ADDED: The Daily News says:
Alarmed by his wife's slide in the polls and disarray within her backbiting campaign, a beside-himself Bill Clinton has leaped atop the barricades and is furiously plotting a cure - or coup....I wonder who's going to get coupée.
Another Democrat with close connections to the Clinton campaign describes Bill Clinton as "very engaged and very agitated. He's yelling at [chief strategist] Mark Penn a lot."...
One post-Thanksgiving meeting erupted into finger-pointing over the loss of her advantage.
"They all want to kill each other," said a source aware of the closed-door meeting.
The backstabbing involves several high-level people in the campaign, including Penn, Mandy Grunwald, Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson, sources said.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
For some reason I thought this post was going to be about sex, but apparently not.
Made ya look!
Anyway... seems like a huge admission. Why is she making it?
Just gal talk, I s'pose.
To digress, it is scary that a bizarrely dressed person (the 'robot' in the Drudge story) can apparently get so close to a former president, vide The Kerry 'Tase Me, Bro' Affair.
"I'm just a little woman trying to make her way in this big scary world. Gone from baking cookies to the wicked world of campaigning. What shall I do?!"
Followed by a swoon, and helpful men coming alongside to lift her back to her feet, and maybe offering to light her cigarette.
Conway Twitty's song comes to mind:
I don't know what I'm saying
as my trembling fingers touch forbidden places
I only know that I have waited
for so long for the chance that we are taking
I don't know and I don't care
what made you tell him you don't love him anymore
and as I taste your tender kisses
I can tell you've never been this far before
[Apologies to Trooper York.]
I think it's a reminder that you're voting for Bill when you vote for her.
The phrase ``with Bill'' is the point.
Of course if she were doing her job Bill wouldn't be fooling around.
Hillary's campaign is collapsing. Her poll numbers are plummeting in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The glare of the public eye shines not too prettily on the iron princess.
Schadenfreude anyone?
I'm helping myself to a great heapful.
It all depends on what the definition of with is. The Clinton's are lucky that Leno is doing reruns.
I agree, paddy, she's pleading girlism.
A campaign built on saying nothing of substance and then changing your mind about it doesn't work so good. Ask John Kerry.
Seriously, how much trouble can her campaign be in? We are talking about Iowa for God's sake. Don't forget Howard Dean 4 years ago.
It's another small slip but suggests that she's less ready for primetime than she would have everyone else believe. Remember, this is her first real electoral test. Running for the Senate in deep-blue NY against Rick Lazio in 2000 was a cakewalk. No one can even recall who her opponent was in 2006. Being pressed hard, being in real danger of losing an election, is a new thing for her (even if it wasn't for Bill). Now that she's not quite so inevitable, it's pretty clear that her political instincts are not so great when talking off the cuff or when she has to change her game.
Joe- It is only Iowa, but a loss there is pretty big. Yes, her national numbers are very strong, but a loss coming out of the box.......ain't good.
If Al (Capt. Planet) Gore were in this race, Hillary would be a footnote.
I am still amazed that he didn't jump in.
Forget Gore. Gore won't run because he can't run. He's already gone fully around the bend as chief global warming hoaxster, and as such he'd actually have to debate and defend all that stuff. No can do.
Geez, these folks working on Hillary's campaign seem really uptight, as does ol' Bill!
Can't they all just get along?
"The backstabbing involves several high-level people in the campaign, including Penn, Mandy Grunwald, Ann Lewis and Howard Wolfson, sources said."
This couldn't happen to a better group of folks.
Go 'Bama!
Is this when I say that this couldn't happen to a nicer group of guys?
(Where guys is a generic non-sex specific term)
(Or do I just wait 'til tim says it!)
seems like a huge admission.
No it doesn't.
If Al (Capt. Planet) Gore were in this race, Hillary would be a footnote. I am still amazed that he didn't jump in.
The Democratic Party might do a little token butt-kissing where Al Gore is concerned, but underneath it all is a group of people who remember that Al Gore manged to blow what should have been the easiest Presidential campaign since Bush succeeded Reagan in 1988. There are still a LOT of Democratic insiders (and Democratic campaign contributors) who are pissed at him for screwing things up.
Put it this way: do you dislike Bush? Well, you've got Al Gore to thank for him.
Anyway... seems like a huge admission. Why is she making it?
I don't think it is an admission. I think it is spin.
Hillary was deeply involved in her husband's 1992 Presidential bid, as any number of post-election "inside the Clinton campaign" books written by Clinton insiders revealed. She HAS "done this with Bill", twice before. I think she's just SAYING she hasn't because painting herself as a first-time Presidential campaigner serves as an excuse for the fact that she's not doing that great in Iowa.
There are still a LOT of Democratic insiders (and Democratic campaign contributors) who are pissed at him for screwing things up.
If there are any, they should be pissed at themselves for letting insane pundits like Dowd, Matthews, and the rest that let them rant about lactation, button counts, earth tones, bathtub rings, and countless outright lies that went on nightly about him. Anyone that still says he was a poor candidate that lost to the biggest fool to ever occupy the White House ought to have their head examined.
Even then he still didn't lose, but you already knew that.
The notion that Bill Clinton hasn't been central to the HC campaign since day one is laughable. Which means he's been a party to most if not all of the mistakes of her campaign. He's not riding to the rescue. He just can't keep his big mouth shut.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what he's done, the American people in their divine wisdom will most likely return the head rapist to the White House, along with the wicked witch, of course.
Geez, these folks working on Hillary's campaign seem really uptight, as does ol' Bill!
Ol' Bill sees his third term slipping away.
But Dax, my point in bringing up Dean was that once the big primaries take place, and the Dem party machine (which backs Hillary, I believe) takes over, Iowa will be forgotten. At least I can see why some like Obama, but what really puzzles me is on the Republican end; who are all these people for Huckabee?
Too bad I'm banned -- otherwise I could tell you what Ann's doing right this moment.
Oh, I'll tell you anyway.
She's doing her Miss Havisham act -- all alone in her room, with a mouldering wedding cake in the corner, waiting for Glenn Reynolds to link to her.
the American people in their divine wisdom will most likely return the head rapist to the White House,
Probably not, since Reagan's dead.
Sounds like a whole bunch of expectations managing. If she loses Iowa, it is because she had to learn the ropes, and there is plenty of time to right the ship. If she wins, then it is a sign of her ability to learn and to make the tough changes needed for success.
All while letting Democratic voters know-- if you think it has been Hill's show so far, its going to be more Bill's in the future. She does not mind going from standing by her man to standing behind her man if it gets her elected. She can do more to advance feminist positions as President that she without winning, even if she has to act contrary to feminist impulses to get elected.
Whatever it takes.
Did someone step in something? There is a rancid smell in here.
joe said...
Seriously, how much trouble can her campaign be in? We are talking about Iowa for God's sake. Don't forget Howard Dean 4 years ago.
If this were 4 years ago or before, joe would be right. With primary season so front-loaded this year, everything is going to be over quickly. The momentum coming out of Iowa and NH will be more important than ever before. The next round of early primaries will basically tell the story, with little chance for a losing candidate to recover.
The complaint used to be that large states, such as California, had no influence in the primary process because of their late primaries. Now everybody's moved their primaries up, but NH and Iowa are still first, so their closeness to big primaries exaggerates their influence, not lessens it. Candidates have to shoot their wad in a short time, and there is little chance to regain either momentum or money. Hillary has the advantage with her deep pockets and the Democratic establishment behind her, so she could recover from a loss in Iowa and even NH and still outspend everybody in the next round. Her money and backing work for her, but lack of momentum from a loss would work against her. I still expect her to be the nominee despite the speed bumps. Grumble.
This really sucks. Primaries should be more spread out, so that it's a long haul and you really get to see the candidates in action. OR there should be a national Primary Day. As usual, we now have the worst of both.
The quote means simply that TheClintons(tm) did not enter the Iowa caucuses for the first term of their CoPresidencies. What this means to me is that if Hillary wins the nomination, the No Third Term amendment should bar (th)he(i)r running against the Republican candidate.
It's thrilling to squish up that shit into shit balls and then fling it, isn't it, Chrisypoo?
Anyone that still says he was a poor candidate that lost to the biggest fool to ever occupy the White House ought to have their head examined.
Well obviously anyone who thinks George Bush is the biggest fool ever to occupy the White House ought to have his head examined.
But the fact remains that Gore was part of an enormously popular Presidential administration, the economy was doing well, we were (apparently) at peace, and Gore's personal scandals weren't any worse than his opponent's. Were Gore not an incompetent campaigner with zero personal charisma, he'd have been President in 2001.
Mind you, I'm glad he wasn't.
Nobody's going to nominate a guy who couldn't even win the Presidency riding on Bill Clinton's coattails. Gore's political career ended when he blew the 2000 election. Whine about the Supreme Court all you want, but the race would never have even been close enough to wind up in the courts if Gore had done an even marginally decent job.
Well obviously anyone who thinks George Bush is the biggest fool ever to occupy the White House ought to have his head examined.
