Political junkies are witnessing a true phenomenon in presidential politics: more than two years before the next presidential election cycle there's a movement to target someone considered by the news media and pundits to be a frontrunner in 2008 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Even with softball interviews by the likes of Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer, and with almost a daily practice by some members of the mainstream news media of publishing her press releases as if they were news, Hillary Clinton is facing tough opposition not only from Republicans but also from members of her own party.
Right after a poll showed last week that most Americans would definitely not vote for her, Senator John Kerry suddenly sprung to life on the ski slopes of Switzerland to head up an attempt at filibustering the confirmation of US Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. It's no secret within the Beltway that Kerry believes he has a shot at the presidency even after losing to President Bush in 2004. There's no doubt that Kerry monitors the polls that are showing Hillary is vulnerable to attack from both the right and the left.
In fact, there are many Republicans storing their symbolic "flip-flop" sandals for the next Presidential campaign since Clinton is all over the place on issues, taking positions based on whom she's addressing. She's for tough border security, but votes no on legislation that would increase the number of border agents and detention beds. She claims she supports the war, but says she's sorry she voted to go to war after the reigning queen of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan, spanked her in California by calling her a warmonger. She wants to curtail illegal immigration, but she also wants to provide illegal immigrants with education and healthcare.
Former staff members in Bill Clintons White House are privately saying she could be a risky choice. To the left, an anti-war stop Hillary movement is gathering traction, threatening her ability to unite the Democrats. Which is possibly why Al Gore is criss-crossing the US giving the most vitriolic speeches for left-wing groups such as MoveOn.Org. He too envisions another shot at the White House prize.
According to the Sunday Times, Mike McCurry, Bill Clintons White House press secretary, claims he fears the 2008 campaign could be brutal for the former first lady. He said he remembers how she became a lightning rod for conservatives during her husbands years in office.
She has proven that she works hard at being senator and does that job well, but bringing the country together and moving it in a different direction is an entirely different matter, McCurry said. It is very hard to reinvent yourself in politics.
However, McCurry proves that old habits, such as blowing smoke when it comes to the Clintons, are hard to break. Ask McCurry what piece of legislation Hillary has sponsored and you will get a glazed look. When New Yorkers are asked what's she done for New York State or for the nation, besides bloviating at functions and hobnobbing with the Manhattan and Hollywood elite, they usually answer with abstract notions such as "she gives us hope."
It's the same reaction you get if you ask African-Americans what Bill Clinton, the "first black president" did for them in his eight years in office. They think and think and then say, "He gave us hope." Hope doesn't pay the rent, feed the kids or make car payments. The true answer for both Clintons is: they do nothing but talk your ears off.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last week found that 51% of Americans definitely would not vote for Hillary and only 16% said they definitely would. Among men, 60% said they would not vote for her. And 43% of women said they wouldn't vote for her either.
Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? Weve been through the Clintons, weve been through the Gores, weve been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics, said Leon Panetta, a driving force within the Democrat Party and a Bill Clinton loyalist.
The Democrats have a new rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are eager to win, but he remains little known on the national scene at this point. However, that is likely to change as the perception of Senator Clinton as damaged good starts to take hold within the Democrat Party.
The doubts about Clintons electabilty are growing almost with each speech. On Martin Luther King's Birthday, during a memorial in Harlem, Hillary chose to attack Republicans rather than honor the civil rights icon. She even managed to include the words "plantation" and "Republicans" in the same sentence in order to continue the myth of Republican racism.
Talk host Laura Ingraham was incensed over Hillary's playing of the race card. Ingraham told her listeners it was a speech designed to create fear in blacks that the evil Republicans can't be trusted. Even news stories about her ignoring washed-up Calypso singer Harry Belafonte at a New York function were promulgated to protect her from being linked to the rantings of an ignorant fool who prides himself as an intellectual.
Conservatives know that Hillary's heart is with Belafonte, but her mind wants to reside once again in the White House. As with singer Madonna, Hillary tries and tries to reinvent herself and it could have worked had there been no Internet news and blogs, no talk radio, and no Fox News Channel.
Clintons small successes with voters in the small towns in New York is seen as proof that she can win over conservatives, although according to last weeks poll, 90% of Republicans will definitely not vote for her. Even New York Democrats -- many of whom are former Reagan Democrats -- may be comfortable with her warming a seat in the senate, but giving her the power of President and Commander-in-Chief is a horse -- or donkey -- of a different color.
New Republic magazine, the left-wing weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the South and Midwest. She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage, it warned.
So folks, the Stop Hillary train is leaving the station. And it's coming to a station near you.
#6
Jeebus but that woman cannot take a good picture.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/02/2006 20:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
that's cuz indians were right: the film captures your soul
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/02/2006 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Lol - now I'm getting flashbacks, echoes really, from some very distant childhood moments with my great-grandmother... And she would completely agree with you, Frank, lol.
From John Hinderaker at Power Line. Too good to pass up. Click on the link for a link to the report that spawned this wonderful statement:
"Let's hear it for the Pentagon's Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program, Boeing, and whoever else is involved. The conventional wisdom is that in asymmetrical warfare, time is on the side of the primitives. That fails to take into account, however, that for us, the pace of technological improvement is constantly accelerating, whereas for them...there are only so many ways you can boil a goat in a cave."
Oooo, that's cold, John. I love it! :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/02/2006 15:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Actually, the article points out there is at least one new way you can boil a goat (or an ass) in a cave.
Flamethrowers, LAW rockets, white phosphorous (in grenade, artillery shell, and air-to-ground munitions varieties), fuel air explosives, and nuclear devices should all prove adequate to the solution of boiling goats in caves...
Wall Street Journal, excerpted from a longer column
On the subject of political passion Tom Shales, longtime TV critic of the Washington Post and possessor of occasional eloquence, wrote a piece this week that deserves comment. I don't mean his State of the Union review, which began, "George Bush may or may not be the worst president since Herbert Hoover . . ." I mean his attack last Monday on "Flight 93," the A&E television movie on that fated 9/11 flight. Mr. Shales said it was shameful that vulgar dramatizers would "exploit" the pain of those on the flight and those they left behind. Or as he put it, he had, innocent that he is, thought it "unthinkable" that "even the sleaziest producers" would "exploit any aspect of a nightmare that the nation had witnessed in horror."
By exploit I think he means "remember." There is nothing vulgar, low or unhelpful about remembering the particular heroism of Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and dozens of others. Their action--they stormed the cockpit that day, forced the plane down and kept it from hitting a Washington target, presumably the Capitol or the White House--was a moment of courage and sacrifice, and we all owe them a great deal. Imagine if the particular wound the hijackers meant to inflict had been successful that day. Imagine how much worse it would have been,
Remembering the men and women of Flight 93 isn't a self-indulgence but a duty. One senses in the Shales review the sneaky little suggestion that those who would remember, and who would tell this story (based by the way on the surviving telephone and other harrowing tapes of that flight) are in fact being political. But one suspects it is Mr. Shales who is being political. Maybe he fears those stupid Americans will get all emotional if they revisit part of the horror of that day, and go out and do something bad. Let's not speak of it lest the rabble be roused.
What a snob.
You wonder at the intemperance of angry young lefties and then think of the example set for them by exhausted old lefties.
I watched the A&E movie Monday, and it was good . . . consistent with the historical record, respectful of the people on the plane, and more than a little uncomfortably remindful of what 9/11 was and what we're fighting for. (Also perhaps a little too Oprah in spots, but that's A&E for you.) There's also this one in production for theatrical release in April, which looks like it's also being done right. (The trailer'll give you goosebumps.)
I can see why someone like Shales would dislike it . . . it interferes with maintaining the September 10 mindset which is the foundation of the whole liberal elite edifice.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/02/2006 12:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You wonder at the intemperance of angry young lefties and then think of the example set for them by exhausted old lefties.
Tom Shales: Member in good standing with the non traditional patriot krowd.
#2
Mr. Shales said it was shameful that vulgar dramatizers would "exploit" the pain of those on the flight and those they left behind. Or as he put it, he had, innocent that he is, thought it "unthinkable" that "even the sleaziest producers" would "exploit any aspect of a nightmare that the nation had witnessed in horror."
Why don't you talk a walk down the hall to the Post cartoonist's office, Tom, and run your little speech by them? They'll probably have a good chuckle over it...
#1
Another "expert". I've a simple rule. See the phrase Moderate Islam, stop reading.
p.s. There's an excellent piece in Weekly Standard The Counterrevolution in Military Affairs
Fashionable thinking about defense ignores the great threats of our time. by Ralph Peters
#2
Fourth Generation warfare ends the nanosecond the US decides to quit trying to reform muslim assholes, but instead decide to stack their bodies like cordwood.
Posted by: ed ||
02/02/2006 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: DanNY ||
02/02/2006 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
yawn it is very boring
misses points too.
great danger is Islamism poisoning well of Western culture. we're importing it.
On Oct. 23, 2005, I predicted "An earthquake of magnitude 6.6 or above in Southern California (<36N) before or on Feb. 3, 2006. Likely, in the circle bigger than or equal to 7" with image 200510211800eCalifCL1.jpg to show the earthquake cloud and the circled area to both the USGS and the India Miditech [1] . On Oct. 24, I posted this prediction to the public. Due to requests, I post this explanation...
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/02/2006 20:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Not that clouds cause earthquakes, clouds can be an indicator. If you read his report here (pdf) on the Bam earthquake predictions, you'll understand his methodology.
Here's another recent article on earthquake prediction.
#16
Here on Guam we've been getting scores, iff not a few hundred, of tremors and light quakes [4.0 or below] for nearly two months now. Although a handful + Alaska/Japan eruptions have been reported in the local news, most are not and wid no explanation from the local Geological office.
Therefore, if this prediction fails, I hope people to understand the problem not due to the earthquake cloud, but due to no support from governments, including the American government to solved those satellite data problems and earthquake data problems.
Or possibly it failed because this guy can't predict earthquakes. earthquake.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/02/2006 23:39 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Oops - hit "submit" too soon.
Oh, well - I expect he can't predict double earthquakes, either. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/02/2006 23:40 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I always have wondered why they don't use animals to predict it. I once remember reading about successful studies in that regard. Clearly, animals are able to predict tsunamis. I have often wondered if "earthquake weather" which is difficult to describe - but can be described as an unusal stillness, might be due to a difference in the normal sounds that birds and other animals make.
A A Something very important is happening in Denmark -- a showdown over freedom, tolerance, and their wolfish menaces in religious clothing. So, please, turn off "American Idol," put down the Game Boy for a moment, and pay attention. This does affect you.
Last October, a Danish newspaper called the Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The illustrations included various depictions of the prophet Muhammad, some innocuous (Muhammad walking in a pasture) and a few with provocative references to radical Islamic terrorism. One showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; another had Muhammad wielding a sword in front of two, wide-eyed Muslim women covered in black abayas; another featured a cartoonist hunched over his desk, sweating in fear, as he drew Muhammad in suicide bomb-like apparel.
The newspaper was making a vivid editorial point about European artists' fear of retaliation for drawing any pictures of Muhammad at all. (Remember: It's been a little over a year since Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist gunman over his movie criticizing violence against women in Islamic societies.) A Danish author had reported last fall that he couldn't find an illustrator for a book about Muhammad; the Jyllands-Posten editors rose to the challenge by calling on artists to send in their submissions and publishing the 12 entries they received in response (available here).
The reaction to the cartoons has resoundingly confirmed the fears those artists expressed about radical Islamic intolerance and violence. In fact, the Jyllands-Posten reported, two of the illustrators received death threats and went into hiding. The Pakistani Jamaaat-e-Islami party placed a 5,000-kroner bounty on the cartoonists' heads. A terrorist outfit called the "Glory Brigades" has threatened suicide bombings in Denmark over the artwork.
Despite how relatively tame the pictures actually are (compared not only to Western standards, but also to the vicious, anti-Semitic propaganda regularly churned out by Arab cartoonists), the drawings have literally inflamed the radical Muslim world and its apologists. Eleven Muslim ambassadors to Copenhagen immediately protested to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanding retractions from the newspaper. The ambassador of Turkey urged Rasmussen to call the Jyllands-Posten to account for "abusing Islam in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression."
Rasmussen, in a rare show of European spine, steadfastly refused to appease the howlers.
As a result, anti-Denmark sentiment has simmered over the last four months, and it boiled over this past week. In Gaza City, masked Palestinian gunmen representing the so-called Religion of Peace raided a European Union office to protest the cartoons. Muslims burned Danish flags and banners depicting Rasmussen (American and Norwegian flags, as well as portraits of President Bush, were thrown into the fire for good measure). A Danish company, Arla Foods, reports that two of its employees in Saudi Arabia were beaten by angry customers. Danish aid workers are evacuating Gaza in fear for their lives.
The country now faces an international boycott from Muslim nations whose fist-clenched protesters led chants this week of "War on Denmark, Death to Denmark" while firing bullets in the air.
Soft-on-terror mouthpieces are blaming the messenger for the conflagration. Former appeaser-in-chief Bill Clinton condemned the cartoons as "appalling" and "totally outrageous." Where was Clinton's condemnation of the gun-wielding, death-threat-issuing, flag-burning bullies of Islam who have targeted Denmark for jihad?
On the Internet, supporters of free speech have launched a "Buy Danish" campaign in solidarity with the nation under siege. But this isn't just about Denmark. American-based Muslim activists are on an angry campaign to stifle the speech of talk show hosts (most recently, KFI morning host Bill Handel in Los Angeles) who offend their sensibilities. And on Tuesday afternoon in advance of the State of the Union address, the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued an ultimatum warning President Bush to "avoid the use of hot-button terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire'" in his speech -- in other words, advising Bush not to identify our enemies for the sake of tolerance and diversity.
First, they came for the cartoonists. Then, they came for the filmmakers and talk show hosts and namers of evil. Next, who knows?
Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com. She has also authored books such as Unhinged and In Defense of Internment.
#2
The world needs to see the vile scum being published as cartoons in the Arab world. Print them side by side with the European ones so that people can make up their own minds as to whom is being the most disrespectful to whom.
Americans, especially, need to see just how they are being depicted in Arabic publications.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
On the subject of political passion Tom Shales, longtime TV critic of the Washington Post and possessor of occasional eloquence, wrote a piece this week that deserves comment. I don't mean his State of the Union review, which began, "George Bush may or may not be the worst president since Herbert Hoover . . ." I mean his attack last Monday on "
