If you started a thread called “Who is the most powerful Democrat in the US right now” it would go in IMHO. There is no factual answer, it’s a matter of opinion. Clearly, it’s O’Reilly’s opinion that Hillary is the most powerful.
Here is the poll that shows Hillary would lose to Bush 48% to 41% if the election were held today. Not too shabby for someone who isn’t even running. Kerry and Dean would lose 36% and 34% respectively to Bush’s 45%.
So, without even campaigning, Hillary is far more favored by the American people than the leading democrat candidates who have been aggressively trying to get the word out.
I think this makes a good case for Hillary being the most powerful Democrat in the US right now. In any case, you basically agreed that she is in the top 10. OReilly thinks she is the top 1. So what? You have a difference of opinion. It doesn’t make OReilly dishonest.
It was Hillary’s responsability to improve education in Arkansas when Bill was Gov there. She chaired a committee on education called the “Education Standards Committee”. It was a failure.
If these Adopt-A-Caseworker or Rainbow Room programs were failures then they could and should be considered if Laura Bush was running for Senate.
Here is an interesting transcript on Hillary’s education record in Arkansas from when she was running for Senate.
What did you think? That O’Reilly just made this up?
It was Hillary’s job to implement a national health care program. She failed. True, the conservatives didn’t want the program and helped it to fail. However, it’s still a big checkmark in the “failures” column of Hillary’s record. So, not only does she have bad ideas but she has failed in implementing them. Failing to implement a bad idea does not a success make.
Michael Eisner is not a very popular figure among many Dopers, in fact the hatred for him is oftentimes visceral. But he is one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.
Pete Rose is supposedly one of the most popular baseball players, but he has no power.
Using opinion polls to determine popularity is fine, just don’t even try to equate popularity with power, because the two are completely different things.
It’s this attitude that pisses me off. The SDMB is full of elite liberals and that meanie old O’Reilly is conservative so we can just bash him with impunity.
Can’t let any of them pesky facts get in the way.
But, we aren’t talking about baseball or entertainment. In politics popularity translates directly into power. Sure, there are some other metrics that we could use. But, as far as a measure of a politicians power goes, popularity is a good one.
Plus, it’s not just popularity that we are talking about here. it’s not just that lots of folks think she’s a swell gal. By a decisive margin people would prefer that she be president than the candidates who are actually running! That’s political power.
So, you’re saying that the Dem. nominee in '04 should attack Bush during the campaign for his failure to fill vacant judicial seats (a very important duty of the President) and that Bush has no defense, because darn it, that is his job and it doesn’t matter that it was the Democrats who stopped him?
Ahh, yes. I certainly didn’t mean them limosine liberals. :D.
I don’t actually think of the SDMB that way, any more than I think O’Reilly is a big meanie. It’s just that if we really do start moving in that direction I won’t like it. The Democratic Underground already has that market pegged.
First of all it’s not “the Republicans” that are attacking Hillary on this. O’Reilly is. So, it would be O’Reilly in '04 attacking the Bush campaign for his failure to fill vacant judicial seats.
Next, Bush failing to fill the judicial seats because of Democrat interference != Hillary Clinton failing to implement her healthcare plan. AFAIK, Bush can’t do anything to prevent the Dems from blocking his nominees. Hillarycare was much more complicated.
Also, Nominees are important, but hardly the entire Bush record. O’Reilly’s attack on Hillary seems to be that every important issue she has tackled seems to have been a failure.
While Bill was governor her big issue was Arkansas education. At the end of her term it was the 50th in the country in education. (For those of you that were educated there, that’s last place. duh! ;))
While Bill was president her big issue was Health care. This was a failure.
While running for Senator her big issue was improving the economy. This is a failure.
I don’t know anything about the NY economy or how much of it is Hillary’s fault. I do buy O’Reilly’s arguments about education and health care being failures.
So, your analogy only makes sense if Judicial nominees and two other things made up Bush’s entire record and they were all failures.
You know, you’re right, I forgot about Bush’s many success (the war on terrorism, catching Bin Laden, catching Hussein, the Iraqi people welcoming the army of liberation with open arms, the many WOMD found and defused, the economy, North Korea - did I miss any?).
I don’t know enough about Arkansas’ education woes to be able to speak to that, but wasn’t Hillary’s task to develop a Health Care policy? She did. That policy required implementation by Congress. They didn’t. How is this her failure?
Oh, and as for the quality of my analogy. Fine, change the Dem. nominee to Al Franken. Better?
Jesse Helms was not what you could call popular, by any strech of the imagination, yet because of his seat on the Senate Foreign relations Committee he was able to hold up/delay the approval process for a Lot of Clinton’s choices for ambassadorships.
