You could quite probably go blind thinking about all the machinations involved in this one:
President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush gushed about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s experience yesterday – saying she could handle the immense challenges of the presidency better than any other Democrat.
The Republican president, in an interview with ABC News, said, “There is no question that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race.”
Bush called Clinton a “very formidable candidate” who he said understands the “klieg lights” that go with presidential politics.
But, he said, “I do believe our candidate will beat her, if she happens to be the nominee.”
Then, he turned around and slammed Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, for promoting the “odd foreign policy” of agreeing to meet with leaders of countries like Iran without preconditions.
“These candidates don’t really understand is how complex the environment is inside the Oval Office,” Bush said.
Does Bush really want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because he thinks she’ll be easier to beat than Obama or Edwards? Or does he realize he’s got a virulent case of political cooties and his endorsement is the kiss of death, and he’s trying to take her down a few more points in Iowa? Perhaps he thinks she’s the Democratic candidate least likely to undo his “legacy” in the Middle East (because history is gonna vindicate him, you know). Or maybe he thinks the wholesale return of the media obsession with her underwear drawer will take the heat off his little “Iraq” problem and he just wants to give her a leg up into the headlines.
The whole thing makes my head hurt.
(photo by Llima)
Related posts:
- George W. Bush Mocked Sarah Palin as Underqualified Lightweight During ‘08 Campaign
- Memo to the White House: You Can’t Win an Unpopular War (And Stop Quoting George W. Bush)
- Noonan Blasts Palin as a Talented Lightweight, Praised Same Qualities in George W. Bush
- Disgraceful: In 8 Years, George W. Bush Never Greeted Fallen Troops
- George Bush Personally Sent Card, Gonzales to Thug Up Ashcroft
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Jane!
Yep.
EPU’d from earlier thread:
Biodun @ 106
Biodun @ 1
Biodun!
It’s like George Bush is the good cop to Novak’s bad cop. This one’s going to fuck the Democrats up for a few days now.
Oooh, now my head hurts, too.
I continue to believe that they most fear Edwards.
Senator Clinton is one subject that Bush can talk about and people will be curious enough to listen. Something the media will find important enough to put what he has to say on TV. I think Bush is feeling completely left out of the election process. He is desperate for someone to listen to his opinion on anything at this point.
neo-con… accent on the “con.” we’re descending into a world where logic no longer functions at all.. and we can’t hang onto what’s really happening… and it’s all calculated, I think, to get people to tune out.
If I was Hillary Clinton, I’d be bathing in Lysol right about now.
mc @ 4
Amen.
The Bushes endorsed Hillary because they like everyone else without blinders know that she has triangulated herself well to the right of center. Hillary is a Democrat in name only. Her policy statements are Republican, slightly to the right of Nixon.
Repug and MSM talking point # 1 re: presidential election ‘08:
Hillary as the Dem nominee will galvinize Repug support and consolidate the Repug base, and because she’s a polarizing figure (47 percent of voters have already said they’ll vote against her), the Repug nominee will win the general.
This is repeated ad nauseam almost every day.
Mmmm
It’s normal to scratch one’s head and to ask oneself “What’s he thinkin” when faced with Bush quotes…Often, however, the answer is “Nothin at all”.
If Bush didn’t think the Republicans could beat her, he wouldn’t be praising her. With Bush criticizing Obama and George Will’s hit piece on Edwards last week, I think it’s pretty clear who the Republicans want to have heading the Democratic ticket. They think they’ll beat her easily, I think they’re right.
She’s a female version of LIEberman. Of course he would endorse her.
How can a “sane” mind know the “reasoning” of a psychopath? Of all of the candidates, Hillary is the most likely to have the DOJ prosecute senior members of the the Bush Administration. Maybe Bush is a secret Wagner fan; and Hillary is his Brunnhilde?
I think this all fell out of a question the two idiots in chief were asked during a softball interview–which was about whether being first lady gives a person any valuable experience….the question was asked in the middle of the prez sayin how much hard work it is to be prez and lady Laura sayin how much she does to contribute to america’s effective policies around the world.
I think I would rather try untying a Gordian knot than try to delve too deeply into Bushes mindset.
So the worst President in our history has good things to say about Hillary Clinton. I don’t know which is stupider, Bush or Gibson (or whoever the interviewer was) for asking his opinion on anything.
You and me both, Jane. I’ve been very suspicious and resentful about the Republican annointing Hillary since, well, practically the day after the election in 2004. I vote for “all of the above” as their rationale. All in all, I really don’t think it bodes well for her or her campaign. If only I agreed with more of her policies, it would make me want to vote for her more, not less. Unfortunately, I don’t like how she’s handles the AUMF, Kyl/Lieberman, the healthcare plan (can you say “single payer plan”?) amongst others. Oh, well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.
Jane, when I sit down to the turkey dinner tomorrow afternoon, I’ll say an extra “thanks” for FDL, its writers and commmenters. I’m also hoping you remain in wonderful health.
In the meantime, I’m with everyone else who’s said that the Republicans are scared shitless of Edwards. He also gets the “bipartisan” bump from this one, too.
-S
Hugh—Yep
Bush didn’t really say anything nice about Hillary– more about first ladies in general- and how hard a job it is and all..
The net effect that he wanted from the whole spiel was for people to feel sorry for him cause of how much hard work his job is—(No one could EVER imagine).
