Fenian's Rainbow

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Boom_70

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
43,823
Interesting column from Frank Rich today. Maybe a start to the Jim Webb for prez movement.

HILLARY CLINTON has an answer to those who suspect that her “I’m in to win” Webcast last weekend was forced by Barack Obama’s Webcast of just four days earlier. “I wanted to do it before the president’s State of the Union,” she explained to Brian Williams on NBC, “because I wanted to draw the contrast between what we’ve seen over the last six years, and the kind of leadership and experience that I would bring to the office.”

She couldn’t have set the bar any lower. President Bush’s speech was less compelling than the Monty Python sketch playing out behind it: the unacknowledged race between Nancy Pelosi and **** Cheney to be the first to stand up for each bipartisan ovation. (Winner: Pelosi.)

As we’ve been much reminded, the most recent presidents to face Congress in such low estate were Harry Truman in 1952 and Richard Nixon in 1974, both in the last ebbs of their administrations, both mired in unpopular wars that their successors would soon end, and both eager to change the subject just as Mr. Bush did. In his ’52 State of the Union address, Truman vowed “to bring the cost of modern medical care within the reach of all the people” while Nixon, 22 years later, promised “a new system that makes high-quality health care available to every American.” Not to be outdone, Mr. Bush offered a dead-on-arrival proposal that “all our citizens have affordable and available health care.” The empty promise of a free intravenous lunch, it seems, is the last refuge of desperate war presidents.

Few Americans know more than Senator Clinton about health care, as it happens, and if 27 Americans hadn’t been killed in Iraq last weekend, voters might be in the mood to listen to her about it. But polls continue to show Iraq dwarfing every other issue as the nation’s No. 1 concern. The Democrats’ pre-eminent presidential candidate can’t escape the war any more than the president can. And so she was blindsided Tuesday night, just as Mr. Bush was, by an unexpected gate crasher, the rookie senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Though he’s not a candidate for national office, Mr. Webb’s nine-minute Democratic response not only upstaged the president but also, in an unintended political drive-by shooting, gave Mrs. Clinton a more pointed State of the Union “contrast” than she had bargained for.

To the political consultants favored by both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush, Mr. Webb is an amateur. More than a few Washington insiders initially wrote him off in last year’s race to unseat a star presidential prospect, the incumbent Senator George Allen. Mr. Webb is standoffish. He doesn’t care whom he offends, including in his own base. He gives the impression — as he did Tuesday night — that he just might punch out his opponent. When he had his famously testy exchange with Mr. Bush over the war at a White House reception after his victory, Beltway pooh-bahs labeled him a boor, much as they had that other interloper who refused to censor himself before the president last year, Stephen Colbert.

But this country is at a grave crossroads. It craves leadership. When Mr. Webb spoke on Tuesday, he stepped into that vacuum and, for a few minutes anyway, filled it. It’s not merely his military credentials as a Vietnam veteran and a former Navy secretary for Ronald Reagan that gave him authority, or the fact that his son, also a marine, is serving in Iraq. It was the simplicity and honesty of Mr. Webb’s message. Like Senator Obama, he was a talented professional writer before entering politics, so he could discard whatever risk-averse speech his party handed him and write his own. His exquisitely calibrated threat of Democratic pushback should Mr. Bush fail to change course on the war — “If he does not, we will be showing him the way” — continued to charge the air even as Mrs. Clinton made the post-speech rounds on the networks.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Mrs. Clinton cannot rewrite her own history on Iraq to match Mr. Obama’s early opposition to the war, or Mr. Webb’s. She was not prescient enough to see, as Mr. Webb wrote in The Washington Post back in September 2002, that “unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.” But she’s hardly alone in this failing, and the point now is not that she mimic John Edwards with a prostrate apology for her vote to authorize the war. (“You don’t get do-overs in life or in politics,” she has said.) What matters to the country is what happens next. What matters is the leadership that will take us out of the fiasco.

Mr. Webb made his own proposals for ending the war, some of them anticipating those of the Iraq Study Group, while running against a popular incumbent in a reddish state. Mrs. Clinton, running for re-election in a safe seat in blue New York, settled for ratcheting up her old complaints about the war’s execution and for endorsing other senators’ calls for vaguely defined “phased redeployments.” Even now, after the Nov. 7 results confirmed that two-thirds of voters nationwide want out, she struggles to parse formulations about Iraq.

This is how she explains her vote to authorize the war: “I would never have expected any president, if we knew then what we know now, to come to ask for a vote. There would not have been a vote, and I certainly would not have voted for it.” John Kerry could not have said it worse himself. No wonder last weekend’s “Saturday Night Live” gave us a “Hillary” who said, “Knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it.”

Compounding this problem for Mrs. Clinton is that the theatrics of her fledgling campaign are already echoing the content: they are so overscripted and focus-group bland that they underline rather than combat the perennial criticism that she is a cautious triangulator too willing to trim convictions for political gain. Last week she conducted three online Web chats that she billed as opportunities for voters to see her “in an unfiltered way.” Surely she was kidding. Everything was filtered, from the phony living-room set to the appearance of a “campaign blogger” who wasn’t blogging to the softball questions and canned responses. Even the rare query touching on a nominally controversial topic, gay civil rights, avoided any mention of the word marriage, let alone Bill Clinton’s enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

When a 14-year-old boy from Armonk, N.Y., asked Mrs. Clinton what made her “so inspirational,” it was a telltale flashback to those well-rehearsed “town-hall meetings” Mr. Bush billed as unfiltered exchanges with voters during the 2004 campaign. One of those “Ask President Bush” sessions yielded the memorable question, “Mr. President, as a child, how can I help you get votes?”

After six years of “Ask President Bush,” “Mission Accomplished” and stage sets plastered with “Plan for Victory,” Americans hunger for a presidency with some authenticity. Patently synthetic play-acting and carefully manicured sound bites like Mrs. Clinton’s look out of touch. (Mr. Obama’s bare-bones Webcast and Web site shrewdly play Google to Mrs. Clinton’s AOL.) Besides, the belief that an image can be tightly controlled in the viral media era is pure fantasy. Just ask the former Virginia senator, Mr. Allen, whose past prowess as a disciplined, image-conscious politician proved worthless once the Webb campaign posted on YouTube a grainy but authentic video capturing him in an embarrassing off-script public moment.

The image that Mrs. Clinton wants to sell is summed up by her frequent invocation of the word middle, as in “I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America.” She’s not left or right, you see, but exactly in the center where everyone feels safe. But as the fierce war critic Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, argues in a must-read interview at gq.com, the war is “starting to redefine the political landscape” and scramble the old party labels. Like Mrs. Clinton, the middle-American Mr. Hagel voted to authorize the Iraq war, but that has not impeded his leadership in questioning it ever since.

The issue raised by the tragedy of Iraq is not who’s on the left or the right, but who is in front and who is behind. Mrs. Clinton has always been a follower of public opinion on the war, not a leader. Now events are outrunning her. Support for the war both in the polls and among Republicans in Congress is plummeting faster than she can recalibrate her rhetoric; unreliable Iraqi troops are already proving no-shows in the new Iraqi-American “joint patrols” of Baghdad; the Congressional showdown over fresh appropriations for Iraq is just weeks away.

This, in other words, is a moment of crisis in our history and there will be no do-overs. Should Mrs. Clinton actually seek unfiltered exposure to voters, she will learn that they are anxiously waiting to see just who in Washington is brave enough to act.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

yeah, i liked what webb said. i like his ****-you attitude. wouldn't it be great if someone like webb ran for president on a simple platform: "the war ends the day i take office"? i'd vote for that candidate. it'd be great if he promised to try bush, cheney, rummy, rove, wolfowitz, et al as war criminals but i don't think the rest of the public would go so far.

it's easy for me to say that i wish congress would sack up and stop funding the war - or specifically only allocated funds for troops to come home, not to deploy or remain deployed. the ****-ant non-binding resolution was such a ****ing joke. but i think it's obviously tricky to get the public to buy into stopping the war.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

it'd be great if he promised to try bush, cheney, rummy, rove, wolfowitz, et al as war criminals but i don't think the rest of the public would go so far.

Because the rest of the public isn't so f'n stupid.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Boom_70 said:
Mrs. Clinton cannot rewrite her own history on Iraq to match Mr. Obama’s early opposition to the war, or Mr. Webb’s. She was not prescient enough to see, as Mr. Webb wrote in The Washington Post back in September 2002, that “unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.” But she’s hardly alone in this failing, and the point now is not that she mimic John Edwards with a prostrate apology for her vote to authorize the war. (“You don’t get do-overs in life or in politics,” she has said.) What matters to the country is what happens next. What matters is the leadership that will take us out of the fiasco.

This is a huge reason I like Gore or Obama more than Hillary for the Democratic nod.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished


Boom,

Who are you supporting in '08?
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Sirs, Madames,

I posted my Webb mash note on another thread. I thought he should have been Time's Man of the Year. He was not just the Democrats' Man of the Moment but that of everyone outside of W's bubble (and Vice's bunker).

Rich and Dowd were awesome this weekend. But when you've got material like the SOTU to work with ...

YHS, etc
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Lugnuts said:
Boom,

Who are you supporting in '08?

I don't think the options are clear yet to decide.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Boom_70 said:
Lugnuts said:
Boom,

Who are you supporting in '08?

I don't think the options are clear yet to decide.

I agree. I was set to go with Hillary, but damn she's uninspiring. I'm undecided for now. Not Joe Biden, I can say that. :)
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Obama and Richardson lead my list, right now. We'll see how the ticket shapes up.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

RokSki said:
Boom_70 said:
Lugnuts said:
Boom,

Who are you supporting in '08?

I don't think the options are clear yet to decide.

I agree. I was set to go with Hillary, but damn she's uninspiring. I'm undecided for now. Not Joe Biden, I can say that. :)

I like Biden and McCain and would most definately consider Webb if he ran. Webb might be the real Jack Ryan.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

buckweaver said:
Obama and Richardson lead my list, right now. We'll see how the ticket shapes up.

What do you like about Obama ? Richardson?
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

I'm going to live in Havana until it's all over.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Boom_70 said:
buckweaver said:
Obama and Richardson lead my list, right now. We'll see how the ticket shapes up.

What do you like about Obama ? Richardson?

Richardson supports a ban on cockfighting. That's enough for me. ;D



On a serious note, Richardson's got the best resume of anybody in the race -- on either side. Hands down, there's nobody close. He's got the local/gubernatorial experience running things, and he's got the international/foreign policy experience. The man's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times.

Everyone knows about Wen Ho Lee, so you can form your own opinion on that. His "I was drafted by MLB" schtick was ill-advised, but it's debunked now. Can't hurt him any worse than "I didn't inhale" or "I was a cokehead", like the last two presidents.

Richardson's the most qualified candidate this country has, and if we still think "the guy we'd like to drink with" would make a good candidate after all this time, well, god help us all. ... ::)
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

friend of the friendless said:
Rich and Dowd were awesome this weekend.
The Dowd column was pretty hard-hitting:

**** Durbin went to the floor of the Senate on Thursday night to denounce the vice president as “delusional.”

It was shocking, and Senator Durbin should be ashamed of himself.

Delusional is far too mild a word to describe **** Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.

Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

It requires an exquisite kind of lunacy to spend hundreds of billions destroying America’s reputation in the world, exhausting the U.S. military, failing to catch Osama, enhancing Iran’s power in the Middle East and sending American kids to train and arm Iraqi forces so they can work against American interests.

Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam.

You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.

In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he’s “out of line” when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.

Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, “It won’t stop us.”

Such an exercise in democracy, he noted, would be “detrimental from the standpoint of the troops.”

Americans learned an important lesson from Vietnam about supporting the troops even when they did not support the war. From media organizations to Hollywood celebrities and lawmakers on both sides, everyone backs our troops.

It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery.

“Bottom line,” Vice told Wolf, “is that we’ve had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.” The biggest threat, he said, is that Americans may not “have the stomach for the fight.”

He should stop casting aspersions on the American stomach. We’ve had the stomach for more than 3,000 American deaths in a war sold as a cakewalk.

If W. were not so obsessed with being seen as tough, Mr. Cheney could not influence him with such tripe.

They are perpetually guided by the wrong part of the body. They are consumed by the fear of looking as if they don’t have guts, when they should be compelled by the desire to look as if they have brains.

After offering Congress an olive branch in the State of the Union, the president resumed mindless swaggering. Asked yesterday why he was ratcheting up despite the resolutions, W. replied, “In that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.” (Or preordained it.)

The reality of Iraq, as The Times’s brilliant John Burns described it to Charlie Rose this week, is that a messy endgame could be far worse than Vietnam, leading to “a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing now,” and a “wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world’s flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there’s complete chaos in the region?”

Mr. Cheney has turned his perversity into foreign policy.

He assumes that the more people think he’s crazy, the saner he must be. In Dr. No’s nutty world-view, anti-Americanism is a compliment. The proof that America is right is that everyone thinks it isn’t.

He sees himself as a prophet in the wilderness because he thinks anyone in the wilderness must be a prophet.

To borrow one of his many dismissive words, it’s hogwash.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

The most frequent non-right wing nut criticism leveled at Sen. Clinton, one with a solid grounding in fact, is she's too cautious and calculating in everything she does.
Perhaps this is sheer contrarianism, but I actually think her approach might be a net POSITIVE with the great mass of voters who aren't particularly into politics.
Bush is unpopular, so it stands to reason many voters will be looking for someone unlike him. A president who always looks a very long time before she leaps would have an obvious appeal on those grounds.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Re: Dowd's column: Cheney will go down as one of the worst VPs in history. I guess the competition isn't that fierce - I don't think they usually harbor this much power.

Woodward's "State of Denial" book paint Rumsfeld and Cheney as bumbling morons, and Bush as their compliant cheerleader with next to no intellectual curiosity and complete trust that these idiots were running the ship. Bush seems to be a victim of his own trust in his people. Then again, as good as it is to delegate, you still have a responsibility to stay on top of things.

As far as the election. I want to support Hillary badly. For one thing, I loved Bill. For another ... I guess she's been planning to be president so long, I think I'd feel bad for her if she didn't get it done. But I'll get over that part.

Anyway ... I'm pretty sure Obama's my guy. I'm convinced after reading "Audacity of Hope" that he'll be able to strike a great balance between helping boost the poor people of this country while not advocating unlimited handouts. I'm convinced the country would be better off after his administration than before.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

Thanks, Boom... those 4 1/2-year-old quotes are of great significance.
 
Re: Hillary -Mission Unaccomplished

spnited said:
Thanks, Boom... those 4 1/2-year-old quotes are of great significance.

Agreed - just wanted to make sure my quote function worked as we head into 2008 election. You have to fire it up every now and then.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top