July 24, 2007

Did Hillary avoid mentioning Bill in last night's debate?

She sure tried! For example, in talking about sending Chelsea to private school, she said: "I was advised... if she were to go to a public school, the press would never leave her alone... So I had to make a very difficult decision." "I"? No "we"?

She would have succeeded in her attempt at a total eclipse of the man had it not been for this question:
[M]y question is for Hillary Clinton.

With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again serving as the last three presidents, how would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for, and what your campaign has been talking about?

I was also wondering if any of the other candidates had a problem with the same two families being in charge of the executive branch of government for 28 consecutive years, if Hillary Clinton were to potentially be elected and then re-elected.
(Wow! 28 years!)

Clinton's answer minimized the "husband" -- she never says his name -- as much as possible:
Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but...

Obviously, I am running on my own merits, but I am very proud of my husband's record as president of the United States. You know what is great about this is look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee. So I'm looking forward to making my case to the people of this country and I hope they will judge me on my merits.
It wasn't so long ago that she was bringing the man forward to reflect some glow onto her. Why the repositioning? Or is it just that he's mainly to be used as a visual prop in her campaign, so that when he can't appear in person -- as in a debate -- you don't talk about him at all? She needs to stand on her own, as she says in that statement above, so she doesn't want to refer to him. But when he can show up in person and talk about her (and not about himself), that works just fine.

23 comments:

Sloanasaurus said...

It is a serious problem for Hillary. It will be a way for the Republican nominee to use Bush against Hillary, by lumping Hillary into this group of elites. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

Does anyone really want that? More Bush/Clinton? More bitter partisanship?

nick danger said...

If she thinks someone else was elected in 2000, she sure doesn't know much about our form of government.

MadisonMan said...

The way to end bitter partisanship is to stop being a bitter partisan. It's called taking responsibility for your actions.

Bruce Hayden said...

We could just declare the presidency the personal property of those two families. Jeb is sitting in the wings, and was always considered the better candidate than his older brother. If he hadn't lost in 1994 when his brother won... Or, his son should be old enough to run by the end of Hillary's second term, giving us a chance for three generations of George Bushes. And we can't forget Chelsea. That should take us through 2032. But if Jeb wins in 2016, then George P. could reign from the end of Chelsea's term until 2040. That would be over half a century with those two families alternating in the White House.

Balfegor said...

Clinton's answer minimized the "husband" -- she never says his name -- as much as possible:

But does it really minimise the husband aspect if she refers to him as her husband rather than Bill? After all, many of the other candidates are probably sufficiently friendly with Bill Clinton that they could refer to him as "Bill," but only she can refer to him as "my husband."

Paco Wové said...

"The way to end bitter partisanship is to stop being a bitter partisan."

Exactly. CDS and BDS are symptoms of our political culture, not causes.

Sloanasaurus said...

The poisonous partisan atmosphere comes from the Trolls in our political discourse who thrive on conflict. Some of them are on this board. They are just civil versions of the as$holes who perpetuate conflict for no good reason than person gain in places like Palestine or Liberia.

Pogo said...

If only you would agree with me, this bitter partisanship could finally end. Duh.

P. Rich said...

HR Clinton is in a nice quandry. Sans Bill, she lacks general popularity amongst traditional Dem bloc voters, strong qualifications and a claim of 8 years in the White House as Assistant President. With him, she is personally eclipsed and must deal with related issues from his philandering to dynastic concerns. Poor baby...

Hoosier Daddy said...

The way to end bitter partisanship is to stop being a bitter partisan.

That’s easier said that done. I think one of the reasons for the ‘bitter partisanship’ in government is simply a reflection of how disparate our society has become. After all, we are supposed to have a representative government so if anything the vitriol from the common folks is simply upgraded to ‘bitterness’ by those who govern.

When you have a good sized chunk of the electorate that believes that government should provide cradle to grave benefits and the other believes in self reliance and personal responsibility there is little commonality to go around and too few in government who are willing to find any.

Zeb Quinn said...

So what we're really saying here is that a President Hillary opens the door for the Jebster in 2016.

dbp said...

It is fun to parse Senator Clinton's words, and imagine oneself a reporter...

"I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but..."

Senator Clinton, you say "thought", does this mean you thought this in the past, but no longer think this? Or do you still think VP Gore won? If you no longer think this, then at what point did you change your mind?

Next:

"Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee."

Senator Clinton, do you really think Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich would make a better chief executive than Mitt Rommney or Rudy Gullianni? I know you "have" to say stuff like that, but seriously--are you high?

dbp

Cedarford said...

Dynastic Politics? The worst one might be the shining white knights of Camelot, so beloved by the fawning MSM. Since 1953, a Kennedy has held their hereditary Senate seat 52 of the last 54 years. With long-serving Chris Dodd, John Kerry in Mass and Mass satellite state of Connecticut as their 30 year loyal squires. Patrick Kennedy - cleaned up or not - is in the local minor "farm team" leagues as are Joe Kennedy III and RFK Jr, who spend almost as much time in Mass as they do Manhattan or Hollywood.

Or, will the children of David and Julie Nixon Eisenhower be ready in 2012?

Hillary, saying dumb things:

You know what is great about this is look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee.

Well, the rise of Barack at least allowed the Party to give the never-elected to anything Head Negroes in Charge Jesse and Al the hook. But still, the old deranged Mike Gravel or Vegan kook Kuchinich would make better Prez's than ANY Republican? Come on.

Unless the Democratic worship of diversity extends to nuts and 30-year Ted Kennedy hack insiders.

Would electing Kuchinich be wonderful because he would "add diversity" to the Presidency? God, I shudder at the thought...

*jane* said...

You know what is great about this is-- look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee

Meaning: by virtue of our in-born characteristics of race, gender and perhaps sexual orientation, we’d make better Presidents than the Repub candidates, each of whom was born a Caucasian male (with one Mormon and a slightly gender-bending party guy.)

Have to say, if “Vote based on (“diverse” not to include white male) race and sex!” is one of the Dem’s election themes, at least they’re supporting differently-abled thinking. And also that Hillary was knocking Biden and Edwards, who are on the losing end of the diversity stick. She's looking to a white female/ black male ticket. The Hispanic can be appointed to a Cabinet position.

Sir Archy said...

Has the Mad Scene begun?  Whenever I see the Clinton name in this Theatre, I am certain one will ensue.

It appears not yet.  So, before the main Action of the Play begins, if I may be so bold as to proffer some paltry Advice to the Players:

It is well to begin such a Scene quietly and with such Affectation as to elicit the Sympathy of the Audience.  You seem to have done this unprompted.  Bravo!

Madness seldom breaks with full Force and Fury upon the Madman (or Woman, for many thus are afflicted), but comes on by degrees.  Playing the scene with a Semblance of Reasonableness to start will make the onset of the Distemper all the more shocking.

To add to the lustre of the Performance, it is a shame that musical Accompaniment can't be found.  Tremulant muted Strings and perhaps musical Glasses produce a most delicious Effect depicting the Descent into Madness.

Such subtleties may be, however, too refined for this Company.
I think I may safely say that boiling the Audience's Blood is the Goal of the Impressaria, and that if Riot were to occur, she would Benefit from the Notoriety of the Scandal.  Many would come gawk, and some would return, thus ensuring Spectators, however unruly, for her numerous and varied Shows.

John Stodder said...

My elliptical exercise machine at my gym happened to be located in front of a TV showing Frank Luntz' on-air focus group from Charleston, S.C. In a rather striking turnaround, the majority of his participants went from being lukewarm Hillary supporters to strong Obama supporters, just based on the debate.

I'm thinking Hillary could be a Muskie/Connolly/Gephardt electoral house of cards.

She has a number of handicaps, including the dynasty problem, but she could certainly overcome them if she wasn't such a boring and unresourceful candidate.

The comparison that came to mind last night was Sonny Liston (Hillary) vs. Cassius Clay (Obama). Liston was a frightening force at the time he fought Clay. Ruthless, as the Clinton machine is seen to be ruthless. Big. Imposing. Not to be messed with. That's Hillary's strength. Better get on board now or it's going to be an awfully lonely eight years for you. But Obama seems to move twice as fast as she does, appearing not just younger but smarter and way more genuine. Like Clay/Ali, Obama is setting himself up to be the People's Cherce (Gotham sportwriter talk for "People's Choice"), a dynamic Hillary can escape only by going so negative on Obama she would damage her chances against the GOP candidate, requiring another round of mudslinging to win the general election.

Hillary can win, but because of Obama, she can only win ugly. The idealism she so clearly associates with her tireless champion self will be the last word anyone uses to describe her. She will have stomped her way to the White House, if she gets there at all. I don't think she's going to make it.

Roger said...

John Stoddard: I genuinely admire your grasp of politics and look forward to your analyses. Better than any of the pundits out there now. I do think you have it right about Obama and Clinton--the campaign will become increasingly brutal and its going to be really nasty before the convention. Whoever is the Republican nominee, there is going to be a treasure trove of freely available opposition research. (and ironically, the dems are using up their research against possible republican candidates way too early)

Hoosier Daddy said...

John, I enjoyed the Liston/Ali analogy. That was pretty good.

I still think that at some point down the road, Hillary and Obama are going to have the come to Jesus meeting with regard to the 'right of succession' to the White House. Compared to the two of them, Hillary is simply the better candidate and Obama is clearly over his head. Charisma and Fresh only takes you so far and then the real business of being President comes into play and of the three contenders, Hillary is really the only one with the qualities to do the job.

Obama may have the grass/netroots but Hillary is the establishment candidate and while everyone thinks Bill is some kind of liability, the man still commands a lot of attention and can bring in the dough.

But even if you're right and she has to get to the White House over the broken bloody corpse of Obama, it won't matter due to the euphoria of our first female President, and a Democrat to boot. Sometimes you have to destroy that village in order to save it.

Cedarford said...

Except by Stodder's analogy, Clay had been fighting and beating older opponents in the ring for 10 years and had experience against top opponents - including his gold medal win at the Olympics.

Obamarama has never been in the military, never held an executive position, never worked in private industry. Never had a job not paid for by taxpayers. And much of his early years and his post-HS education were picked up by US taxpayers or foreign donors. Conventional liberal voting record in state office indistiguishable from other big city liberal blacks.

Two years in an elected out-of state political job before he started running for President.

But he talks great.

And by being the son of a black Muslim from Africa and a white mother he absolves guilty white liberals of their ancestors "bad deeds" and shows they are noble and pure with an Obamarama vote.

I just don't think in a dangerous world with multiple challenges that "The People's Choice" will end up being a slick talker with little real life experience.

Still as "an articulate black" his options and prospects are golden. For now. If he accepts being VP and risks 4-8 years of "seasoning" before his "shot" he might be eclipsed by other golden blacks like Harold Ford Jr or Steele of MD or the latest black Harvard Law graduate able to speak "articulately" who thrills the media and Hollywood Big Bucks crowd as the "next black rock star".

His best deal might instead to seek and accept be an offer to go on SCOTUS if Stevens or Ginsburg outlive Bush, or Souter decides he has fed the Bush family the full measure of his shit sandwich and quits a month or so after Bush is gone.

Obamarama should be confirmable, he's got at least 30 years of solid conventional liberal activist court votes in him. And he would get all the status he'd ever want..

Luckyoldson said...

How about little Bushie today?

Gives a 20 minute speech and mentions Al Queda...95 times??

Does everybody get the point?

Luckyoldson said...

Here's something I'd like a few of the diehard supporters of Bush to read and respond to...especially Fen, Sloan, Seven and a few others who constantly charge anyone who wants us out of Iraq as being un-American or not supportive of the military:

Troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are not getting proper medical and mental health care, the suit says, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a particular problem.

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was accused in a major lawsuit Monday of "shameful failures" in providing medical and mental healthcare to injured servicemen and women returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 73-page suit, filed in federal court here on behalf of hundreds of thousands of veterans, is the first of its kind and seeks to dramatically transform the way the VA operates.

The suit targets what it describes as the agency's "unconscionable" backlog of 600,000 claims, the adequacy of its services and the long waits to receive mental health care, particularly for post-traumatic stress disorder, which is described as the "signature problem" of vets returning from the current fighting.

A recent report by a special Pentagon task force found that 38% of soldiers and 50% of National Guard members coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan have mental health issues, ranging from stress disorder to brain injuries. But only 27 of the VA's 1,400 hospitals around the country have in-patient post-traumatic stress disorder programs, the plaintiffs' lawyers said.

The individuals suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, are being deprived of mental health services in the early phases of the illness, when identification and treatment are critical, the suit alleges. Left untreated, severe PTSD can lead to substance abuse, depression and suicide, the lawyers said.

"A number of veterans have committed suicide shortly after having been turned away from VA facilities either because they were told they were ineligible or because the wait was too long," the lawsuit states.

doctorfixit said...

Should we be surprised that she gets away with statements like this? The more exposure she gets, the more convinced I am that we are being hypnotized by subliminal messages. This woman would be a mid-level drone in the back offices of a cavernous lawfirm if it weren't for The Hillbilly Sorcerer. Using "my husband" instead of his name is also calculated for effect - to create and maintain the illusion of a marriage. Bitter partisanship may be the only thing that saves our nation - if it results in a final determination of which political ideology - socialism or liberty - will dominate.

Fen said...

Lucky: Luckyoldson said...
Here's something I'd like a few of the diehard supporters of Bush to read and respond to...especially Fen, Sloan, Seven and a few others who constantly charge anyone who wants us out of Iraq as being un-American or not supportive of the military:

Troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are not getting proper medical and mental health care, the suit says, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a particular problem.


I agree this is a problem that should be fixed immediately. Of the several reasons I left the Marine Corps, one was inadequate medical care.

But what does that have to do with anyone who wants us out of Iraq as being un-American or not supportive of the military? I think you should cut back to 1/2 a pill before bedtime.