I think Bush is hoping the the fear of Hillary in the Oval Office will help galvanize the nearly moribund Republican base into action.
And I suspect he might be right in his thinking.
Bush thinking … you are too funny, Jane.
My head aches too. I’ll take three excedrins, and wait until 2016, when the 28-year Bush-Clinton era will finally be over. Maybe.
jayackroyd @ 5
No Question about it. I had the pleasure of seeing John Edwards last night at a rally with Jackson Brown and Bonnie Rait. After his speech, Edwards took questions from anyone who wanted to ask. After about 45 minutes, he indicated that he would gladly answer any additional questions via email. I can gurantee you that the questions were not planted by the campaign.
He is an inspiring candidate that will fight for the core values and beliefs I hold as a Progressive Democrat.
Seems to me that most goopers are ATTACKING Hillary….not supporting her. My local gooper rag has a new story or cartoon daily about what a witch she is..I think most goopers are scared shitless that she’ll win.
rwcole @ 16
Oh,My.God. Is there nothing NOT slanted to the right by these supposed “journalists?”
rwcole @ 16
I do seem to recall that Sen Clinton actually had a pretty good career as a lawyer prior to becoming First Lady. I think that might have some bearing on her qualifications to be President as well.
YMMV.
And Firepups can read that whole stupid Chimpy-Laura interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson right here.
“And Firepups can read that whole stupid Chimpy-Laura interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson right here.”
Sorry- too close to lunch time- I like to keep it with me for a while.
Connecticut Bob @ 22
Yup Hillary is going to be a Nader and if the dem leadership keeps trying to ignore the constitutional crisis it is going to bleed right into the next presidency.
And just when she was through being Jabba the Veep’s love slave, too…
;>)
jayackroyd @ 5
Yep, what the Republicans fear most of all is a lack of turnout from Republican voters. Let’s face it, none of those Republican candidates generates much enthusiasm. They need to have a Democrat that people will go to the polls to vote against.
Edwards just isn’t threatening: he looks good, his positions are pretty moderate, to the extent he does go out on a limb it’s usually to talk about how the little guy isn’t getting a fair shake, hardly something your rank-and-file Republican is going to get mad about. With him on the ticket, people might just stay home and not cast a ballot for Giuliomney, letting Edwards win the swing states.
rwcole @ 26
I think they are scared that any Democrat will win. They are just more familiar with Hillary.
I’ve decided to support Hillary- hoping that she wins and that her inaugaration brings paralysis to millions of goopers.
What do you think, Jane? Is Bush out to hurt Hillary or the Democrats? IMHO he’s out to hurt the Democrats and thinks Hillary the weakest of the lot. I’d vote for her grudgingly because there’s no Republican who doesn’t strike fear, but I’d be happiest voting for Edwards and then Obama. I think an Edwards-Obama ticket would fly although today’s Times has a story about Edwards as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Perhaps that’s why Kerry lost. He couldn’t control his running mate.
IrishJim @ 25
How do we “encourage” the trad med to cover such events as this? They seem convinced that the race for nomination is 2-way Obama-Clinton.
I like Edwards myself, in general, but would like to see him change his tactics some and show his own toughness. I don’t believe he isn’t tough.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to Hillary. I gave Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein a lot of slack, but they have proven to be Bush Dogs. Bob Mullholland thinks the anti-war blogger dirty hippies are “worse than Bush”.
Is Hillary “comfortable” with the Bush/Republican Wars, including the phony war on terror? I am waiting to discover, if she will continue the wars for Is-OIL-rael. I hope Hillary is not the warmonger that I think she is.
Here is a link to Sam/Christy.
http://www.supertalk940.com/pa…..aming.html
Biodun @ 29
Thanks, but no thanks. *g*
darkblack @ 32
Oh my eyes.
Have you ever seen blood pressure rise so quickly that the top of a person’s head just pops right off? Stay tuned for election night- if Hillary wins- go to the gooper election party in your area.
Hugh @ 34
The goopers also know that there are plenty of men who will never vote for a woman – those men wouldn’t say that but it’s how they feel. She is a target and will remain one.
rwcole @ 41
Now there’s a vision I can enjoy…
EVERYTHING BUSH SAYS IS A LIE.
I think he really did say that just to make our heads hurt.
Did anyway see the C&L clip of Faux news saying that Hillary protesters should be tazed. Ironies abound. Except for the tazer part. We can always count on Faux news to promote a police state.
rwcole @ 35
Yes, knowing how much it will annoy the conservatives if Hillary wins will take some of the sting out of it if Dodd/Edwards/Kucinich doesn’t win.
tejanarusa @ 37
A couple of nuanced changes I picked up on last night were: He was clear and strong on pursuing diplomatic solutions with Iran and critizized the Kyl-Leiberman legislation. He specifically praised Biden and Dodd for not supporting it. He did not criticize Clinton.
He also spoke considerably about his ability to stand up and fight big corporate powers and his track record of winning. He sounded strong not angry as some have tried to portray him.
I think Obama will peel away Republican voters more than Hillary will. My Republican mother loves him. That Clinton Did It ™ is also a factor is just icing on the cake.
People will vote AGAINST as much as they vote for.
With that crowd of candidates on the repuke side the strategy is to get the wingnut voters to vote against the dem and not even care about who the repuke is.
Cute ain’t it?
I have to say, that I am hearing many of the same arguments against Sen Clinton that I read in the NY Times/Post/Daily News/Newsday during the Y2K Senate race.
Ask Roody Ghouliani how that came out since he was supposed to be mopping the floor with her.
rwcole @ 41
It’s a nice image but think a bit about what that means — Republicans all over the country will be busing people in to vote against her, while many Democrats are at best resigned to her candidacy, and many are actively against her. The Democrats stay home while the Republicans go to the polls, that’s what the Republicans are counting on in the swing states.
IrishJim @ 25
John Edwards almost called on me at the YKos breakout session, but then said he needed to call on a woman after starting the Q&A by calling on two men.
At the end of his Q&A, he said anyone who didn’t get their questions answered could email him and get an answer from him, just as he said to your group. He was looking at me when he said that, too.
I did send in my question, and he did answer it.
Gotta go get some more tequila for thanksgiving. May marinate the Turkey in it? HMMM—Margarita Turkey?
The thing that makes my head hurt is the “Hillary Paradox”..The wingnut say she is a reborn Emma Goldman or a Female Marx..the lefties say she is George Bush lite. It’s like a violation of some basic law of physics..both can’t be true. I think the wingnuts and Ed Klein are right..Hillary is still the girl that left Wellesley. Bush is too stupid and self involved to fear Hillary , people like Gonzo know better.
I’ve always been a firm believer that an Edwards-P/Obama-VP ticket would fly. Just think about it. IMHO, the Repugs wouldn’t have a chance…
Gotta say- Clinton seems to be running a damned fine campaign- media had to invent a gaffe in order to have anything negative to report….She may make it.
I can see Dodd VP with either Obama or Edwards — mix of new ideas and experience.
My fave combo is Edwards/Richardson- but that’s pretty unlikely I suppose.
IrishJim @ 48
Good to hear. Let’s hope that gets some broader coverage. Thanks for the comment.
Richardson is too out of it. And he’s also dirty…(don’t ask me for details)
See, this is why I was wondering if Rahm wasn’t trying to screw Huckabee by saying that he’d make a good VP for Romney or Giuliani.
Edwards and Obama have a plastic feel to their speech sometimes. Hillary and Richardson speak more concretely and directly (in tone and manner). Advantage Hill.
Biodun @ 11
Yup!
Biodun @ 56
This ticket is just about the only chance the Democrats have, IMO.
BlueMesa @ 33
I think he’s the hardest to run against as a hippy or n****r. They’re still rerunning the Nixon races, with different codewords, targeting low to middle class white men as their numerical base. Clinton evokes the 60s. Obama the civil rights movement.
Don’t, please, mistake this view as a statement of support for Edwards. I’ll take whoever the nominee is.
rwcole @ 54
I have done Ducks and Vodka but not Turkey and tequila. Let us know how it turns out.
And will Giuliani really end up being the Repug nominee. Now that’s got to be something to look forward to.
Phoenix Woman @ 62
Yes, I think that was it. Huckabee is a fool, he would be crushed if he ever made it onto the ticket.
Goopers will tag Edwards and Obama as “sissies” and Hillary as a “manhating emasculating bitch”….It’s already begun…This is how they work- everytime.
rwcole @ 54
With Polenta topped with ground crushed corn chips. Yumm
Steve-AR @ 67
rw – you mean, you weren’t joking? (trying to imagine turkey marinated in tequila…)
This story, if true, is strikingly bizarre.
Steve—Well I probably won’t do it- but it sounds GOOD!!
Biodun @ 68
I think the Republican primaries are going to be more fun than the Dem because they are all so crazy. It’s like watching seriously delusional people talk.
I did send in my question, and he did answer it.
That is what I think is so cool about Edwards. He even took a question from an undecided who wanted advice about those people that chide him for possibly supporting an insincere candidate that get’s $400 haircuts and lives in a 20,000 sq. foot mansion. He was clearly not thrilled of having those “talking points” brought up again, but he looked straight at the guy and asked him and anyone else in the room who was skeptical of his sincerity to look him in the eye and determine for themselves if he is authentic in his beliefs. It gave me goose bumps.
This is a flattering picture of Clinton, though not as much as the profile shot of her in the teal outfit.
I’ve marinated rib eyes in margarita for a few hours—damn good!!
Wasn’t it Barbara Bush who called Bill her other son??Hasn’t it been Bill who has been uber cozy with Bush 1–not Carter-travels and spends time with him and the family? Please give me a break -Georgie is a simpleton and probaby spoke what they all feel.Clinton after all has given him most of what he wants, and endorses his filthy war.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 73
Which story is that, OKK? The Charlie Gibson interview with Chimpy?
There are lots of good shots of Hillary around- and also some REAL doggie photos….
You can tell what the press is tryin ta do by which they run beside a story.
Katie @ 79:
Yep. I think you’re spot on on all points…
Richmond @ 71
I bet if you mix tequila with some lime juice and a sugar syrup -plus some peppers for heat- you would have a nice bird.
(I do everywhere a couple of ducks “boiled” first in a mixture of water, soy sauce, wine, ginger & anise. The mostly cooked “wet” bird then is roasted in the oven to make it crispy.
People make tequila/lime chicken all the time, I wonder how it would taste with the turkey?
I’d drink the tequila, while the turkey is cooking.. Heh.
In view of this HRC/GWB business, I am almost prepared to say “Strange Days Have Found Us”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPkzzFFOfdc
jayackroyd @ 66
I take exception to your language, but on the question of historical models, I think it’s a little more complex: I agree that the Democrats are trying to re-run 1968 (which the Democrats lost), but the Republicans are trying to re-run 1980 (which the Republicans won). If history repeats itself, the Republicans win either way.
If the Democrats were smart, they’d look to 1960, which the Democrats won, but that would mean articulating a vision of the future and going hard after the corruption and stagnation in the Republican Party, which for some unfathomable reason the Democrats aren’t willing to do.
anyone who is endorsed by bush can’t be good- whether the reason is because she’s the most beatable which will probably be another case of the republicans planning incorrectly..
but as bad as the republicans are in planning wars, diplomacy, domestic policy, natural disasters, ecological catastrophes, genocides, social justice, etc, the things they do well is dirty politics and enriching their corporate puppetmasters.
a clinton nomination would play to both.. it helps their dirty politics because this is familiar bullshit territory and gives them a shot for their games, and if in case hillary wins, the corporate bosses are still happy because she’ll be more of the same… and of course the neocons won’t cry either.
ughh
rwcole @ 81
You noticed that also? HuffPo is the most glaring example of the lefty blogs doing this.
This is from AP this afternoon:
Yep. That Mormon knows the formidable ticket.
EvilDrPuma @ 8
Well, maybe this should be put in the context of how often we see Bill with Poppy, who seems to be one of his best buddies. And the context of impeachment being off the table, y’know. And the cooties Jay Rockefeller got from his cozy relationship with Republicans as SSCI chair.
John Edwards is right. Inside the beltway, there’s just way too much incest going on. Or should I say that it’s one big clusterf*ck?
I miss Paul Wellstone, truthteller.
Bob in HI
Bob in HI
BlueMesa @ 86:
Precisely. 1960. The paradigm of the future indeed. Well-articulated.
Yo… Karl Rove. HRC has beaten you. What a scream!
Biodun @ 89
Yup!
Steve-AR @ 88
I hate to criticize Arianna, but I have to admit I cringe just looking at the front page these days.
The simplest answer ees that El Chimperador said thees theengs just to f*ck weeth joo.
Even so, thees endorsement does nothing to draw me towards supporting her, quite the opposite.
so.
My guess about “negatives” is that Hillary’s are artificially high and Obama’s low. I think there is a subset of women who are associated with mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Thugs, who, when in the voting booth will “pull the lever for Hillary. I also think that there are some people who would poll for Obama, so as not to appear racist, who, won’t vote for an AA. My guess 5-10%.
And the really fun part Karl, is that you know we are going to off-set your boy’s Supreme Court appointees. And you guys are faced with sixteen years of Democrats in the WH. Happy Bird Day, Mr. Rove.
Biodun @ 91
Are you sure you wanna go there? That was the year Kennedy won by playing the “Missile Gap” card, when there wasn’t really any missile gap.
I think that the Republicans are, truly, weenies when it comes to reality-based national defense. But we need to hammer them with something that is (a) true, and (b) a real strategic threat. The sickening yapping of Democrats trying to bark as loud as Bush and Cheney on Iran won’t do it.
Bob in HI
1,666 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“Does Bush really want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because he thinks she’ll be easier to beat…(O)r does he realize he’s got a virulent case of political cooties and…he’s tryin ta take her down a few more pointz in Iowa?”
When are you folks gunna realize that it’s BOTH plus the fact that she would be just as user friendly to the corporate oligarchy as Bush while bein’ more toxic for the future viability of the Democratic Party as a legitimate governing force than was Jimmy Carter. Come on “liberals”, Mrs. Clinton is a “twofer” for the fascists, she’s owned body and soul by the corporate bosses AND she’d kill what’s left of the progressive left in the “Democrat” Party.
Anyway, John Edwards may very well kick Mrs. Clinton’s derriere in Iowa…the hard workin’ Iowedgians have been doin’ their homework and they know what they DON’T want in a political leader ‘cuz they’ve been sufferin’ as long as anyone from the last 16 years of corporatist rule and theft.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…NOW YER GETTIN’ IT!!!
Breaking (?) Hillary has called on King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to overturn (commuite? didn’t catch the exact terminology) the horrific verdict sentencing a rape victim to 200 lashes and prison time.
Gotta give her props for this.
If you haven’t heard of this, the 200 lashes and prison time are an INCREASED punishment handed down on appeal.
Bush for Hillary?… YEAH SURE… Remember when Bin Laden endorsed Kerry?
I don’t give a flying fuck about who George likes or doesn’t. But I do care that this weirdo of a prez seems bent on starting a world war.
tejanarusa @ 100
From CNN
Oops, I misheard the news piece – per Hillary’s web site, she called on BUSH to persuade the Saudi king to “cancel the ruling and drop all charges aainst this woman.” And pledges to make human rights top-of-the-agenda again as prez.
Maybe no practical difference – unlikely anything will change the Saudis mind, but I like to get my assertions accurate.
And this is laughable, in the context of things…
Being dour will certainly not elect you President… And what successful political career is he talking about?
jayackroyd @ 5
I concur. And I’d include pretty much most of the political and media establishment in that. Why would corporate media ignore a populist candidate running neck and neck with the two “front-runners” in Iowa, gee, I can’t think…
bobschacht @ 98
I’ll take the graft in Iraq and ineptitude in ‘homeland’ security for $500, Alex. I wouldn’t trust these people with my lunch money.
bobschacht @ 98
I don’t think you can pull out one issue and necessarily find it’s still relevant almost 50 years later. What I think you can do is look at the patterns that worked for the Democrats and are still pertinent today: Kennedy ran against an entrenched and tired Republican machine, that’s true today. He ran as someone who would bring new faces and new ideas into government, something that H. Clinton pointedly says she wouldn’t do, she wants to bring back people from B. Clinton’s glory days over a decade ago. Kennedy also ran as someone who had an infectious confidence in America’s future, something most of the candidates on both sides have trouble projecting. For the Democrats, I think Edwards and Obama come closest.
