November 26, 2007

"Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn't work out..."

"... in which case she says she has nothing to do with it," said Barack Obama.
"There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other had, I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I've done."

Glad he said that.

70 comments:

Kev said...

(the other kev)

Obama said that? An effective criticism that doesn't invoke personal attacks?

Damn, his private poll numbers must be looking good.

former law student said...

Hillary's biggest accomplishment during her time as First Lady was setting universal health care back 20 years. She didn't realize she had to get the buy-in of all the stakeholders. This unfortunately reflects a futile "my way or the highway" operating procedure.

Fen said...

Obama: I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator

Savy. Instead of the obvious question re Hillary's qualification to be POTUS, he attacks her qualification to be in the Senate to begin with, implying that Hillary acquired the seat by nepotism.

Not unfair either. Would Hillary be a Senator if she hadn't been married to Bill?

Nicely done Obama campaign.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama should keep pressing this issue. It is a pebble now but he could turn it into a landslide of opinion if he works it carefully.

I also like his tactic of saying Americnas are tired of the boomers fighting old battles and so we are ready for a new generation. That will add more wind to his sails.

rhhardin said...

Obama's talking to his wife doesn't make him qualified to be President.

I'm surprised Hillary hasn't thought of it.

MadisonMan said...

An excellent argument. I'll be interested to see the response.

I will say, though, that were MO running for Senate, I'd think she had more knowledge of the workings of the Senate, and I would therefore expect less of a spin-up time for her, than a for candidate not married to a Senator.

Fen said...

AJ: Obama should keep pressing this issue

I would press the nepotism angle: Hillary is in the Senate only because she married Bill. Then tie it in to the Bush/Clinton dynasty fatigue. I think it would resonate.

SteveR said...

It may be too late but she needs to lose the "experience as first lady" qualification advantage tact.

Perhaps if she were to get the relevant records, currently tucked away in Little Rock, released so we can actually see what she did and how she operated, it might be something we can grade her on.

Since that won't happen, stick with the viewable record.

Meade said...

"We got Democrats and Independents and yes we even have some Republicans," Obama said to a crowd in Dunlap, Iowa. "I know this because when I'm shaking hands afterwards they whisper to me. They say 'Barack, I'm a Republican, but I support you.' And I say 'thank you, why are you whispering?'"

"Pssst, Hillary, I'm a feminist who doesn't tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace, but I supported your husband and you."

and Hillary says, "Shhh... whisper."

Pogo said...

Hey, the boys are picking on Hillary again!

vnjagvet said...

Likeability counts for more than experience. For the last fifty years, the candidate who had the better (i.e. more generally likeable) personality usually won the election:

Eisenhower over Stevenson (twice)
Kennedy over Nixon
Johnson over Goldwater (exception)
Nixon over Humphrey (exception)
Nixon over McGovern (exception)
Carter over Ford (tossup)
Reagan over Carter
Reagan over Mondale
Bush over Dukakis
Clinton over Bush
Clinton over Dole
Bush over Gore
Bush over Kerry

The Democrats to have a chance should nominate Obama. He is far more likeable that Clinton.

Richard Dolan said...

This is tricky territory for Obama. Hillary wants to be seen not only as the inevitable nominee but as the one candidate deserving of the Dem nomination. He needs to puncture both aspects of that claim; his little zinger here is mostly about whether she deserves the nomination.

Unfortunately for him, Obama is not exactly playing to his strong suit (whatever it may be) by harping on her lack of relevant experience. The dig about "the stuff that didn't work out" is a backhanded way of pointing out that the only part of the Clinton Admin she actually ran was the ClintonCare fiasco. He has two main problems: First, the Dem primary voters don't want to listen to that, probably don't think ClintonCare was such a fiasco, and mostly like her (and like Bill even more). Second, Obama has never been a successful executive either. If "best qualified person" is how he wants voters to judge between him and her, what makes him more "qualified" than her? After all, she's been a Senator for longer than him, was re-elected by a large margin, and in many ways has been an effective Senator Pothole for NY. His accomplishments are pretty thin in comparison.

He needs to find a way to point out the many weaknesses that she will bring as the Dem nominee, especially that the Back to the Future aspect of her candidacy will be a big negative in the gen'l election. His basic pitch is that he's a fresh step forward; she's a stale repeat, a step backwards. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between them on most issues, however, the only way to give that pitch any substance is to invite the voters to make a judgment about the two candidate's characters and principles. (Obama's point is that he's got both; she has neither). Since most potential voters in the Dem primaries like Hillary, it's impossible for Obama to raise those issues directly without skewering himself with those voters (but the Rep nominee will have no such problem). Perhaps Edwards or one of the others will do the dirty work for him, as Gephardt did to Dean last go-around.

