HRC: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

By: Chris Guy
Published On: 1/29/2007 1:39:33 AM

Professional journalist/weasel Robert Novak (the 'Ugly' portion of this post) reported in his most recent column that House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has made a decision regarding '08. You see, Rahm worked very closely with Pres. Clinton as a senior White House aide in the 90's. In the past he's made no secret that he will endorse Hillary Clinton if she were to enter the Presidential race. But that was before Obama came into the mix. Every other prominent Illinois politican publicly endorsed Sen. Obama the moment he declared his candidacy, in some cases before he announced. Even though Rahm will continue to plead the 5th when asked, he will support Clinton as promised.


(Cool Fact: Rahm's brother Ari is a Hollywood agent and the inspiration for Ari Gold on HBO's Entourage, played masterfully by Emmy Award Winning actor Jeremy Piven)

Novak also reports that foes of Hillary Clinton are starting something called TheVanguard.org as sort of a right-wing alternative to MoveOn.org. They've wasted no time in scraping the bottom of the gutter by signing up a member of the Kerry smear campaign, Jerome Corsi. Mr. Corsi is the author of Unfit for Command. Hopefully their next effort to take down Hillary will be no more successful than their last 7,000 attempts.

Also this weekend, Chuck Todd had an interesting take on a recent trip by Sen. Clinton to Iowa. He believes it's a good move to emphasize her gender, even though Iowa is a state completely devoid of successful female politicians.

The only way Clinton can be a "change" candidate is by emphasizing her gender. If not, she's a candidate of the past, not the future.

I agree with Chuck here. Take away the possibility of the first woman president, and you're left with a pretty boring candidate. But every campaign stop she makes brings scores of young girls whose parents let them play hooky just to catch a glimpse of history in the making. If she embraces that, people will want to jump on the bandwagon. And she does have work to do. Hillary's looking at a 4th place finish in Iowa the way things stand today behind Edwards, Obama, and Vilsack. "Frontrunners" don't finish 4th in Iowa. I don't care how you spin it.

Comments



COMMENT HIDDEN (vote-left - 1/29/2007 2:27:25 AM)


Make your point without profanity (Lowell - 1/29/2007 7:38:13 AM)
and abusive language or you will be banned.  Fair warning.


Ignorance is bliss (vote-left - 1/29/2007 5:28:52 AM)
And she does have work to do. Hillary's looking at a 4th place finish in Iowa the way things stand today behind Edwards, Obama, and Vilsack. "Frontrunners" don't finish 4th in Iowa. I don't care how you spin it.

Apparently, you forgot the 1992 election when Bill Clinton didn't even go to Iowa.

Also this weekend, Chuck Todd had an interesting take on a recent trip by Sen. Clinton to Iowa. He believes it's a good move to emphasize her gender, even though Iowa is a state completely devoid of successful female politicians. [...] I agree with Chuck here. Take away the possibility of the first woman president, and you're left with a pretty boring candidate.

Hillary's rating as one of the top attorneys in the country wasn't because she was good at "baking cookies."  She has also been an outstanding senator.  Calling her boring appears to be dismissive of her accomplishments, competence and qualifications.



This makes your point very well. (Lowell - 1/29/2007 7:38:57 AM)
No need for profanity.  Thanks.


Bill Clinton was never a frontrunner (Chris Guy - 1/29/2007 9:24:07 AM)
He was an underdog. Nobody went to Iowa that year. Tom Harkin ran for President and scared everybody away. Every other Democrat in the race conceded the state to him.

John Kerry is boring and he has excellent accomplishments, competence and qualifications.



And your point is??? (vote-left - 1/29/2007 5:05:45 PM)
And this year Tom Vilsack from Iowa is running for president. In '92 it was Harkin and in '06 it is Vilsack. So, aside from Hillary bashing, what is your point? 

I do not really see any relevance behind your whole column.  You seem to be trying to rationalize that the 2006 election is somehow different than the 1992 election, but you have failed miserably to show me how? 



Please clarify this comment (SaveElmer - 1/29/2007 1:36:02 PM)
"Hopefully their next effort to take down Hillary will be more successful than their last 7,000 attempts."

Are you actually hoping the same sleazeballs that brought down Kerry do the same to Hillary?



I just added the word "no" in there (Lowell - 1/29/2007 1:51:03 PM)
Obviously a typo, given that Chris is a loyal Democrat, and also from the context of the preceding sentence(s).  Thanks for catching this.


Thanks...I figured... (SaveElmer - 1/29/2007 2:16:24 PM)
That's why I asked before I pounced... 


Thanks (Chris Guy - 1/29/2007 5:06:09 PM)