missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
pjonathan@chorus.net (not verified) says:
Good article but I think you could/should write a book about Bill Clinton's role in Hillary's campaign. Maybe call it "Third Term".
I think his campaign is the best story of the 2008 election. News articles, editorials, Op-Ed pieces and blogs are full of Bill. If you started researching now and started with only web searches you would probably need a year full time to get everything before some of it disappears from the web.
I agree with George Will's comment: "Speaking of the boomers' inexhaustible fascination with themselves, Bill Clinton has transformed his wife's campaign into his narcissism tour. As the New York Times dryly described a New Hampshire appearance the day after her Iowa rejection: "He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife.""
However, it talks only about tactical campaigning. There is something of more concern.
Running to redeem a father and now, a husband, is a story worth writing.
Much has been written about George W running to redeem his father's "failure" to "go to Bagdad".
Some has been written this time around about Senator Dodd running to redeem his father's failure-ethical lapses- and Governor Romney running to redeem his father's failure-his brainwashing comments.
The press has been nibbling around the edges of Hillary running to redeem Bill and herself. That story, however, is the most intriguing of the bunch.
In addition, an article written about all of these "redemption" runs would probably convince us that voters should never vote for a presidential candidate who is related to a president or presidential candidate. I think with just my information it is fair to say that redemption runs lead to poor judgment in the political decisions of a campaign and in presidential decisions, clouding both. An experienced political writer or writers would be able to fully research and present clearly the results of that research.
I think that Hillary Clinton would still be leading if Bill Clinton had been kept in the background. What I am seeing and what I believe the press is starting to report is that Hillary's race is all about Bill redeeming Bill and Bill's legacy and Hillary redeeming Bill, Bill's legacy, and Hillary's legacy. Obama and Edwards have been clearly stating for a long time that their presidential race is about America or about the middle class or about the other America, not about them. Hillary in NH is just starting to say that her race is not about her. But she just said that the race for her is very personal, suggesting policy but in reality much more telling.
On a related matter: I think Michael Goodwin may have been the first to write about Hillary's experience claim. John F. Harris and Maureen Dowd also touch on this factor. However, they are just describing the peak of the iceberg.
Hillary Clinton is On the Ropes (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"The nostalgia for the '90s, a move for a restoration of the Clinton presidency, isn't a persuasive rationale. The flaw was on display in her speech - surrounded by Bill and some of his old aides, she was a tableau of the past, not the future."
"She needs to come out from behind Bubba and the barricades and the imperial court of handlers who create a bubble."
Hillary and Bill Clinton's time in the White house was during a much different, much easier time in our country's history than the next eight years will be.
I think the voters realize that Hillary's claim to experience was that she had only some experience and that it was during that much different, much easier period.
It is not all that relevant to the difficult next eight years. Her time has come and gone.
I think that voters are seeing Bill Clinton as someone who rode the wave, not as someone who actively created the good times. The more I read and think about Bill, the more I see him as someone who wasted a fabulous opportunity to help the people of this country.
I think that is underlying Hillary's drop in the polls and the loss in Iowa. If that is correct, I don't see how she can regain the lead without a very negative attack on Obama. I think that having Bill on the campaign trail was the cause of her decline. It made her look like his puppet, reminded people of Bill's failings to seize the fabulous opportunity, and reinforced the opinion that she was of the past that was much different than the present.
If this is correct, Bill's taking over her campaign will only make matters worse for Hillary. Sharp attacks by both of them against Obama will also reinforce the differences between the two candidates.
Good article but I think you could/should write a book about Bill Clinton's role in Hillary's campaign. Maybe call it "Third Term".
I think his campaign is the best story of the 2008 election. News articles, editorials, Op-Ed pieces and blogs are full of Bill. If you started researching now and started with only web searches you would probably need a year full time to get everything before some of it disappears from the web.
I agree with George Will's comment: "Speaking of the boomers' inexhaustible fascination with themselves, Bill Clinton has transformed his wife's campaign into his narcissism tour. As the New York Times dryly described a New Hampshire appearance the day after her Iowa rejection: "He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife.""
However, it talks only about tactical campaigning. There is something of more concern.
Running to redeem a father and now, a husband, is a story worth writing.
Much has been written about George W running to redeem his father's "failure" to "go to Bagdad".
Some has been written this time around about Senator Dodd running to redeem his father's failure-ethical lapses- and Governor Romney running to redeem his father's failure-his brainwashing comments.
The press has been nibbling around the edges of Hillary running to redeem Bill and herself. That story, however, is the most intriguing of the bunch.
In addition, an article written about all of these "redemption" runs would probably convince us that voters should never vote for a presidential candidate who is related to a president or presidential candidate. I think with just my information it is fair to say that redemption runs lead to poor judgment in the political decisions of a campaign and in presidential decisions, clouding both. An experienced political writer or writers would be able to fully research and present clearly the results of that research.
I think that Hillary Clinton would still be leading if Bill Clinton had been kept in the background. What I am seeing and what I believe the press is starting to report is that Hillary's race is all about Bill redeeming Bill and Bill's legacy and Hillary redeeming Bill, Bill's legacy, and Hillary's legacy. Obama and Edwards have been clearly stating for a long time that their presidential race is about America or about the middle class or about the other America, not about them. Hillary in NH is just starting to say that her race is not about her. But she just said that the race for her is very personal, suggesting policy but in reality much more telling.
On a related matter: I think Michael Goodwin may have been the first to write about Hillary's experience claim. John F. Harris and Maureen Dowd also touch on this factor. However, they are just describing the peak of the iceberg.
Hillary Clinton is On the Ropes (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"The nostalgia for the '90s, a move for a restoration of the Clinton presidency, isn't a persuasive rationale. The flaw was on display in her speech - surrounded by Bill and some of his old aides, she was a tableau of the past, not the future."
"She needs to come out from behind Bubba and the barricades and the imperial court of handlers who create a bubble."
Hillary and Bill Clinton's time in the White house was during a much different, much easier time in our country's history than the next eight years will be.
I think the voters realize that Hillary's claim to experience was that she had only some experience and that it was during that much different, much easier period.
It is not all that relevant to the difficult next eight years. Her time has come and gone.
I think that voters are seeing Bill Clinton as someone who rode the wave, not as someone who actively created the good times. The more I read and think about Bill, the more I see him as someone who wasted a fabulous opportunity to help the people of this country.
I think that is underlying Hillary's drop in the polls and the loss in Iowa. If that is correct, I don't see how she can regain the lead without a very negative attack on Obama. I think that having Bill on the campaign trail was the cause of her decline. It made her look like his puppet, reminded people of Bill's failings to seize the fabulous opportunity, and reinforced the opinion that she was of the past that was much different than the present.
If this is correct, Bill's taking over her campaign will only make matters worse for Hillary. Sharp attacks by both of them against Obama will also reinforce the differences between the two candidates.