OK, I had to come here to vent! Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!!!!

[wisteria]

I just can't stand being spoon fed Hillary anymore. I'm beginning to think the repubs and her people are working together to promote her image and name. They run these weekly polls and every week she comes out farther ahead. Of course, the more she is mentioned the more people remember her name. People really take these seriously though. My husband mentioned one from the Capitol Gang Saturday. He said Reps brought it up, but Dems agreed. Then they added that Kerry was way down and it was so unusual for a recently losing candidate to be so low in the polls. Lieberman had higher numbers. I just can't believe this. Hillary has made everyone forget about everyone else? Explain to me how her numbers keep going up when everyone I speak to doesn't care much for her. I even heard a complete stranger say that when he see her he get goose bumps and I don't think he meant that in a positive way. Now we have all these "poor Hillary" posts here at DU talking about the repub attacks and how tough she is and how much of a fighter she is,how she will save us from the Bush mess, blah, blah, blah. It all sounds so phony to me, but obviously, people by this stuff. Is it me? I want so much for people not to forget John Kerry. I want him to have an opportunity to run again if he choses to.We keep on growing as a group, he must have some support that is under the radar. I know others here like Hillary, but to be honest about it I never did. I want to see a women president some day, I just don't want it to be her. I don't think she deserves it simply because she has the right name and some people think a vote for Hillary will be a vote for Bill.Anyway, whats your take on the polls? I have never seen anyone popularity rise like hers.

[JI7]

1. it's not really that important

a primary campaign allows candidates to more easily get around the media whoredom because they have the chance to meet the voters directly and really make their case to them. this helps take away the media distortion problem a bit.

as for Hillary, i don't think she is going to run. she was a very good supporter of Kerry last year. for those listening to her there was no doubt she really wanted Kerry to win. the same went for her husband. believe me, falling for these conspiracy theories about how the clintons are in it with the Republicans and whatever else does nothing to help whichever potential candidate you support.

the Republicans and media talk up Hillary because she gets a lot of ratings and they use her to rile up their nut case supporters who send them money to fight the "evil commie woman who wants to take over".

[wisteria]

2. I appreciate your opinion ,

and I understand how they raise money on the mere mention of her name. I just don't understand these polls and how all of this effects Kerry's chances when he don't even get honorable mention even. I also still feel she is going to make an attempt to run. Of course, she hasn't said that, so I have to give it up to my intuition at work. I personally, hope I am wrong.
Thanks!

[JI7]

3. the polls don't really matter

especially at this point. if we react to every single poll that comes out then we would lose for sure.

what is important is continuing to support whoever you do through the positive and more importantly the negative. and you don't let the polls and other things distract from what you are doing.

[vinessa4freedom]

4. Hillary's agenda

I've been feeling quite the same lately, actually. She is my senator, and I believe she has done a great job in NY. However, I got this e-mail last week and I'm not sure what to make of it. Democracy is falling apart at a rate that causes me daily panic, the Patriot Act is threatening the fabric of the nation. The right wing is taking over every aspect of public life from schools to the media, children and seniors are suffering, judges are being appointed based on religion, and Hillary is focused on manufacturing and dirty bombs? I mean, security is important and so are jobs, but...? am I wrong in thinking that renewable energy development and technology are more sound ways to create new jobs in NY? Am I crazy for thinking that enough time and financial resources have been spent on national security that a dirty bomb bill is a bit redundant? I don't know, I may just be over critical, but even if John Kerry didn't run, I don't feel like this is what I want for the focus of the nation. Here's the letter (1st part anyway):




Dear Friends,

Hillary joined with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Tuesday to launch the Senate Manufacturing Caucus. "For generations, our manufacturing sector has been the backbone of the American economy," Hillary said. "Manufacturing jobs built our great Middle Class and allowed millions of families to live the American dream and create a better life for their children. That bedrock strength is being eroded, and we cannot afford, as a country, to sit back while our manufacturing capability slips away."

Senators Clinton and Graham noted the need to invest more in research and development to keep our manufacturers competitive and to address the legacy costs of health care and pensions that threaten American companies and their workers. The caucus will hold field hearings across the country, bringing together business and labor leaders, economists and other stakeholders.

Last week, in a bipartisan vote, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Hillary's legislation to strengthen safeguards on radioactive materials used to make a dirty bomb. The major provisions of Hillary's bill, the Dirty Bomb Prevention Act, will now be included in the Nuclear Security Act of 2005, to be voted on by the full Senate.

"One of the things we need to do is to keep radioactive materials out of the hands of terrorists to prevent them from making a dirty bomb," Hillary said. "By passing this legislation, we can do a better job of controlling radioactive material so it does not fall into the hands of those who wish to do us harm."

Hillary also brought up the decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejecting a petition for backup power sources for emergency notification sirens at nuclear power plants such as Indian Point, NY and secured a commitment from Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) to consider a provision addressing this issue. "This decision defies common sense." Hillary said of the NRC action, "What good are emergency sirens if they are not going to sound in the event of an attack?"

[karynnj]

8. Both are strategic for winning the election

Hillary said that she can be seen as good on national defense - the dirty bomb legislation (whether well thought out or not) by its very title gives her something to list as an accomplishment in this area. I do think her NRC complaint makes sense - it seems a strange way to cut costs.

I think the manufacturing caucus also is to say she's done something in that area. I agree with Graham's comments that we need to spend more on R&D - but I think Kerry made far more sense when he tied together alternative fuels/environment/jobs in a coherent proposal. (Just saying let's do research is sort of apple pie and motherhood - but it means nothing.) I loved Kerry's comments in the committee when he mentioned that we will not be completive without research and companies aren't funding pure research as they did years ago. The field hearings seem more a frilly show than a serious effort, but I would love to be wrong. The decisions are really made in the budget and other things like the trade bills - the Democrats really should be using Kerry's frame that a party's values are seen in budget decisions. (This is not really complicated and they have 3 years for it to sink in and it works with any Democratic candidate who disagrees with Bush type priorities.)I 've heard him say this many times, but haven't heard others say it.

[TayTay]

5. I will read the new book "The Survivor", look at this review

The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House
By John F. Harris
Random House, 504 pp., illustrated, $29.95

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/06/19/assessing_the_supreme_relativist/?page=full

This governing style did not always go over well with his powerful, ambitious partner in politics and life. During the 1992 campaign, Clinton advertised Hillary and himself as ''Buy one, get one free." One of the most illuminating parts of this book -- especially as Senator Clinton herself lays groundwork for the Oval Office -- is Harris's depiction of Hillary's power within her husband's White House. Even before the inauguration, she insisted on a woman as attorney general, which led first to the Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood fiascoes and then to unknown Janet Reno, who nearly cleaned out Clinton's cabinet with independent counsel appointments. The health care initiative, probably the president's most ambitious policy undertaking and his most costly failure, was placed entirely in Hillary's hands. As an example of her certitude and bullheadedness, Harris recounts that when Bill suggested to the National Governors Association that moving from their demand of 100 percent coverage to 95 percent might break the deadlock, Hillary ordered him back to the White House and demanded a retraction. She got it.

Hillary dreamed of a deputy presidency, Harris writes, insisted on weekly meetings with the chief of staff, and steadfastly resisted the release of documents, which prolonged the Whitewater investigation. She adamantly refused to allow her husband to reach a settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Prolonging that suit eventually allowed it to metastasize into the depositions and grand jury interrogation in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which, in turn, led to impeachment. As Harris puts it: ''In retrospect, it is plain that . . . no demand Paula Jones could have imposed . . . would have been an unreasonable price to pay from the vantage point of Clinton's self-interest."

If you want to get an idea what Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton might be like as president, read this book.

[whometense]

6. I've been having similarly

paranoid (are they?) thoughts. ;-)

It's weird the way the right wingnuts were pushing Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, and then poof, suddenly she's ahead in the polls. Does this make anyone else think of, say, HOWARD DEAN??

I do know some dems who like her, but I completely share your feelings about her. And empathize. I was going to avoid the Harris book, but after reading what TayTay quoted, I may just go ahead and read it now. It appears to validate my intuitive response to her.

[karynnj]

7. Definitely makes me think of Dean

I think with polls, if there is someone who is considered the front runner, that person's numbers are inflated because many people answering surveys want to please the questioner by giving the "right" answer or in some cases the only answer they know. In some of the surveys, the names are mentioned and are often not rotated, giving the first person mentioned an advantage.

All that said, the constant mention of Hillary as having sewn up the nomination is silly. I feel I don't really know where she stands on many issues which bothers me. I don't know if it's because I haven't paid enough attention or if she has tried to keep things vague. (I admit I only made it about a third of the way through her autobiography - the first part was fascinating but then it dragged) I may just have Clinton fatigue because I have read only bits and pieces of his book too.

More than Hillary, there seems to be an on-going canonization of McCain, which is even more annoying. He seems to be everywhere having interviews with fawning hosts who act like he is the answer to everything. Then there's a whole Newsweek cover story on fathers and sons who are both military. McCain of course was prominently mentioned. (Unrelated: McCain said the Ivy leagues were wrong to keep ROTC out because future leaders would benefit from exposure to the military - Yeah, if that's what he learned in 2004, he's brilliant. The irony is stunning.)

I do think that one problem Kerry might have is that for the most part the press doesn't ever give him a break. Even last year, there were few of the puff pieces that almost every candidate gets. I really don't understand because he has led a fascinating life that has also showed him to be a very serious moral person. Teresa and his daughters were very real and obviously concerned about the world. There was plenty of material that should have led to very positive stories, but somehow they didn't.

At this point the media wants Hillary and McCain - but it's 3 years out. I also think people may end up blaming the media because they hid the truth about Bush. Whether cynicism about the media will cause people to look more closely at the media favorites, I don't know. Also, how will Iraq affect the chances of McCain or Hillary? McCain supported the war and backed Bush. But no one in 1965 (5 years after Nixon lost the Presidency and the Gov of California), would have thought that Nixon - not popular in the party and never liked by the press - had a chance in 1968. Kerry actually has advantages over Nixon - he is far more likable, many people may have voted against him based on lies that can be proved false, and if he can get any positive momentum many people may remember the debates and see that he was right on target about so much.

[Island Blue]

9. Maybe my memory is really, really short

but does anyone remember the media or anyone else for that matter ever being so obsessed with who the nominees for either party were going to be in the NEXT election not even 7 months into a sitting President's second (or first) term?

I guess it's partly because Shrub is failing so miserably now (at everything), and since the MSM has always protected him that's what they are continuing to do. The are covering up Shurb's disasters by distracting us and making people think of something else.

At this point I think it's waaaaay to early to predict what the American people will be thinking in three years. As we learned from '04 there were apparently people who didn't make up their mind about which candidate they preferred until they entered the voting booth and pressed a button on the machine made by Diebold. (Indecision may or may not be their problem.)

I also don't understand the drooling over Hillary and McCain. If someone could explain to me why that would be an intriguing match-up I'd love to hear your thoughts!

[whometense]

11. Maybe my memory is really, really short too,

but, no. It seems to me like they have pushed the horserace so far ahead that 2004 barely ended before 2008 began. This is new to me, but I haven't always paid this kind of attention. Maybe TayTay will weigh in with her more aware political perspective.

[TayTay]

13. It happened in 1993

Bill Clinton was extremely inept in his first 2 years in office. He had 'Gays in the Military' within one week of assuming the presidency, and speculation on 1996 began almost right away. (The C-Span Road to the White House series began in March of 1993, I think. It was the earliest startup for that show, which is now permanent.

Do people remember just how bad the first six months of the Clinton Presidency were? Gays in the Military, Travelgate, Nannygate, Lanni Guenier, and all that other stuff? This was the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Then in the 94 elections, the Dems lost around 60 House seats and the Senate. (Which was directly related to conservatives being able to fire up their base with Clinton's ineptness.) Clinton had a press conference in '95 in which he had to state that he was still 'relevent.' What began to rehab Clinton's image was the Oklahoma City bombing and Clinton's role as the nation's chief mourner. It was not pretty at all.

[Island Blue]

14. I do remember Clinton's ineptness and missteps

in the early going of his first term, but I guess I just didn't remember folks talking about 4 years down the road like they are doing now. For the second time in two days Tay Tay I stand corrected - I am humbled by your knowledge. :toast:

P.S. They speculated who could run against Bill Clinton for 4 years and the best they could come up with was Bob Dole?

[karynnj]

15. All those words bring back forgotten memories

I guess hearing for the last 3 or so years that we had 8 years of peace and prosperity repeated ad nauseum made me forget that it wasn't really the best of times. Thanks for your post.

[TayTay]

16. Geez, I'll get a swelled up head

It's odd how memory works. I was really pissed at Clinton because he gave in to the MSM and hired David Gergen to work for him and say soothing things to the press. Clinton went into the WH with the promise that he woudl use alternative means of communicating with the public. The MSM didn't like this and rolled him in his first few months. (* is better at press control than Clinton ever even thought of being. He is too far to the other side and has a nearly fascist control over the press.)

The Clintons just had too much going on. Then Vince Foster committed suicide and the Rethugs got the Whitewater thing going and it was a mess. Clinton got 100,000 cops on the street and got the Dem Congress to pass his financial reforms (Which cost the Dems the control of congress for, what 12 years and counting.) That's about it. The rest of his time was spent in defense and nothing progressive got done.

But, that's just my opinion. I don't hate Clinton, but I'm not going to romanticize him either.

[wisteria]

17. Thanks for the reminder.

I had forgotten some of these things. Clinton did some real positive things,but he also created a lot of controversy. I have my own opinion on why Democrats lost on moral issues and I think it had much to do with Clinton and his many scandals. He gave the Republicans enough ammo to inflict serious damage on the Democrats.

[TayTay]

18. My 'true seeing' on Clinton and lack of romanticism

began with how he handled the Ricky Ray Rector case. I have never, ever forgotten that. That was friggin cold.

[wisteria]

19. I have to plead ignorance on that case, I'm curious though,

can you provide any info or links?
Thanks!

[TayTay]

21. It's very harsh stuff, not pretty, I warn you (gross even)

Ricky Ray Rector was an African-American man who viciously killed a cop and one other person in Arkansas. After the murder of the cop he sat down under a tree and used a shotgun to blow out the front portion of his brain. The doctors who operated on Rector basically performed a lobotomy on him in order to save his life.

Ricky Ray was sentenced to die for the murder of the cop. Problem is, the Ricky Ray Rector who cold-bloodedly murdered the cop didn't exist anymore. He had gone with the lobotomy. The guy who remained was sweet and gentle and he tested near retarded levels on intelligence tests. Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas during the time Ricky Ray's sentence was due to be carried out.

The guards on Death Row really didn't want to execute Ricky Ray because he was no longer a vicious killer. They didn't see the point of putting this now gentle man to death. But, Gov. Clinton was involved in a bitter primary fight in New Hampshire for the Presidency and Clinton knew that if he relented and commuted Rector's sentence to life that he would pay a political price. Clinton returned to Arkansas in Jan of 1992 to personally be in the Gov mansion when the time came for sentence to be carried out, in case the court ruled for a stay.

No such stay of execution came. Ricky Ray was feed his last meal and marched into the death chamber. Ricky Ray was on lots of drugs to control spasms and mental ticks, and the side effects of those drugs had left him grossly overweight. The executioner had a hard time trying to find a vein to put the needle in. Ricky Ray tried very hard to be nice to the guards who had been so good to him lately and tried to help his executioners find a vein for the death drugs to drip into. The killing was delayed 45 mnutes because the doctors eventually had to cut into Ricky's arm to find a vein. It was not a prety sight.

There are many who contend that Bill Clinton sacrificed Ricky Ray Rector to his political ambition to become President of the United States. The moral and right thing to do would have been to declare that this man was mentally retarded now and should not be put to death on moral grounds. But Ricky Ray was a killer and it was not politically expedient to let a killer go, and certainly not in the course of a tough primary fight.

Again, I had no romantic illusions about Clinton after that. He woud do what it took to win. (I'm sure he was bothered by it, but he did it.) I thought about Ricky Ray last year when Clinton counseled John Kerry to just endorse one of the anti-Gay Marriage amendments because it might help get him elected. John Kerry didn't do it.

[wisteria]

22. This is just an awful story.

Allowing the execution of a mental retarded man who did not even understand the seriousness of his crime or comprehend the punishment. He chose ambition over what was right and humane. He put a man to death in order to win. How could he ever justify this decision?
I remember Clinton advising Kerry to support the anti-Gay Marriage amendments and thinking how much more honorable Kerry was than Clinton.Principled,honorable,and humble that is how I see John Kerry. Clinton is slick, like Bush is slick. Nothing matters more than the win. I really don't consider ambition and a drive to win at any cost the most honorable qualities for our president to possess.
I appreciate you relaying this story to me. It shows the true character of the man.

[karynnj]

23. Repulsive story

and this is the man that Carvelle and others were holding up as what Kerry should emulate. I don't think that they ever stopped to think that letting Kerry be Kerry and stopping the constant criticism might have been better. Kerry had all the things people say they want - honesty, compassion, brilliance, and heart. From this story, I question the sincerity of Clinton's much praised compassion and heart. I can't picture Kerry sitting in a governor's mansion allowing this man to be killed. Kerry has a conscience.

[wisteria]

24. I 'm in totally agreement with you on these points.

"I feel your pain" ?

[TayTay]

26. The story is true, and you could look it up

To be fair, there is some heavy lifting to be done here. There was no way that Bill Clinton would have been elected Gov of Arkansas if he was anti-death penalty. And it was a case of a black man shooting and killing a white cop in the South, the death penalty was expected.

Clinton rationalized that he needed to become President in order to do good works. He had to do certain things in order to be and appear to be electible to a large portion of the country. Ricky Ray's death went by without much mention by the political reporters travelling with Clinton. It would have made news if Clinton had commuted his sentence, not if he just let him die.

So, was the country better off with Clinton being Rpes rather than another turn by George HW *? Was it worth it?

The definitive account of the execution of Ricky Ray Rector is in: Death in Arkansas. By Marshall Frady. The New Yorker, 22 February 1993.

(Ricky Ray saved his desert from his last meal for after the execution. He just asked the warden to put it aside for when he got back. I wonder if Clinton ever thinks about that.)

[karynnj]

28. Might depend on who won the nomination

I can't believe that it could have cost Clinton the nomination, as it could hurt an opponent in more liberal states if they made it an issue. But, if it did, I don't hink it's a given that Clinton was the only one who could win against GHWB.

Bush senior's popularity went down and Perot ran. Could any of the other candidates have won. Clinton was great at fighting the smears, but many were based on reality - so they would have had less material on the others. Wasn't Tsongus the leading candidate for a while. Could Harkin have won? Kerrey may have been an early version of Dean in that he was fiery and unpredictable and I wonder if Republican research would have found Kerrey's war issue.

I would imagine that Harkin, Simon or Tsongus would have been more liberal. I doubt either would be called the "best Republican President". Without Clinton's indiscressions, the Democrats may have done better in keeping either the House or Senate.

[whometense]

12. McCain.

Funny you should mention him.

I liked this Digby quote so much I put it on my blog this morning:

Still and all, if McCain runs, lets hope that Grover and the boys succeed in scuttling his candidacy. He's a phony who doesn't come across as one and that's a very valuable trait. The beltway boys choir still loves the guy and they'll help him any way they can. His problem is that he's unacceptable to the theocrats and ideologues. But he's just as unacceptable to us. He might not openly condone torture, but he said today that he's open to confronting Syria. And he said a lot of other nonsense too. The guy is just as myopic about modern global threats as the rest of them.

Father Tim and his marching band love him because he's the man they see looking back at them in the mirror when they blow dry what's left of their hair. And maverick JJ loves the adulation just a little bit more than any authentic Real American should. But he hides it well, I'll give him that. He's the best actor they've got.

[fedupinBushcountry]

10. It's the media

All I can say from a very good source, my brother a journalist and reporter in N.Y., who traveled and interviewed Hillary many times, and who also could not stand her when he traveled with her during her Senate campaign, that the media is going to push her.

Its the big media flip-flop, first they hate her then they love her. But in reality they could care less, its about getting the story out there and wanting it there way.

[paulk]

35. it's the story of the century!

Former First Lady runs for President! First woman to run for President! And there's so much more juicy stuff to "report" on with Hillary... Bill's indiscretions..is she really a lesbian?... etc... etc... with Hilary in the race, the MSM won't have to cover any real issues at all!

I think it's totally the media driving this.

[Mass]

20. Interesting info concerning Hillary

This seems to contradict what her supporters are trying to say about her.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062105/hillary.html

Hillary still runs behind John Kerry
By Josh Patashnik

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has co-sponsored a smaller percentage of Republican bills than Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C), two of her potential rivals for the Democratic presidential primary in 2008.

...

[wisteria]

25. Actually liberal, promoting herself as moderate, this is interesting.

I wonder if her actual bill and voting performance will come up at some time.

[beachmom]

27. Interesting Discussion

I guess I blame Bill for the huge losses for the Democratic party. He is the poster child for lack of "family values". Still, there were many things I thought he did right during his presidency, and any time he's on television, I feel sucked in. As far as McCain goes, I have already talked about him on another thread. In a nutshell, he's no friend to liberals (not just JK), and I think his phoniness and thin skinness will come out in a campaign.

We complain about the lack of integrity of both Clinton and *, yet WE, the American people, keep voting for these guys. WE WANT TO BE LIED TO. The hatred of * is beginning to rival the hatred of Clinton. By the way, I have a friend who participated in the air war over Iraq in '98 (he calls this Iraq War II. we're currently in IW III). He insists that the only reason why this air war occurred was because of Monica Lewinsky. He said that they were forced into trying to provoke the enemy so that it would cause a fight. Then it would make the news (i.e. Wag the Dog). Since he's a Republican, I at first dismissed the story. But I saw a guy on Democracy Now! who linked Clinton with * on a continued Iraq policy that was bombing the hell out of them and called for Regime Change. This isn't tin foil hat stuff. We know for a fact that Clinton engaged in an air war -- Operation Desert Fox -- AND that he called for Regime Change in Iraq. The big difference was that * was far more aggressive and stepped up the air war in early 2002, and then invaded in March '03. But let's be honest people -- this wasn't out of left field. Clinton was also screwing around in that region, too. He just was smart enough to know (in addition to W's Dad) NOT to invade and occupy a country. This is about intellectual honesty -- Clinton did lay the groundwork for this invasion to occur. Then the Repubs had it both ways -- saying Clinton was too wimpy to finish the job AND that they were only continuing a policy set upon by a Democrat.

As far as Hillary goes, if she decides to run I'll watch her during the primaries and see how she does. In general, I don't find her speeches particularly inspiring (she speaks in a monotone voice). But she did have a better answer to the "knowing what we know now, would you have voted again IWR". Kerry screwed up on this one -- he claims now that he didn't hear the question, was just giving his stock answer, and then the campaign couldn't correct it because it would look like another flip-flop. I consider that day in the Grand Canyon to be one of the worst days of the campaign. I still remember Jon Stewart of The Daily Show screaming "You want to lose!!!". Anyway, Hillary's answer was "If we knew then what we know now that there were no WMD in Iraq, there wouldn't have BEEN a vote". She is pretty good off the cuff. If she pulls zingers like these day in, day out, then she will be a formidable force to contend with.

[TayTay]

29. What ifs and so forth

The Would you do it again question was looked at here:

ON THE TRAIL OF KERRY'S FAILED DREAM PAIR OF WARS DOMINTED STRATEGY BEFORE ELECTION
Boston Globe, THIRDfan, Sec. National/Foreign, p 24 11-14-2004
By Michael Kranish, Patrick Healy, Glen Johnson, Anne E. Kornblut, and Brian Mooney of the Globe staff. Written and reported by Nina J. Easton

On the afternoon of Aug. 9, John F. Kerry stood on the lip of the Grand Canyon, about to make one of the biggest mistakes of his three-year quest for the presidency. A stiff wind was blowing across the canyon, and Kerry, whose hearing was damaged by gun blasts in Vietnam, had trouble understanding some of the questions being thrown his way. But he pressed on, coughing from the pollen blowing on the breeze.

Would Kerry have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, one reporter asked, even if he knew then that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? "Yes, I would have voted for the authority; I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry replied, as aides stood by, dumb founded.

Kerry's answer ricocheted around the political world. Faced with the revelation that almost all the prewar arguments for invading Iraq were wrong the existence of weapons of mass destruction, close links to Al Qaeda President Bush had nonetheless insisted that he would do nothing differently. And he had been challenging Kerry to do the same, hoping to catch the Democrat changing his position on the unpopular war.

The senator explained to aides that part of the question had been lost in the wind; he thought he was answering a variation on the same basic query he'd been asked countless times: Was it right to give Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq? Kerry had simply given his standard "yes," with the proviso that he would have "done this very differently from the way President Bush has" yet the misunderstanding now muddied Kerry's message.

Worried advisers briefly considered issuing a clarification, but feared it might further feed Republican efforts to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper."

There are so many ironies in there tht I almost don't know what to say.

[whometense]

30. Let me just pick out one of them, for fun.

You say his hearing was damaged by gun blasts in Vietnam???? Oh my f***ing god.

[TayTay]

31. Human failings

How the hell do you make everything safe from ordinary human failings? It's just so sad.

But, that doesn't matter to all the people who are opposed to this war because it does damage to ordinary humans and creates physical disabilities, big and small.

[whometense]

32. Well, all I can say is,

how was his hearing damaged if he was hardly even there? I'm filing that one away for the next reappearance of the not-so-Swifties (scheduled for after they've finished trashing Hillary's reputation).

[karynnj]

34. Not to mention Agent Orange and nightmares

The "short time" he was there was deadly.

I would love it if some media person tracked down a group of the purple heart bandaids and explained what he did go though. Many of then probably just thought it was funny. (Bob Dole was in war and was wounded, so he has to know - he;s just evil.) I was shocked to see in Going up river how narrow those canals were. I can't imagine how they felt knowing they could easilly die any day they went out and that it was more likely than not that they would be wounded.

[ginnyinWI]

37. and Vietnam was so different from WWII

Typically in WWII-style combat, they would move up, fight, then pull back and have a nice recovery time. Kerry and crew were in it for days at a time before they would get time to recoup at all. I think that's where the PTSD comes from--day after day after day of getting shot at. One guy in Going Upriver said that every day they were in a firefight of some kind. So four months of that would translate to a lot longer time for a WWII soldier.

These critics probably have never been closer to real combat than seeing it at the movies, in my opinion.

(and Iraq is turning out to be so much like Vietnam.)

[rox63]

33. Will Hillary be passe by 2008?

Because she's being pushed so heavily now, I suspect the public will have a serious case of Hillary-fatigue by the time the 2008 primaries come around. A lot of folks had Dean-fatigue by the time the Iowa caucus votes were cast. And he didn't have 4 years of hype preceding that.

[whometense]

36. Maybe there's some collusion

between book publishers/talking heads/repug party?

Why the sudden flood of Clinton books, anyway??

I'm inclined to agree, Rox. I'm already sick of hearing about her too. And you know that truism that organizing democrats is like herding cats? Well, it's true that just as repugs love spouting those polished talking points, dems hate being told what to say and do. That doesn't bode well for her down the road.

[beachmom]

38. Okay, I didn't know he had hearing damage from Vietnam.

But he doesn't want us to feel sorry for him or make excuses for him. It was a mistake. Damnit! The injustice of it all.

At first when I read that he was only in Vietnam for 4 months, I thought -- oh, that wasn't too long. But I've decided it's not really how long but what happened while you were there. I suppose a Marine there for a year in constant battles had it worse. But others who were there (and even in Iraq today) never saw combat, even if they did their full year. When you read Kerry's story you realize you can almost narrow it down to 2 very bad weeks or so. The whole 4 months were tough, but he received the majority of his medals in 2 or so weeks I think. All the Republicans were suspicious that he received so many medals in such a short period of time, but when you're in life and death combat, the medals tend to pile up, as opposed to sitting around or if you're on uneventful patrols. If you want to talk about just BEING in Vietnam, then this was Kerry's 2nd tour of duty.

These little pieces of information about Kerry's service make you realize what an unreality the 2004 campaign was. I mean, if you just sucked up what all the Repubs said, Kerry only went to 'Nam for resume action, didn't do much (except commit a few war crimes), was able to write up fake reports to get himself medals, and once he got his third purple heart was released because he was considered bad for the unit. Then he joined the Communist Party and committed treason, protesting the war and is a traitor for meeting with the enemy. Of course, that was a sham, too because, in fact, he wasn't REALLY against the war -- he just protested it for resume action to get elected (the last on is a lefty freeper theory). Have I left anything out?

[ginnyinWI]

39. I think it works out well for JK, whatever the reason

The press can target Hillary for now, and she can be in the spotlight and take the heat now. Kerry needs to somehow be a "fresh face" for 2008 if he runs, and the only way for that to happen is if he can be mostly invisible now, and let the media forget about him for a while. (Of course true believers like us will always be able to track him, but he's under the radar for most.)

Hillary has never said she's even running, so might it be some kind of joke or media trick? Like she's JK's unofficial stand-in, saving his spot. JK was asked about her, and he said something like "good for her", and "it doesn't matter at this point", etc. Whether or not it's true, it's probably a good thing that she's out there now rather than JK. And compared with her, he is so much more The Real Deal that he'll shine.

[whometense]

40. As far as I know she hasn't said a word,

while doing the coy thing they all (except JK :-)) do and keeping her options open.

You make a good point about Kerry needing to be a fresh face in 2008, and I'm quite sure the attention Hillary is getting right now is not bothering him one iota. In fact, he may very well be saying to himself, "better her than me."

[TayTay]

41. I think the media just does what it does

Hillary is the flavor of the year. Her husband was President and was very popular. And right now is the silly season before everyone has thought everything through so everyone looks like they have a chance. (Even Biden.)

Just wait it out. The interesting news is all pretty much below the radar. (Who is getting money, people, state speaking engagements and so forth.) 2007 and decision days are a long, long time away.

[rox63]

42. Wait until after the 2006 mid-terms

A lot will depend on the outcome of the 2006 mid-terms. Some folks may choose to stay in the House or Senate if they feel they are needed more there. Some folks may not want to be president if the congress is even more heavily Repug than it is now. (Ouch, I shouldn't even have an evil thought like that)