२६ डिसेंबर, २००५
Have you noticed who's been amazingly silent lately?
Hillary Clinton. Has she said anything about the current domestic surveillance controversy? I think she had the good sense to see how this was going to play out and to leave her record clear of comments that would come back to haunt her.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
This is a losing issue for the Democrats and Hillary knows it. They are getting creamed in their private polls.
For every intelligence secret revelation, the President’s approval rating goes up by 8% and the Democrat’s approval numbers go down the same amount.
Scarcely anyone will admit to it, but most peple are perfectly willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security. The revelation that the government is taking proactive measures against terrorism - even ones which may well be illegal, if not unconstitutional (see Orin Kerr's comments here) is reassuring. Of course, most people are also aware that there is something socially unacceptable about admitrting as much, but when you vote, it's just you and a ballot paper, and I think people get pretty honest about what they think when they vote.
People who really, really, want to be President (and have a realistic chance of becoming so) are not very likely to come out for reductions in Presidential powers.
The serious ones realize that they might need to be able to tap suspected terrorist's phone calls, or run checks for radiation.
I got a free DVD in the mail the other day, from a group concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, into the hands of terrorists. The DVD mini-movie (called "Last Best Chance") stars Fred Thompson of Law & Order, as the President of the United States. Anyone viewing this DVD (including "independents" such as I) will probably agree that surveillance (even as the result of a Presidential power grab) is necessary to protect our borders, and that arguing otherwise is a losing political position. You can get your own copy of this free DVD, by going to www.nti.org and following the prompts for the DVD.
What a lame post! Got nothing to say? No problem: post about Hillary *not* saying anything.
Anti-sheck: What a lame comment! Think a post's got nothing to say? Waste your time typing something snarky about it!
Hillary Clinton.
Oh she's cagey, that one.
It's commonly received wisdom that if she stays the course on her pro-Iraq stance, the anti-war crowd which are stalking her now, will actually help her, by making her look tough, and "Presidential".
No need for the abysmal Commander-in-Chief show to have helped her out, since reality is no match for artifice.
Has she said anything about the current domestic surveillance controversy?
I'm guessing she won't.
After all, if she becomes President one day, she might just have to order one on Bill.
Cheers,
Victoria
What a lame post! Got nothing to say? No problem: post about Hillary *not* saying anything.
A wiseman once said, silence sometimes speaks volumes.
Why not follow that good advice, and the one about playing with toasters in bathtubs?
Cheers,
Victoria
Hillary Clinton has been by and large a very good politician since becoming senator. She has said most of the right things and keeps quiet at the right time. She will probably be a more formidable presidential candidate than conservatives think, her main drawback being her relatively poor public speaking ability.
her main drawback being her relatively poor public speaking ability.
Her main drawback, which counts double because she's a woman (that's just how it is, folks), is that she lacks human warmth.
We can take poor public speakers and make them into presidents (Truman, LBJ, Carter), we can take policy wonks and turn them into presidents (Roosevelt, Nixon, Clinton), we can even take a man who stumbles over his words, and turn him into president (Ford, Bush Pere et Fils), but they all share one common characteristic:
People could relate to them.
Do any of you get the Biography Channel on cable? Do you watch it on Sundays, during the mysteries marathons?
There's a spot advertising the channel, which highlights the various interviews given to the Biog Channel.
One of them is a short, short clip of Hillary Clinton going:
"I was beside myself with anger and disappointment at what Bill had done"
It has to be heard to be believed.
There's not one iota of emotion present when she says that.
It's actually rather creepy, and can't be dismissed as so much WASPy reticence.
When your prize is the Presidency, there's a special ingredient X that each successful candidate has.
One of them, to my mind, is undoubtedly being able to likeable to a great number of people, because likeability in our American society is short-hand for sincerity and down-to-earthness.
She just doesn't have it.
Cheers,
Victoria
"Most people aren't sacrificing any freedom. If you don't have a terror connection, NSA doesn't have time for you."
It would be very comforting to really be able to believe that. I can't quite manage it though. Nonetheless, I congratulate you on your faith.
Anti-Sheck: Your real problem with this post is that it pains you to realize that HC is not on your side on this issue. You thought all the good people would denounce the surveillance, but you weren't noticing the people who were keeping silent. Sorry to burst your bubble!
We can take poor public speakers and make them into presidents (Truman, LBJ, Carter), we can take policy wonks and turn them into presidents (Roosevelt, Nixon, Clinton), we can even take a man who stumbles over his words, and turn him into president (Ford, Bush Pere et Fils)
Well, technically Ford was never elected, and WJC was an excellent speaker. Your point is well taken though, Hillary often sounds like someone saying what she thinks she should say, instead of someone saying what they mean. Whether she actually possesses warmth is debatable but she certainly has trouble conveying it.
I think that in every single presidential election since 1960, when debates started on TV, the warmer of the two candidates has won. Strange that more Democrats haven't won, but it's true. Think about it!
We already know that the Clinton administration authorized spying on foriegn business calls to help American business. We already know that the Clinton administration made full use of ECHELON. We already know that the Clinton administration used the powers of the Executive Branch to gather and disseminate information on their enemies.
Of course she's staying silent. (notice slick Willy himself and al "bore" Gore have been silent also.)
Michael,
No reasonable person is saying that mistakes won't be made, but the beneifts outweigh those mistakes. "Civil rights" is not an absolute, and with borders pretty much open we don't have many protective strategies available.
