Hmmmm...Bill Clinton: A Rescue Bid for His Party and His Reputation, Too

[whometense]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/us/politics/06clinton.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 — Suddenly, Bill Clinton is everywhere: leading a multibillion-dollar fund-raising effort for his global good works project, planning his own 60th-birthday party featuring the Rolling Stones, sitting for a flurry of animated television interviews to flog his foundation, refurbish his reputation and fire up Democratic voters.

Bubba’s back. And he is bringing the whole complicated Clinton package with him as he bounds back on the national political stage in the closing stage of a hard-fought election. He is at once a brilliant political tactician capable of losing his temper on national television, a reminder of a decade of relative peace and prosperity and eight years of investigation and impeachment, and a gray-haired statesman keenly focused on the next political prize.

As always with Mr. Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, there are layers upon layers of meaning to his re-emergence as one of the Democrats’ most prominent weapons. Although Mr. Clinton’s name has not appeared on a ballot since 1996, he remains in perpetual campaign mode.

With the doggedness of Richard M. Nixon and the fervor of Jimmy Carter, he is trying to define the legacy of his presidency and gain honor for charitable acts in his post-presidential life. He is plowing the ground for his wife’s political future. And, in a recent series of combative speeches and interviews, he is defending his record on terrorism and performing what one adviser called a “spinal implant” on Democrats who have yet to find a unified voice against Republican charges of weakness on security issues...

...With the possible exception of Barack Obama, the charismatic junior senator from Illinois, Mr. Clinton is the Democratic Party’s most sought-after campaigner. Yet there are limits to his helpfulness, senior Democrats say. Mr. Clinton and Senator Clinton held a joint fund-raising dinner at their home in Washington on Wednesday, to raise $2 million for House and Senate candidates, but neither Clinton has been very involved in the fund-raising efforts, according to one organizer of the event.

“He’s not a disappointment,” this Democrat said, requesting anonymity to speak frankly about Mr. Clinton, “but we wish he’d be more focused on helping us.”

To charges that Mr. Clinton is more interested in helping himself than his party, Jay Carson, his spokesman, replied: “He has devoted his life to the causes of the Democratic Party and to trying to make sure there are Democrats in control in Washington. That’s exactly what he’s doing now. Nothing more and nothing less.”...

[beachmom]

1. But how does this affect Hillary?

That is the real question.

Frankly, I prefer John Kerry's very steady support of the party in the last two years. And I really would rather see Kerry than Clinton, if I had a choice. Still, I acknowledge that Clinton is a bigger star; but that doesn't necessarily translate into Hillary getting the benefits from that.

[whometense]

2. I don't think it necessarily translates into a

benefit for Hillary, either. It may even boomerang, in several different ways: reminding people how much of a stage hog Bill is, reminding people of the "buy one, get one free" policy that may not be what people actually want. And reminding people of Bill's (and Hillary's) baggage. I think bringing Bill out as a big gun for Hillary may be, in fact, a disastrous strategy. I think it makes her look weak, myself. Kind of "I can't get elected under my own steam, so I'll surf along in my husband's wake."

It brings out the latent feminist in me. I'm not a militant feminist, never have been. I was a proud stay-at-home mom when that was a very un-PC thing to be. But I think the first woman president should be someone who gets the votes for herself, and not as a nostalgic "remember how good things were back then?" vote to bring back the past.

I posted this only because I was interested to hear what people had to say on the subject. I continue to see Bill as a mixed blessing, and his timing as seriously suspect.

[wisteria]

4. LOL, I can see Pres. Clinton enjoying the attention just a little to much.

This could really backfire for Senator Clinton. Who do you pay more attention to? Who do you listen to? He isn't running though, or is he?

Frankly, I do not want a redo of the Clinton administration. I am a firm believer in not going backwards. Clinton comes with a lot of baggage and I don't want a repeat performance.

[karynnj]

3. Also, even though Bill may be a bigger star

He was President for 8 years. I realize that the Republicans WILL say that Clinton is divisive, as they would Kerry or anyone else, and neither can reach the super-Republicans. The question is reaching independents and moderates - Kerry did in 2004, Clinton must have reached some or he couldn't have 60% approval ratings.

The key though, is they compare Bill Clinton's draw, to Kerry and Gore and Obama (who may be the flavor of this month as 2008 possibility), but not to Hillary. That is a major question. Also, I wonder, at college campuses, who gets the better reaction when they speak, Kerry articulating a way out of Iraq and restoring our MORAL position in the world or Clinton, speaking of the glory days of the 90s, Bush "mismanaging the war" and his wife? (Also consider the old expectations game - Kerry is a brilliant speaker who has been negatively labelled by people on both sides, Clinton has been extolled well beyond the good speaker he is.)

[whometense]

5. It's true.

And in terms of Hillary, I can see where Bill's desire/need to solidify/defend his own record might well come before his need to propel her candidacy. The one solidly predictable Bill Clinton characteristic is "me first."

[karynnj]

9. He would put himself first, but convince himself he was doing it for

her good. Sounds very high maintanance to me. He clearly is concerned about his place in history. I think some of this overstated hyper behavior is a coverup of some insecurity on this. (Contrast the calm, confident, steady reponse Kerry has to criticism. )

[beachmom]

6. The Atlantic has Hillary on the new issue's cover

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

For those of you who have a subscription. I just skimmed through it, and came to the conclusion that Hillary would make an astute majority leader in the Senate. But president? Ugh. And there is no mention of any other candidate, and they HAD to mention the $87 billion. There was no vision that came out of the pages. She's vulnerable. "Skills" sounds nice, but you've got to have a vision. Oh, and apparently EVERYONE is working for her. Maybe that's good, if Kerry gets "new blood" and nonestablishment people.

Also, mentioned is that the only institution Hillary doesn't have her hand in is the DNC. The Clintons and Howard Dean don't mix, I guess. Also of note: she is involved with Media Matters. I assume they'll stick to dealing with the Right, but I wonder if they'll stop defending Kerry as time goes by . . .

[whometense]

7. Since the Atlantic left Boston

and moved to DC (also, the new owner is a wingnut of the first order) we have unsubscribed. We have friends on the inside there, and it's quite a story.

What did it say about Hillary and Media Matters exactly? Because if she's got them in her pocket they won't get any more donations from me.

Edited to add: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/documents/05146443.asp

Surveying the crowd from the podium at the Harvard Club on Tuesday, The Atlantic Monthly’s national correspondent, Jim Fallows, set the tone of the event.

"None of us can say we are pleased by the occasion of our gathering this evening," he noted. "But we can say we are proud."

The occasion marked the end of an era — after 148 years in Boston, the magazine of "the American idea" dreamed up by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Oliver Wendell Holmes had produced its final issue from home. Owner David Bradley is moving The Atlantic Monthly to Washington, DC, where it will have a new editor, a mostly new staff, and, at least potentially, a new direction. (Until a new top editor is chosen, Senior Editor Scott Stossel will manage the magazine.)

[beachmom]

8. Here's the quote

Clinton helped John Podesta found a think tank, the Center for American Progress, which serves as a kind of Democratic administration-in-waiting. She has supported another, the American Democracy Institute, run by veteran Clinton allies. She has advised a watchdog group, Media Matters for America, that keeps tabs on the vast right-wing conspiracy and is run by David Brock, the reborn conservative hatchet man who helped launch the Paula Jones scandal before he renounced his past and became a liberal activist. Clinton has also advised the Democracy Alliance, an organization of the party’s richest donors that is aiming to raise $200 million for party-building efforts. While each group purports to work for the Democratic Party generally, and will support the next presidential nominee regardless of who it may be, among the possible contenders Clinton is at the very least the first among
equals.

The only place where Clinton lacks a strong hand is the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Howard Dean, and here her supporters have simply worked around the problem. The big advantage that the DNC will try to offer candidates in 2008 is access to a huge database of voter information, a level of technological power now considered crucial to winning races. Having no friend in Dean, and skeptical of his abilities, the Clinton camp allowed a longtime ally, Harold Ickes Jr., to raise money to set up a private version of that database for use in the likely event that Clinton runs.




I actually like the Atlantic, but as this race heats up I may like it less. They have had some interesting international stories; I guess you're right, though, that it ranges from centrist to a little right leaning. I might not renew it if they refuse to acknowledge Kerry's existence.

I'm worried, guys, because it looks like the Dean machine is the only power against Hillary. And we all know that they're not looking at Kerry, based on bloggers' comments. So where is our power structure going to come from? I hope there are enough real people who support him, and are willing to go against the powerful entrenched party machine.

[whometense]

10. A little more on Bradley

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/6/mag-sherman.asp

When Bradley installed Kelly as Whitworth's replacement, after a period in which Kelly ran National Journal, some media watchers expressed concern that the Atlantic was being handed over to an ideologue. Writing in The Nation, Eric Alterman worried that "this cultural treasure" was now entrusted to "the alarming Michael Kelly, a reporter and editor with no literary background, a volcanic temperament and history of colossal bad judgment." There were indeed reasons for concern. When Kelly became editor of The New Republic, he took over the weekly "TRB" column, which also appeared in The Washington Post, thereby launching his career as a syndicated columnist. As a reporter and book writer, Kelly's voice varied widely in tone, but it remained generally civil. As a columnist, however, he showed a preference for venom and invective: His columns, by and large, are swashbuckling compendiums of abuse directed at liberals, radicals, and left-leaning intellectuals of all stripes and colors. In 1997, Kelly spent a weekend in Vermont and wrote about it for The New Republic:

The place is stuffed with verdant vistas, mountain views, bosky dells, bubbling brooks and limpid lakes. But then there is man, and he is vile. You cannot swat a black fly in Vermont without disturbing the vacant-eyed rest of a pallid, hairy, and purposefully ugly white person. Hippies are everywhere, in every variety and of every age: ancient bedspring-scarred veterans of the summer of love, dreadlocked ingénues still plowing through the mire of their first Chomsky, preschoolers with names like Cypress and Che.

We have close personal ties to some "old Atlantic" people, so my views are definitely skewed due to what I've heard from them.

I've heard Podesta interviewed, and he definitely leans Clintonista. Heavily. My thought on this - for what it's worth: I'm no expert - the Clintons are trying to build a media juggernaut of their own to rival the right wing media. The problem is, dems tend to not want to be told what to think and do. And people know the Clintons very, very well. It's too late for them to rebrand themselves.

Just my opinion, for what it's worth. Kerry has whatever remains of the goodwill he earned the hard way from the last election, plus whatever he's built since then. He also has some very savvy and very personally loyal Boston-based help. Not to say it would be easy, but it seems to me that Kerry has done almost everything nearly perfectly since 2004 in order to position himself as the anti-Hillary. The big questions to me are, how much permanent damage was done to him in the last election? And have we finally gotten past Vietnam?

[beachmom]

11. Michael Kelly died in Iraq, right?

I saw that movie "Shattered Glass" about TNR and Stephen (sp?) Glass who plagiarized there. Michael Kelly was the editor for some of that period of time. At the end, they said he died in iraq.

[whometense]

12. Yes,

in a humvee accident. I updated my previous post with more Kerry thoughts.

[karynnj]

15. With the large number of college events,

you wonder if Kerry might fashion a combination of the very loyal Boston, very experienced adults, people from 2004 still loyal to him (there have to some) and maybe more college students than typical. Between those 3 catigories, they might create the new generation of campaign people and they might radiate the commitment, sincerity and goodness in Kerry's speeches.

I wonder how good the Clinton people really are. His 1992 campaign became a legend in their mind, then book, then movie, but they came close to blowing a Democratic year. This was also with a candidate always called charismatic. Do you think McAulliffe did a brilliant job at the DNC? Look at the strategy Clinton, Carville and Begala gave Kerry - it was more wrong than right. There also are a huge number of "chiefs" there. Will they work harmoniously?

It may well be that there are few really excellent high level Demcratic campaign managers. If you look at it. Since 1992, the only team with a major success were those involved with Kerry in the primaries. (1996 was not that hard. Gore was handed the nomination, Bradley's campaign never did much, Donna Brazile has problems, none of the other primary campaigns came close.) The question is how many of them will go with Kerry.

The very loyal Boston people have been through one Presidential election. Isn't Kerry's brother really involved in Patrick's campaign? One huge advantage of these guys at the top is they love Kerry and know him very very well, which gives them a huge advantage in defending him. Wouldn't these plus some Kerry 04 people be enough as the high level in the primaries?

I agree with you that every step Kerry has taken, even when the press ridiculed him has been on target. The biggest problem may be media, which I do worry about, but Kerry has been getting his message out gradually. I think that it is possible that per person attending, the events where the information is best propigated may be the college ones. My guess is that college kids have more links with people outside the community they are in (their parents in their home towns and their high school friends whereever they are). They are also far more likely to communicate to everyone via livejournal, facebook etc (I'm sure I said this wrong - my kids correct me all the time). The question is if they are blown away by a Kerry appearance, are they likely to write about it. Kerry is very very good with college kids. (College people does this make sense?)

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Makes sense to me.

(BTW you got in right re: facebook and livejournal - don't forget myspace! :) )

I think you make a great point re: college students and I can see it happening on facebook right now. There are a couple of different support groups for JK on facebook and they've been slowly but steadily growing in popularity, which IMO is a good trend - a sudden increase would be evidence of flavor-of-the-month status, which is more of a bane than a boon, as such instant faddish popularity doesn't tend to have staying power. He needs to keep coming to colleges and universities and speaking with candor and humor as he has been. College students want someone who will excite them - to be our generation's JFK, so to speak - and JK has the greatest potential of any candidate in that respect.

[ProSense]

18. Remember the speech at HU:

http://www.bet.com/News/blackcollegewirevoting.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished&Referrer=%7B03CE5360-2620-42CB-AD7E-77E4249C5FB7%7D

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Just a few general thoughts about 2008 strategy

I agree with whometense, karynnj, and beachmom, especially with whometense on the idea that the media will be our biggest problem. However - this is JMHO - I think the most crucial task for JK now is to construct his own narrative. He tried to do this in 2004, but the media, by giving credence to the Swiftboat liars, derailed Kerry's chosen narrative and instead promoted the Beltway insider/aloof/effeminiate meme through participation both active - (pundit snark) - and inactive - refusal to rebut obvious Republican lies. The cumulative effect took a major toll, and IMO made the election closer than it should have been - close enough to Diebold/disenfranchise/supress voter turnout.

However, what the media did not realize is that they inadvertently handed Kerry the script for one of the greatest literary narratives of all human history - the avenged hero narrative.

Why am I obsessing about the word "narrative"? Because I think, fundamentally, the media views itself not as an impartial news outlet, but as a storyteller. Just witness media coverage of any event from a sports competition to an election. The media thrives on creating narratives and storylines for the actors in any given situation, to turn current events into an elaborate real-life stage drama. At the Olympics, more time is spent telling dramatic and touching stories of athletes who overcame obstacles to make it to the top than is spent actually showing the sports themselves. The same is, in a way, true of even elections. Assigning a particular literary stereotype to a real life person enables the media to create a narrative without having to get into the arduous and often contradictory factual details of a person's life. Thus Bush, in 2000, became the "prodigal son" - the hard partyin' rich ne'er-do-well who found God and a sense of purpose in midlife. In 2004, they employed the Wild West John Wayne narrative for Bush - he was the tough, vigilante enforcer of frontier justice not afraid to break the laws in order to do "what's right".

It is obvious to a lot of people that what happened to JK in 2004 - the Swift Boat liars, etc - was wrong and cowardly. By basing their villainy on such obviously untrue and dishonorable tactics, the GOP and the enabling media have given JK the opportunity to assume the mantle of one of the most compelling literary narratives of all - the wronged hero. It's a classic narrative that has formed the basis for some of the greatest works of literature and drama in the English language - the good and honest hero, who believes in the decency of mankind, is done a terrible injustice by an evil villain. Hero is cast out/abandoned/framed for a crime/otherwise incapacitated, and villain assumes control. However, hero is made of sterner stuff, and - after a period of soul-searching/recovery - returns to confront the villain again, this time armed with not only goodness but the righteous anger of an avenger. Villainy cannot stand in the face of the indestructable force of justice, and the hero prevails. This narrative is one of the most popular literary narratives of all time because it is also one of the most compelling. Everyone loves the story of the underdog, the avenger, the phoenix rising from the ashes. And the terrible and unprecedented Swiftboating of John Kerry - a man who all but the most incalcitrant and dishonest freepers acknowledge is a war hero and an honorable man - dropped this narrative right into JK's hands.

I'm not generally speaking a big fan of the "framing" craze that's come over the left, but in this case, I think taking control of this narrative early and using it to our advantage can be one of the biggest boon's for JK's candidacy. We should couch all our defenses and testimonials for Kerry in the context of this frame - especially when responding to the people who are disappointed/let down/angry about 2004. Kerry is certainly not the first good and honorable man to be struck down by a cowardly foe using dishonorable tactics on the field of battle, and rather than be angry with him for suffering the treachery of villainy, people should see that, rather than lay down and die, he has gotten up, dusted himself off, learned a lesson from his wounds, and returned to fight again - this time, to settle the score. This time, fully aware of the evil they are capable of. This time, to avenge himself - and the country - and assume the rightful place that was denied him by the treacherous deceit of a craven foe.

[ProSense]

20. Makes sense!

Truth avenger! That's more palpable! Kerry is a hero, goes without saying! I think that avenging his status as such gets too caught up in denouncing the lie! Avenging truth however is much bigger and Kerry is the poster boy for speaking "truth to power!" This is something sorely missing from the Republican Party. It's also, in some respects, missing from a certain faction within the Democratic Party.

Also, the truth part is important to emphasize because the Swift Liars were not a group out attack Kerry for his truthful Senate testimony, which they preceived as harmful. This was a deliberate smear funded by the GOP for the sole purpose of influencing the election!

Overall, excellent the idea!

JMO!

[beachmom]

21. I like it, and in a way, JK spontaneously started articulating

that narrative at the Student Forum. He said "I've got some unfinished business" and "I've still got something left to say".

Oh yeah, I like it.

[whometense]

22. Fascinating.

Really. I like it a lot!!

[karynnj]

23. This is brilliant WEL

It really does fit well. It is also great in that should fit the times. This has to be powerful in a dissillusioned time. (It also helps that he is clearly focused now on the important issues - and seems to have many people moving to his Iraq solution.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Oh shit I just realized I misused an apostrophe!

The editing time has expired so I am posting this so everyone knows that I am fully aware that plural words do NOT use apostrophes. "Boon's"??? God, I HATE misuse of apostrophes, and then I stick an unnecessary one in my own post. :dunce: Duh.

[karynnj]

26. You are a true perfectionist!

That is an incredible post.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Thanks Karen

:hug:

It was something I was thinking about earlier today because I was watching Gladiator on TV - which follows the exact same avenging hero narrative - and I started thinking about how many movies, books, plays, and stories follow that same narrative, and then how that narrative has such striking parallels with Kerry's situation. It's good to post in here again.

[karynnj]

29. So glad that you are back

That is an image - are they Roman gladiators - That would fit.

[ProSense]

14. Think Progress

is the blog for Center for American Progress:

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site)
© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

No doubt with two administrations behind them, the Clintons have a lot of influence in the Democratic establishment (they were in fact responsible for the DLC). They are the status quo!

I think whatever influence the Clintons have within these organizations will not necessarily translate to influence among the party base. If you consider the patrons of Think Progress and Media Matters, and the subject matter these organizations have had to deal with, kowtowing to the status quo is not what's driving their success. IMO, real progressive Democrats will win the day because that other crap some Democratic strategists have been selling is partly responsible for enabling this monster GOP machine that is in power!

[TayTay]

13. Interesting. So she has structure, but does she have workers?

The polls all show Hillary in the lead, but those are empty this far out. Who does she have that is actually committed to her and will trek around for her and gather votes. I don't see a whole lot of people.

Also, what issues motivate her. The primaries are brutal because they are so issue-focused. What does she have to run on? (She doesn't have electibility, as no one believes she can win.)

However, money, structure, money, friends in high places and money can't be discounted. Espeically not the money part.

[whometense]

16. It seems entirely possible

that in focusing on structure they have neglected the one crucial element that money can't buy - love.

I know, I know, but I'm not really being glib. The people who meet Kerry and come to understand him love the guy. I don't hear that anywhere about HRC. I hear people impressed with her organization and money and people who are nostalgic for "The Clinton Years." I could be all wrong on this, of course. I certainly don't think Kerry has an easy path.

[TayTay]

30. It depends on what kind of an election '08 turns out to be

'04 was a 'hot' election, it was about issues that have to do with life and death. Those kinds of elections don't tend to come up that often. It is even rarer to have two 'hot' elections in a row. This could well be the case, depending on what happens in Iraq. Iraq is the alpha and omega of '08, it is the all, the issue that fills the room and sucks all the oxygen out of every other issue.

Right now, no one is running and the '08 stuff is still on the back burner for most Americans. '06 is about a lot of things, public discontent, Iraq, Congress being incompetent, Iraq and now Foley-gate, which is actually about morality and public discontent. That will all end in Nov and then the next race really begins.

The really, really scary thing right now is what those ships are doing steaming toward the Gulf. If we get into a wider war in the Middle East, then all bets are off on everything. No one knows what will happen if the United States and possibly Israel attack Iran's suspected nuclear development sites with nuclear tipped missiles. We are in unchartered and alien territory then. No one can possibly know how that will play out and what it will mean for '08. Hell, if that happens, we could well wind up as a pariah nation with world-wide sanctions against us, other nations calling in their debt on us and a resulting economic depression. It could be so bad, that it will make the '30's look like a time of good feeling. (Seriously. This is the most demented thing that a US PResident can do. Attacking Iran and Syria is a form of suicide and there will be devastating world wide consequences that will last for the forseeable future. And attacking Iran and possibly Syria with nuclear tipped weapons is on the table right now. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.)

Given that we need to know if we can survive past Nov without entering WWIII, it is impossible to tell what will happen after that. Impossible. But even without the nightmare scenario of attacking Iran, '08 might still be a 'hot' election and the technocratic approach of a Clinton or Gore might not work. (Both of those people are not without 'blood on their hands' for past actions. That will come out.)

[whometense]

31. Scares the crap out of me.

Posted on it last week, but few seem to want to think about it. Who can blame them? The president and his minions are fucking lunatics. They don't seem to respect anyone or anything outside their own tight nasty little circle.

Just getting past the next month may be a trial. I shudder to think of what they will try in order to keep control of congress.

[MBS]

24. I agree with everyone here

. . on both the Clinton Stuff AND the sad situation of the Atlantic Monthly. (I too stopped subscribing when it moved to DC, though, truth be told, I'd started to lose interest in it several months before. . )
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (or endless recycling my own posts), here's my take on that article, and the whole Billary deal .

1. Even the headline of the article, asking a question about Clinton's motives, is highly interesting, and suggests the media is not so much in the Clintons' pocket as we might fear. (though I was dismayed to learn, or be reminded of, Hillary's connection to Media Matters , and will know to take its posts from now on with a large jug of salt)
2. At some point, voters are going to have to figure out that Hillary is not Bill. She does not have his warmth , nor his irreppressible interest in people (this is also a good thing, of course : )), nor (at least from what I can see on TV) , more specifically, his natural rapport with African Americans. Those adjectives that so often are used to describe her speeches or at least delivery style of her speeches -- "shrill", "wooden", "scolding"-- have something to do substance behind them, IMHO. Also, I see in her a real authoritarian streak (kind of the "scolding" thing, taken to a more substantive level), that, after 8 years of W the Destroyer, should rightly make people very very wary. Remember that Travelgate/whitewater nonsense? It was nonsense, but remember who was most opposed to releasing documents.

3. At some point also, voters are going to have to worry, or at least wonder, about the negative consequences of her continuing connection with Bill. The complicated, unknowable marriage, his propensity for the limelight (see the many good earlier comments on this here), the Billary tendency toward sleazy financial connections, generating miniscandals, or hints of such (minor stuff compared to DeLay, Cheney et al., but still it seems to be a pervasive and chronic thing with them), the triangulation Republican-lite shtick , the focus on strategy that all too often trumps vision and ideals.
Certainly, I've been alarmed by Hillary's already-pervasive connections with corporate donors, etc etc etc
Plus, there's the general issue of what to do with Bill as First Spouse, and, most importantly, another family dynasty coming on the heels of the disasters of the Bush dynasty.
Do voters really want to go through this all over again? the same old conversations?
I know I don't, and -- suprising even myself-- I feel more strongly about this with every day that passes. And I'm TOTALLY sick of the Clintonian triangulation routine. (In case of misunderstanding: I consider tha triangulation is NOT the same as reaching across the aisle and working for bipartisan consensus; to me)
4. Then there's the polarization issue. I know that some of this isn't necessarily fair, but the fact remains that Hillary is a very polarizing figure; there is just something about her personality that does this to some people, including, in recent months, even to me. This is the last thing we need in our bitterly divided country.
5. Also , for all the perceived political sense of the Clintons, I really really think that their whole world view is out of step with the times (and will definitely be out of step in 2008). I really think that voters will be looking for another kind of candidate, and another kind of campaign, in 2008.
6. Because of all of the above, I also agree with the growing conventional wisdom that she's not electable in a general election.
7. And my conclusion in #6 is further bolstered by this thought: like others in this post, I do believe that much of her support is empty, or at least shallow. Much of it is peer-group-conventional-beltway wisdom stuff, linked to the disgusting propensity of Washington politicos and media to kowtow to perceived power and money. By nature, this kind of support generates fair-weather friend. I agree completely with whometense that what's missing is love.
8. I agree that she could make a formidable, effective majority leader in the Senate. And I hope that she has the good sense to focus her ambitions there. She's well suited for that job. But not for president.


As to JK: I'm also frustrated with the media (when they talk about Clinton traveling everywhere, for instance, why doesn't anyone mention how much Kerry has been fundraising and campaigning -- doing real, solid, on-the-ground work, anot just dropped-from-a-helicopter appearances? It drives me NUTS) and I too hope he can take control of the narrative: for sure, they've /we've got work to do to get the real message out there.
But I'm also convinced (and fervently hope) that Kerry can pull this off. First of all, he's consistently ahead of the curve on policy issues across the board: environment, Iraq, terrorism, security, health care, constituitonal issues, you name it. Second of all, he's got the kind of moderate, kind-parent, thoughtful personality that we need right now. Third, he's connecting with the voters everywhere he goes . The national media don't notice (or refuse to notice) yet, but the local media are starting to. I love watching his easy kindness, and genuine interest in, people of all kinds-- little kids, elderly ladies, pro-Iraq men--and I'm particularly delighted to see him connecting with students. As the parent of a college-aid kid myself, I've long held that the "Millenial generation " will do us proud, and their enthusiasm for Kerry is as good a marker of his forward- thinking approach, and his ability to connect to people, as I can think of.Fourth, there is his sheer grit. Not just ambition, but real strength. This impresses me more than anything. Fifth, he has , especially lately, amazing focus and passion . This man is on fire. Sixth, he has character. REAL character. Not sanctimonious, judgmental stuff. But real substance.
Sixth, he knows what he's doing. Already knowledgeable and deeply experience, he's also demonstrated that he can learn, and that he wants to learn: he's learned from his strategic mistakes the last time, he has been tested in the crucible of a national campaign. And he's emerged stronger, more focused, more determined, for the experience.
Seventh, , SWVT slander aside, he's not a polarizing personality. Eighth, it's so obvious that his ambition is about making the country and the world a better place, not about amassing power for its own sake. Ninth, to have ALL these 8 qualitie in one person is unique. The combination is dynamite. . .and it has staying power. No other "mentionable" can touch him in the qualities he brings to the table.

I think (OK, pray) that people will get past their fear, and make a serious, adult choice the next time around. I think that people finally get that we're in serious trouble, and that we need to make a serious choice: the future of our democracy, and of our country, are at stake. People voted last time for the person they wanted to have beer with (OK, to some extent, I did too: the only difference is that I'd want to have a beer with Kerry, and NEVER with with Bush), or they voted their fears. I pray that this time they will put their fears aside, or at least give some serious thought as to who will really help them SOLVE the many fearsome issues pervading our country. . .that they're going to opt for someone who will put the good of the country above power games, that they will choose someone that they can trust, and who is worthy of that trust; someone who will move the country forward, and to include the whole country in the conversation. In short, I believe (OK, pray) that people will make a choice not for fundraiser, beer buddy, or power-wielder: they will make a choice for president.
That person will be John Kerry.

[blm]

28. And then there will be the DEBATES - the series of DEBATES.

And there are only two who can handle them to the point of winning them outright, imo - and that is Kerry and Clark. Possibly Edwards can show some additional skill that he didn't have before. But, my MONEY would go on Kerry and Clark.