Is that it for Hillary?

A friend of mine theorized that the reason Hillary looked so disdainfully bored and exasperated during Bush’s address to congress is that she realizes that she now has no chance to grab the white house in 2004.

Agree? Disagree? Different theories?
I’m all ears.

Chris W

I disagree. First off, I doubt she was planning on running in '04. Second, this is still early in Bush’s tenure… even if he does a superb job, it can still turn out to be long forgotten in three years.

I think Hillary was just on the rag.

Disagree that either it is definitely over for her, or that she thinks so. The campaign against terror is just starting, not ending. George Bush Sr. had comparable poll numbers just after the late unpleasantness with Saddam Hussein, and he lost to Mr. Hillary.

Besides, she always looks like that. Consider her spouse - wouldn’t you if you had to put up with his lies for the sake of your own career?


It never ceases to amaze me how many hair-brained things, usually bad, are said about the Clintons. I could swear I remember seeing “Impeach Clinton” bumper stickers before the man had even been sworn in as President the first time in 1993. Even before the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, Bill and Hillary were the targets of more venom than any presidential administration since Nixon. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the slightest expression on Hillary’s face would be interpreted as the sign of yet another vast hidden Clinton plot.

I’ve gotta wonder: WHY are the Clintons viewed with such overwhelming derision? I still hear more anti-Bill-Clinton rhetoric than anti-George-W-Bush rhetoric, despite the fact that the former isn’t even President any more! What, did Bill and Hillary go door to door eating everybody’s first born child during Bill’s presidency or something?!

Note: I am not saying that Bill Clinton didn’t do some despicable things before and after being elected President. But every President is going to be slimy to some degree. You can’t get elected to the highest office in the land without some dirty, ruthless under-the-table maneuvering. So why is this one President always being singled out?

I’m no fan of Hillary’s, but:

I can’t believe how much people are reading into a couple of expressions on TV. Jeez, maybe she just had a fight with Bill or something. Maybe the person in the seat beside her said something nasty? Who knows, and who cares?

I’ve seen Hillary in interviews 2 or 3 times since the attack, and each time she said all the right things. Cut her some slack.

tracer, you ask why this (clinton) president is always singled out? have you been living under a rock for the last couple of years? no need to answer, that is probably the preferred habitat for all clinton supporters. maybe hillary is wondering if it possible for the people of new york to recall her and put rudy in her place. that would be a nice gesture after he leaves office.

I didn’t think she looked “disdainful” or “bored”–I thought she looked like she was regretting having ordered “extra pepperoni” at dinner. :smiley:

Congratulations on labeling as subhuman more than half the electorate of New York. Spit on any widows and orphans from the World Trade Center lately?

Hmm. Keeping in mind that this is in GD and not the Pit, and considering that many people have already written columns, articles and what have you about the Clintons I will endeavor just to give my own opinion.

I do think that Clinton presided over a great 8 years of peace and prosperity. He is a fantastic public speaker.

But what do the Clintons really stand for? Oh, I know that she seems to care about children and health care, and he seems to care about racial harmony, and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. But I can’t figure out their core beliefs and values. I read George Stephanopoulos’ book and it just seemed like they crapped all over their friends and supporters in their path to power. All that is important to them is their ambitions. That’s why people accused Clinton of getting up in the morning and taking a poll to decide what his opinion was that day. Ambition is fine, but without core values and beliefs it serves no purpose other than to advance a career.

I agree with Sam Stone that she has said the right things since the attack. But even one of my pro-Clinton acquaintences said that she found Hillary to be strangely emotionless during the speeches. I called her an “ice queen” on another thread. I also agree with Sam that right now is not the time to be harsh towards people we do not agree with. But it just wouldn’t be the SDMB if a few people weren’t harsh no matter what the circumstances. (which is why I avoided the board for a few days after the attack).

Oh, and before I forget, I was perplexed and annoyed by her behavior at the speech. It seemed disrespectful to me in that of all the times to show support for the President, whether you like him or hate him, this was it. Her half-hearted clapping and facial expressions did not suggest support.

Because he was BEYOND slimey. He made Nixon look like a boy scout. He pardoned convicted crack dealers. And both he and Hillary are a couple of second rate hustlers who think we are all stupid and don’t see through their bullshit. He pardoned convicted crack dealers. I still cannot believe he did that. If Ross Perot hadn’t stuck his crazy little nose into things in 1992, Slick Willie would have been gone. Fucking Perot.

Oh I forgot to say I voted for him in 1992 and I am ashamed. I think I will always vote for a Republican for president from now on, and then the other candidiates by the individual.

mipsman wrote:

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have been living under a rock for the last couple of years.

And that was one of my points: the relentless attacks against “Billary Clinton” started long before the events of the last couple of years. I started seeing “impeach Clinton, and her husband too!” stickers on car bumpers early on in Bill Clinton’s first term, and I may have even seen one or two before Clinton even took office. It was as if a huge chunk of the American population had already made up its mind to hate Clinton even before he’d had a chance to be president.

