 |
The Billary Road to Republican Victory – New York Times — Frank Rich, as an essayist, uses some of the more powerful writing structures one can imagine and this column is a beauty.
As anyone who has listened to me on more generalized podcasts knows that for the past number of years I have been promoting the idea that McCain is the next President. I thought the whole thing was probably predetermined around 2001 to keep him quiet. Anyway, somehow the Times had to endorse this notion despite the fact that they will endorse the Democrat when the time comes. This column is key as the Clinton Library will be the undoing of Hillary becoming President. Obama is unelectable in 2008 but I will predict he will be the candidate in 2012 and win then (you’ll see why in a couple of years).
Meanwhile, consider this. Who actually wanted to push the timetable ahead for the 2008 elections? Who benefits the most? What it does is set the slate early so the media has more time to dig. This column clearly cites the target and challenges the media. (AND NOTE THE GRAPHIC OF A TARGET).
Remember Eagleton? He was the orginal VP candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1972. He had to give up his candicacy when it was discoverd he had electro-convulsive therapy. He resigned just before the election. The Democrats have been bunglers ever since. Now this.
Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
You go Bill…..
What’s with that 1st paragraph praise of Frank Rich. I assume it’s some sort of clever subtle joke.
John you were right about the hit jobs on Giuliani. Nevertheless, I didn’t expect him to crash so fast. He’s not even a factor after leading polls all the way into December.
Romney vs McCain is a horrible choice for Republicans, even worse than the sad joke that is Hillary vs Obama, a total of about 8 years of elected office excluding the campaign.
Raster, you are going to claim that the Democrats would say nothing if it was a pair of Republicans in the same situation.
LOL. Sure.
The Democrats would be all over it, and you damned well know it. That’s why you and Catshit evade the question.
hehe, so easy to piss you ‘pubs off
Unlike you (apperently) I cannot speak for “The Democrats”. For myself, I say they get to have their private lives private, ‘pub or dem’.
Oooo, is this a variation on “just joking”? LOL
The Democrats would be all over any Republicans in the same situation, and you know it. That’s why you evaded the question.
Squirm.
Mike, I’m thinking the Republican central committee, by whatever name, might as well be Democrats, if not senile, maybe both.
Not just senile, but sprouting maggots, they so brain dead.
#36
In case you forgotten (it was nearly 12 hours ago), this thread is about whether people get to know who gave money to Bill’s Library.
Well, guess what, that’s private info, and it gets to stay private.
Or do you feel it’s OK deny people their privacy?
Somehow I think if a Republican politician had mentioned that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina and it was no big deal, it would go down in history with Philadelphia Mississippi and robocalls about McCain’s black baby as Democrat talking points about Republican racism for the next 40 years.
Raster–our public officials should have very little privacy — for obvious reasons.
I’m not sure–didn’t all/most of the presidential paper work used to be public papers and then the law changed so that the ex-officials got to control the paperwork for 25 years then maybe 50 under BushCo and the papers go to the libraries and the ex’s get to review and make public the stuff that makes them look good and keep secret that which makes them look bad?
True or not–public officials in fact should have almost NO privacy. Including all finanacial and medical records. In fact, I can’t think of anything that should be private==nor upsetting to the public when made available other than criminal acts.
I think Megan McArdle said it best:
Why isn’t this a null set?
Democrats who believe that the GOP southern strategy is a defining moment that discredits the entire movement ∩ Democrats who think that the Clintons are very deliberately playing up Obama’s race in order to drive white voters into Hillary’s camp ∩ Democrats who will vote for Hillary Clinton in November once she secures the nomination.
I think Bill Clinton’s true colors are coming out. He’d have been a segregationist 40 years ago, while playing for black votes at the same time. I’m sure he already has his story ready for blacks about how Republicans made him do it.
I’m betting on a Democratic landslide. Even if Hillary is the nominee, there is no way that they can dig up enough dirt to make her look worse than W.
The serious scandal count of the Bush administration is around the 60 range, and yet apparently its not enough to impeach. The general population is sick and damn tired of Republican schenanigans, and McCain has supported these schenanigans over and over.
McCain’s negatives are age and the complete lack of change he brings to the executive. I live in Arizona and we are sick of him ourselves. The last time he took a stand for anything was his stand against torture, and we supported him. Then he caves, lets the torture provisions go through and votes FOR the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — one of the most immoral pieces of legislation in American History.
McCain will lose the Presidency on 2008, and his Senate seat on 2010.
#41
If it ends up McCain-Hillary, you better prepare yourself for another Republican President. I think Hillary beats any Republican candidate other than McCain primarily because McCain appeals to moderates far better than Hillary (which is also why I do not think he’ll win the nomination). Btw, if McCain does become President, that makes the Democrats look like a complete grease fire. That even after the most vilified Presidency in modern history, they still cannot beat his party makes them look completely incompetent.
#42, Tommy,
McCain won’t win. He may look good in your eyes today, but when the past is aired he won’t look so good.
Hillary only looks bad to those who wouldn’t vote for her anyway. Why do they hate her so much? Because the Republicans have spent the past 15 years telling us she is a bad person. Not WHY she is a bad person, mind you, only that she is.
An offensive negative campaign worked so well in the past. The electorate is tired of it and wants it to stop. After the conventions, watch for the Democratic nominee to soar in popularity as Republican tactics come back to haunt them.
#43
It is more accurate to say that the only people that think Hillary is not bad are the people that would vote for her regardless of what she does. It is not just Republicans that hate Hillary. I know many liberals and moderate Democrats that cannot stand her either. The key to winning the Presidency is the moderates. If Hillary wins, McCain will win the moderate vote and will take the election.