Low Bar
Media hypocrisy aside, what about the substance of the Penn/Carville op-ed in support of Hillary Clinton? The article concludes, "We don't know whether Hillary will run. But we do know that if she runs, she can win."
I certainly agree with that, but it seems like a mighty low bar. She can win? Sure. Is she more likely to win than are plausible alternatives? The piece doesn't say. Would she be a good President? Would she be better than the plausible Democratic alternatives? There's nothing on that at all in the op-ed. Presumably the authors think the answer to at least one of those questions is "yes" but I'd like to hear the argument.
Advertisement
If I were to give her my most sincere advice [assume a Yoda or Pat Morita voice], "Grasshopper, before we next speak, read many biographies of Lyndon Baines Johnson."
[a little later] "Now, Grasshopper, have you seen that LBJ was magnificently suited for the Senate, where his personality and skills were ideal to having a tremendous effect on implementing his vision for the future of America?
"Have you also seen that those same skills, that same negotiating style, were horribly inappropriate for the Presidency? Do you really consider yourself a charismatic leader, or more an increasingly better consensus builder and policy wonk?
"Stay in the Senate. Rise to the heights of leadership, and you may do the most to achieve your dreams -- unless your dreams are simply of power for its own sake.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 2, 2006 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on Matt. You can't ask whether a politician is suited to be a good President. The question is very distracting for the voters.
A Presidential election is a horserace. Voters need to decide only whether a candidate can win.
Ron Byers
July 2, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guys seemed to think she is popular with women. I think that was before she left the village and marched off to war.
July 2, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...unless your dreams are simply of power for its own sake."
So much for your advice.
Instead of calling her "Grasshopper", call her "Locust" next time - more appropriate.
July 3, 2006 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why was the article so surprising? My mother who is very politically acitive doesn't want Hilary to run because she wants a Democrat as president in 2009 and she doesn't agree with Carville/Penn assesment. She is executive director of a group that is largely business women. Some of the younger women are ready to support Hilary come hell or high water. Many of the older women who are Democrats fear that Hilary's combination of being a lightening rod for hatred and being a woman is too high a hurdle to get over.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 3, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary can't win the haters. She's a gold mine for Fox News. People are rightfully in a "throw the bums out mood" and that means all insiders in both parties. I don't see how abandoning the south to become Senator in New York helps her win one state in the south or middle America for that matter. Many will figure she's giving Bill a third term through the back door. Traditional women don't like her. Women who've really made all by themselves don't particularly like the idea of the first woman President getting there on her husband's coattails.
July 3, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the junior Senator from New York should stay in that august body and become a leader. That said, simply because Hillary Haters can be identified does not mean she cannot be elected should she care to run in 2008. Bad publicity would be the coin of the realm in a Clinton v. McCain race. McCain has lost a lot of former followers both Independent and Democratic as a result of his major sucking up to W. Can he win with only Republicans?
July 3, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before judging her so harshly, walk a mile in her moccasins. If you still think she's a locust, she now has to run barefoot, with you having a mile's headstart, to get back her shoes.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 3, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, America deserves damaged goods from both parties.
I have not been a Hilary fan since she screwed up health care in Bill's first term. It wasn't that she lost, it was that having lost a round she and the entire administration turned tail and hid for 7 more years. As a result we still don't have universal health care, or anything like it. To me her performance demonstrates a woman who is timid at best and craven at worst.
She has done nothing lately to demonstrate that she has grown in any way.
Ron Byers
July 3, 2006 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink