This morning, while reading the blogs, Glenn linked a post which caught me eye. In his piece, “Clinton’s Biggest Mistake,” Tom Bevan writes that “the campaign was guilty of laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance.”
But, as the campaign wore on, and the nomination which Mrs. Clinton thought to be hers by right slipped out of her grasp, she showed a tenaciousness which impressed many, including yours truly, never a fan of the former First Lady. In a comment to one of my posts, Bruce wrote that both he and his partner “have (in this specific moment in time) found ourselves admiring Clinton’s guts and determination.”
Last fall, she complained about how harshly moderator Tim Russert treated her in a Philadelphia debate, as if tough questions exploring her positions were out of bounds. Last month, she went toe-to-toe with Bill O”Reilly, one of the toughest talk-show host interviewers in the business, and came away form it impressing many.
It seems that when she realized the nomination wasn’t her due and that she would have to fight for it, she was finally able to show her best qualities.
While the campaign has certainly given me a slightly more favorable opinion of Hillary than I once had, I still could never trust her to be commander-in-chief. She seems to think the solutions to all social problems involve increased federal regulation and spending. She has a problem with speaking candidly to the American people. She is secretive about any number of issues, refusing to release numerous records relevant to the “experience” she so frequently cites. And she exaggerates that experience, leading people to question her veracity.
In short, in the course of this campaign, Hillary Clinton has impressed us with her tenacity, but made her “credibility gap” more readily manifest.
Daniel, I’m in nearly total agreement with you. Hillary now impresses the heck out of me. As the campaign has progressed she has become both tougher and a heck of a lot more human. Frankly, I want a real fighter in the White House.
Meanwhile, I’m less impressed with Obama and have begun to fear him more. It really frightens me that the public will hang on to a meaningless phrase like “Change You Can Believe In” and propel a cnadidate to the nomination. He has said so very little.
Meanwhile the campaign has already gotten very ugly and we have 6 months to go. The James P. Rubin bull**** you dissect so very well in your next post is a classic example. I saw him on television last night and he not only wouldn’t give an inch, he accused the Republicans of distorting his video and “shooting the messenger.”
Change we can believe in?
Amazing that the guy wouldn’t guy an inch when he’s clearly wrong. Wish I had seen that because I was planning a followup.
First of all, the term McCain used was “deal with,” a far more ambiguous term than meet with without preconditions. And subsequent comments made that very same time put that comment into context.
If Rubin were a decent man, he would retract his editorial and apologize. But, he’s just a narrow partisan, trying to use anything and everything to destroy a Republican, while accusing that Republican of dirty campaign tactics.
What I love about the Clintons – and I do mean “love” – is how much one can learn about the art of politics by studying them. I sure have.
Barring a major upheaval in Democratic politics, or in national or world affairs, Old Cackles won’t get the nomination this year.
This summer’s convention will be a little like ’68: she being Humphrey, and Obama a reincarnated RFK.
No surprise here. Rubin is no different from every other arrogantly partisan liberal journalist–virtually every story is a new opportunity to destroy some Republican’s reputation. They are perfectly willing to accept these credibility-targeted missions, even when it’s a suicide mission.
I don’t know if Hillary is best when behind… but I am sure that, for most straight guys, she is best *from* behind. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)