In a kind of “ha-ha, only serious” way. First, I’m sick to death of the string of Southern administrations and I just want a change. Second – there are a lot of wonderful things about the South and its culture. But none at all about its political culture – anything, and I mean anything, you can name that makes the South’s political culture different from other American regions’ is a Bad Thing; and the less influence a distinctly Southern POV has in Washington, the better. I’ve argued this point before in other threads.
Mark Warner is capable of making himself well liked. He’s an incredibly good speaker, and really does seem to care about what the people want. Furthermore, he managed to fix the budget in Virginia- everyone said that there was no way he could possibly balance the budget, but he did. We need someone like that to fish us out of the debt hole we keep digging ourselves further into. I plan on working on his campaign.
I don’t think Hillary is going to run. Much as she would like to be the president, she also seems to have a good sense of party loyalty, and doesn’t want to break the party apart. Plus, isn’t she re-running for Senate?
Yes – in 2006. Win or lose, there’s no reason she can’t run for president in 2008. Sitting senators (and sitting governors) run for president all the time.
With respect to her ruthlessness, Carl Limbacher fairly leaps to mind.
With respect to her manipulative powers, I’ve seen them for myself. In her much hyped appearance on Fox News Sunday a few months back, she appeared with Lindsay Graham. On that day, they provided the extra-large Fox News coffee cups, black with gold logo ablaze. I noticed her deliberately reposition hers so that it was perfectly centered for the camera. Then, true to form, Chris Wallace lit into her with a hardball question about the baggage her husband brings to her prospects from the point of view of the right-wing that she had painted as conspiratorial. Rather than become confrontational, she demured, smiled sweetly, and made a joke of the question. Then, without skipping a beat, she praised Graham for his conduct during her husband’s impeachment. She called him a model of decorum and responsibility that all other senators, including herself, should emulate.
In one fell swoop, she disarmed Wallace and brought Graham onto her side, so that when he took his first question, he went out of his way to praise her in return. I have no doubt that she understood that, as a Southern gentleman, he would feel obligated to do so. What had promised to be a smash-mouth assault on Hillary for the sake of the Fox News audience became nothing short of a love-in society of mutual admiration between her and Graham trying to out-praise the other. In the course of the interview, she managed to convey that people who oppose abortion do so for legitimate and understandable reasons, and that their viewpoints should be respected. She also declared that there’s nothing wrong with believing in God, and that many Democrats do so.
By the end, Wallace was practically begging her to return, as both he and Graham stepped on each other’s lines to fawn over her and tell her what a wonderful guest she had been.
There is no one better than her at that sort of thing.
Who?
There is absolutely nothing “manipulative,” in the invidious sense, in that story. Sounds more like plain, sound, political instincts – the kind one would expect of any elected official from president down to dogcatcher.
Caveat: No sitting senator has been elected president since 1960. (I wonder why?)
Carl Limbacher. One of her — what did you call it? — “fiercest critics”. Wrote a book called Hillary’s Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton’s Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House.
Who said anything about invidiousness? And you’re making my exact point. She has a very key political skill — one necessary for winning.
And how did she treat Limbacher “ruthlessly”?
Just my general take on his personality from having experience with him and his folks in Virginian politics. He apparently is still something of a bully. Allen’s office has one of the highest staff turnover rates in Conrgess. Former staffers describe him and his bunch as petty tyrants, and filling his office takes some extra effort to find folks willing to put up with it.
No, not all sportsy people are assholes. But Allen. The guy has “sports asshole and former bully with famous dad” written all over him.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten your comment. It was, “I have never heard Clinton’s fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever.” Limbacher is a fierce critic. He associated the word with her. Got it?
I never said a President never admitted making a mistake. But you only really have evidence that Kennedy did (the Reagan examples are vague at best) and Kennedy was President like 45 years ago. The public and the media has changed drastically since then. You didn’t have 24 hour news networks or political pundit shows polluting the airwaves back then.
I am still leaning toward Rudy G. or McCain.
I had an Eye opener on Rudy recently and I seem to be leaning more towards McCain. They are friends and from opposite ends of the country, they might run as a ticket of McCain/Giuliani.
Hilary is not very liberal, but I have had a problem with the Clinton’s apparent constant dishonesty. I actually liked many of their policies but both lie very easily for my taste. Hilary even claimed during the Senate elections she was a Yankee fan until it was pointed out to her she already was a Cub fan and then she did a Bill style back Pedal. I really want a candidate that is honest.
For these reasons I also like Dean. His not being a lawyer is also a positive for me. Professionally he was a doctor.
Jim
It’s still relevant. Technology does not relieve anyone of their duty to country, law, honor. The willingness to tell the truth is honorable. The willingness to live with the consequences of your decisions and take ownership is honorable. The ability, in the extreme, to pay for your mistakes is honorable. To lie, dissemble, deflect, deny etc etc etc is dishonorable and cowardly. Technology has nothing to do with anything. If we are to talk about the pollution of the pundits, we could, but that would be a whole 'nother thread. Bob “benefit of the doubt” Schieffer, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Rush “druggy” Limbaugh, Anne “Adolf” Coulter, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Andrew Savage, Andrew Sullivan, Jerry Falwell, Charles Krauthammer, “Doctor” Larua, Jeff Gannon (hahahahaha), and Tucker Carlson, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. If we want to talk about general media pollution, we have Fox “News”, Newsmax, Free Republic, Washington Post,and etc etc etc. There IS some major pollution. But, my opinion will probably be 180 degrees out from yours. Besides, your liars outnumber my liars.
The idea that Guiliani could ever win the Republican primary is risible. The man is pro-choice, pro-gay, and even lived with a gay couple after leaving his wife for his mistress. Imagine how that is going to play in South Carolina. Answer: not so well. Not a chance in hell. Guiliani’s angle is getting and keeping enough national attention that he will be picked for something: a cabinet position or VP in a real long-shot.
I still don’t think McCain is very likely. He may have chummed up to Bush somewhat, but there’s enough bad blood for his indepedent streak that the Rep primary could probably knock him down a second time. He’s got nothing extra to offer from last time, and he’s in much worse shape physically.
Yeah, because I’m sure you have some sort of scientific way of proving “my liars outnumber your liars.”
No one ever said that taking responsibility wasn’t honorable. But the fact is, you don’t get elected President by being open and honorable.
Ever heard the term honorable to a fault? People like that don’t succeed in politics. I’d actually argue that if a President cared about the issues that he campaigned on, and really wanted to get his campaign promises put in action, he’d have to be very skilled at the great game that is politics (and that involves being like teflon in your ability to avoid direct blame) so that he can actually DELIVER for his people.
Hell, Kennedy is the perfect example. He was a horrible President, that got virtually nothing done for the American people. His ability at dealing with Congress was embarassingly bad. LBJ however, got things done, a lot of it was the political capital that came from Kennedy’s death, but don’t doubt how important LBJ’s legislative skills and political ability played into getting many of the major programs Kennedy started actually moved through congress.
I’ll take a President that gets things done, that actually tries to carry through his campaign promises, over some overly idealized feelings about “honor.” You remind me of the portrayal of General Patton, the type of person who is so blinded by the concept of “honor” you salivate in lust while surrounded by dead soldiers because of what an “honorable affair” the battle had been.
Basically, you’re looking for something that isn’t there. Your ideal president doesn’t exist, he’s a fictitious character you might find in a movie or a novel but not in the real world. IN other words, you need to “grow up” politically and come to terms with the real world.
Yes – but I was fishing for an actual example of ruthless behavior on HRC’s part, not a cite to a book. (A mere reputation for ruthlessness, after all, would not help her very far towards the White House.) If you’ve read it, what does it say she has done, that you believe, and that you would characterize as “ruthless”?
Kennedy was the last candidate from the Senate that knew how to rig an election?
No, no, he couldn’t have been.
I could’ve sworn Cecil debunked this yawner at some point, but I can’t find it. As I remember it, the alleged “rigging” happened in Illinois, and JFK would’ve won the election even without that state. Moving on…
If you want, I could find the cite, but it’s almost certain Illinois was rigged, thanks to the Daley machine. Regardless of if it was necessary or not, the dead did vote. I believe I covered it at some point in the past.