It's only a few weeks until we see how the Dem voters in NH and Iowa sort it all out.

B said...

Excellent argument, but effective only if it can be continually restated and reworded over and over.

Stever: I believe you meant to say "tac" instead of "tact".

Revenant said...

Would Hillary be a Senator if she hadn't been married to Bill?

I'm sure New Yorkers elect retired lawyers from Arkansas all the time, Fen, even if they've never lived in the state. :)

B said...

richard dolan:

Excellent points.

I do believe however that the constant mocking of her First Lady "experience" as part of the package will be very effective. Obama doesn't have to be "more" experienced; he just has to neutralize the Clinton "experience" mantra - create a level "experience" playing field. Then, as you suggest, it becomes a choice for the old vs the fresh.

Revenant said...

I will say, though, that were MO running for Senate, I'd think she had more knowledge of the workings of the Senate, and I would therefore expect less of a spin-up time for her, than a for candidate not married to a Senator.

MM, candidates for Senator are usually Representatives, and thus already familiar with Congress. Most also have familiarity with government at the state level, having been state representatives or senators earlier in their careers.

Trooper York said...

; If you can just get your mind together
Uh-then come on across to me
Well hold hands and then well watch the sunrise
From the bottom of the sea
But first, are you experienced?
Uh-have you ever been experienced-uh?
Well, I have
(well) I know, I know, youll probably scream and cry
That your little world wont let you go
But who in your measly little world, (-uh)
Are you tryin to prove to that youre
Made out of gold and-uh, cant be sold
So-uh, are you experienced?
(Jimi Hendrix)

SMGalbraith said...

It's interesting to note that Dean's support collapsed on the basis that Democratic primary voters wanted someone - anyone - that they thought could beat Bush. And they believed that Kerry was the guy who could do it, and not Dean.

I'm wondering if Clinton's current supporters - a mile wide and an inch thick - won't take a similar approach. She can't win. These latest Zogby polls (I'm sceptical of them) certainly can't help the Senator.

If Obama can hammer and hammer and hammer the theme that Clinton can't win, he's got a real shot.

What that does to the Republican field is anyone's guess. Isn't much of Giuliani's support also based on the "He can beat Hillary" desire.

My guess is that, mirabile dictu, it won't be Hillary vs Rudy next year.

George said...

Obama has been a Senator for two years.

Before that he was a state rep. from a safe Chicago district for a handful of years.

That's experience!

Professor, you get yourself elected Senator from Wisconsin, and you could have enough experience to run in 2012.

Revenant said...

Obama's got no real experience, that's true.

But NONE of the leading Democratic contenders as any real experience. Obama doesn't need to prove he's got experience -- what he needs to do is deflate Clinton's ridiculous assertion that she does. Then it comes down to whether Democratic voters want a new, charismatic, inexperienced candidate, or an old, tired, widely-disliked and uncharismatic inexperienced candidate. Not a hard choice to make, really, is it?

People have gotten so used to seeing Hillary in the national spotlight that a sort of sense that she must have experience doing things has developed. But of course she hasn't actually DONE much of anything.

MadisonMan said...

MM, candidates for Senator are usually Representatives

Not in Wisconsin they aren't. At least, not the successful ones. Feingold came out of the Wisconsin State Assembly. Kohl is the Savior of the Bucks. Gaylord Nelson was in the State House in Madison as a Representative and was also Governor before becoming Senator. Proxmire was also a Governor before replacing McCarthy. The only Wisconsin Senator in recent memory who had US House experience was Bob Kasten. Look how well that turned out.

former law student said...

Yep, George, Obama's been elected to twice as many offices as HRC. And he's on record as having opposed the invasion of Iraq. And he accomplished things for the people when he was a community organizer.

HRC's accomplished things for herself. She worked for Wal-Mart, not the people. And she supported the invasion of Iraq.

paul a'barge said...

I don't see the link.

Simon said...

AJ Lynch said...
"I also like his tactic of saying Americnas are tired of the boomers fighting old battles and so we are ready for a new generation."

Except that's a facile dodge that insults his audience and demeans his intelligence if he believes it or his integrity if he doesn't. (It isn't necessary to decide which: either is fatal.) Everyone is tired of fighting, but in Obama's conception, ending the battles means his side winning. If pro-choicers are "tired" of "fighting old battles" over abortion, does that mean they're ready to lay down their arms and give up? Are they willing to reach a compromise that involves overruling Roe? Please. Or the "battle" over gay marriage - are its opponents ready to accept a compromise? Its proponents? Of course not.

Let's be very clear about this: When Obama says he wants to end the culture wars, he means the same thing that everyone else means: he wants his views to prevail. "they don't want to end the culture wars, they want their side to win them, and the other side to stop getting in the way. To call what they have in mind 'com[ing] together around our common interests and concerns as Americans' [as Obama has put it] is flatly disingenuous. Their idea of 'compromise' runs something like this: 'at the Battle of Caporetto, the Italian army compromised with the Austro-Hungarian and German armies.'"

gophermomhey said...

MM: Bill Proxmire was never Governor. He ran 3 times, but was never elected, though he did serve in the assembly.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"[C]andidates for Senator are usually Representatives, and thus already familiar with Congress."

That's a trend I lament, personally. It's bad enough that the Senate is formally divorced from state government (for now, at least - I will continue to urge a reconciliation until I draw my last breath), but I think the damage could be offset a little if there were a norm that the Senate is a home for former governors, mayors, or at least state legislators. I wouldn't want to formally bar members of the House from going directly to the Senate (although to be sure, i've heard worse ideas), but I think such a norm would be healthy.

Steven said...

Richardson should run an ad with three six-year-olds (a white girl, a white boy, and a black boy) arguing in a sandbox about experience as an architect, each one talking about the sandcastles they've built.

Then, after all of them have had their annoying say, we pull back to see several construction workers in hard helmets standing near a building under construction, the sandbox having been in the foreground. One of the construction workers says, "I hope we get a foreman with real experience."

Luckyoldson said...

Steven,
Would any of the construction workers NOT be Hispanic?

And would any of the Foremen BE Hispanic?

Just wondered...

Simon said...

ail.comLuckyoldson said...
"Would any of the construction workers NOT be Hispanic? And would any of the Foremen BE Hispanic?"

Does it matter?

Luckyoldson said...

Revenant said this about whether Hillary would be a Senator with being married to Bill:

"I'm sure New Yorkers elect retired lawyers from Arkansas all the time, Fen, even if they've never lived in the state. :)"

You have the balls to use that argument...with G.W. Bush in the White House??

Would G.W. have EVER own or run a company? (Even though the ones that he did run went belly up?)

Been a Governor?

Without his father and his father's money?

Get real.

Luckyoldson said...

Simon,
No.

But I bet a vast majority of the foremen would be white and the workers would be Hispanic.

It's just a fact of life.

Get out much?

Luckyoldson said...

vnjagvet said..."The Democrats to have a chance should nominate Obama. He is far more likeable that Clinton."

I agree with the general premise, but I still do not think America will elect a black person as President.

Polling consistently says at least 25-30% would NEVER vote for a black...which probably means about 35-40 is closer to the truth.

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"I bet a vast majority of the foremen would be white and the workers would be Hispanic."

So what? I bet the vast majority of ordinary workers will be poorer than the average foreman, too, so you could just as readily cast it in class terms. Why are some people so desparate to see racial subtext that they'll see it any time it's one of several possible explanations for a pattern? Why is it that so many on the left - you see the same pattern vis-a-vis global warming, for example - can't distinguish between a correlate and a cause? We will never get past racism until we break the habit of thinking in terms of race; you may think you're helping, but this way of thinking "reinforce[s] and preserve[s] for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred" in the first place.

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"Would G.W. have EVER own or run a company ... [w]ithout his father and his father's money?"

Would Steve Forbes?

(I agree with you that the attacks on Clinton are somewhat silly, however. People vote - and get elected - for all sorts of reasons.)

Slim Tyranny said...

Revenant says "Obama's got no real experience, that's true."

That's actually false.

rhhardin said...

I agree with the general premise, but I still do not think America will elect a black person as President.

America would love a black person as President. It's just that Obama is positively brimming with inexperience. If he actually had experience and talked the way he does, he would be judged astoundingly stupid instead. As it is, he gets a pass on stupidity. ``He's young, after all.''

Personable, too. That's what Biden meant by clean and articulate.

Slim Tyranny said...

rhhardin says "It's just that Obama is positively brimming with inexperience."

Not true.

Revenant said...

Not in Wisconsin they aren't.

Well even then, as you note, most of them at least have experience as state legislators. The Senate isn't qualitatively different. Just increase the budgets and the egos by two orders of magnitude each. :)

The only Wisconsin Senator in recent memory who had US House experience was Bob Kasten. Look how well that turned out.

Er... how well did that turn out? I've never heard of the him before and Wikipedia doesn't mention the fiasco you're hinting at. I note that he defeated Gaylord Nelson, though, so my immediate instinct is to like the guy. :)

Simon said...

Slim Tyranny said...
"rhhardin says 'It's just that Obama is positively brimming with inexperience.' Not true."

Take your pick. We can look at him sympathetically because we see him as callow, or we can turn the thousand-watt bulb on him and ridicule his absurdity. Rhhardin's approach makes him look a lot better than mine (I prefer strict scrutiny), so I'd run with it if I were you.

Slim Tyranny said...

Not sure why you think there needs to be a pick, Simon. Regardless, Obama has extensive political experience, following an impressive career of private, public and academic experience. To say otherwise is to dishonestly minimize (for purely partisan reasons) his actual experience.

MadisonMan said...

Bob Kasten's claim to fame was driving drunk through the streets of DC. But that did spawn a hilariously-named UW Student Government party: The Bob Kasten School of Driving. So I guess it did turn out okay -- humor was fed.

Gaylord Nelson was a Senator who stayed a little too long in DC. Like so many. But I admire his work to promote conservation.

Revenant said...

Lucky, it's your lucky day. I'm deigning to acknowledge that you exist.

You have the balls to use that argument...with G.W. Bush in the White House??

Would I have voted for Bush in 1994, were I unfortunate enough to be a resident of Texas? Hell no. I hated his father and still do, and like you said before he'd screwed up his previous jobs.

Was I willing to vote for him for President in 2000? No -- nor was I willing to vote for his opponent, who *also* owed his career start to nepotism.

The first, last, and only time I voted for George Bush was 2004, at which point he had ten years of executive experience. Even then, I would have been unlikely to vote for him had he not been running, in wartime, against a man whose big claim to fame was having betrayed America in wartime.

Hillary's got zero practical experience. Maybe in eight years she'll have eight years of executive experience, but right now she has zero. I'm certainly not going to give her brownie points for boinking a powerful man!

Slim Tyranny said...

Revenant said..."Hillary's got zero practical experience."

Again, false.

Revenant said...

Gaylord Nelson was a Senator who stayed a little too long in DC. Like so many. But I admire his work to promote conservation.

Unfortunately he was one of the popularizers of the "human beings are bad" school of environmentalism, where the problem is that people exist (see for example his work in population reduction) rather than that we engage in unsustainable behaviors. That mentality is common in environmentalist circles today, and is the main reason why environmentalists can't be trusted. Human beings are the ends, not the means, of environmental consciousness.

Revenant said...

Regardless, Obama has extensive political experience, following an impressive career of private, public and academic experience. To say otherwise is to dishonestly minimize (for purely partisan reasons) his actual experience.

Yeah, and I hear he won the blue ribbon in the Science Fair when he was in 8th grade, too.

When I say "no experience", what I mean is "no experience that might qualify him to be President". Obviously he's got experience in *something* -- we all do. But his political experience is limited to a few years in the Senate and a few previous years of state legislating in a state his party utterly dominates, his academic experience is meaningless, and his private-sector experience is neither extensive nor impressive.

Revenant said...

Revenant said..."Hillary's got zero practical experience."

Again, false.

Fucking a President doesn't count as "experience", slim. If it did we could just vote for Monica Lewinksy. At least her voice is easier on the ears.

Daryl said...

Polling consistently says at least 25-30% would NEVER vote for a black...

But I thought all the die-hard racists vote party line Republican tickets? I guess not.

Balfegor said...

what he needs to do is deflate Clinton's ridiculous assertion that she does.

The problem for Obama is that Clinton isn't just coming up with this out of nowhere. It's not like Laura or Barbara Bush claiming experience. Or like Michelle Obama claiming experience. Clinton is riding on years and years of criticism of Clinton I for letting his wife serve as an eminence grise in his administration. With someone like the Bush wives or Michelle Obama, your default assumption is kind of that their "advice" will be along the lines of "be nice to people" or "write thank you notes promptly." But Hillary Clinton is like Theresa Heinz-Kerry on steroids -- someone who consistently emerges from both hostile and sympathetic portrayals of the Clinton White House as a far stronger character than her husband, with far more influence over his administration than a First Lady would ordinarily have.

True, serving as First Lady is not, in itself, a sterling qualification for the presidency. But Hillary Clinton wasn't an ordinary First Lady. Everyone knew that back then -- hence the nervous jokes about "the President and her husband." And she's reaping the benefits of that long history now.

One thing we don't have -- and which she has not permitted us to see -- is the precise nature of her influence within the Clinton I administration. But that there was influence above and beyond the norm for a First Lady is hardly in doubt. The Hillarycare debacle is the clearest proof of that. No other First Lady has ever wielded direct policymaking authority in comparable fashion. Afterwards, her influence was not quite so public. It seems incredible to me that it could have disappeared, however.

vnjagvet said...

The question that Obama and Clinton are debating is which of them has more "experience".

The "experience" of course, should be the kind relevant to running the Executive Branch of the United States, including becoming Commander in Chief in time of war.

Whether or not some acknowledge we are at war, certain elements in the world believe we are. Al Queda, the Taliban, and certain folks in Iran have by their actions declared war on us, whether or not we declared war on them. The problems of 9/11 have not been resolved.

My take as far as relevant experience is concerned, there is not a "dime's worth of difference" between Hillary!, Barack, Trial Lawyer Edwards, the far-out Kucinich or even the garrulous Joe Biden.

Bill Richardson at least has executive experience, and is reasonably likeable. He just doesn't increase the pulses of those who will nominate the Democratic candidate.

That's a pity, because he is an interesting fellow who at least has had to make binary decisions.

Simon said...

Balfegor said...
"Clinton is riding on years and years of criticism of Clinton I for letting his wife serve as an eminence grise in his administration[,] ... consistently emerg[ing] from both hostile and sympathetic portrayals of the Clinton White House as a far stronger character than her husband, with far more influence over his administration than a First Lady would ordinarily have.

True, serving as First Lady is not, in itself, a sterling qualification for the presidency. But Hillary Clinton wasn't an ordinary First Lady. Everyone knew that back then -- hence the nervous jokes about 'the President and her husband.' And she's reaping the benefits of that long history now.
"

Bingo.

garage mahal said...

Ann trying to keep pace with Sullivan's frantic 50 Hillary posts per day. And with Sully, both cannot stand the thought of a liberal that is smarter, more successful, and more influential than themselves. It's what it always has been, and always will be all about. Never a discussion on policy past or present -- just boogeyman and blow jobs. Deep!

Paco Wové said...

...the nervous jokes about 'the President and her husband.'

Ahh, yes, the old UNIX sysadmin chestnut:

What's Bill Clinton's e-mail address?
bill.clinton@whitehouse.gov

What's Hillary Clinton's e-mail address?
root@whitehouse.gov



Well, maybe you hadda be there.

Chris said...

Luckyoldson said...

vnjagvet said..."The Democrats to have a chance should nominate Obama. He is far more likeable that Clinton."


The likeability factor is important but I believe optimism is equally, or perhaps more, important. If you look at presidential elections in the modern era, I think it's easy to conclude that the optimist almost always wins. Show me an optimistic Dem/lib and I'll show you a winner. I'm definitely predisposed to vote conservative but if I had the choice of a Dem with a sunny disposition/outlook, I'd be all over it.

Zeb Quinn said...

I agree with the general premise, but I still do not think America will elect a black person as President.

Sure they would. But it depends on who. Colin Powell? Yes. Condi Rice? Maybe. Barack Hussein Obama? You're right. Prolly not.

Tituszk said...

What do you guys think of the Trent Lott rumor all over the internet?

I refuse to claim him on my side. You guys can have him.

Revenant said...

Ann trying to keep pace with Sullivan's frantic 50 Hillary posts per day.

Yes, how odd that people would be discussing the Democratic front-running in the months prior to the Democratic primaries! It must all be part of some larger conspiracy. Possibly of a vast, perhaps even right-wing nature.

Simon said...

Tituszk said...
"What do you guys think of the Trent Lott rumor all over the internet?"

I don't care as long as he's gone. "Poor choice of words" my ass.

Jim C. said...

Luckyoldson said...

You have the balls to use that argument...with G.W. Bush in the White House??

Would G.W. have EVER [...] Been a Governor?

Without his father and his father's money?

Get real.


You have the balls to use that argument...after JFK in the White House??

Would JFK have been a senator or the president without his father and his father's money?

Would RFK have been a senator or candidate for president?

Get real.

Mary said...

I'm not sure Oprah Winfrey-like social policies will go over so well across the country.

He won't win the general election, I don't think. And if he were to win? I'd hate to see how mangled those pretty words and ideals turn out once they meet reality.

Think early days of Bill Clinton's White House, and then consider that Clinton even had years worth of executive experience as governor. Be careful what you wish for.

Unless you really want a Rudy, Mitt, or blowin in the wind McCain, eh?

John Stodder said...

First, the Dem primary voters don't want to listen to that, probably don't think ClintonCare was such a fiasco...

Not true. For some liberals, like Brad DeLong, the health care fiasco is a disqualifier. Sen. Moynihan was bitter over how she blew their opportunity. People don't remember, but when Clinton came into office, the Democrats had both houses of Congress. How do you f that up?, some Democrats wanted to know.

She hasn't done anything nearly as substantive since, either in the WH or the senate. But a lot of time has gone by, and so there is some forgetful forgiveness. Speaking for myself, the halo of what was good about the Clinton years is over her head. Who else should get to wear it?

Joan said...

John mentioned Brad DeLong. Just in case anyone hasn't already seen his brief but comprehensive analysis of Hillary's utter failure as Health Care Czar, here's the link.

Roger said...

I think the deLong piece offers some insight into HRC's management style 14 years ago. And her choice of Ira Magaziner as the CCEO of the project was also terrible. The question, however, is: has she learned from it? And more specifically what has she learned? My take is that she has: radical overhauls of policy dont work well absent something like the great depression--and even FDR had problems implementing social programs. Incremental changes and consensus building are the necessary ingredients--and the ability to communicate (IMO). Has HRC learned that?

P. Rich said...

It would probably be useful if those who think Mrs. Clinton is a legitimate contender for President of the United States (NOT the same as a person who might win the election) would be specific about her qualifications (NOT the same as her "experience".) Specifically what, where , when and how has she demonstrated the individual qualities one would want in a President? I submit, as have many others, that individual qualities is an area in which she is sadly lacking. Talking points from the Left are designed to obscure this fundamental issue (Look! Over there!). As for "strength" or "character", visit:

http://ozziepat.blogspot.com/

and scroll down to The Character of Mrs. Clinton for glimpses of the true Hillary, the one her carefully constructed image is designed to hide.

kimsch said...

I also like his tactic of saying Americnas are tired of the boomers fighting old battles and so we are ready for a new generation.

I was born at the tail end of the baby boom and Barack Obama is a year older than I am. That makes him a boomer too.

Balfegor said...

Specifically what, where , when and how has she demonstrated the individual qualities one would want in a President?

Well, she is dogged and disciplined. And she seems to have just the atavistic sensitivity to personal insult, thirst for vengeance, and will to dominate all life I think a President needs in this post-modern era. She, like no other candidate, realises that what is good in life is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Or men. Or catamites. Or whatever.

Fen said...

Lucky: You have the balls to use that argument...with G.W. Bush in the White House??

Once you're done with your BDS knee-jerk, please note that my comment is referring to how Obama should attack Hillary. He's not running against Bush.

Fen: "Savy. Instead of the obvious question re Hillary's qualification to be POTUS, he attacks her qualification to be in the Senate to begin with, implying that Hillary acquired the seat by nepotism.

Not unfair either. Would Hillary be a Senator if she hadn't been married to Bill?

Nicely done Obama campaign."

Fen said...

Simon: I don't care as long as he's gone. "Poor choice of words" my ass.

Echo. Lott is good at procedural stuff, but always has his foot in his mouth. He continually snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Good ridance.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, she is dogged and disciplined. And she seems to have just the atavistic sensitivity to personal insult, thirst for vengeance, and will to dominate all life I think a President needs in this post-modern era. She, like no other candidate, realises that what is good in life is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Or men. Or catamites. Or whatever.

Interesting that she is really more this way than the politician who made this line famous.

That said, she is also venal, corrupt, and willing to abuse whatever power she has to crush her enemies, including using the FBI, IRS, and PIs.

Revenant said...

Interesting that she is really more this way than the politician who made this line famous.

Even more interesting is that the line was written by noted leftie moonbat Oliver Stone. :)

Patm said...

I think anyone who can laugh at Clinton, and get the rest of the country laughing at her, as well, will beat the pants off of her. Laughter and sly mockery are very effective weapons against the humorless.