The better statement probably would include in recent memory. All Presidents exhibit foolish behavior (See: Clinton, Lewinsky), but the Presidents in my lifetime (back to Ike when I was born) at least had a long enough record of actual accomplishments before being elected President that you could think of them of more than just an empty suit.
It's nice to see the wheels (apparently) fall of the Hillary! Express. She's tormented the US by campaigning since -- what -- 1904? Now she herself can be tormented.
but the race would never have even been close enough to wind up in the courts if Gore had done an even marginally decent job.
Remember the debate when Gore walked over to Bush when Bush was talking, trying to intimidate him with height I guess, and Bush just paused, looked at him, nodded, and went back to talking as the audience laughed?
Gore is and was a boob, but don't forget the Nader factor in 2000. That said I think his political career is still toast, not only for losing then, but for putting the country through hell by trying to steal the election after retracting his concession. He has behaved like a barking moonbat ever since, and he does not want to answer any hard question about the global warming hoax he is pushing.
The better statement probably would include "in recent memory."
Only if you're not old enough to remember the Ford and Carter administrations.
Gore is and was a boob, but don't forget the Nader factor in 2000.
The "Nader Factor" amounted to a whopping 2.74% of the popular vote.
Look at 1988, which was much the same as 2000 but with the parties reversed. VP of an enormously popular President, things going well at home and abroad, etc. George H. W. Bush trounced his opponent by 7.72% of the popular vote. And let's face it, Dukakis was a better candidate than Dubya was. For starters, he could speak coherently.
Even if ALL the Nader voters had pulled the lever for Gore (which of course they wouldn't have, since a lot of Nader's support comes from people so far Left that they don't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats), Gore would have achieved a whopping 51% of the popular vote. That's pathetic, given that he was running under ideal conditions against a relative neophyte.
Anyone that still says he was a poor candidate that lost to the biggest fool to ever occupy the White House ought to have their head examined.
George, Rev pretty much hit it on the head. That was Gore’s election to lose. If you want to blame his loss on a bunch of blue hairs who couldn’t figure out a Democrat designed ballot that a third grader could figure out, go crazy. Fact is, if Gore could have simply carried his own state, he would have won. If you can't even carry the state you served as a Senator, you probably don't deserve to be President.
Even then he still didn't lose, but you already knew that.
Guess denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Christopher/Robin -
Actually, that was kinda funny. Congratulations, if it happened once, maybe it can happen again.
Nah.
Just an observation as a committed Democrat:
For Hillary to win, she's got to either blow away the field in January before the Feb. 5 'Super-Duper Tuesday' when most of the country votes, or hope that multiple candidates win something in January and are still all running by then.
That's because while I know a number of Democrats for whom Hillary is their first choice, I know very few for whom she is their second choice. (in fact, in most cases she is either first choice or last choice.)
The reason that matters is because if on Feb. 5, several candidates have dropped out you are likely to find that most of the support of Democrats who presently support Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich would coalesce around one candidate, and it wouldn't be Hillary.
As I said, I talk to and correspond with Democrats on a daily basis, so I think I'm on pretty solid ground predicting that.
Mentioning Gore here is like throwing chum in the water. Everyone still seems to fixate on Gore 2000 and forgets completely about Gore 2004, a more bitter loss and defining moment for him.
I think Clank hit it right, that the front-loading and quick primary season will ensure that Hillary lasts and wins.
I really wish that no delegates could be committed before the conventions, letting the brokers in the smoke filled back room duke it out. Gore could win in that scenario. This is the only thing I agree with LOS on, but it aint gonna happen.
Also, let us not forget that the enormously popular Bill Clinton had an assist from Ross Perot each time.
Also, let's not forget that, despite what the media may say, the economy was already starting to slip downwards during the election. I realize it had not nearly hit bottom, but there were already pretty strong signs - at a law firm, you can tell because suddenly nobody is lateralling out and a higher percentage of post-summer offers are being accepted. I am a member of the class of 2001 (which means I summered in 2000) and believe me I saw and felt what was happening in the fall of 2000. That's not really a dig at Clinton - economies don't stay hot forever and he had a damn good run - but rather the media for being unwilling to report it until after GWB took the helm.
Now she's claiming that Barack Obama was a crackdealer in kindergarten. Rather audacious for a woman who should have been indicted for insider trading years ago.
Holdfast is correct about the stock market - it peaked in March of 2000. You can look up the charts. GWB was not even the nominee yet, but our media portrayed it as his recession. Just like the fact that the Senate rejected Kyoto 95-0 during the Clinton administration is always reported as "Bush rejects Kyoto."
NEVER run a competitive campaign-? EXACTLY WHEN did she start sharing his experiences-? Or is she like so many-who show up to share credit and were never in the room for the blame-?
He's gonna save her campaign-?-!
What's SHE gonna do when as President really-BAD- things happen-? What general is gonna follow -HIS- orders-? What Civil Bureaucrat is gonna obey HIM in time of crisis-?
Who wants to go before Congress or the American People and tell them that they obeyed the Presidential Spouse in a time of crisis-?
How much fun would the Democrats or the World had -IF- Laura had stepped forward issuing orders on Sept 11, 2001-?
Can anyone believe that He will sit quietly doing nothing for eight minutes- months- years-? Pick one
John:
Everyone still seems to fixate on Gore 2000 and forgets completely about Gore 2004, a more bitter loss and defining moment for him.
?!?
One flaw in this argument: Gore didn't run in 2004! In fact he announced he wouldn't even before most of the candidates announced they would
Gore chose not to run at all in 2004. In fact, he made that decision very early on, in late 2002. In summer of 2002, he was sharply critical of the Bush administration for changing the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. Since he was the only major American political figure to do so at the time, he was attacked for 'running for President,' with people suggesting that he was actually out campaigning. So, he publically announced that he would not be a candidate in 2004.
It is true that the candidate that Gore endorsed for 2004, Howard Dean, did lose. But that had more to do with Howard Dean than it had to do with Gore.
Rev, both Ford and Carter had a record of accomplishments (Carter more than Ford, IMO) before becoming President. If you were voting for Carter (I think I did in '80 -- yes, I remember lambasting a college roomate for tossing a vote away on Anderson) you at least knew he was not an empty suit.
"Rev, both Ford and Carter had a record of accomplishments (Carter more than Ford, IMO) before becoming President."
How do you figure? Both did a stint in the navy, Ford during WWII, Carter just after. Both went into politics pretty much right after. Nothing to be ashamed of from either of them to that point, but what record of accomplishments are you referring to?
Carter's accomplishment? On a deviousness comparison scale he makes Huckabee look as pure as the driven snow.
On a deviousness comparison scale he makes Huckabee look as pure as the driven snow.
Don't be too hasty. I'm sure Huckabee will step up to the devious challenge if given half the chance.
"Rev, both Ford and Carter had a record of accomplishments (Carter more than Ford, IMO) before becoming President."
Britney Spears has a record of accomplishments. That doesn't mean she's not a fool.
Easy to criticize accomplishments, I suppose, if you are a Bush supporter, since he has practically none at all, except in the negative vein.
Eli,
Thanks, and you are correct. My recollection was that Gore dropped out during the primary season when he got the message that the Dem base wanted a break from his 2000 performance, and new blood going forward. I still think got this message, but it was obviously prior to the primary season. I will check my dates prior to typing from now on.
Ed McMahon: Mandy Grunwald and Ann Lewis?
The Great Carnak: Name two women that would cause men to join the other team!
Ed McMahon: Hi-Yo!!
Drummer: Ba Dump Bump! Crash!
This is typical Clinton. Always blame someone else for problems. I doubt that Hillary herself could be the blame for here slide. I mean, gee, she is not a woman of accomplsihment, she does not have thrity five years of experience in public policy, her legal ethics have always left something to be desired, she is a second rate Senator who has not proposed any serious legislation; in effect, she is an empty pantsuit.
But, that could not be the problem. Nope, the problem is the campaign staff. Well, at least Bill knows what the definition of is is.
Easy to criticize accomplishments, I suppose, if you are a Bush supporter, since he has practically none at all
Eli, I don't care if a person had great accomplishments prior to becoming President. The topic under discussion is "the biggest fool to ever occupy the White House", not "person entering the White House with the weakest resume".
Even if it were the case that Carter's pre-Presidency resume was impressive, the fact is that he was the biggest screw-up we've had IN the White House since before the Great Depression. Even the "accomplishment" he is most often praised for -- the Camp David accords -- was bad for America in the long run.
If you want to talk weak resumes, I would argue that John F Kennedy's was even weaker than Bush's (and what accomplishments he DID have were even more due to nepotism than Bush's). But aside from that, yes, Bush would be the weakest.
Maybe they will call in Bob Shrum to straighten out this campaign!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9895-2004Sep9?language=printer
RE: weak resumes
Lincoln had the weakest resume of any President. He followed Buchanan, who had one of the strongest resumes of any President.
Resumes are important, but not sufficient.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा