Login Here
New York: Will you and the media ever apply as much scrutiny to the Giuliani marriages as you have done to the single Clinton marriage?
David S. Broder: I plan to leave both subjects alone.
In today's WaPo:
And this was simply the confusion sown by having the first lady in charge. Put the former president into the picture -- however "sanitized" or insulated his role is supposed to be -- and the dimensions of the problem become even larger.
No one who has read or studied the large literature of memoirs and biographies of the Clintons and their circle can doubt the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership.
No one can reasonably expect that partnership to end should Hillary Clinton be elected president. But the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land.
It is a difficult question for any of the Democratic rivals to raise. But it lingers, even if unasked.
Well, that didn't take long.
(Photo via nemone.)
PS -- The audio feed is not yet working in the SJC. If and when the feed is functional, liveblogging will resume. If and when I get any further updates on the FISA mark-up, I'll post those for everyone as well.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
1?
hi Christy!
Morning, TexBetsy.
Hello again…
Morning Toby.
MSM lives on double standards ya know.
David Broder is so full of shit that I can’t understand how anyone can take him seriously.
To be fair, that wasn’t really a post about their marriage. It sounds to me like it was about a legitimate concern about having a former president essentially sharing the presidency. Hillary did have a big role in Bill’s White House; how proper is it that he has that influence again? It seems like a loophole in the two term limit. To be honest, I’m not sure that Hillary would be the strong front-runner without being married to Bill; maybe she’d still be competitive, but I think the main allure is that Bill Clinton would be back.
EDIT: Where marriage = personal aspects.
Good Morning Christy and pups.
Big day today. ;->
Re: Clinton marriage:
Has anyone read Sally Bedell Smith’s new For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years yet?
(Too many semicolons in the title/subtitle…)
More fodder for ‘08…
Yeah, I saw that Broderella was clutching his pearls this AM and was combined with the Hacktacular one doing his tap dance (including quoting Camille Paglia on HRC). But we ALL know that the WaPo0 is covering ALL the substantive issues. I guess this is just the other day.
Nick B — I think the main allure is that it would NOT be Bush or a Bush-clone GOP candidate, frankly. But Bubba is probably also a draw for some people. And it was mainly about the political interplay — but this quote stuck out for me: “No one who has read or studied the large literature of memoirs and biographies of the Clintons and their circle can doubt the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership.” Because I’ve not seen anything like that whatsoever from Broder on Guiliani, Thompson, Romney or McCain…
And Christy:
Thanks for monitoring David Broder’s flip-flop for us…*g*
Nick B @ 7
I don’t recall reading such questions in regard to George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Although I voted against both of them, after watching the younger Bush in 2000 campaign, it was reassuring, if misleading, to think that adults would be present.
A little ink and airtime has already been expended on the Fred-Jeri Thompson marriage. But AFAIK, I don’t think there’s much more material than what has already come out.
I agree with CHS at 11.
Broder’s “showing a little leg” on the Clinton marriage. Daring for someone to sneak a peek.
Where’s the fair and balanced look at thrice married Rudolf and his thrice married bride?
Same old shit..If Hillary is the President, Bill will be pulling the strings because, really, do you think a woman could do the job?
That is probably true but the net result of that partnership was/is more Hillary to Bill.
Dean Broder is so very concerned about a “dual Presidency.”
Well, two heads are better than none.
from Feministing by Samhita
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r.....08086.html
OFG! Hey, rare day off for you today? Good to see you. :)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 11
Permanent Vice President Cheney is already searching for his next Bush puppet. The GOP made that more difficult by their stand on cloning, but Cheney remains optimistic. So far, Jeb has shown a tendancy to be slightly too independent. He may, however, be willing to undergo a lobotomy.
Hmm, so should we have been worried about Nancy Regan’s influence? Or is hi point really more subtle. Do we need to worry about the influence of husbands on their wives? I guess none of the reThugs would be influenced by their wives. (esp ghouliani I guess)
TexBetsy @ 18
This is what it links to:
http://men.style.com/details/b.....flilf.html
Per my 9:
Too many colons I meant…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 11
It’s just as well as far as I’m concerned.I am not so sure I really want to know.
At the same time, I can’t grasp the obnoxious compulsion to keep dragging out the Clintons private life.
OT
BTW, did any one else see where CBS is dragging that puke Tucker Carlson into prime time?
Yep, he is going to host a reality type show about how much strangers trust each othercalled, get this,”Do You Tust Me?’,
Someone has a sick sense of humor.
And on a lighter note:
Australian Santas told not to say “ho ho ho” lest they offend women
link
Christy Hardin Smith @ 19
You too! Home for a minute. I always read your stuff. Firebrand!
Love the “icebergs” reference …as if he isn’t already one of the first-class deckhands on the Titanic.
RealWorld @ 21
Well, I believe it has been rumored that Judi wears the pants in that family…
I recognize the double-standard, and I recognize that Broder sometimes talks out of orifices other than his mouth. But it’s hard for me to disagree with the general premise of his article. Eight years of Clinton left me cold, with the triangulation, double-speak, distractions, and most of all, the missed opportunities. I’m not anxious for another 4 or 8 years of same.
And so my position on the nomination–ever since Kerry lost in 2004–has been anyone but HRC. Maybe it’s the small-d democrat in me, but handing the presidency off between Bushes and Clintons for a quarter-century or more doesn’t feel right, nor true to the founders’ hopes for the nation.
I’m still trying to figure out where I stand on Obama vs. Edwards vs. Richardson–but I’m clear on the one I won’t be supporting once the Virginia primary rolls around. (Even if, as per usual, the nomination is wrapped up by then.)
Broder is putting on a dress and climbing into a lifeboat…After stepping on the toes of some cloying children.
-GSD
Roxanne at 27 — Yes, the “concerned acquaintence tone” was utterly convincing in the writing, wasn’t it? SIGH
Roxanne @ 27
I saw that as a reference to the “ice princess, Ms. Fridgidaire.”
rar3, please consider kucinich as well.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 11
I don’t think anyone with two brain cells to rub together would make the claim that sitting presidents don’t consult with their spouses. I think this is one of those “dirty little secrets” in DC. Shoot, Woodrow Wilson’s wife ran the government after he had his stroke. But THIS particular situation is a first - no matter how you slice it. The closest thing might be if Elizabeth Dole was running for president - she could, would, and probably definitely would consult with Bob Dole. Would the GOP get its knickers in a twist if Liddy Dole were to consult with HER husband? I doubt that highly.
It’s the whole “big dog” thing here.
On the other side of it, though I’m sure Bill Clinton would love to mix it up after Hillary Rodham Clinton won the presidency, I really think Hillary would send him off to do “good works.”
She has been waiting for this moment since about 1973, when she refused Bill Clinton’s marriage proposal the first time. She already was seen as someone with a political future, which she put aside “for the time being” for her husband’s political future. That completed, it was her turn, and she legitimately won the Senate seat from New York State (the GOP did not exactly put up a strong candidate against her). Was it always her aim to take a run at the presidency - we’ll never know. She’s done a good job as senator from New York - as an Upstater, I can tell you she knows more about Upstate New York and its economy than Chuck Schumer will ever know. He may as well be the Senator from an entire separate state, “Downstate” for the amount of knowledge he has about any piece of geography north of Yonkers.
I think that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a ferociously ambitious person - while she might chat with Bill over a meal about what is going on - she is very much her own person and I think she’s got plans for him — but very muc outside the White House.
Yep. I’m sure he teaches that as part of his “how to make up shit for your column” class at UofM.
I’d love to see how Judy Ghouliani would re-decorate the WH…throne rooms…red carpet everywhere…jeweled bathrooms…Versailles on the Potomac.
dakine01 @ 28
Hopefully, every president will consult trusted advisors. It just happens to be very nice if the trusted advisor happens to be one of the most successful presidents in American history. The only time I know of a preferable situation was FDR’s third and fourth elections.
I’m having trouble deciding how much to donate to the Judge Gonzales defense fund.
Nick B @ 7
What difference does it make if she chooses her husband as opposed to her best friend as an advisor? Bush had Gonzo in there, unqualified, then ranked him right up in the DOJ, unqualified. Does returning Cheney’s appointees back in the WH after years with Nixon make anyone “uncomfortable”?
I wrote this in the previous thread, but it’s on topic here, so I’ll repost…
If Hillary wins and is President, will the character slurs and attacks from the wingnuts continue? Don’t they know that it is unpatriotic to criticize a President in a time of war? Don’t they know that it will weaken our country? Don’t they know it will harm the President’s ability to protect us? I’m expecting they’ll forget all about that.
Giuliani tried to upplay Judi’s influence on him–and got smacked. Jeri tried to upplay her influence on Fred–and also got smacked. But no one doubts the equal partnership of the Clintons.
The big question is: Will there be a Bush-Clinton fatigue playing in ‘08? Since 1988 it’s been those two dynasties, as it were. If Hillary goes to the WH that’ll be a 24-year (possibly 28-year) stretch.
Wonder if Broder pondered the influence of Nancy’s astrologer?
Did anyone see Brent Bozoelle on ‘Morning Joe’ this morning claiming Hillary has gotten a free pass from the press since 1992?
Probably not, since ‘Morning Joe’ is virtually unwatchable.
Anyway, this Bozoelle can always be counted on for a good laugh. When his gig as a media watchdog for the Gamma Quadrant runs out, he can always write for the ‘Onion.’
Bustednuckles @ 24
I hope this is just a way to politely show him the door. “Too bad your new show didn’t get the ratings we’d all hoped for..” etc.
Loo Hoo, can’t recall what I donated or when.
Does Dean Broder have any opinions about the influence of Dubya’s daddy, you know, Barbara?
Toby Wollin @ 34
IIRC, didn’t Liddy Dole run for Pres in Y2K? Or at least attempt a rund that didn’t get very far?
I do recall that Schumer at one time did have a little understanding of life in upstate and when he first became Senator, worked with Sherry Boehlert on issues for DoD/Rome Lab/Griffiss. But that’s been a few years.
rar3 @ 29
I think that it’s pretty lame that Hillary can’t be judged on her own merits, ie as a Senator. And also to just assume that she’ll carry on with exactly the policies of her husband, which everyone does assume, is not based on facts. You would be voting for Hillary, not Bill. She would be making the State of the Union address and running the country.
TexBetsy @ 33
Betsy–I’ve followed Kucinich’s career since he was elected to Congress, and know some of his history as mayor of Cleveland. He’s one of those courageous politicians that I’m glad are out there taking sometimes-unpopular stances. But I can’t get past the fact that I’m a lot more comfortable with him as one of 435 than as President.
Sorry…but as I said before, my Virginia residence means my nomination vote is a moot point anyway.
Is anyone thinking the Hillary is going to be fooling around with an intern in the Oval Office?
The editorial page of our local gooper rag had Broder’s column as well as Will’s which also attacks the Clinton bid…
Goopers are scared shitless that she might win the White House- and Bill’s dick would rule the world again!!!
rar3 @ 29
I don’t particularly favor HRC and appreciate your concerns. However, I don’t share them. John Adams was one of the founding fathers and the Constitution, as thoughtful a document as it is, doesn’t limit relatives from being elected. From what we’ve observed with George Bush and his father, it seems that the major worry might be that Hillary Clinton would have some chip on her shoulder that caused her to ignore the successful policies of her husband. I don’t think that’s at all likely, but it seems to be the only rational explanation for George W. Bush.
rar3 @ 48
Anyone for Kucinich for House Speaker?
Kucinich? Pray to the saint of lost causes- forgot who that is…he’s in the race to lay out views that would otherwise not be presented- but even Kucinich knows that he’s not ever going to be pres.
Toby — Being House SPeaker requires a lot of interpersonal and management skills, and tactical abilities that, alas, Kucinich has not shown a particular skill with through the years. So…not so much for me, thanks.
The bottom line is that by 01/20/09, this country is going to be in economic and foreign policy crisis not seen in generations. Who is the best person to do the hostile take over from the Thugs and to keep this Country afloat? The Republicans first and only allegiance is to Party and not Country. Which Dem can take the heat and fight back?
rwcole @ 53
St Jude.
dakine—Thank you
rwcole @ 53
Then he would be doing us all a favour by bailing before the primaries. I wonder to which candidate his support would go?
George Simian @ 47
A fair point. But its hard to see HRC in the position to run for President if not for her exposure as First Lady. Even if she had won the Senate seat only on her own merits, she wouldn’t be where she is in the race.
But even if it were possible to leave all the Bill baggage behind, I’m looking at a Senator who voted for the war, hasn’t backed away from that vote in the way Edwards has, and whose voice didn’t seem to be anywhere to be heard throughout the first four years of her term when Bush and his minions were running roughshod over the Senate. So her own merits don’t exactly leave me warm and fuzzy, either…
Kucinich is going nowhere and will stay in the House. I like his wife Elizabeth however, and her accent…*g*
Christy Hardin Smith @ 54
At this point I’d prefer someone with a club.
Hmmmm.
How ’bout Waxman?
pma @ 13
Actually the word out was that Dubya would benefit greatly from the advice of his more exerienced father…Dick Cheney.
rar3 @ 48
That is the impression that I get even though I haven’t done a lot of research. Great ideas and politics, not so good at actually doing anything. I have noticed looking at his voting record that he seems to have missed a lot of important votes.
half OT:
Sidney Blumenthal Leaves Salon to Join Clinton Campaign
from TalkLeft by Jeralyn
Journalist Sidney Blumenthal has written his last column at Salon, explaining why he is leaving the magazine to join Hillary Clinton’s campaign as a senior advisor.
T- at 61 — We sure do need something…just not sure where or how to get it. SIGH
Biodun @ 60
Of course, FDL has its own “reddhedd” with a neat accent, too.
Sid Blumenthal has always been a devout Clintonite, so his move is not that surprising. Expect some kind of role for him in a Hillary administration.
old gold @ 42
Liberty Lee watches him…or at least reads his stuff ;-)
Christy Hardin Smith @ 65
Well, let’s put it this way, I’m still not understanding the basis for Nancy Pelosi’s being made Speaker. Her skills seem a little lacking.
We will obviously never know but she was on the fast track in DC before she married Bill. Going to Arkansas pretty much put her political career on hold for ten years. Hillary doesn’t have the raw brain power that Bill has but she is much more focused and organized. Probably something that the Country is going to need as the economy goes into tank.
Cinnamonape @ 62:
“Actually the word out was that Dubya would benefit greatly from the advice of his more exerienced father…Dick Cheney.”
As much as I disliked Cheney, at the time I actually thought he was sane and was just a conservative Republican. I feel better because I think that Brent Scowcroft has written that he was also tricked.
George Simian @ 49
Garry Trudeau
Toby Wollin @ 69
seemed like a good idea at the time
Obama’s smackdown of Hillary’s apparent flip-flop on drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in New York State: One can see why Hillary’s campaign is more comfortable planting questions rather than answering them.
US military seems to have no idea who we’re even killing over in Iraq. Anyone we think has “hostile intent”. Ugh!
Steve-AR @ 55
Hillary imo. It is going to have to be one heck of a strong cabinet too.
OT here, but relates to last thread:
Did folks here at the ‘Lake read this piece over at Slate: The Smart Way around Telecom Immunity? What was the consensus here about it?
This is pretty creepy. Evidence that there really are “chemtrails”..:
http://www.ksla.com/Global/sto.....p;nav=0RY5
Oh, I see, “they” are different from Dick and Lynne or Nancy and Ronnie or …
Please, his writing should see better days…But today, his writing is not better, it’s worse.
Any way, when will he ever write about the marriage of two oil men in office and “the intimacy and the mutual dependence of their political and personal partnership?”
“But the country must decide whether it is comfortable with such a sharing of the power and authority of the highest office in the land.”
Now THIS might be more of a problem:
Hillary Clinton’s Fundraising From People Bill Pardoned
from Huff Po by The Huffington Post News Editors
Three recipients of controversial 11th-hour pardons issued by former President Bill Clinton in January 2001 have donated thousands of dollars to the presidential campaign of his wife, Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News, in what some good government groups said created an appearance of impropriety.
“It’s not illegal,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. “But, of course, it’s inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback.
When were any of their spouses POTUS?
Loo Hoo @ 76
I suspect she has already gotten the organization charts and personnel structure prepared. She, probably better than anyone, knows how bad the transition is going to be. The Republicans will be “blowing the bridges” to cover their retreat and do as much damage to the new administration as possible. Am I too paranoid? I don’t think so.
George Simian @ 49
If I thought it would help her restore our standing in the world, ensure our civil liberties, halt the decline of the middle class, and and de-politicize the career civil service, I would be for funding such intern positions.
And Sid Blumenthal has already began his campaign for Hillary in his last column for Salon:
(FYI: I’m well aware that Sid is well loved by many at FDL.)
Bustednuckles @ 24
Cool! Does that mean he is done being a bloviator on politics? Oh, I hope so!!!! Leaving NBC as well? WhoooHooo!
Steve-AR @ 55
Nobody will be able to resolve a stagnant economy quickly. I don’t believe it’ll be anything as dire as a Depression crsis, but stagnation will take at least 3 years to work out.
As for foreign policy, any of the Dems will perform better than Bush.
– this piece over at Slate: The Smart Way around Telecom Immunity? What was the consensus here about it? –
.
My two cents is that an attempt to circumscribe application of “state secrets” via some statutory construct is a non-starter. But I think the public should bristle every time “state secret” is asserted. The article is good for stirring debate, but it’s prescription for solution a) won’t be put in place and b) even if it was, a secretive executive would find other ways to accomplish the same end.
I EPU’d a long comment back in the Of Admissions thread, but I think a lot of what has given pause to people like Feingold and Whitehouse was the having something like the kidnapping of the soldiers frame off an issue of a special circumstance of foreigners v. foreign powers v. US citizens in foreign areas and the ability to perhaps do something like geographic dragnetting (which will catch everything - including non-foreign power communications and US citizen communications) for such a targetted purpose and how the gaps in what FISA (which wasn’t intended for such a thing) play out.
But as I left below, they have taken what a horse - what FISA was meant to be - and have amputated and attached limbs and appendages and now even the head, from elephants and turkeys and crocodiles and eagles and hippos - - and now still want to call it a horse.
If they need a better horse, they need to make it better by working on the horse parts, and if they need a better croc - do the same. But the mixmatch is a disaster
Biodun @ 84
I am one that hearts Blumenthal. But I don’t have much use for his new boss. All he has been able to do is change my mind about not voting for her if she emerges the winner. I’ll use a noseclip and vote for her. But I disagree that they fear her.
Broder’s column in today’s WaPo is a collectable. It is a precious gem in the long tiara of anti-intellectualism in American first-string journalism, as it defends a totally self-serving and enervated paradigm. One more reason why this great book wouldn’t win a Pulitzer in today’s politico-journalist climate.
The Clintons can think together, therefore they must be dangerous, eh? Broder almost gets me to like the Clintons.
TexBetsy @ 80
I think she should return that money too.
rar3 @ 66
delurking before I run out the door - whaddya mean, our ReddHedd has an accent?????
Yeah, cuz its not like Cheney is a userper or anything.
Kevin Hayden @ 86
I sure hope you are right about the economy but a much worse situation also may happen. Fed policy seem to be to keep the smoke and mirrors going until the Dems take over. The full extent of the mortgage/real estate disaster won’t show up until April May next year. The last estimate that I saw was that at least 2 trillion $ will be sucked out of the economy by a falling housing market in the next two years. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Steve-AR @ 55
The crisis will be far worse than the earlier Depression because nobody has access to land and food, not to mention water and energy.
The stakes are much much higher.
There isn’t any candidate who can manage the problem. It’s only going to be resolved by We, the People taking collective action and asserting our sovereignty for the common good.
Diane @ 41
Just Googled to see. Nope.
OT–
This is the kind of information on Giuliani that Judith Regan’s lawsuit will pry open, which New Yorkers have known for some time, and which Americans in general will now know:
Kevin Hayden @ 86
Taxing the rich will fix the economy pretty quickly. Closing loopholes for offshore corps will be a quick fix too. Sue Haliburton and their war-profiteering brethren for desert.
There aren’t enuff Bentley’s in Orlando, Florida to meet market demand.
Yes, there certainly has NOT been enough ado about the Kucinich marriage and the MSM has been sorely lacking in this regard, as in so many others.
But I think it needs to be pointed out that while that freaky little Romulan lookalike may not have the networking, interpersonal, or charismatic skills necessary to continue past his current position (as some would have it), can there be little doubt that he is almost the sole proprietor of a truly progressive perspective.
Seriously, jokes about the wife and his appearance asside, when I think about someone on the national stage who says the things I want to hear, much of the time it is Dennis Kucinich. It is tragic that he is not more personable and potentially electable. If we could just transplant his brain into John Edwards’ head, I think we could actually make America a force to respect in the world again.
On a maore substnative note - can’t say any of us is surprised that Broder fibbed to the live questioner but has the FISA hearing been delayed? Or is it on the earlier thread?
I use Jane’s metric..the Birkin hand bag. The latest Birkin Blue Croc diamond hand bag goes for $148,700 and there is a long waiting list.
johnSwifty @ 99
But if you transplanted Kucinich’s brain into John Edwards’ head, you’d just have a better looking Kucinich.
What you may be looking for is to transplant Kucinich’s ideals and beliefs into the Edwards’ head to go along with the Edwards intelligence and looks for a better composite candidate.
YMMV
johnSwifty @ 99
We will be better people for making the best of our leaders’ strenghts and working with them to compensate for their weaknesses. It’s better to have wholly human representatives in our government than phony unilateral executives.
Christy - do you have an email address for looseheadprop? I have something for her re: NYS voting machines.
After the November 2006 elections, there were opportunities for many Democrats to stand up and lead. It didn’t happen and the Congress reverted quickly to business as usual. Calls from both the base and the country were not so much ignored as ignored and resented.
Pelosi quickly took impeachment off the table and equated achievement with passing bills in the House that had little or no chance of passage in the Senate or surviving a Bush veto. On big issues for Democrats like Iraq and domestic spying, she refused to fight and except for a few ineffectual statements has enabled the Administration on both.
Harry Reid has been even worse. He doesn’t even pay lip service to Democratic positions most of the time but goes straight to accommodating Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.
But let’s face it there have been many others. Murtha couldn’t put aside being a crook to lead the anti-war fight. Conyers has held a bunch of unfocused hearings and hates the idea of impeachment as much as Pelosi.
Hoyer, Emanuel, and Schumer are consumed by the political games they play.
Feinstein has lost it if she ever had it. The Republicans will take her vote but I think even they find her an embarrassment.
Leahy, Feingold, and Durbin talk good but as far as I can see have risked nothing and accomplished less.
The 4 Senators running for President talk about leadership on the campaign trail but have shown no leadership whatsoever in the Senate.
It goes without saying that the Republicans in all ways are far worse than this. Still I admit to a little envy that they try to represent those who elected them even if those who did are kooks.
Frseh thread for everyone. I’ve gotten updated information on both the House and Senate work on FISA…
tejanarusa @ 92
She did once upon a time, when we knew each other in a different life.
By the way, Christy–did you get the e-mail I sent a few weeks ago identifying myself from days long past, or should I resend? I’m not ready to out myself to the comments section, but I’d like for you to be able to put a name/face with my screen name…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 106
404 Error - not found…
dakine01 @ 108
Ooops, there it is now…
rar3 @ 59
And how many people are made Vice President who then become the favored nominee for President? Usually their selection was to mainly balance the ticket geographically and ideologically. And there are legions of individuals who represent parent-child or husband-wife political replacements. John Adams-John Quincy Adams, the Taft dynasty, the Kennedy’s, the Wallaces, the Bonos, the Doles, Matsui, Tsongas, etc. It’s very likely that these individuals benefitted from circumstance in being elected. But there are plenty of other circumstances other than kinship or “native talent” that propels a person into such positions. Wealth (inherited or otherwise), ties to an incumbent, birthplace, neighborhood one grew up in, and for two hundred years gender and race.
I kind of get the feeling of people complaining about Hillary being married to a former President sound a bit like those who squeal about affirmative action programs at Universities where athletes and big donors kids and “legacies” are offered guaranteed admissions without a whimper of dispute.
As far as Hillary taking advice from a former President, well I’m sure that John Quincy Adams took advice from his father as well. I’m not so sure about Dubya…seems Cheney was the one giving advice in that case.
But do we really want a President who DOESN’T TAKE ADVICE?? Who doesn’t hear out the views of the Cabinet, and Congress, and the public? Who will simply fire Generals and Cabinet members who offer contrary advice?
I’d hope that the President have access to a wide variety of views, including that of former Presidents. And their spouses, when they are intelligent and rational. I’d hope that Elizabeth Edwards could feel free to advise her husband, for example. If Bill Clinton is “first husband” he could not hold any sway over the President other than being her husband. Bill Clinton doesn’t even hold any position in the Democratic party hierarchy. He couldn’t be Vice President, or hold any position in the order of succession, I believe.
If you don’t like Hillary’s policy positions on Iran or Iraq or Israel(which are only shades different from her two main Democratic opponents, I hate to say) vote for Kucinich or Gravel.
Toby at 104 — I do, but since she prefers to stay anonymous, why don’t you send your information to me at ReddHedd AT AOL DOT com and I’ll pass it along to her?
Steve-AR @ 94
The impression that I’ve been getting (primarily from NPR and the Economist) is that the subprime thing is hitting harder and faster than anyone expected. So, yes, sometime next year, just before the election. The perfect time to showcase the Republicans’ skillful and thoughtful handling of the economy.
“It’s the economy, stupid!” is still a powerful meme. Let’s hope the Democratic nominee plays it for all it’s worth.
rar — I did — and I remember you, too! Sorry I haven’t had a chance to get back to you. It’s been a crazed coupla weeks here…
But I remember talking with you guys on the phone quite a bit in the run-up to the conference. :) And from any number of other ones as well. Ahhhh…to have that level of energy again…
If you don’t know the difference between a husband-wife presidential succession and father-son, then you must be hopeless.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 111
Heh - I thought she would feel that way. NP - I will send the link to you.
Biodun #97, very interesting story.
Re the Broder article, it is a rather typical hit piece. It takes a positive, Bill Clinton’s popularity and experience, and tries to turn it into a negative, that he will have undue and inappropriate influence. Just your usual run of the mill Beltway punditry and backstabbing.
Hugh @ 105
Hear him!
The strength of the Democratic party is a general ability to perceive nuance in world affairs. The tragedy of the party is getting lost in attempting to deal with them all simultaneously.
Yes, there are days when it would be so much easier to view the world in black and white.
Steve-AR @ 94
The housing bubble peaked more than two years ago and historical bubbles take about 3 years to bottom, so you’re right. But the stockmarkets are predictive and will likely bottom by February. It’s the historical flatline that follows that which poses the bigger problem: few dollars for any initiatives beyond economic patches.
This is why I’m an advocate for more populist rhetoric than most of the candidates are advancing: the bottom 40% is gonna be hurting bad and it’s time to pull Reagan Democrats back into the fold. Healthcare’s great but jobs and wages are gonna be serious issues soon.
But the stockmarkets are predictive and will likely bottom by February.
Agreed, with the proviso that the recovery doesn’t really get under way until 2009. And then it is only temporary.
Wells Fargo: Housing worst since Great Depression
Dean Broder is a lying sack of shit.
Whodathunkit!
The much bally-hoo’d Commercial Real Estate Boom is going Bust…
CRE Loan Volumes Fall in Q3
That is another shoe dropping along with the various consumer credit debacles yet to manifest…
Biodun @ 40
Umm Bush 1 was also head of CIA, and VP under a Pres that could not remember much at the end. I don’t think Nancy was running things, though maybe her astrologer - I would say it was Bush I running things (with help from the Sith Lord et al).
ResCap Credit Swaps Soar on Concern It May Default (Update1)
Credit rating pancakes… now a short stack…
Also John Adams wife was a very close and strong counseler to him (either in person or via letter)
neokneme @ 120
The Bush tax cuts just keepin working! Thanks, Republicans!
The Bush tax cuts save $500 per child. Thanks Republicans!
neokneme @ 124
Mmmmmmm……short stack……….
rar3 @ 59
Judge her on her own merits, as all candidates should be judged. Anything else is unfair. Your reliance on “Bill baggage” to criticize her is a cop-out. It also makes my feminist radar go off. If you stick to the facts of her public service and her plans for this country, as you did in the post above, there is plenty to criticize without mentioning Bill. And plenty of reasons to support a different candidate (as I do).
I think that the founders would not be bothered by two legitimately elected Clintons. The dynasty issue has undue weight because of Bush’s stolen elections. If we were in the final year of the Gore administration, we wouldn’t be talking about two families dominating national politics for 25 years.
Clinton had problems keeping it in his pants, but so does Rudy… I don’t believe in the politics of smear, but it’s hard not to point things out like this to Rudy’s supporters…
Steve-AR @ 55
In terms of a person’s strength and intelligence and perhaps contentiousness, I think Hillary could, but won’t because she wouldn’t want her admin. to be about them. She would want it to be about her, even if she just sits on the throne 4 years and does nothing. I think John Edwards is both capable and perhaps leaning that way, though he has a strong agenda to carry forward.
So, in the end, there probably isn’t anybody who is directly going to spend much time fighting Repubs instead of executing their own plans.
Perhaps it’s this internal strength and drive which attract many of us to either Hillary or Edwards.
Of course, as I’ve said many times, I favor Edwards because it seems he has all the usual good qualities we look for, plus his world-view is very people-oriented and not just power-grabbing money-oriented.
Kevin Hayden @ 118
I agree with one addition. I think this is a Republican play to prevent Democrats in the White House from ever having enough leeway to consider health care reform and some other things without great hesitation. They don’t want us to achieve anything great, so they give us a flat or plunging economy.
This is a critical term a Democratic President must use to bash ‘em hard with real change to help common folks! That’s another reason, a purely political one, I think Edwards is best suited to.
Hillary says fix the economy and cut the debt. Fine, but it doesn’t really get America where we need to go, it’s just treading water.
BTW, have you noticed how beautifully written are Edwards recent speeches. They’re like mannah from Heaven.