumbling down because he had the guts to tell the world it should happen.
George Bush has been disappointment in that he has been a Republican but not a conservative – I was suspicious when he felt he had to add the modifier ‘compassionate’ to conservatism.
i’ve been checking in here long enough to know that YOU haven’t been right about ANYTHING, from wmd,
If I remember correctly, the only position I advocated was I don’t care–planting a seed in the Middle East to try to get a non-puppet regime democracy would do more towards our long-term security than the “let’s just kiss their behinds and maybe they’ll go away” policy that progressives preach.
to the democratization of iraq,
If it took hundreds of years (and thirty years of Sadaam) to create the problem, why would you assume that it can be fixed quickly?
to tom delay,
Can’t say I ever posted on Tom other than to say that I agree with his forcing a mid-decade redistricting to accurately reflect the voter’s registration.
harriet miers,
She was a bad choice and I’m sure you’d be whining about how Bu$h was appointing friends if she had gotten to the SC.
scooter libby,
Wasn’t me–other than to possibly comment that I find it a bit weird that a grown man would still want to be called “Scooter” but hey, that’s just my opinion.
terri schiavo
I still say a parents that gave life to a child and have volunteered to take care of her should have every bit as much (if not more) say over a husband with the conflict of interest of unspent settlement money and a new wife and kids. If she didn’t want to live with a feeding tube, she should have had a living will.
or the abramoff mess
I didn’t care about this (since I believe both sides are equally guilty–go back to the Keating five which was predominantly a Democrat scandal involving a massive savings and loan bailout to keep institutions from failing) so I don’t believe I’ve commented.
So, basically, yes you’ve seen my name and you’ve ascribed to me all the “talking points” liberals claim conservatives have but looking back, I don’t see where you’ve proven my views (on the points I’ve actually commented on) to be wrong.
Dagon.
I am not a Democrat either, though I am constantly accused of being one along with most of my Libertarian, Independent, rational Republican friends.
There is no excuse for the “SELF-PROCLAIMED CONSERVATIVES”…….
who denounce WELFARE FOR THE POOR while pretending CORPORATE WELFARE FOR THE RICH is somehow not a problem,
who PREACH FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY but only find excuses for FOR THE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN WASTE AND NATIONAL DEBT ACRUED UNDER THEIR LEADERSHIP AND WHILE THEY HAD MAJORITY POWER OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
who support MILITARY ACTIONS WITHOUT MILITARY STRATEGIES OTHER THAN TO PUSH IMPERIALIST OBJECTIVES (we are a republic–not an empire)
who believe security can best be achieved by RESTRICTING FREEDOMS and RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
who USE FEAR RATHER THAN HOPE TO PUSH THEIR AGENDAS
who REFUSE OR COMPLAIN ABOUT GIVING MORE MONEY TO THE INEFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND YET ARE NOT COMPLAINING OR REFUSING TO GIVE MONEY TO THE INEFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE WAR SYSTEM
it’s a lot of hypocrisy and corruption……and their only answer is to call their critics leftists and liberals.
marguerite,
i suggest suing your history professor:
“There is no example in history of the long-term beneficial outcome of the politics and programs beloved by the left/socialism/communism that you espouse.”
and if i come off as smug it’s because i’m pissed off. that’s all.
to your points:
[Facts. ‘Progessives’ in our own colonies tried socialism (I think it was Jamestown)and it was just a big a bust then.]
–so what? i’m not sure if you’re aware but the united states currently subscribes to countless examples of socialism (like it’s a bad word or something). next time you buy a steak, tell me that you would rather let the free market dictate it’s potential to drop you dead rather than that socialistic entitiy known as the fda. i could go on but why bother?
[Fact. And don’t tell me that Nazism is an example of the ‘reactionary’ right - extreme nationalism is just another twist on the tyranny of the left.]
–okay, i won’t tell you because you wouldn’t believe it coming from me anyway but that in no way robs the statement of the benefit of being true
extreme NATIONALISM is something that you’re trying to pin on the ‘left’? hahahahahahahahahahaha. you obviously haven’t been paying attention lately have you? i thought the left were american hating traitors and all that and that the nationalists were on the right. oops, my bad. maybe you’ll listen to this definition:
the university of queensland ought to be neutral enough for you:
http://www.uq.edu.au/study/course.html?course_code=HIST2414
“Fascism (IPA: [ˈfæʃɪzm]) is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism.”
[The U.S. went nuts for a real conservative (that would be Ronald Reagan) and so did the economy and we elected him twice and The Wall came tumbling down because he had the guts to tell the world it should happen.]
–wrong again. reagan had about as much to do with the berlin wall coming down as i did. i suggest taking a class.
to your credit, bush HAS been a dissappointment to any one who claims to value conservative ideals. and i applaud you for stating that.
peace
kevin,
to be fair, i think most of my portrayal of your views was more of a ‘guilt by omission’. in that i never saw you show up to disagree with the ‘conservative’ masses here when one of those subjects was brought up.
to taht extent, my characterization was unfair.
peace
or right if you consider it immoral not to starve and dehydrate a living being to death.
At least I got a new execution technique out of that incident, for use on terroists.
Btw, if you are a reactionary, Bookworm, then what does that make me?
I now know what you think, but I still don’t know what you know.
You’re going to have to go a little deeper into the rabbit hole for that piece of knowledge, Bookworm. I wouldn’t recommend it.
Here is some more Dick Morris, Book.
HILLARY CAN WIN BUT MUSTN’T
By DICK MORRIS
December 6, 2006 — Now that Hillary has dropped the coy pretense of indecision that she used to justify her reelection to a Senate seat she no longer wants and has told friends that she plans to run for president, two questions present themselves: Can she win? And what kind of a president would she be?
She definitely can win … and probably will. She is uniquely able to expand the electorate to bring in millions of women, mostly single, who will vote overwhelmingly for a female Democrat. The feminization of poverty, long decried by the left, will finally lead unmarried women to show up at the polling place and vote their short-term economic interest and vindicate their gender bias. In 2000, only 19 million single women voted. By 2004, their turnout rose to 27 million. With Hillary in the race, the single-female vote will probably go up to its proper ratio of the adult population — 33 million votes.
Can white men outvote single women? Despite the intensity with which white men tend to oppose Hillary, they can’t vote twice.
The enthusiasm that will grip many Americans — women in particular — at the cultural implications of a woman president will probably sweep through the primaries and cause many to overlook Hillary’s flaws and dismiss her defects. The generic of a woman candidate will prove so attractive that millions of voters will overcome their objections to the specific person who is running.
Her mastery of the establishment of the Democratic Party, her vast lead among ex-officio delegates — many of whom have received campaign contributions from her coffers — and the celebrity draw of her ex-president husband will prove hard for a mere mortal to overcome.
But should she win? No way!
Those who know both Hillary and Bill well and are willing to speak frankly in public realize the fundamental differences between the two and grasp how his abilities are the counterpoints to her defects.
He is intensely creative, constantly turning issues over in his mind seeking new solutions. She rarely has a new idea but specializes in advocacy — the rote recitation of talking points.
He has an instinctual feel for people and an uncanny ability to read a room and know what everyone in it is thinking. She is obtuse in her understanding of people and ham-handed in her approach.
He cares deeply about being loved. She seeks popularity as a means to the goal of getting elected but otherwise marches to the beat of her inner, liberal drummer.
He distrusts ideology, and his innate perfectionism finds all belief systems flawed. She swallows the ideological line of the guru du jour hook, line and sinker. During the healthcare years, it was Ira Magaziner who pushed her buttons. When she decided to back the Iraq War, it was the generals who paraded before her committee. She is vulnerable to a cultish adoration of the guys with all the answers.
He lets the give and take of politics wash off his back. A critic is a potential convert whom he hopes to charm over to his side. She has a rigidly dichotomized view of friends and enemies, demanding total loyalty and public silence from the former and maintaining a ruthless determination to destroy the latter. She is a Democratic Nixon to those whom she perceives as her enemies.
He is a moderate by instinct, seeking incremental change. She devotedly and deeply believes in a European-style socialism in which government takes much more of our national income and offers a far wider array of services and benefits.
He’ll raise taxes when he has to. She’ll increase them just to redistribute income.
He’s most like Eisenhower, Kennedy and Bush Sr. — feeling his way, acting with caution, and skeptical of all advice. She is more like LBJ, Nixon or Bush Jr. — determined to charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned.
And finally, he knows who he is and, except for his private shortcomings, is not ashamed to let it show. She constantly seeks to reinvent herself and rigidly maintains an almost totally inaccurate image in public of what she is really like in private. He has little discipline. Hers is iron. His caution is innate. Hers is a learned response to what happens when people see who she really is.
He made a very good domestic-policy president. She would be a disaster at home and abroad.
—————————————————–
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN DICKMORRISREPORTS!
TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:
If you want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris’ and Eileen McGann’s commentaries, sign up at http://www.dickmorris.com.
You already linked to the material, of course, but you can get some regular updates direct from the man himself.
really y? dick morris?
he’s now the cherished prognosticator of the right? i don’t like hillary either but that guy’s got about as much credibility as monica lewinski’s box of tide.
when it comes to the clintons he’s got an axe to grind.
peace
Dick Morris is a propagandist, and all conscientious propagandists at least make the attempt to learn from others. Unconscientious propagandists like you, dagon, simply have no rules you follow nor discipline in your soul of souls.
You can’t even keep a promise to yourself to ignore ymar, dagon. Let alone keep and maintain any ethical guidelines to your lies and falsifications.
you’re funny y,
i occassionally lift my ban on you when you amuse me. but that’s besides the point. give me an example of my lies and falsifications. betcha can’t.
peace
Dick Morris “thinks…”? Please! The guy is utterly full of himself. And as for Ms. Rodham (Clinton), please, Lord, continue to visit her upon the sins of New York State and keep her far from Park Ridge, Illnois.
“and if i come off as smug it’s because i’m pissed off. that’s all …”
Sorry, but you come as smug because you’re smug. Hey, get over it. Just say, “Yes, I’m smug. I know better than anybody else and I’m smug about it. I am smug and justified. You would all be better off if you just shut up and listened to me.”
Peace.
dagon-
i am in favor of securing our borders and restricting illegal immigration.
Dang–we agree!
i actively opposed NAFTA and GATT
I wasn’t so much opposed to them as I felt that the trading partners involved made out better than the United States and therefore they were not good treaties.
domestically, i am a big advocate of states rights
I’m a federalist; I would like to see the federal government wield significantly less power than they currently do.
although i believe some fundamental things should have federal oversight such as education and health care.
I’d go more for coining money, common defense, making international treaties, etc. I would significantly curtail the scope of “regulating interstate commerce” (e.g. medicinal marijuana grown and sold in CA, even though it never leaves the state, affects the price of marijuana in other states and is therefore considered interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government.) Regardless of my views on marijuana, if that isn’t tortured logic, I don’t know what is. The federal government has stolen much of their power by misusing the regulating interstate commerce clause.
Healthcare–I’ve seen federal healthcare in Canada and I’m not impressed. What would you suggest doing differently to make it work?
i agree with warren buffett about the need for a more progressive tax code.
I’ll make you a deal–give me a billion dollars and I’ll mouth caring “we need a progressive tax code” platitudes all day long. When he personally forfeits his fortune to back his words (preferably while alive,) I still won’t change my mind but at least I’ll respect him more. I know how to spend my money better than the government does–and yes BigAL, we should end corporate welfare too. Let’s actually let everyone sink or swim on their own merits.
i think most of my portrayal of your views was more of a ‘guilt by omission’
Fair enough–usually when I don’t comment it’s either because I didn’t read it (work always takes precedence—my conservative bias you know) or I’m ambivalent on the subject.
i occassionally lift my ban on you
Do you do that electronically or is it just a mental editing?
kevin,
we agree on most of what you’ve said out of hand and with a few caveats on the rest.
i don’t know what the answer to our healthcare problem is. a system like canadas would not work here but i think we’ll both agree that significant reform is needed; i’m open to any dialogue on what would be the best way to accomplish this.
re progressive tax ala buffett. you’re right that he has the luxury of not having to pay for his convictions but he does in fact give away huge chunks of his fortune and upon his death, will not bequeathing it all to his children. that says something. i make a decent income and i am willing to sacrifice some of it to pay for things that i think will benefit not just the nation but myself in the long haul; education, infrastructure etc. and i don’t believe that a more progressive tax will prevent me from making my own choices regarding investments and the like.
cut out the pork and the war time profiteering and create an environment a reduction of our national debt is paramount and i might be able to get behind a flat tax.
–and it’s a mental thing. lol.
peace
Dagon: Why do you find it necessary to insult people who don’t agree with you? Just give your reasons why you think they are wrong, that’s OK. It isn’t necessary to point out your mental superiority by suggesting my professor was incompetent, or to tell me to ‘take a class’ so that I can maybe – one day – reach your level of understanding. Smile . . . and have a nice day.
Marguerite. There is a monkey and human reflex. It is called “misery loves company”. Someone who is miserable, finds it beneficial to spread that misery around, it makes them have a nice day.
You see it with monkeys, where the alpha male will beat the snot out of one monkey, and the abused monkey will find a smaller monkey and beat the snot out of that one as well.
The cycle of violence and ignorance are inter-connected.
The system I have outlined is a Pavlovian one, one of rewards and punishments, pain and pleasure. Human beings upon a higher and more disciplined level, can break free of the dictates of pain and the motivation of base pleasure. But those on the lower rank, cannot, they just go with the flow, with what feels good. It is quicker and easier to insult people, to feel righteous in the hate, than it is to construct. Look at Palestine for a real world example on a macro level. All that hate and violence, no time for building or work.
Extremism is the same old same old, regardless of what side of the pol spec and geographical hemisphere you are on. Weak people will always be weak. And they will always know that there will be someone weaker than they (children for example) for them to beat upon, for self-pleasure.
Sadly, Bookworm failed to quote some of the most interesting excerpts from Dick Morris’s essay. In the paragraphs that follow those she did quote, Morris contrasts Bill and Hillary Clinton in various ways, and if he is correct, Hillary Clinton might be the wrong woman, not because she is a woman, but because she will not bring back the Clinton White House in the way we knew it. Democrats should recognize that before nominating her. The most troubling statement from Morris, however, is “Can white men outvote single women?” It’s as though “white men” ought to “outvote single women.” I find that troubling. Why race verus marital status? After reading that Hillary is not her husband, I’d vote for her. But Is she electable? I don’t know.
Bookworms’s choice from Goldberg’s essay is more in tune with her position: That Hillary Clinton ought not be elected president of the United States. “After 9/11 and Iraq, voting for a candidate because she’s a woman seems just plain frivolous. Moreover, Hillary Clinton is in the ironic position of no longer seeming like an affirmative-action candidate. She’s more of a person, less of a category. And the person’s baggage crowds out the category’s appeal.” I find it troubling, also, that we’d elect a category rather than a person. I find it equally troubling that every one of our presidents so far have been “white men.”
I agree with you, Helen. As you know, I don’t like identity politics, and I won’t vote for someone simply to make that person the first whatever — the first black, or the first woman, or the first Hispanic, or the first monopod, etc. I vote for people based on their ideas and their ability to implement those ideas. I don’t like Hillary’s ideas (never have, even in my liberal days), and wouldn’t like them regardless of her package.
I also agree with Morris about the huge stylistic and personality differences between Bill and Hillary. He was (and is) a man of enormous charm, brilliant, a flexible thinker and a political pragmatist. He’s also a socipath and a narcissist, but that’s a different story.
Hillary’s a smart plodder, calculating, rigid, an ideologue and, for all that she’s positioned herself as a leader, something of a follower. Also, if you read Michael Medved’s autobiography, she’s a good friend and a kind person to those whom she’s befriended.
In other words, like all people, especially bright and ambitious people, Bill and Hillary are complicated personalities, with lots of good and lots of bad. It’s just that I deeply distrust Hillary’s bad, and would not want to see her in charge.
I was once a liberal. lifelong, multiple generations. I was progressive, annointed, enlightened. I knew that Republicans, big business, and all that, were not as bright as me, not as annointed, and less caring about others. Okay, so I know where Dagon is coming from. Let’s face it Bookie, there is no one worse than a liberal who leaves the true path for the cold, heartless, red-necked, loves rich/hates the poor world of conservatism.
So Bookie, this angry (well one side is angry anyway) debate is really more personal than factual because to the “progressives” of the world you are backward and sinking. As the name progressive clearly states- they move forward, they progress, while we stagnate, unenlightened, resisting enlightenment. No wonder Dagon is so darned angry. There he is with all that enlightenment and even though he mocks and insults you, there you sit Bookie, persisting and resisting, even rejecting such progress and wisdom. Two possibile reasons exist. You are stupid, or you are bad. So since you are clearly not dumb, you must just be just sick and venal.
Anyway, this is my take on this debate. BTW, I’ve been wondering why the Dagon who is so consistantly hostile and angry keeps ending his posts with “peace”. I find this nearly as amusing as people watching from a cafe.
y,
give me an example of my lies and falsifications. betcha can’t
nuff said
peace
The only people with red necks are gonna be the terroists at GitMo after the chopping block’s been setup.
they progress all right, they progress to the absolute end of everything and everyone.
The peace, Lulu, that comes at the end of everything and everyplace. E for eternity and end. peacE Insh’allah
There’s nothing like having the opponent’s own playbook on your side. Insider information, they call it. Good intel, I say.
I can. There’s one lie there.
As a current progressive, I find it odd that some progressives express hatred for conservatives. Being inclusive means including those with whom we disagree. Being progressive means leaving the name calling behind to discuss ideas. Bookworm and I do not agree politically, but neither of us thinks that we are smarter or more moral due to our position. What we do think is that we have a better idea as to where we’d like to see our country go.
I’d like to see our country progress beyond 100% of its presidents being “white men.” Our nation isn’t 100% white men, so they don’t represent 100% of us. (Remember no taxation without representation.) But whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the right person to break the status quo is another question entirely. Part of the reason people resort to name calling is that they get off topic. “People” means progressives and conservatives alike.
As a current Christian, I find it offensive that some conseravtives act as though progressives have abandoned God. Just as some denominations emphasize certain parts of scripture over others, conservatives and progressives emphasize certain moral actions over others in the ways they wish to pass ledislation, to tax citizens, and to allocate public monies.
No one actually thinks it is wrong to feed starving children. But the ways we attack poverty are quite different. No one thinks war is the best thing since sliced bread. No one truly hates our young soldiers. But only a few of us dare say “send big boats to bring the troops home.” Let us progress toward peace.
i have to disagree with you helelenl. tantamount to bookworm’s views on issues such as gay marriage or the specifics surrounding the schiavo case is an implicit belief that she is in fact, more moral than you.
i merely speak to these new ‘conservatives’ in rhetoric that they can understand. progressives have endured 20 plus years of the most vile smears against our patriotism, our morality, intellect and resolve. examples of which can be seen in this forum daily, with bookworm’s reliable and cherry-picked smears against ‘leftists’.
i just try to offer a counter-balance. i will not be bullied and other bullies respect that. just look at the length of this thread. confrontation gets the blood going and that’s good because these people should be made to defend their ideas, and vice versa. that is to suggest, confrontation with some meat to it. i don’t make hollow accusations or flame. i back up my opinions.
eventually, this brand of paleo-religious authoritarianism will become anathema to the american people. remember, they are NOT conservatives. bill clinton said it well a few weeks ago when he stated that, “the only real conservatives left are in the democratic party”. now i wouldn’t personally go that far as there are many independents and greens, but he makes a point.
be wary of anyone who is still promoting the republican PARTY as some sort of conservative ideal. they deserve neither my empathy or my anger; only my severe disdain and repudiation.
peace
Dagon-
i make a decent income and i am willing to sacrifice some of it to pay for things that i think will benefit not just the nation but myself in the long haul.
Same here but I do it via charitable giving (above-and-beyond taxes that should be lowered.) I do this by choice and don’t get upset that others don’t nor do I want to force others to either–how’s that for a progressive attitude?
I investigate the charities I donate to and am also often involved with their actual operation. I do not cheerfully accept the government taking money for welfare because since it’s not theirs, they couldn’t care less about waste and fraud. When I give to charities, I have some say in how the money is used so that it is not wasted. Giving money is easy, giving time (in my case to hold the charities accountable) is significantly more difficult (progressive conservative–has a nice ring to it.)
our foreign policy has changed DRASTICALLY over our short nationhood, so have a plethora of our social contracts. so what exactly is it that you’re talking about.
Since we’re discussing it, welfare would be one example–I would like to see welfare go back to how it existed pre-60’s. Welfare controlled at the local levels (often by churches back then but I’d have no problem with atheist groups providing a safety net using their donations if they get in a huff over undue religious influence.)
When it’s my neighbor, I know what their situation is. I know if they are actually on hard times by choice or circumstance and I choose to help the latter. Theodore Dalrymple identified what I firmly believe to be one of the biggest problems we face when he stated, “the aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.” When I hear “progressive income tax,” I instinctively hear coerced income re-distribution for irresponsible individuals since one’s morality and work ethic is relative these days (i.e. no objective standard.) I thoroughly disagree with the liberal viewpoint of “who are we to expect people to take responsibility for their own lives, decisions and the resulting consequences?”
We are actually very similar in basic thought but we disagree on the method for achieving this. I think a social policy that would coerce people to take responsibility for their actions, to work, to save for the future, etc. would go much farther in advancing our nation than a policy of taking money from those who earned it to give it to those who didn’t.
I’ve used the following analogy before:
Buy a teenager a car and give it to them with no strings attached.
Have another teenager earn the money to buy the car.
Which one is most likely to take better care of the car?
Objective welfare is wrong as it too often rewards irresponsibility. I have no problem with subjective welfare; however, except that the government (federal or state) should not be in the business other than to reduce impediments to charitable organizations who want to help. These organizations often have limited funds and as such, usually make sure the money goes to help those who really disserve it.
Lulu-
As the name progressive clearly states- they move forward, they progress
I disagree and once again offer C.S. Lewis:
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
kevin,
thanks for that. you bring up something things that i would like to get into further. works kinda heavy right now but i’ll respond in length later.
peace
Oh yeah, I meat deserve–I hat spell checkrs.
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
Kevin.
I appreciate many of your viewpoints and the CS Lewis quote makes a lot of sense to me.
I also believe this quote sums up the reasons for the many passionate disagreements about the War in Iraq.
I and others believe we have gone down the wrong path by invading Iraq in the first place, and so to go forward from here will not get us any nearer to our goal–which I always thought was to fight and win the war on terrorism.
We see moving forward in Iraq as ludicrous and only moving us farther away from the right road.
To us, when it comes to Iraq, “progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road” — we believe this war in Iraq is only increasing terrorism.
We are progressives.
Others see the current path as good and righteous. They believe moving forward will get us closer to our goal(once again, I always thought this goal was to fight and win the war on terror). The people who believe in their own minds that the continued occupation of Iraq is helping to win the war on terror(although I strongly disagree) also have a legitimate claim to call themselves progressives–since they believe they are truly moving forward and getting closer to their goal.
I would argue supporters of the Iraq war are actually the ones CS Lewis was talking about when he said “if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.”
At the same time, I know they could make the same argument against me based on what they believe is the righteous path.
My biggest concern is that I think most supporters of invading Iraq, the current war in Iraq, invading or attacking Iran or North Korea, DO NOT HAVE DECREASING TERRORISM ON THEIR MINDS!!!!!
I believe they have imperialistic goals in mind. They want America to increase its stranglehold of power and resources throughout the world. And at they same time they are actually saying this will decrease terrorism.
And they are wrong, history tells us they are wrong, Empires always have and always will invite terrorism. The more we try to be an empire, the more terrorism will increase! Empires get to dictate who gets to use resources and who does not. The people who feel marginalized or bullied by the empire will eventually rebel against it! Victims of being bullied often develop rage towards the bullies! This rage comes turns into a rebellion. Eventually, their rebellion will turn into violent acts that the rulers of the empire will declare as “terrorism”. Have you ever seen Star Wars?
Look at the gradual increase in terrorism against America since the end of World War 2.—-WHICH NOT COINCIDENTALLY HAS TRANSPIRED AS THE USA BECAME MORE AND MORE OF A SUPER POWER–MORE EMPIRE-LIKE.
So for anyone who wants the USA to increase its stranglehold of power and resources in the world—that’s fine. You have a right to that opinion!
ALL I ASK IS THAT THESE PEOPLE QUIT TELLING EVERYONE THAT IT IS GOING TO DECREASE TERRORISM!
IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT.
THANKS
I love how BigAl begins with false reason and rationality, then slip slides into chaotic progressive revolutionary rhetoric. Lovely.
They want America to increase its stranglehold of power and resources throughout the world.
*raises hand* 100% guilty here. Big will probably think I’m admitting some nonsensical guilt about not being for decreased terrorism. Bah humbug. The real intentions of pro-American Imperialists, is to spread the majesty, power, security, stability, law, and order that is seen in the heartland of America, to the rest of the planet. Only then will you see decreased wars, genocide, ethnic strife, and terrorism. Instead of tearing down the system and replacing it with one that the Revolution has verified as the next utopia, we American Imperialists try to find the best and greatest nation on earth, and attempt to model the rest of the world after this successful nation. Success breeds success, after all.
And they are wrong, history tells us they are wrong, Empires always have and always will invite terrorism.
For a revolutionary, big, you sure haven’t done your historical studies in full depth.
The people who feel marginalized or bullied by the empire will eventually rebel against it!
Just like the South in Ami Civ War. Glad that was taken care of. Onwards and upwards to the Western sea! The 50 states of America seem pretty happy with our Imperial system, far more happy than the EU boys and girls.
Eventually, their rebellion will turn into violent acts that the rulers of the empire will declare as “terrorism”. Have you ever seen Star Wars?
Yes. Do you know who Lucas Arts is? *snickers Big is so full of laughs*
Big, maybe you need to study more real history, instead of Star Wars.
Thanks.
BigAL
Thanks for the response and this provides a good example of how imprecise the English language can be (an earlier discussion.) C.S. Lewis was specifically addressing social mores (as was I) but you still bring up an interesting point.
I don’t care for the situation in Iraq but I also understand, as I stated earlier, it has taken centuries to get where they are so a “quick fix” is not going to happen. If you ever happen to visit any country in that part of the world (I’ve worked in Saudi a couple of times and Oman once) you (as a westerner) begin to notice that much of their animosity for the U.S. is because of their relatively closed societies. Once, I was on an elevator in a hotel and the elevator stopped for a Saudi man and his wife to get on. She (covered from head to toe of course) immediately stepped to the back of the elevator and faced the back corner. The Saudi man and I each stood towards the front of the elevator facing forward. These people are not “like Americans” who just happen to live in the Middle East (which is why just liberating them didn’t result in an immediate democracy like ours.)
The terrorists may not have been explicitly Iraqi but Sadaam did supply financial aid to the terrorists (including payments to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.) Make no mistake, we are in the middle of a serious war of cultures and appeasement will just embolden our enemies. So now let’s say we didn’t invade Iraq, depose Sadaam, or try to instill a non-puppet regime democracy in Iraq. What would you propose we do? Is there a country you would have preferred we invade? Keep in mind, choosing to sit on one’s butt doing nothing or worse, appeasement to try to keep the peace (e.g. Neville Chamberlain) isn’t going to make this problem go away and to do so is naive.
Face it, we live in a world economy and you can’t shove that genie back into the bottle. I don’t believe its imperialistic goals that caused the problem as you stated; you have a repressive society being exposed to the American lifestyle (MTV, music, clothing, etc. and many in these countries hate it.) Would you suggest we develop a technology to block our radio waves so these people can’t receive them? That’s the big change that’s occurred since WWII, not the U.S. becoming an empire (why do Muslims riot in France since they don’t persue the policies you’ve identified?) We don’t have to do anything more than live our lives and allow these countries to observe us to instill a hatred for us and our way of life. Why do you think satellite dishes have been outlawed in many of these Muslim countries? We absolutely disagree on the problem and whether you believe it or not, it’s going to come down to us or them–I choose us. Terrorism will only be overcome by our resolve to keep hitting them until all of the radicals have been beaten back. Once the majority of the populations of these countries come to understand the concepts of openness and freedom, they will also develop the will and means to support it.
We can agree to disagree but I have no doubt that the path you wish to pursue will inevitably lead to harm for us.
Ysaid:we American Imperialists try to find the best and greatest nation on earth, and attempt to model the rest of the world after this successful nation. Success breeds success, after all.
OK Y, I am not denying you are trying doing this. I’m pretty sure Hitler had the same idea in mind–especially the breeding part.
Are you sure I am the one that needs to pay more attention to history?
Thanks for letting your true colors shine through Y.
Kevin. I do understand your point of view and I appreciate your willngness to discuss. I agree to disagree. I have no doubt one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I have not been impressed with America’s previous attempts to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world.
Yes, defeating the Nazis was over rated. Given enough time, Hitler would have self destructed.
A more comprehensive and historical view on empires, if you would prefer
Z. Your assertion that we fought WW2 because we wanted to spread freedom and democracy is a lot like saying we attacked Iraq because we had no other choice.
In reality, it was the other way around.
Hitler delcared war on us because he wanted to spread freedom and democracy to the US? What are you smoking Big.
Or was it the other other way around. We fought WWII because we had no choice and we went into Iraq because we were spreading freedom there? Big, you are a ton full of laughs.
Victory in WWII had the effect of liberating Europe and spreading freedom and democracy. That was the effect. I repeat, the effect. Do you dispute that? Obviously we had no choice but to fight. Does it not count because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I do not understand your logic, BigAl.
Zhombre.
Y got it right the second time.
“Or was it the other other way around. We fought WWII because we had no choice and we went into Iraq because we were spreading freedom there”
I was just pointing out that our main REASON for for fighting the Nazis was because we had no other choice. I do not disagree that the effect of our victory in WW2 happened to be that we were able to help spread freedom and democracy. We went to war for legitimate reasons (no other choice)and it brought about a positive result.
In Iraq, I don’t believe we went to War becuse we had no othe choice. I think it is obvious that we had many other choices and we just chose to proceed anyways.
In Iraq, we went to war for illegitimate reasons and I don’t believe it will bring about positive results–especially not democracy.
Invading/Occupying Iraq was/is a huge mistake.