I assure you, I am no Clinton supporter. What, do you think that everybody who doesn’t work himself into a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzied hatred of Clinton, who doesn’t wish for a harsh and painful death for Bill and Hillary with every fiber of his being, who doesn’t blame every single problem in this country (terrorism, taxes, genital warts, etc.) on Clinton, is automatically for Clinton?

djf750 wrote:

At the end of George Bush Sr.'s term as president, he passed out pardons like he was handing out candy at Christmastime. Yet, the anti-Bush-Sr. crowd is nowhere near as vocal as the anti-Bill-Clinton crowd.

Uh huh. And that’s why Clinton was re-elected in 1996, I suppose.

Just IMO, it’s because (a) Bill Clinton is smarter than Reagan and both Bushes put together, and (b) he had the unmitigated gall to treat his wife as something other than an ornamental first lady (anyone remember the ruckus the GOP raised when Clinton admitted that he conferred regularly with Hillary about policy issues?).

As you said, all presidents and politicians do slimy things, and if you separate Clinton’s actual misdeeds with the false accusations of his enemies, he isn’t much worse than average (anyone who says trying to cover-up a private sexual affair is worse than the machinations of Watergate is seriously deluding themselves). Considering that the GOP’s idea of an ideal candidate is either a proven paranoid like Nixon or a senile actor like Reagan, someone like Bill Clinton – a person who’s smart, charismatic, and young – must definitely stick in the conservative crawl.

My guess, anyway. At least it makes more sense than anything I’ve heard from the Clinton-bashers.

I have no idea what Hillary has been thinking recently, nor have I paid any attention to her except that I did notice her in passing during Bush’s address.

As far as her chances in '04 go, though, I’d imagine they’ve been a little diminished. As a senator from New York, she was less visible than she could have been the past couple weeks. I’m not sure what she did as far as public appearances go, so I’m not sure how much of this is her own doing, but I certainly get the impression that the media mostly ignored her. Being regarded as irrelevant by the media during a crisis is not a good sign for one seeking to run for President.

Also, the nation seems to have suddenly changed its concerns. Before, with a recession looming, people would be more interested in a candidate whose strength is in ideas like national healthcare and other similar causes. Now, with our primary percieved threat being external enemies, the concerns of the electorate are going to be aimed differently. A candidate who offers a strong panel of military experts as advisors, as Bush has, will be at an advantage.

Of course, as Hillary hasn’t even hinted at a run in '04, this is all pure speculation. But, if that was her plan, I can see that it would have been a week and a half with several bad implications.

Why not just go with the obvious, riserius1? It was a boring, predictable speech. Our President is a dull and insipid speaker, whatever other virtues he may possess.

I kept hoping for a moment of connection, a moment of soaring ideals shared deeply, a moment of inspiration…

It never happened.
As much as I despised his policies, give me a Reagan speech any day! And whatever you may have against him, Bill Clinton really knew how to reach people and inspire them – even people who disagreed with him. Dubya would find it difficult to motivate an insomniac on crystal.

In the same way that the Gulf War clinched re-election for GHW Bush, you mean? The atmosphere and the poll numbers were about the same. C’mon, that wasn’t *that[/i long ago that you could have forgotten it.

Thanks to so many of you for providing evidence (if more were needed) that partisan hatred is so ingrained in the very natures of so many people that you’ll never “get over it”. Even in the worst national crisis of this generation, when it’s least appropriate, some of you can’t drop your hatred for one single second. Now, why do you still think your political opinions should be taken seriously anyway?

rjung wrote, re Why Clinton is viewed with such derision:

Hrm … there are a couple of problems with both (a) and (b) as explanations for the strong existing anti-Clinton sentiment:

(a) Although both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have reputations for being numbskulls, George Bush Sr. does not.

(b) Similar hackles were raised over the way Nancy Reagan was perceived to be running the Reagan whitehouse. Many, if not most, of the Hillary Clinton jokes told during the Clinton presidency were little more than recycled Nancy Reagan jokes. (I remember a MAD magazine article in which you had to match the quote to the speaker. The speakers were Nancy Reagan and the individual members of Reagan’s cabinet. The joke was that Nancy Reagan was supposed to have said everything from “We have to improve our ballistic missile defense” to “The Housing and Urban Development Committee will never let that bill pass,” while every member of Reagan’s cabinet was only supposed to have said “What’s for lunch?”.)

I cannot believe anyone who watched the same speech I did would call it ‘boring’ and ‘predictable’.

You know, there comes a point when your partisanship is so severe it actually prevents you from making reasonable judgements about the world. People like that wind up as paranoid crackpots and conspiracy theorists. You might want to brush up on your reality a bit.