Jane:
One thing that has bothered me, slightly, and is now beginning to bother me seriously. Who is Hillary really? Her husband is buddy-buddy with Bush Senior. When asked a question (very civilly as a matter of fact) by someone who thinks that Bush might have had a hand in 911 his comeback was a curt “how dare you?” And the whole thing makes me wonder whether Hillary is really a democrat, or a Pelosi democrat, whether she is a part of “the rich against the rest of us,” and whether she was SUPPOSED to lose the bid to get national health. This is not a conspiracy theory. There is a lot in the press to support it. An article written here a few days ago pointed out that Bill Clinton was one of the people who approached major press outlets trying to get Carl Rove a job.
Something smells very bad here. Really bad. I happen to be one of the folks who doesn’t think that the planes brought down the trade center (based on the films of the explosions and the obvious presence of squibs) and that Hillary is just the kind of person who might quietly leave in place all of the horrible things Bush has wrought. These are serious charges. Forget about 911/ what about the fact that she’s just a little too buddy buddy with the Skull and Bones people. Maybe Bill is from a poor background, but money corrupts. Hillary is not from a poor background. Inquiring minds want to know.
Strategerie @ 20
Amen.
1,665 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen bobschact and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“…this should be put in the context of how often we see Bill with Poppy, who seems to be one of his best buddies…(A)nd the context of impeachment being off the table..(A)nd the cooties Jay Rockefeller got from his relationship with Republicans…”
Right on, brother Schact, right, fuckin’ on!!
KEEP THE FAITH AND KNOW WHO THE ENEMY IS…SOMETIMES SHE WEARS DRESSES!!
Biodun @ 105
spurious @ 110
My guess is that shrub’s swallowed the rethug koolaid mix which promises that Americans will vote for any rethug over Hillary… hence, the logic would be that getting her nominated will be helpful to Rudy or whoever else is the rethug presumptive.
In any event, this endorsement will have no effect since CNN and most of the of MSM is roundly ignoring it – apparently, they’ve finally made an arrest in the Natalie Holloway (sp?) disappearance, and all the film crews are too busy flying to the Caribbean :P
OOOPS, Spurious, I didn’t scroll down far enough. I’m sorry I ran into your post. A thousand pardons. My bad. But it is kind of a strange juxtaposition.
And as to Laura Bush. She is a giant of a footnote.
we’ve known from the very start they think the only chance they have of winning the presidency is if hillary is the candidate they run against
however the point jane is making is really good, are they that stupid?
endorsing her is like the kiss of death and bush has to know that or so he’s been told
so he would rather run against obama?
maybe, obama will get all the anti black voters out in droves and we know they are trying to rekindle “states rights” as a platform
man this is a tough one to call, I have no idea what they are thinking with bush endorsing clinton
seems to me though that as he gets closer to her she’s gonna have to distance herself from him
and that’s a good thing
Oops – apologies for technical foulup on that last mixed up post. I’ll hit ’submit’ more slowly.
Cynic @ 109
IIRC, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford became pretty good friends after they were both ex-Presidents. I think there is a shared bond between these gentleman as ex-Presidents that most of us can’t understand. It is a very small fraternity of individuals who have had this experience so it does not surprise that they can talk about things NOW and treat each other as fellow humans and not as rats carrying the plague.
YMMV
NorskeFlamethrower @ 99
Citizen Flamethrower:
I’m votin for Edwards anyway.
Cynic @ 113
I’ll take thirds on that! Thanks of the season to FDL, and all the best to Jane.
dakine01 @ 118
They also have done some very good work for worthy causes. I couldn’t care less who Bill talks to or not. We need to give Hillary some space – male politicians have been triangulating since the beginning of time and didn’t get pounded like this. We don’t really KNOW what she will do in office. I’m an Edward supporter.
G.W. Shitheel is under the impression that his pasty assed Boy Wonder still knows ‘the math’.
This pack of mental midgets couldn’t out maneuver the local dog officer in an election these days.
G-Dub is weeks away from getting the Full Typhoid Annie treatment…..
Enjoy your toxicity…..I hope you can get Abu Gonzales to come and speak at one of your ‘giant freedom institute’ fundraisers to a half full house of Atlas Shrugs fans.
-GSD
New Jane upstairs — Hot Tub Tom.
perris @ 116
One thing we do know is that the Supreme Court will be issuing its Second Amendment opinion in June 2008, right smackdab in the midst of the general election summer.
I wonder if Chimp’s “endorsement” of Hillary had to do with the Court’s taking that DeeCee gun case: wouldn’t the GOP most like to run against Hillary with that case front and center?
Considering she’s a Senator from New York who wants to seduce your daughters and take away your guns.
1,665 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen darkine01 and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“I think there is a shared bond between these gentlemen as ex presidents that most of us can’t understand.”
Bless yer heart, darkline, but speak for yerself, there is a shared bond between these gentlemen that we certainly CAN see if we open our fuckin’ eyes!! These folks are like Frodo, they were allowed ta see the heart of the beast after carryin’ the ring for the oligarchy and were rendered permanently ineffectual as a result.
KEEP THE FAITH BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND DON’T BE AFRAID TO CALL A FASCIST A FASCIST!!
I see that we’re about to get another round of “I take ‘Dead White Women’ for $500, Alex.”
(Translation: The Dutch authorities are arresting those three young men, again. Manslaughter and great bodily harm, or some such.)
BlueMesa @ 108
That’s a good spin to put on it, and I like it. However, you should be aware that the Democratic Leadership Council, under Al From, draws somewhat different lessons from the same election. I like your lessons better.
Bob in HI
so lesser-don bush publicly strokes clinton moll, hillary.
gang loyalty?
uber-establishment?
the lies, the spies, the iraqi genocide, dimminished rights, theft of the commonweal, and torture will all continue under hillary.
it’s what the establishment does.
peas!
He only endorsed her because someone or many have devised many ways to smear her. Or, she has agreed to let him go as Nixon was allowed to go.
Hello, he’s putting her name out there in a positve way, that’s a form of positive branding. He’s a Republican thug, looking out for his fellow partners in crime.
There is a reason why the the asshole is doing this and it is not altruistic sentiment for the good of our depressed nation.
jayackroyd @ 5
Me too.
The right-wingers worst nightmare is to have a former trial lawyer in the White House. And not just any trial lawyer — a really GOOD trial lawyer that knows only too well how corporations screw average Americans and one who knows how to beat them at their own game.
What I wouldn’t give to see their faces on election night when Edwards wins. It would be a sight to see. LOL
caia @ 106
Exactly!
I actually saw a piece in the Boston Globe where the whole piece concerned him being “tardy” to a campaign event. Can you imagine a politician actually being tardy?
“Does bush really want Hillary to be the democratic nominee because he thinks she’ll be easier to beat than Obama or Edwards?”
Bingo.
Does a dumb, entitled, little fratrat think he’s being devious and clever by talking about what a “formidable candidate” Clinton would be?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Does that wild bear shit in the woods?
The Pope is, and the bear does… :o)
Junior got away from his handlers with this one. It’s TOO obvious. :o)
All; they absolutely fear Edwards the most.
As Clinton is Rove and the goopers dream candidate, Edwards is the stuff of nightmares for them.
Imagine him debating Rudy or Mitt. There will be gobbets of GOP flesh sticking to the ceiling.
Conversely, what’s Clinton going to say:
“Hey, you guys created the worst foreign policy fuckup in our history, and I helped, and I STILL have’t apologized for doing it…which means I can say jackshit about the most important issue in the election.” ?
Bush just wants to see a Republican win. Clinton/Giuliani ensures it.
There is one little point that needs to be made in all this:
Has Clinton recoiled in horror from george bush’s endorsement?
(No smileface BIIIIIIIG enough…)
Of course, she MAY sit down with her staff (You know, the ones who worked out the “triangulation” strategy) and after careful consideration of votes lost and votes gained, she may decide that words of praise from the man most directly responsible for the destruction of Iraq, and at least a half-million dead Iraqis, none of whom were a threat to us, are not what she needs to further the coronation process.
Or, she may savvily decide that having bush endorse her will make lots of conservatives start supporting her, and that other stuff is just, you know…minutiae.
The are crazy when it comes to Clinton. They hate her and so they think that everyone else does, too. Remember they thought that they would gain strength by impeaching Bill Clinton. It’s like when all the Dems thought Reagan was the perfect GOP candidate to beat.
“klieg lights”?
Oh geez, the child king read the excerpt from Scotty’s book and learned a new word.
I think it is rather obvious who the Republicans want to face next year. They and their media minions picked Kerry and they’ll pick HRC this time. They have to get it close to steal it and who better? A guaranteed close one with HRC.
If the buffoon’s endorsement is the kiss of death for her candidacy, it sure as hell works for me.
Folks your looking too much into this. Look at the Bush record, not just as president but all through his life, and ask yourself one question: has this guy ever gotten anything right? He simply made a mistake and thought Clinton was a Republican.
And after looking at her voting record, is that really that hard a mistake to make?
I’ve been suspicious of Edwards ever since that Bilderberg Group crap, since rubbing elbows with Wolfowitz can’t be good for America. Secondly, as far as I’m concerned, Obama is the shoulda, coulda, woulda candidate. It’s always we’ve gotta do this, we’ve gotta do that – no substance.
Having said that, I’d go with Edwards any day of the week over Hillary, whom I consider a conservative in sheep’s clothing.
Tanbark @ 136
Tanbark!!! :D :D :D New keyboard pleaz :D
Tanbark @ 133
Does a chicken have lips? Answer: depends upon which end you look at! hee hee
Jane…. Happy Thanksgiving and I’m especially THANKFUL to see this post on FDL! Whatta hoot :D
That he wants Hillary is because rover ‘n them are rolling out their strategery. This has been obvious for quite sometime. She can’t make no “Hope, Arkansas” speeches….. ’cause she’s been a Republican all her life. She has no concept. She knows how to keep the dynasty alive…. the bushes love that. It would sure save them soooo much time if the Dems were so stupid to give them Hillary.
You know I’m no fan…… but to have gw’s endorsement!?!?!?!?
I rest my case.
Many Blessings. Soooo much to be Thankful for :D :D
!El Gato Negro! @ 95
Una grande MEOW para ti, Senor EGN! *G*
Porque es verdad que tu diges!!!!
(lo siento para me pobre espanol!)
Without reading every comment above, if anyone has YET to figger out the ReThugs are SALIVATING at their one ONLY hope of winning outright (Shilary is that hope) and that’s why BoyKing would ENDORSE the one they want to run against, then you folks ain’t been payin attention.
C’mon people . . . El Clintonista is SO despised by the South, and the Rethugs, she’s SINGLEHANDEDLY capable of losing the erection for the dem’s . . . and cost house and senate seats, too . . . .
This is Poly Sci 101 and too many folks just don’t seem to GET it . . . I don’t get it, why so many folks don’t get it that Shilary is DEATH to us progressives and the dem party in general if she’s the national candidate. Pure death to us all, and say by by to constitutional losses and hello corportate free trade to exploit us all here and ‘there’ and a big fat howdy to new wars and continued militarism and interventionist continum by our own sweet and dear US Of A . . .
Wake UP people, this is crunch time and it’s time to put up a Dem who will represent the values of the progressives (as much as possible).
Edwards/Kucinich, please. And the beginning of reform and political change and social and corporate change that is LONG overdue . . .
Bob in HI –
Way OT but I wanted to let you know that Saturday Folk is online now so tune in Saturday 6am – 10am (AZ time) for folk. He’ll be playing the annual “Alice’s Restaurant” this Saturday I’m pretty sure. Happy Thanksgiving :-)
http://www.myradioplace.com/player.htm
larue @ 147
We’re on the same page, but I wonder about Kucinich as VP. Seems to me a waste of talent. His kind of firebrand politics is better served on the House floor or as President. Cheney has shown that it takes a real asshole to have power as a VP coupled with a real wimp as Pres. Edwards isn’t a wimp.
Color me crazy…I think he wants her to win.
Poppy, Bill, Little Lord Pissypants, Hillary…
The ultimate cover-up. No harm. No foul. Does anyone really believe that Hillary will prosecute this war criminal? Hell, she’ll protect him just like Bill protected Poppy. Look where THAT got us.
If I’ve learned anything these past 6 years it’s this:
Know your BFEE.
Biodun @ 11
Biodun- An even greater number have said they wouldn’t ever vote for Edwards…52%. Clinton’s “no votes” likely include both Clinton hating Conservatives as well as Clinton-hating “progressives”. Edwards’ “won’t Votes” likely are pretty much from the Right wing and moderates. So that would mean that Clinton’s anti-right wing votes probably are about 30% of the Electorate (if you subtract the 20% of the progressives or so). They’d never vote FOR Giuliani, McCain or Huckabee. So that really means that 30% vs. 48% who would vote FOR Clinton.
But then it’s all in the turnout. If equal numbers of Edwards supporters and those who would never vote for him come out he’ll lose badly. He could make it close if he convinces ALL the “undecideds”. But to win he somehow has to get a lot of those that say they find him “toxic” to stay home.
The Republicans also have similar “Won’t Vote For” numbers…but with some even getting up in the 60% range.
I think the biggest factor would be who is the Republican nominee.
Hillary is most likely to be the most protective of Presidential secrecy
Of all the Dem candidates, Hillary is the least likely to allow aggressive public disclosure of the Presidential records of her immediate predecessor. Not that she and Bill have anything hugely embarrassing, or of potential criminal liability even approaching Dubya’s, lying around in the records of Bill’s administration. But there is undoubtedly some stuff, the odd rendition or two, etc., that makes her inherently much more likely to see the wisdom of not allowing much digging into the records of ex-Presidents than any of the other Dem candidates.
There is plenty of evidence that Dubya is quite worried, and rightly so, about his criminal and civil liability after he leaves office, and whether or not he can keep the evidence sequestered after January 20, 2009 is the single most important determinant of whether those fears will be realized. He is so protected now, while he is still the President, that perhaps people are so unused to thinking about his legal vulnerability that it would be helpful to review what that invulnerability rests on. The protection is strong because it is multilayered, a defense in depth. He is protected by:
1) his official immunity
2) his control of the prosecutors
3) his control of the evidence
Obviously, 1) disappears completely the second he is no longer President, but that is probably the weakest element anyway (because it protects only himself and the VP, it can be outflanked easily). The disappearance of 2) is much more potentially difficult, but he is not particularly likely to find any Dem successor particularly slavering at the mouth to set DoJ after him, and even if he did, control of the evidence, 3), will be the crucial element anyway to whether or not such prosecutions get anywhere. As soon as Bush leaves office, the decision passes to his successor on whether or not to invoke executive privilege and/or official secrecy, to protect the evidence of his wrong-doing from disclosure. And, quite aside from the next President probably not being terribly eager to set his prosecutors on Dubya, there will certainly be private lawsuits. While his successor may be reluctant to engage in criminal prosecution out of concern for appearing vindictive, it is more difficult to see why a Democrat in the WH would go the further step of using tendentious claims of executive privilege and national security classification to interpose protection for Dubya from private lawsuits. Clinton seems to me most likely to do that for him, if only because of her prior experience of what goes around coming around.
The imperial Presidency didn’t start with Dubya, even if it has reached its worst excess under his administration. The unwritten constitution of the last 60 years practically demands that the President act outside, if not clean contrary to, the law and the Constitution. While he is still god-emperor, the President cannot be touched for his extra-legal activities. But he regains his all-too-mortal status the second he leaves office. Someday, maybe someday soon, but sooner or later unless we end this game by going back to being a republic, the emperor will decide that he would rather not run that risk of going to mere mortal jail, thank you, and decide not to leave office.
The only way that ANY republican can be a “factor” is if the dems are stupid enough to nominate Clinton. She can turn any of them into Ronald Reagan, for conservatives.
Also; the idea that John Edwards, or any other democrat, inspires the kind of mindless anger in conservatives that Clinton triggers, is abject nonsense.
With regard to bush “deciding” or not deciding, to leave office early: if we play our cards right, and keep Iraq front and center as THE issue in the election, and keep hammering the GOP with it, the republicans could very well look up at the meteor, and then muster up the Goldwater Swat Team and make the decision FOR bush to leave, to give themselves the chance of hanging on to some vestige of power in government.
But implicit in that is that we have to nominate a candidate who is outraged about the war, and who is willing and ABLE to express that outrage.
And Hillary Clinton does not make that cut.
little green @ 10
Blah, blah, blah, Edwards/Obama
rwcole @ 57
Do you also believe the Surge is working?
Yes, Hillary’s group is running a fine campaign. Give me that much money and I could do it too.
She tried to get legislation passed to make it illegal to burn the flag.
She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, naming part of Iran’s military a terrorist organization.
She uses Mark Penn who is anti-union in her campaign.
She waffled all over drivers licenses for undocumented people, saying it was a good idea, but she wouldn’t say she supported it.
She copied Edwards health care plan.
She failed at health care reform in ‘93, but hails it as a Pyrrhic victory.
If she didn’t have so much money or the Clinton name she wouldn’t be in the race at all.
The media doesn’t have to make up stuff about her, though they do. Fake gaffes aren’t necessary as there have been one or two real ones.
PatchthePony @ 139
Exactly! And if by some chance she should win, they will be satisfied. She is a DINO. It would be a win for the corporatists/military industrial complex either way.
“Do you also believe the surge is working?”
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a bruise. :o)
That’s a psychological ‘bitch-slap’ in itself…is it not? I just keep seeing the pics I saw on an internet search one day of Bill and old bush on a their sailing boat…OMG. Birds of a feather? Or no…? She’s too close to NAFTA for my vote.
Are you kidding??? The reason your head hurts is because you’re in denial.
There’s little difference between the rethuglicans and demoncrats except the pretend shouting. In case you haven’t noticed there’s been a Bush or Clinton in charge since 1980 (See the puppet strings behind Reagan?)
You don’t have a prayer. You don’t have honest elections. Your vote doesn’t count unless the elite want it to. The constitution is gone as of this administration. If the president wants you tortured and killed he can do it with glee. You don’t even have the last 700yrs of habeus corpus.
“The only thing more wretched than a slave…is one that thinks it’s free.”
Bush, Cheney, the Clintons, etc. have smacked you around for decades and laughed about it all the way to the central bank. Same coin, different side.
So…?? What are you gonna do about it little kid?
I’m not endorsing anyone for president until we actually get a government that represents the people. Otherwise it’s a joke.
We’ve become a joke…
Happy f***’in thanksgiving (first celebrated the third Thursday of November 1864- Lincoln made it up. Don’t think so? Look it up! There wasn’t a pilgrim in sight.)
This is like me ascribing Machiavellian string-pulling to my son saying “don’t look in my room, daddy,” when really all that happened was he pooped his pants.
In other words, don’t strain yourself looking for deep meaning whenever GWB opens his mouth/poops his pants.
Glen Tomkins @ 152
Neither Edwards, Obama nor Hillary support even initiating an impeachment inquiry. I think that the will all be live-and-let live” Jerry Fordians on this unless they face overwhelming pressures when evidence is delivered that goes beyond “Wow! That’s so obvious that any sane person can see it”…to “WOW! That’s so obvious that neither a sane or insane person can deny it!”
Tanbark @ 153
Keeping 5000 troops in Iraq and several Divisions across the border as a Rapid strike force to prevent ethnic cleansing and attack al Qaida doesn’t seem to me to be expressing OUTRAGE at the war.
What’s with all the “Klieg Lights”?
The McClellan excerpts that talked about facing the “Klieg Lights”…and then a day later Bush and Laura are talking about Hillary “understanding” the “Klieg Lights”.
Are they even using the term correctly?
Just seemed odd That I’d hear this term tossed out by two mouth breathers in consecutive days (and two mouth breathers from the same kennel no less!)
My theory: Bush read McClellan’s excerpt and then asked one of his aids “What’s a klieg light?”…so when he was being interviewed later he threw out the term thinking it would make him look smart.
morons.
Ah, Jane. Your head still hurt? You pose a question, but don’t give us your answer. I’ve been here several months. It seemed to me you favored Hillary in the beginning, perhaps as one feminist to another. Your feelings are important. You should choose, and you should tell us. Remember the Talmud-If not now, when?
Have a great Thanksgiving.
“Does Bush really want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because he thinks she’ll be easier to beat than Obama or Edwards?”
Yup, and once again, Democrats are going to accomodate him.
Dear CinnamonApe;
As opposed to Clinton’s courageous antiwar positions for the past 5 years? :o) :o) :o)
Or maybe the empty-headed President has nothing in mind, at all. Just babbling away.