Do you really think the government is using this as some sort of pretense to spy on Americans for the purpose of...what is the purpose again, anyway? Better yet, tell George Clooney--he'll make a movie or three about it.
Well, technically Ford was never elected, and WJC was an excellent speaker.
Yes, I diluted my points by including Ford, as I noticed later, although I didn't claim President Clinton (Male ;) was not an excellent speaker.
...albeit, I don't think I can remember one memorable address he made in the whole of the 8 years he was in office.
The only easily-remembered phrase, for me, was his brilliant, "There's nothing that's wrong with America, that can't be fixed with what's right in America".
Contrast this with JFK's 2 years in office, whose every syllable has been enshrined by a misty halo of heroism, or the 8 of Ronald Reagan, and you can see, it is WJC's projection of excellence in speech-making that made its mark.
Your point is well taken though, Hillary often sounds like someone saying what she thinks she should say, instead of someone saying what they mean. Whether she actually possesses warmth is debatable but she certainly has trouble conveying it.
Yes, I'd go along with that characterisation.
Most of us contemporaries, can never truly penetrate the heart and mind of any illustrious person of our time.
It takes the distance of history to get a good handle on a person, and even then it's often wrong.
But I think that most people will own that Bill Clinton is more "knowable" than his wife, and that of course, takes us back to our combined points.
Cheers,
Victoria
"There's a spot advertising the channel, which highlights the various interviews given to the Biog Channel."
Did anyone else read that and think--for just a second--that it said "the Blog Channel"? I thought maybe I'd blinked and missed something really cool starting up over the holidays--blogs on TV!
I think Bush will get FIFTY POINTS every time someone says he can't disobey any law he doesn't like. By 2007 his approval rating should be eight hundred percent.
I think Ann Altmouse is a person DESPERATE for attention, if he/she has to create a blog persona based upon someone else.
Big Dirigible: Hmmm.... well, what can I say? Nixon is the exception to the rule. Inexplicable. How did he ever make it? Or I could say: but remember when Nixon turned on the charm? What a sweetheart! Or, let's just have the rule start in 1976.
Seven Machos: Good point.
It remains a mystery to me that someone would think it scandalous for the federal government to be spying during a war. Does the conversation go like this:
"Spying? During a war?? But... but that would be cheating!!
Perhaps those finding scandal in spying think we are not, in fact, at war, and that therefore we mustn't be spying. The naivete' exposed by decrying government spying during peacetime should be shameful, but seems to be a label worn with pride.
Lastly, those rejecting such spying might be reliving the adolescent and leftist rebellion of the late sixties. Except they are "young turks" no longer, and the rehashed arguments smell of mothballs.
As for Hillary's silence, well, it does speak volumes when a potentially potent political scandal goes unmentioned. I think the three choices above, plus the fact of Bill's domestic spying, have kept her in Elmer Fudd mode: vewy, vewy quiet.
Word verification: yucqcuch
Is it just me, or are the "words" getting longer, and harder to type? My word must be from Uzbekistan, meaning "Avoid the matzo balls; they're stale.".
"Most people aren't sacrificing any freedom. If you don't have a terror connection, NSA doesn't have time for you."
Well, I tend to agree with you - but I think our liberal friends, justifiably or not, have a genuine sense of anxiety that their activities are being looked at as being suspect. There is a peculiar sense that people who are opposed to the war in Iraq are somehow being "unamerican," and there rally are calls from certain corners of the right to have people like Michael Moore strung up for treason. Now, I don't worry about the NSA reading my e-mail, because they will swiftly discover two things: firstly, I'm incredibly boring, and secondly, despite maintaining a blog called "I respectfully dissent," I hold very few opinions which would be seriously objectionable to the present government (and in any instance, I'm more of a "sit-down-and-write-about-it" dissenter than a "go-down-to-DC-and-protest" sort of chap). So I think that even if it's entirely unjustified, there is this genuine anxiety on the left, which pushes them even further beyond the boundaries of where they need to be to engage in constructive debate. I read some liberal blogs, and I occaisionally try to engage them in the comments section, but it's almost impossible, because they're so highly-strung right now that you can't talk to a lot of them (which isn't the case with a lot of them IRL, funnily enough - I have several liberal friends with whom I get along just fine).
well, what can I say? Nixon is the exception to the rule. Inexplicable. How did he ever make it?
There is another rule. See the Anchoress' trenchant neighbor: http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/12/23/not-the-effect-the-dems-or-press-intended/
Humphrey was a wimp, and that plays badly here. As it should. Big in Europe, though.
I was a a party of academics right after the last election and asked if they was a bunch a democrats. All nodded, in unison. I told 'em John Kerry had announced he was the front-runner for their nomination in 2008, and then gushed enquiringly, "How do you feel about that?" It was sort of like zapping the Borg - they all twitched around trying to see what everyone else held as an opinion before offering theirs, but at last one sad woman said, "Well, I gave him money, and I worked for him, and I REALLY wanted him to be elected, but he wasn't ...really... a very attractive candidate." And then she looked nervously at the rest of them. Was she out of line? Would they agree? Had we consensus here?
I told them, "Not very attractive? God! You have to go back past Gore, past Mondale, even past Carter (!), you have to get back to NIXON, to find a less attractive candidate."
The marketers call it the Q factor.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा