What’s with men and Hillary?
January 6, 2008, 3:45 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Just watched Meet the Press. Tim Russert and two political consultant, McMahon and Murphy were spinning like mad against Hillary. Do I detect a woman-can’t-really be president message here? Some questions: If Obama and McCain wind up as the nominees, does anyone think Obama can beat McCain? Could Clinton beat McCain? On the likeability issue: George W. was likeable; he’s been a disaster. Do we care if our president is likeable, or do we care that they know what they’re doing?
on January 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I didn’t see this, Margaret. What did they say about Hillary that indicated to you that this was more about “women can’t be prez” than about “Hillary shouldn’t be prez”?
on January 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Hillary is mostly correct in terms of her ability to accomplish concrete actions. However, likeability is a very big factor in presidential politics and in the US international politics. People like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair even when they deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure, bridges, in Serbia. I am still amazed that the American people (and the Church) were not more vocal against that act of state sponsored terrorism….but I digress.
Hillary is tough and I have no doubt that she would be an effective leader. However, there does seem to be a desire for an entirely new form of politics in the US. It is a cliche but people are real tired of red/blue and left and right. There seems to be no way out of it though.
I am not in the US but I think that the issue facing the USA really is change and Hillary is, to paraphrase a slogan hoisted on the former Prime Minister in Canada, “yesterday’s woman”. By that I mean she represents a kind of politics that people want to move from. Romney similarly represents a very traditional kind of Republican. He fits every single stereotype but is being rejected by voters.
I think that the Dems are in a good position to take the whitehouse but the issue is where is the nation going to go and does he have the ability to actually move it in the technical sense. It’s ironic but I do think that Hillary will know what to do and how to make it happen at the policy and practical level. I am going to go way outside the box and say that I think her husband is actually a drag on her though – but I never liked him in the first place. I do like her though.
Still, in a matchup between Hillary and McCain, it goes to McCain. Obama and McCain, it goes to Obama.
on January 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Hillary is not a great candidate at this point in U.S. history. Her support of the Iraq war, her rhetoric and vote regarding Iran, and her membership in the Clinton-Bush, well, dynasty do not endear her. Bill may be more of a distraction than a bonus. And she’s never been especially likable. Should that matter as much as it does? Of course not. But the GOP is drooling over the prospect of reigniting Clinton-hate on the Right. In my limited spin through the Midwest over the holidays, I spoke to several conservatives who are fascinated by Obama and would consider voting for him, but have visceral, perhaps irrational, dislike for Hillary. For what it’s worth (and maybe it’s not much), they told me that they would be happy to vote against her if she’s the nominee, but that Obama could earn their vote. My sense is that East Coasters have drastically discounted how poorly she plays in the middle of the country. But to answer your questions, Peggy, yes, Hillary could beat McCain, whose age will become a bigger issue if he gets the nomination. Obama could beat McCain too. The latter would make for a much more interesting contest, in part because the two of them have lots of support among independents. Hillary not so much. At least not yet.
on January 6th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
There are no doubt a lot of people who find Hillary lacking in “likability,” but I think the media are in love with Obama and are in effect promoting him and campaigning against Hillary by doing their best to promote the idea that Hillary is “unlikable.” I am sure there are now millions of potential voters in the country who now won’t vote for Hillary because she has been declared “unlikable” by the press.
Meanwhile, it seems to me Obama is riding high because of “the politics of [false] hope.” As the Washington Post observed yestereday
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403414.html?sub=AR
Now, as someone who is very much in favor of “left-wing Democratic fare,” I wouldn’t fault Obama on his positions. But how in the world is he going to usher a new era of civility, hope, and bipartisanship? It seems like a total fantasy to me. And anyway, don’t we already have someone in the White House who is a “uniter not a divider”?
on January 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
No doubt the Obama story is being promoted by parts of the press. (These comparisons to Bush are a bit much.) But the people I’m talking about did not require instruction from the media in order to dislike Hillary. Their allergy to the Clintons preceded Obama’s arrival on the scene.
on January 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Didn’t more women vote for Obama than for Hillary in Iowa? What’s with women and Hillary?
on January 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
It seems to me that the entire debate (and nominating process) could come down to a poll: Who is more electable, Hillary or Barry? That would likely swing me.
on January 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
What’s with the public and Obama? No grown up should believe that Obama can deliver what he promises, If he himself believes he can, he is not grown up enought to be president. If he does not, he is manipulating the public shamelessly.
on January 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Is New Hampshire a secret ballot? In Iowa you have to publicly declare for your candidate, right?
Could make a difference. A lot of men don’t like to be seen voting for a woman. Makes you look like a sissy. A lot of women, especially young women, vote differently when their boyfriends aren’t watching.
on January 6th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Take the litmus test. Has anyone said that McCain, Giuliani, Edwards, Huckabee, Obama is not likable?
The focus should be on identifying the hatchet job that created her as unlikable.
The reverse of the Anti-Hillary is that one who goes with this should really examine whether it is the fact that Hillary is a woman of power who is seeking a more powerful office? It is a valid litmus test. There is all the history before our times which says it is.
on January 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I don’t WANT Hilary to be president for reasons that have to do with her politics and her policies, but I feel like someone punches me in the stomach every time I hear this garbage about Hilary and likeability, Hilary as “the bitch,” Hilary being defensive, Hilary not being “human” enough. And I don’t think it’s just men. On her Facebook page, my niece proudly notes that she’s joined the “Life’s a Bitch so Why Vote for One?” group. Men hate Hilary because she’s scary. Women hate her because it’s easier to blame Hilary for who she is than accept that much of what she’s become has to do with how hard American sexism can be on intelligent, ambitious women.
And the press hates her because they can get away with it. Explicit declarations of racial intolerance are (thankfully) taboo in this country, but there’s never been a taboo on baldly declaring that women are dominated by emotions, talk too much, undervalue logic, drive badly, can’t do math, are only worthwhile insofar as they are physically attractive, gossip and need to be babied — and that the women who DON’T conform to those stereotypes are basically ball-busting bitches. In fact, watch three hours of tv tonight and see if you can avoid at least one utterance to that effect.
on January 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
The likeability thing is real, unfortunately (for Hillary). It’s not so much her that people, especially young people like myself dislike, so much as her attitude towards this campaign. Her primary strategy has been one of ‘inevitablity,’ and she, perhaps on the advice of mediocre campaign managers like Mark Penn, approached Iowa as such. It’s not that she isn’t human. She is. But her campaign has failed to show that humanity until perhaps too late in the game. For once, the media have semi-accurately taken the pulse of the country (after incorrectly assuming that most democrats wanted Hillary to be president). I would also be reluctant to choose Hillary because of the fact that her nomination would light a fire under the republican base. They cannot stand the Clintons and will do anything to see them out of the limelight. I live in a fairly conservative area (although I am quite liberal) and while people are more or less indifferent to Obama, they DESPISE Hillary. Some of this is highly irrational and may be associated more with her husband, but it is real and should be considered. That isn’t my primary objection to an HRC presidency, however.
To put it simply, Hillary Clinton fails to inspire me. She, unlike her husband, lacks the charisma of a good politician. That isn’t to say that she wouldn’t run the country well. But a good president must do more than simply run things. The best presidents in our nation’s history (Lincoln and FDR come to mind) have inspired the country to further heights in times of crisis. From my point of view, this country is currently in a political crisis. People feel divided from one another, and by some accounts have felt so since the late 60’s. Barrack Obama is saying Goodbye to All That.
on January 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
So now Obama is like Lincoln and FDR. The guy is barely wet behind the ears. Everyone agrees he has no content. Simply wonderful. Kill the bitch!
on January 7th, 2008 at 12:45 am
I never said that Obama is or ever will be FDR or Lincoln. I was recalling those president’s ability to inspire. Hillary does not have it. Obama does. I hesitate to compare Obama to Lincoln or FDR at this point. He could be Lincoln or FDR. At this point, I’d say that he reminds me of RFK.
I don’t hate Hillary. If I lived in New York, I would have voted for her in 2002. I do think that she has campaigned quite poorly, thanks in large part to poor managers such as Mark Penn. By basing her campaign for the nomination on inevitablity, she left herself open when people decided they might like to see someone else for president. Another factor that plays into this may be her name. And not Rodham.
on January 7th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Another perspective from up here in the Midwest:
People here wonder what the cheese-eatin’ intellectuals in New York see in Hillary. What are these many accomplishments of 35 years? Will they bring Michigan jobs and health care relief? Her track record doesn’t indicate that.
So far, she has a record of not being able to build coalitions or work with people, as proved by her health care debacle.
Moreover, will she be able to negate some of Bill’s policies that have hurt the economy here in the Midwest, i.e., NAFTA? Or is she merely Bill’s Evita?
Totally beside the point is her style, which I admit is grating. When she gets into her defensive mode, I feel like my mom is in the room nagging me to clean up my room.
One could wish that she were smoother–an Ann Richards or a Martha Griffiths who could sink fangs with a smile and let the men hang themselves by their own testosterone.
on January 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“The guy is barely wet behind the ears” Eight years as a state senator + two in U.S. Senate + Lawyer + Father of 2?
“Everyone agrees he has no content.” Who? Who? and Who? 99 times out of 100, he is the smartest guy in the room.
“No grown up should believe that Obama can deliver what he promises, If he himself believes he can, he is not grown up enought to be president. If he does not, he is manipulating the public shamelessly.” Yeah. Life is the real bitch, right? We all grow old and die, often painfully.
Anyone for some substantive critiques of Obama? I genuinely expect much better from this blog.
on January 7th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’ve been in the same room with her, and I can tell you that Hillary Clinton is a very likable person. She has midwestern reserve, she’s not Southern, but she is charming and engaging. I think that it’s generally hard for women to translate charm and likability into the perception of credible leadership. So that dynamic is present — what Hillary needs to do to project leadership detracts from her naturally pleasing personality.
All professional women face dilemmas such as this one. That’s not, I believe, the real “problem” with Hillary: Hillary is as much a legacy candidate as George Bush, and, I believe, her candidacy would be bad for continuing what has become a very unhealthy and frankly undemocratic phenomenon. The use of the “inevitability” motif to strong arm contributors and endorsements just reinforces this notion of “dynasticism.” In what kind of system is a new leader “inevitable”? Only in a well-entrenched monarchy.
I think that independents instinctively understand this, and many Democrats have simply suspended their objectivity out of deference to Bill Clinton.
on January 7th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Jean, I do think Hillary learned something from the health care debacle. I am not sure she can overcome her failure to build coalitions (that really wasn’t what was needed, anyway, but the timing and just about everything else was all wrong), her penchant for secrecy, her reflexive notion (not without some justice) that all criticism of her is visceral and not based on anything that she actually did. She has a lot of negative baggage, and that isn’t just an issue for how she is treated, but for how she treats others, especially her critics. It will color her ability to make good decisions.
on January 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The discussion here seems to show that Hillary is a somewhat divisive figure, and the Country wants a real Uniter- something GWB promised and abjectly failed at.
I fail to see mysogeny at work here.But perception of someone is a major factor and is colored by “likeaility.”
But that lable terribly oversimplifies what’s occuring.
And then there’s “hope.” Didn’t we just evote some space to that topic during Advent?
So I guess the issue is what are folks looking for right now, not what my personal take is.
on January 7th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Joe,
What is the “change” Obama can be realistically expected to bring about in Washington that none of the other Democratic candidates would be capable of? If he gets the nomination and wins the presidential election by a landslide, he might have some kind of chance to “bring us together,” but do you really think the Republicans are going to embrace him? I think it’s more likely that they will eat him alive.
on January 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Richard Nixon campaigned on bringing us together after Johnson and Vietnam. Please note. Barbara you bring much clarity into the discussion. But you should know that Hillary does know how to build coalitions. In upstate New York which can be compared to Red States, Hillary has won over many counties who never voted Democratic. So it is not just cheese eating Northerners, Jean.
on January 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
BTW, no one mentioned that Kristol wrote his first column today for the Times. Quite interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
on January 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I think any of them would be able to beat McCain. Personally, I’ve heard as many women react negatively to Hillary’s persona as men.
The thing that bothers me most about her is she’s being financed by the health insurance companies as much as any of them at this point. We won’t be seeing anything but tinkering around the edges on health care, at best – also on other domestic issues – because the real undelying issue is that campaign financing by wealthy individuals and corporations has compromised our entire electoral process.
The horse race bores me because I know it no longer makes much difference who wins, notwithstanding that we can obviously do better than Dubya.
The American Oligarchs rule.
Paul – originalfaith.com
on January 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Why is there no substance in saying that Obama has offered nothing of substance? It is easy to promise “change” and with Bozo as president, who does not want change? The questions are: What kind of change do you propose? How will you achieve it? Obama has said that it is possible to have health insurance for all and still let those who wish to opt out. If Obama believes this, it does him no credit. If he does not believe it, he is a liar.
I am no great admirer of Hillary. I do think that she is the least bad choice. Something like Democracy.
on January 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Greetings all: My post was a take-off from Meet the Press and before that the NYTimes and the generally anti-Hillary coverage (a trend that continues on the Times front-page Monday with McCain and BILL Clinton pictured above the fold campaigning in NH).
We should remember that along with the big funders and the “consultants” the media is playing an enormous role in supplying our views/images of the candidates (thank you Barbara for your observations about personal contact with Hillary; an observation that Bob Schrum repeats in this morning’s NYDaily News [TPM]). So we’re all human, even reporters, but citizens and voters have to have some critical frame to see what they’re being told, or not. Obama and Edwards are getting more neutral treatment (or perhaps objective treatment) and the media love their wives! If or when, Obama (or Edwards, not likely) become the “inevitable” something will happen in the media coversage–and not just the Republican attack machine.
In honor of Joe Komanchak, I will post this afternoon on “What about Hillary and women.”
on January 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
David: Perhaps living in Chicago for 14 years has led me to the conclusion that anyone from the Chicago school of politics will know how to handle Republicans. As for changes, I think he is honest about Iraq withdrawal, and I think he is committed to a whole host of other policy agendas, not least of which would be substantial attention to problems of urban poverty.
Additionally, I happen to think the idea of looking for policies that could garner widespread support is good politics. I know lots of people think it is selling out, but I see politics as the art of the possible.
Joseph Gannon: I fail to see how disagreeing with Obama on the mechanics of universal health care suffices to say “it does him no credit” to affirm the position that he holds. It seems to me that his policy would get us heck of a lot farther along the road than where we are now. Again, if he has made a political calculation that he needs to promote this kind of policy, then one can debate both the merits of the policy (and it still seems to be a quite good one, even granting Krugman’s critique) and the political calculation informing it (I have seen very little such analysis). Finally, politics involves lots of positioning. If Obama comes to a negotiating table with this policy as a starting point, it seems to me that it leaves him with lots of negotiating room for change and horse trading.
on January 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Barbara, if memory serves, Bill was ready to cut a deal on health care. When Hillary heard about it in a speech, she called up Bill on her cell phone, went ape all over him, and he ended up renegging on the deal. So I disagree that the timing was bad; it was perfect and Hillary messed it up because she wouldn’t compromise.
She also failed to bring on some important elements in the health care community when she came up with her plan.
Plus, she was singularly unqualified to go out and take on a huge issue like health care. She had no expertise on health care, had no expertise on conducting national forums and collecting testimony, had no experience drafting public programs and policies.
Bill Mazzella, Hillary might have got some crossover votes in red counties in New York, but, as Joseph Gannon so succinctly put it, when Bozo is president, who doesn’t want a change.
Hillary has made statements that show she is naive, thin-skinned, and will be constantly on the defensive as prez. Her “vast right-wing conspiracy” comment is a case in point. Even if there IS a conspiracy, you don’t play into its hands by getting all huffy about it so they can replay the clip on Rush Limbaugh’s show for months on end. Nor do you make statements like that that will make it even harder to work with the right-wing on mutually acceptable initiatives.
And what happens if Bill forgets to keep his pants up again? The whole national agenda is derailed while we get treated to the sex scandals of the first family. I can’t take that again.
No. The Clintons had their chance.
on January 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I may not agree with everything that Senator Clinton stands for, nor is it a requirement of anyone to agree with any candidate’s full program offered. If she were elected, she would have my confidence to run the country as she saw fit as President, regardless of whether all of the issues lined up to my personal satisfaction. The saintly candidate can’t be found, evidently.
on January 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“And what happens if Bill forgets to keep his pants up again? ”
Jean,
JFK did not keep his pants up. Neither did FDR, Bush Sr., Harding, Henry Hyde, Caesar, Mark Antony, etc. etc.
Give it a rest!
Seems to me Gannon meant Bush.
on January 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Up front, I admit that I don’t like Senator Clinton very much, but I would vote for her rather than any of the Republican actual (or imaginable) candidates. However, I am mindful of Bill Clinton’s connection with that group of “centrists” — the grtoup name of which I can’t recall. Notice that sometime soon former Senators Nunn, Boren, and other “centrists”, i.e., conseervatives are going to meet to press for “centrism.” According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, some of these people are mulling a Bloomberg candidacy, if neither major party candidate measures up to their centrism. This group of people remind me very much of Bill Clinton’s “triangulation.” Why, given Bill’s role in her campaign, would I think that she would not be just as receptive to the “centrist” lure as he was?
All that said, I have to confess to something else. I’m very consistent in backing losers. MY first choice was Biden and I’m still going to vote for Richardson.
on January 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Now, now, Bill Mazzella. “Give it a rest”? Why, anybody’d think you didn’t want women to express their opinion!
Anyhow, I got only three posts on this thread to your five, so according to my calculations, I got two more comments coming to me, but I gotta run out to the store, so I’ll yield after this one turn:
You know as well as I do that trouser-dropping is now major news as it was not in the days of Caeser and JFK.
But it’s probably not fair to exclude Hillary from the presidency simply based on what Bill might do.
So I’ll back off on that and just say that Hillary would make a crummy president for reasons that have nothing to do with her gender and that I already outlined exhaustively and persuasively to everybody outside of New York.
And, like Bernard, I’ll vote for Richardson.
on January 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Why was Bubba on the front page of the Time today and not Her Ladyship? Because his “comeback kid” turnaround started in NH. If this campaign is about winning, then Her stategists (Bubba is apparently taking more control there) want to play what they think is their winning card …. Bill-Boy. Well, it apparently is not working.
I’ve contributed to Edwards just to help him keep in the campaign a bit longer. I like many of his ideas. When he bows out I’ll switch my support to Obama and hope that when he is the candidate he picks Biden, Richardson, Dodd or a comparable running mate. I would include Edwards but I doubt he would play second banana again.
on January 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Gosh guys! I was going to post on “What’s With Hillary and Woman,” but Grant is prohibiting any further can we feel sorry for Hillary discussions (but take a look at the top post on the NYTimes now: 3:35…. she almost cried! Oh my G–!)
Here’s the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07cnd-campaign.html?hp
And by the way, let’s remember Hillary is also from Chicago! or at least the Chicago-area, as we refer to Park Ridge, IL in our household.
on January 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Not true! (The poor-Hillary ban. She is actually from Park Ridge. But is she of Park Ridge?…)
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Okay, Grant relented! Thank you Grant. I have posted on Hillary and Women. Go to it Joes!
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Seriously, there never was a ban! The more political posts, the better.
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Bill
Of course I was not talking about anyone but W., and that is what Jean took me to mean.
Jean
I am delighted that you noted my succinctness.
Joe
Everyone knows that politics is the art of the possible. The question is whether Obama’s plan is possible. It appears it is not. Again, either Obama knows that or he doesn’t. Either way I am not impressed.
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Point of clarification, Joseph: what do you make of Edwards’s health-care plan? Clinton’s?
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
For the 2000 senatorial race in New York, Hillary was running ahead of Giuliani before he dropped out, and she beat the Republican candidate (Rick Lazio) 55% to 43%. The win included taking some traditionally Republican counties upstate. This was before Bozo was president. She won reelection 67% to 31% in 2006, one of the widest margins ever in a statewide election in New York. However much some people may dislike Hillary, she is well respected in New York as a Senator who represents the state well.
If Hillary shouldn’t have been in charge of assembling a health-care proposal, the fault is with Bill, not Hillary. I am not an expert on the plan she came up with, but I do remember that the object of a major campaign by the medical and insurance industries which would probably have prevented it from being enacted whatever its merits. If a Democrat is elected this year and tries to enact any major health-care reform, there will be a similar campaign no matter what the merits of the reform.
I think Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions, past and present, are his own business and Hillary’s business, but I don’t think they are anybody else’s business. I can’t do a count right now, but I believe most of our presidents since FDR have had extramarital affairs either in or out of office, and nobody says things like, “George H. W. Bush–like Lyndon Johnson, JFK, Eisenhower, and FDR before him–couldn’t keep his pants up.” Language like that is used to show contempt for the individual, not for his sexual indiscretions. The right-wing zealots like Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde who went after Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky affair didn’t do it to uphold morality. They had affairs of their own. They did it for partisan political gain.
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’ll post this here since someone didn’t like my putting the question on the “women-Hillary posting:
Does it strike anyone else as odd that she and her supporters keep talking about how she’s ready to be president on day 1? Wasn’t that the first George Bush’s campaign slogan back in 1988? It seems to me it’s an appraoch guaranteed to feed into what the media has described as Bush-Clinton fatigue, and the antithesis of “change”
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I took a look (twice) at the video of the Hillary “cry” today in NH, and Ed Muskie she wasn’t. I’m sorry, and it may sound uncharitable of me, but the speech came across as contrived, despite the setting and her effort to make it look off the cuff and heartfelt. I don’t criticize Hillary’s efforts to convince voters she’s the best candidate, but at least to me this attempt at sincerity didn’t register as genuine.
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Grant
Nice of you to ask. Neither has the obvious flaw that Obama’s does. The idea that everyone would buy health insurance voluntarily if it were more affordable reflects a view of the human race that I do not share. That is why auto insurance became compulsory. Edward’s plan seems plausible to me, but in this instance one has to place a bet, and my bet would be that Clinton will get something through Congress, something bettter than we have at present, if anyone can.
on January 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Robert
You took me too seriously. But consider. Will anyone boast of not being ready on day one? In fact, of course, W. is still not ready Call him Ethelred the Unready II? On the job training has its limits.
on January 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Joseph G: As I understand it, the principle flaw in Obama’s health care plan is this: unless we force people to sign up for health care, the healthiest (read youngest) people will too often not sign up, leaving a concentration of sicker types in the pool, making everything too expensive. This is an interesting criticism, one that I would like to hear answered. However, I find it a little strange that it is such a deal killer for some evaluations of Obama. Presumably, Obama is not just sitting around musing about a health care plan. Presumably, he has smart people telling him this could work. Yet, if Krugman dissents, Obama is suddenly a health care dunce. I don’t pretend to understand the details, but I have enough confidence in Obama, and in the political process, to believe that any health care plan that REQUIRES health care for ALL CHILDREN and makes it available to ALL ADULTS is a great start and that some smart health care policy types think it could be possible. I am not sure presidential elections are the place to sort out these policies details. In other words, if I were Obama, I am not sure I would be letting Paul Krugman think that my campaign awaits his imprimatur on all policy matters.
on January 7th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
David, thanks for setting the facts straight on Hllary’s New York win; she ran the same year George W ran the first time, so the “Bozo factor” was not in play then.
Please don’t misconstrue my comments about the location of people’s pants. I don’t equate extramarital sex with war and torture. Of course the whole thing should have been Bill and Hillary’s business. And Bill could have shut that whole media frenzy down by saying he committed an indiscretion, he and his family were in counseling, end of story, next question.
Instead he helped drag the thing out by evasive action, and the ensuing media mess, helped feed the indignation of the social conservatives and make George W look like a better candidate than he was.
OK, looks like we got tornado warnings in our area (Michigan! January!) so I gotta shut down the computer and shut up. The Lord works in mysterious ways ….
on January 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I have a question for Bill M. and Joe Gannon: fdid you read the NYT pieve on Blomberg Sunday>
He is not the great policy wonk, but brings the left and righ tbrains together to accheive results on tough questions with some success,
Some think he should be President as a uniter across the spectrum.
It just strikes me, from political experiebce, that a leader that can pul in folks on all sides on tough issues serves us best,
I’m not anti-Hillary, but I do not worship at the altar of those who put forward their best ideas in a deeply divided nation.
It sounds here to me that there are a number of already committed folk, and it’s not even February.
on January 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Bob
Can what is hopelessly (?) divided by conviction and/or interest be united? I do not know. Bloomberg has been on the whole a good mayor. The history of independent candidacies is not encouraging.
Joe
I suspect you are a true believer. In politics I am not. I have been wrong too often. Peace.
on January 7th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Joseph G. Well, at least we’ve found SOMETHING that I believe in. I am not sure exactly what it is that I truly believe here, but I think it has something to do with the H-word; if only so I don’t get too depressed when I check on my kids at night.