Now That You Mention It

An Associated Press headline today says, “Clinton Speculates On Wife In White House.”

Seems kinda icky, somehow, when it’s put that way. Doesn’t it?

Comments

  1. Tam O’Tellico - June 18, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

    I believe if Bill Clinton had speculated on Hilary a little more often in the White House, the country wouldn’t have been forced to suffer the indfignity of the Lewinskir Affair. But while Bill may have been involved with fellatio and fibs, the Republicans engaged in some masturbatory fantasies of their own with the ridiculous charade of impeachment proceedings.

    While we are on the subject, I will also remind Michael that his posts on the Lewinsky Affair are little more than self-gratification. Why? Because some of us did not need to be told by conservatives that Clinton was out of line. For the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Clinton a second time, and not because he got a blow-job or fibbed about it, but because he demonstrated such poor judgment in every aspect of that affair.

    Oh, if only a few more Michaels had had the good sense to follow my good example and learned the only lesson that should have been possible from Bush’s first four years – that he was both ignorant and incompetent. But alas, these folks were perfectly content to be “governed” by someone who truly does represent them.

    Unfortunately, these people can’t see the truth even when it’s laid out for them by people like me. Instead, they see the littered mine-field that passes for a highway to the Baghdad airport as a triumphal parade route, and all the more so since The Great Divider sneaked in and out on of Baghdad on a skirmish in the only war that really matters to him these days: The Polls.

  2. Michael Herdegen - June 18, 2006 @ 4:45 pm

    Unfortunately, these people can’t see the truth even when it’s laid out for them by people like me.

    Yes, the voters are stupid, aren’t they ?

    I suggest that you keep hammering home that message – it’s sure to bring your favorite candidate victory in Nov. and in ’08.

  3. Tam O’Tellico - June 18, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

    Well, Michael, I can assure you there are many former Bush supporters who now realize the error of their ways even here in the buckle of the Bible Belt. But like your leader, I see you are unable to admit to error.

  4. lonbud - June 19, 2006 @ 7:33 am

    I was kind of hoping this post might spawn a thread looking forward instead of backward, given that whatever else may come with the 2008 political season, once it’s done, we won’t have George W. Bush to kick around anymore.

    There’s rich material in here, from the prospect of the country’s first female president, to the qualifications of front-running Hilary Clinton for the position, to the media’s ability and propensity to poison even the most well-intentioned, well-qualified people and ideas in the minds of the voting public (and conversely, its ability and propensity to make even the most dangerous, inept, and ill-advised people and ideas seem worthy and patriotic).

    The sad truth is despite any of the positive things Bill Clinton’s leadership brought to the United States and the world, despite any of the good ideas and good causes he’s championed in the five plus years since he left office, he’ll never be able to be mentioned in the media without engendering some kind of prurient joke in the public mind.

    Or maybe that’s just me…

  5. Tam O’Tellico - June 19, 2006 @ 9:29 pm

    I’m sorry, Lon, but I assumed from the way you framed your initial post that you were like me and simply can’t take Hilary’s candidacy seriously. It’s not because she’s a woman or even because she may or not be qualified. It’s simply that she is viewed so negatively by so many that she can’t get elected. It’s one thing for the Dems to go for another Pyrrhic victory, but it’s quite another if they take the rest of us with them.

    At this point, I think all efforts should be geared toward getting the crooks – Republican and Democrat – out of Congress. Should that tall order be accomplished, I believe Congress will have no problem running Bush, Cheney and Rove out of town on a rail. But what then? I see no candidate presently being proferred by either party that I would gladly vote for for President in 2008.

    But beyond that, given the shit storm that is about to hit this country because of the profligacy and cronyism of this administration and this Congress, whoever occupies the hot seat next will undoubtedly view Katrina as a soothing spring rain. Maybe it’s better that the Republicans who have sown the wind be the ones who must reap the whirlwind.

    I would like to see the glass as half-full, but regardless, I don’t believe it’s safe to drink the water.

  6. Michael Herdegen - June 20, 2006 @ 5:59 am

    Right now Hillary, Mark Warner, and Bill Richardson are about the only nationally-known Dems who have a chance of winning.

    Given Hillary’s massive campaign chest, and how much she’ll be able to raise in ’07 & ’08, it’s really her race to lose.

    It seems premature to me to declare that Hill can’t win in ’08, because we don’t know who her opponent will be. If it’s McCain, for instance, he has a temper, and he might self-destruct.

    Bill was no lock to win either the Dem nomination or the general election, but by being in the race, he was able to benefit from massive good fortune. Same might be true of Hill.

    As for Congress, the Dems won’t win either house this year. Hopefully that will spur them to dump Pelosi, who has been rather pathetic as the Dem House Leader.
    Whether it will cause them to develop some party discipline, which would be quite helpful in ’08, remains to be seen. My guess is “not”.

    Well, Michael, […] I see you are unable to admit to error.

    What error is there to admit to ?
    You don’t like Bush. You feel that he’s wrong about everything. So what ?

  7. lonbud - June 20, 2006 @ 6:59 am

    If anything is premature, writing off a Democratic takeover of either or both houses of Congress this year — at best — seems oblivious of the public’s discontent with the progress of the GWOT, with its nervousness about the domestic economy, and of its wariness for the looming prospect of further concentrations of power in the hands of American theocrats.

    A lot can happen over the lazy dog days of Summer. A few more lost or kidnapped service members in Iraq, a beheading here and there, perhaps the public gets wind of the government’s plans to station troops there permanently…none of those things increase the chances of the Republicans maintaining their hegemony over the legislative branch.

    As for ’08, at this stage, it’s my view McCain will be the likely Republican candidate and he will beat Mrs. Clinton in a landslide. The Democrats will control boh houses of Congress, and the Theocracy will be in firm control of the Judiciary. America will not be a happy or joyful place to live, but it will still be possible to become very rich here.

    Michael, you and I have never been in greater accord on something as we are on the effectiveness of Nancy Pelosi.

  8. Michael Herdegen - June 20, 2006 @ 7:49 am

    Please remember that national polls about the popularity of the institution of Congress are only tangentially informative about how the actual local races are likely to go.

    It’s very common for people to hold Congress as a whole, or a particular political party, in low regard, but to vote for the re-election of their Congressmember, or the party, all the same.
    Merely knowing that people are discontented tells us nothing about whether they’re mad enough to switch allegiance.

    If the election were to be held this Friday, the Dems would pick up maybe eight House seats and two Senate seats, based on local polls in highly contested districts.

    Still, as you say, a lot can happen. My point is essentially that a lot will have to happen for the Dems to have a real shot at taking Congress. Just more of the same won’t change anything.

    America will not be a happy or joyful place to live…

    I thought that such was essentially how you feel about America right now.

  9. Tam O’Tellico - June 21, 2006 @ 9:30 pm

    M: What error is there to admit to? You don’t like Bush. You feel that he’s wrong about everything. So what ?

    I don’t dislike Bush – I despise Bush because he represents everything that’s wrong with “Free-Market” capitalism, that is to say welfare for the rich and the connected. To wit, it now appears there is documentary evidence Cheney orchestrated the shameful no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton subsidiary KBR and that the army lied about that fact. What a surprise that is, eh?

    I despise Cheney even more than Bush – if that’s possible. But it isn’t my dislike or hatred of these bastards that causes me take you to task – it’s that you can’t admit – at least to anyone else – that you made a mistake and voted for an incompetent poser made worse by his blind belief in the Neo-Con religion, and his self-appointed mentor, Cheney, who is nothing more than a slimy con-man pillaging the country’s treasure for the benefit of himself and his Halliburton buddies.

    You are sadly correct in your assessment of the voters viz a viz national displeasure and local loyalty. I suspect 60% of the voters know and knew in their heart of hearts that Cheney has been cooking the books all along for Halliburton, and yet their paranoia outweighed their common sense, and they voted (or so we’re told by Diebold) for these bums again in 2004.

    But I believe you are quite wrong about the depth of anger engendered by the continual revelations of bribery and profiteering, misrepresenation (lying, actually) about the reasons for the Iraq War, the failures of Katrina, immigration, the Dubai ports, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

    This administration and the K-Street Kongress have performed so pitiably that there is great unrest among far more than a simple majority of the voters. As I’ve said before, the “base” (and they certainly are) is the only solid support left for this administration, and even they hold most of Congress in contempt.

    You may choose to turn a blind eye to the misfeasance and malfeasance of these criminals and cronies because you getting by so well on $10,000 a year, but a majority of Americans at this moment are looking for a scapegoat, and the Republicans may yet be thrown beneath the bus in spite of the amateur-hour antics of Nancy and Harry, otherwise known as Dull and Duller.

    But like I said, Michael, I gave up a long time ago expecting you or your leader to ever to admit to error. That’s why you totally misunderstand the irony of the Whitman line I quoted about self-contradiction. He who cannot admit to self-contradiction must be either a liar or a fool.

    You and the Decider are like the old joke: I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

  10. Michael Herdegen - June 23, 2006 @ 10:48 am

    …you can‚Äôt admit – at least to anyone else – that you made a mistake and voted for an incompetent poser…

    That’s my point. I didn’t do what you’ve described. Therefore, no error.

    You seem to have some difficulty separating objective and subjective “truth”, to discerning between opinion and fact. We have differing opinions about Bush & Cheney. Neither is “wrong” – yet.

    History will judge which of our assessments was, in fact, “right”.

    …there is great unrest among far more than a simple majority of the voters.
    a majority of Americans at this moment are looking for a scapegoat, and the Republicans may yet be thrown beneath the bus…

    I say that both houses of Congress will remain in GOP control, you say not.
    Splendid.

    Nov. shall then be definitive about who is reading the nat’l mood better.
    I’ll even make this concession: You may claim that “voter fraud” or “the eeeeevil Diebold Corp.” affected one Senate and three House races. Therefore, if the GOP fails to hold 52 Senate seats, and 221 House seats, then you will be the acknowledged expert.

    That’s why you totally misunderstand the irony of the Whitman line I quoted about self-contradiction.

    Yes ?
    You were “ironically” telling lonbud that violating his most sacred beliefs is just peachy-keen ?

    How interesting. Please explain how that works.

    He who cannot admit to self-contradiction must be either a liar or a fool.

    Perhaps she’s just a person who has thoroughly examined her life and philosophy, and has purged all contradiction.

    After all, what is self-contradiction but a simple failure to examine every opinion one holds, and decide which can be supported and which cannot; it’s also a sign that one cannot deeply commit to a particular belief, and wishes to hold one’s options open, by also professing to hold opposite beliefs.
    Self-contradiction is often a sign of intellectual laziness and/or lack of mental rigor, which is why, as you pointed out earlier, such a person is called a “flip-flopper”, and held in low regard.

    That “examined life” was not on the list along with “fool” and “liar” is both telling and sad.

  11. Michael Herdegen - June 23, 2006 @ 10:59 am

    because you getting by so well on $10,000 a year…

    lonbud at least was adult and disciplined enough to construct a budget which he felt would show that it wan’t possible to live on $ 10,000 a year.
    He had to admit that it was possible, if not desirable.

    You, for some reason, are afraid to look and see whether it can be done.
    Like the Congressional Dems, you offer nothing but blind negation, you cannot hold forth a realistic alternative.

    It’s not a winning strategy for the Congressional Dems, either.

  12. Tam O’Tellico - June 25, 2006 @ 9:13 pm

    Michael, I am so happy that you have managed to survive on $10,000 a year, that you have never had to change your mind, and that you never have to admit error because you make none. And you think I live in a fantasy world?

    I contradict myself daily because I live in a world I can’t control. I make promises I can’t always keep, and I apologize and move on, trusting that my friends will understand and that business people who operate under similar circumstance will, too, otherwise they’re not likely to remain in business very long.

    I change my mind continually and don’t feel concerned in the least about it because I believe that is what a mind is for. But I guess you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the inerrant truth of the Bible and Bush. Obviously, you stopped learning somewhere around three.

    As for Lon’s “violating his most sacred principles”, YOU are utterly missing the point. Lon admitted to a fit of pique in which he spoke more harshly than he wished he had. Only someone who holds to the kind of rigidly perverse absolutism you inevitably evince could ever equate such an act by Lon or anyone else with “violating his most sacred principles”.

    It is just that kind of twisted irrationalization that leads the Rabid Right to view a fib about a blow-job as an impeachable offense, but not an outright fabrication about arms for hostages or cooking the books on WMD – which I will remind you, Rummy and Santorum are still continuing to do. Sorry, airheads, wishing won’t make it so.

    Yeah, I know – Iran-Contra, Plame, Katrina – none of that ever happened. Good luck in Fantasia.

  13. Michael Herdegen - June 27, 2006 @ 6:07 pm

    It is just that kind of twisted irrationalization that leads the Rabid Right to view a fib about a blow-job as an impeachable offense…

    Speaking of Fantasia, that provides the perfect example.
    As anyone who bothered to learn what the Clinton impeachment was about knows, it wasn’t over a sexual act.

    But hey, who needs facts ?

  14. lonbud - June 27, 2006 @ 9:40 pm

    To be fair, Tam did allude to the fact that Clinton’s impeachment was about the fib and not the act.

    Moreover, the point of his criticism goes to the fact of the Right’s preoccupation with the so-called “morality” of lifestyle choices made by those with whom it has political differencess, while being perfectly willing to ignore, deny, and cover up the outright corruption and criminality of its political kin.

    Perjury committed in shame over sexual misconduct is nothing compared to felonious contempt of the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens. If there were any real patriots in this country, Bush and Cheney wouldn’t dare show themselves in public lest they gamble with their very lives.

  15. Michael Herdegen - June 28, 2006 @ 8:29 am

    Perjury committed in shame over sexual misconduct is nothing…

    Yeah, except that W. Clinton feels no shame over his sexual misconduct, as Kathleen Willey et al. can attest.

    He committed perjury, and obstructed justice, out of fear – he wanted to avoid having to attempt to defend his conduct in court, in the Paula Jones matter.
    In the end, he settled with Jones out of court, which is what he should have done in the first place.

  16. John J - June 28, 2006 @ 8:38 am

    I’m always puzzled by people that say Hillary has no chance of winning because of her high negative ratings. Presidential elections tend to be about 45% vote on each side (discounting third party candidates), with only the 10% in the middle who might reasonbly shift their vote among candidates. Jesus Christ himself could return and run as a democrat, and the Christian right would still find some reason to vote against him (I hear he hangs out with prostitutes!). The reverse is true on the other side (That Thomas Jefferson. I don’t like him. He wants to reduce the size of government.)

    The point is that her high negative ratings don’t really matter. Those people aren’t going to vote for her anyway, or any other democratic nominee. It might be an issue if a significant number of the middle 10% had a dislike for her, but the polls don’t address that question.

    Personally, I think Hillary would have a much tougher time in the primaries than the general election. Yes, she is the front runner right now, but don’t let that fool you. Both parties tend to weed out moderates in the primaries for people that satisfy certain special interests and power centers. Ironically, one of the most cited reasons to dismiss Hillary in favor of more extremist candidates is that “she’s not electable.” Personally, I think it’s more of an excuse than a valid reason, if perhaps a self-deluding one.

    A far more interesting question: Is Hillary really as moderate as she seems to be now, or was she really as liberal as she seemed to be during Clinton’s first term? She’ll be attacked by opposite extremes for each of swings, but I think it’s rather unclear what she really believes, and what her actual policies would be. She’d probably make some big whopper mistakes, as any new president would, but my vague guess overall is that she’d be a tougher president than most liberals would like. She does, after all, support the general policy of Bush in Iraq, and presumably she supports anti-liberal-establishment ideas like NAFTA and welfare reform that Bill helped push through.

  17. lonbud - July 5, 2006 @ 6:43 am

    Hillary’s positions on many things are unclear today, and while she may actually be every bit as liberal as she seemed during the early going of her husband’s first term, she’s becom a far more astute political player than she was then. Regardless of her political stance, she’s a polarizing figure at best. After the nation’s polarity recalibrations under Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, I’m not sure we need (or could handle) another extreme swing of the public opinion pendulum.

Leave a Reply