<< PHIL E. BUSTER ~ MAIN ~ ATTENTION, MELBOURNE CRIMINALS >>

FRUMPY POLITICIAN PLAYS LONG GAME

A few on the right were excited lately by low numbers for Hillary:

Most American voters now say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 — while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

I’m as pleased by this as the next Hillary-hatin’ under-edumacated right-wing Bushopath, but it’s worth remembering that other politicians have rebounded from similarly low numbers. Our own John Howard—then opposition leader—was running at just 18 percent as preferred Prime Minister late in 1988. A little over seven years on, Howard was elected Prime Minister—and he’s been returned three times since.

Forget 2008. The 2012 US election is six years and nine months away.

UPDATE:

President George W. Bush said on Friday the race for the White House in 2008 was wide open and called potential Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton “formidable.”

Posted by Tim B. on 01/27/2006 at 09:12 AM
  1. Sorry, but it is our doom that that woman be President.  She actually scares me less than some of the dems, because she’s so nakedly political that reality does—at times—creep into her thinking.

    Posted by Andrew on 2006 01 27 at 10:31 AM • permalink

  2. Except, I imagine, John Howard wasn’t pretending to be something he wasn’t during that time while Hillary is now.

    Posted by andycanuck on 2006 01 27 at 10:40 AM • permalink

  3. I think if the U.S. Republicans put up Colin Powell and Condi Rice for 2008 they’d still be accused of racism.  Like the UK Conservatives are accused of sexism (having a female prime-minister obvious doesn’t count).

    Posted by Rob Read on 2006 01 27 at 10:49 AM • permalink

  4. I don’t know much about Aussie politics, but Howard didn’t come to the national election loaded down with Hillary’s sort of baggage, did he? I mean, he’s not married to a sexual predator, he hasn’t left a trail of shady business deals behind him, and - so far as I know - he hasn’t made a practice of using the ship of state to ram innocent bystanders in order to put cronies in lucrative positions (e.g., the cold-blooded firings of the White House travel staff). I agree with Andrew that Hillary, precisely because of her transparency, is probably not as frightening as some other Presidential wannabe’s (one can almost picture Dean playing his kazoo in the Oval Office while Iran lobs The Big One at Israel). But I believe there is a permanent strata of the body politic that so loathes her that her chances of winning the presidency are not good - not hopeless, mind you, but not good.

    Posted by paco on 2006 01 27 at 10:51 AM • permalink

  5. I must confess- I’m ignorant of US pollys.

    Who are the other options for the Presidency, apart from Hillary, on the Dems side, and who’s expected to be the candidate for the GOP at your next election? How about one of George Bush’s daughters ;)

    Barb’s my favourite [blushing smiley]

    Posted by anthony27 on 2006 01 27 at 10:58 AM • permalink

  6. #5: Ex-governor of Virginia Mark Warner is seen by some as a contender. He is certainly moderate, as Dems go, and he was a fairly popular governor (elected in a state that is generally considered Republican). Senator Lieberman may give it another try. As for Republicans, there is serious talk about running Condi Rice. Senator George Allen of Virginia is a “possible”. And there’s always Senator John McCain, who, in my opinion, although possessing certain good traits, is too solicitous of media approval, is responsible for the horrible McCain-Feingold campaign “reform” law that is a genuine abridgement of freedom of speech, and, not to put too fine a point on it, strikes me as being a basically stupid person (although that certainly isn’t a particularly big obstacle to success in politics).

    Posted by paco on 2006 01 27 at 11:25 AM • permalink

  7. I’m with paco.  Hillary has too much baggage.  But I don’t think she’s nakedly political—I think that she’s openly mercenary, and in politics for personal gain, period.  So was Bubba, but Hillary has all the charm of an angry cobra.

    Still, it’s possible that she could at least get the 2008 Democratic nomination, especially if that party keeps on self-destructing, and she strokes the hard left enough.  Winning the election is a different matter, I suspect.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 01 27 at 11:39 AM • permalink

  8. Would you PLEASE not use the terms “Hillary” and “nakedly” in the same sentence PLEASE!!  I need to refill this eyeball washer with new ammonia now!  And it stings!

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 27 at 12:09 PM • permalink

  9. If my (gag) junior senator, Hillary, becomes President, Tim, there may not BE a 2012 as we know it.

    (OK, my rightwing scare tactics need work. But with her in the big chair and maybe my senior (urg) senator Schumer as Majority Leader, well…I’ll move to Australia!)

    Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 01 27 at 12:13 PM • permalink

  10. I agree that Hillary will have a tough go to get nominated, and I seriously doubt she could win the election.  She scares too many people.  I’d love to see a female president, but only if she’s got the right stuff.  Hillary doesn’t.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 01 27 at 12:13 PM • permalink

  11. anthony #5: I don’t know anything special, but to Dem. list would add Kerry, Gore, Bill Richardson [Gov., New Mexico], Barak Obama [Sen., Illinois], and, yes, Howard Dean.  Dean is a real loose cannon and has the inside on fund raising from Loonies.  I wouldn’t put it past him to go “third party”, either, thus insuring Rep. victory.
    To Rep. list I would add Rudy Guliani [ex. Mayor, NYC, and 9/11 hero there] and Jeb Bush [George’s brother, and Gov., Florida]. Jeb probably can’t wait another 8 years, and would also make a possible VP. McCain is revolting, but pretty tricky. Blah blah.

    This is more like trying to be a psychic.

    Posted by Joe Peden on 2006 01 27 at 01:01 PM • permalink

  12. God, please not Jeb. The Republican party’s best chance of beating Hillary is to play on the public’s weariness with the Bush and Clinton dynasties—a hypocritical position, to be sure, but an effective one, if the Republicans nominate a candidate outside of Washington and not affiliated with the Bush dynasty. I’d say Rudy is their best bet.

    As for Hillary, I dislike her immensly, but she’s about as hawkish as a Democratic presidential candidate is capable of being these days, perhaps more so, so she probably is the Dems best candidate (shudder).

    Posted by SeanP on 2006 01 27 at 01:36 PM • permalink

  13. For the first time I can remember there is no obvious candidate from either party.  Usually at least one of them has the candidate all teed up, whether they’re any good or not.

    Hillary *should* be the obvious candidate, except that she isn’t.  This seems to make lefty commentators nuts.  They *need* an obvious candidate so they can attack Bush while protecting the projected Dem candidate.  However, it is not at all obvious (although it looked like it would be only a year or so ago) that Hillary will be the one.

    Thus, the MSM can’t really go after Bush for fear of damaging an unknown Dem candidate.  What to do, what to do?

    Hillary AS President is not as scary a thought as Jawn Fraud Kerry nor BigWoodenAlGore or Screamin’ Howie simply because she’s more predictable.  She’d do plenty of things I wouldn’t like but could live with, if she gets the chance and has Congress on her side.  Those other twerps, who knows?  I’m pretty sure none of them know what they’d do either.  Kerry, for instance, might finally have to actually implement a plan rather than brag that he’s got one.  (Although I see he seems to have replaced, “I have a plan for that” with “I’m and expert on that” so who really knows?)

    And BigWoodenAlGore might go into a Pentacostal screaming meemie at any moment and bite the head off a live chicken live on tv.

    Ah, well, I guess we live in interesting times.

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 01 27 at 02:25 PM • permalink

  14. Reps: I can´t see Rice or Powell as presidential candidates, they lack political experience (running for office) and are outsiders appointed to Administration positions and not politicians. And because of that they lack the leadership image, does anybody know what they really think on any given issue? Their stated opinion is the Administration`s.
    McCain is a logical choice because he is popular with moderates & indepedents, but for some reason he is unpopular to the conservative Rep. base.
    Giulani seems to me the likeliest candidate, his S11 image as a no-nonsense leader who gets things done in an emergency has great appeal in these times and has no religious right baggage that might scare voters.

    Dems: Hillary is underestimated, I think she is a shrewd politician who is consciously avoiding being tarnished with being associated with the loony left. IMO the best choice for the Dems. for them to win the election. No idea who will be the candidate, but if it´s one of those pandering to the moveons I´ll be laughing on election day.

    Posted by blubi on 2006 01 27 at 02:39 PM • permalink

  15. A tip if you ever meet Hillary face to face: don’t look her directly in the eye. She will suck out your soul and feed upon it.

    Posted by Latino on 2006 01 27 at 02:59 PM • permalink

  16. Would you PLEASE not use the terms “Hillary” and “nakedly” in the same sentence PLEASE!!

    The conjunction of “Hillary” and “stroking” didn’t do much for my mental health, either.

    Posted by R C Dean on 2006 01 27 at 03:11 PM • permalink

  17. Careers have been staked underestimating the Clintons.

    Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 01 27 at 03:12 PM • permalink

  18. To Rep. list I would add Rudy Guliani [ex. Mayor, NYC, and 9/11 hero there]

    Nope. Too pro-choice and anti-gun for the base. And the nature of his divorce will kill him with women.

    and Jeb Bush [George’s brother, and Gov., Florida].

    Nope. The party knows the nation wants a Bush break. It smacks too much of hereditary rule.

    McCain is electable, but he, too, would have trouble in the primary.

    Condi has no interest in running.

    I’m betting on a Southerner. Just don’t know who.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 27 at 03:24 PM • permalink

  19. “I’m betting on a Southerner. Just don’t know who.”

    If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

    Posted by paco on 2006 01 27 at 03:56 PM • permalink

  20. Anyone who is willing to build a 2500 mile long concrete wall along the Mexican border gets my vote.

    Posted by 13times on 2006 01 27 at 04:01 PM • permalink

  21. It’s all cut and dried actually, Hillary will win in 2008. Anyone who’s read John Birmingham’s (of recent note) futuristic book, ‘Weapons of Choice’ knows that. Hell, if memory serves, the action opens aboard the supercarrier USS Hillary Clinton, and later on we learn that Hillary Clinton knocked out Colin Powell to become the best damned President since Reagan. Oh, I almost forgot, Condi Rice becomes Hillary’s Vice-President…??

    NOTE: Am I the only one who has trouble decoding Birmingham?

    Posted by Boss Hog on 2006 01 27 at 04:37 PM • permalink

  22. Some say my Senator (And Majority Leader) Bill Frist will run. I don’t think he has the leadership ability. Besides, most Senators are too conciliatory to be good chief executives.

    Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 01 27 at 05:12 PM • permalink

  23. 22: I think that’s an excellent point. In fact, wasn’t JFK the last sitting Senator who won a presidential election? LBJ went from Senator to VP before becoming President, and Ford had been a Congressman who went to VP, first, as well. Frist is a decent guy, and his heart is in the right place, but I don’t believe he has the proverbial “fire in the belly” to make a good president. I’ve worked in Washington for eight years now, and have had a chance to observe politicians on both sides of the aisle, and frankly, regardless of ideology, I’ve always had the distinct impression that they’re all a little “off”, psychologically speaking.

    Posted by paco on 2006 01 27 at 05:45 PM • permalink

  24. Anyone who is willing to build a 2500 mile long concrete wall along the Mexican border gets my vote.

    Our politicians have an oddly tin ear on this issue. It’s huge and growing, and it seems they just wish it would go away so they can continue pandering to the illegals & their compadres (if Democrat) and to their cheap-labor-wantin’ big business contributors (if Republican.)

    I seriously think that a third party candidate running on an anti-illegal immigration, anti-spending, pro-tax-cut, pro-gun platform would do really, really well. Then again, that could be massive projection on my part.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 27 at 06:39 PM • permalink

  25. #19—Well, damn, that was my vote, now I’ll have to pay attention so I can pick your replacement…is Andrea going to be available?

    Posted by KC on 2006 01 27 at 07:12 PM • permalink

  26. Apart from JFK stealing the 1960 election with help from Boss Daley, senators just don’t become presidents. Governors become presidents, mainly because of the fact that they’ve actually run something apart from their own mouth.

    Hillary won’t win because the public won’t re-elect Bill - if you thought Hillary as First Lady thought she was co-president, how do you think Bill will see himself as First Philanderer?

    Jeb won’t win either - the Bushes have had two goes, and their third won’t be until Jeb’s son George P. Bush runs as America’s first Latino presidential candidate (Jeb’s wife is Mexican). Three President George Bushes - cool!

    As for Condi, if the Dems do run hillary, the GOP will have very little choice but to run Condi. My money is on Cheney retiring by the end of this year and Condi moving up to VP.

    Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 27 at 07:20 PM • permalink

  27. Her advance publicity already has a new TV show boasting a woman Prez and her Chief of Staff husband. 
    The softening process has begun.

    Her negatives include:
    ‘Hillary has all the charm of an angry cobra’. Nice one.
    A New Left history that makes Kerry look like a War Patriot.
    She was a dedicated socialist who simply believed that non-violent mainstreaming was the best way to ‘socialize’ the USA. A de-fanged communist fellow traveller.
    Anyone reprising her Valedictory speech at College would not think she had much of a brain on her graduation, but just an overload of impenetrable lefty jargon pompously delivered. Nothing’s changed.
    Bill’s tendency to believe in nothing except himself, and tell everyone what they think they want to hear..

    Posted by Barrie on 2006 01 27 at 07:35 PM • permalink

  28. As for Condi, if the Dems do run hillary, the GOP will have very little choice but to run Condi.

    I think Condi has a choice in the matter. If nominated, she will not run; if elected, she will not serve.

    Now here’s a curveball - Paul Tagliabue is getting set to retire. Condi definitely wants that job. How bizarre would it be to see the NFL and the GOP begging a black woman to lead them?

    (Of course, America is still a racist, sexist, intolerant society. Especially those GOP white men and brutish football fans. They’d only accept Condi because she’s not really black and not really female.)

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 27 at 07:40 PM • permalink

  29. Dave S—Hell, give her both jobs.  Other countries have poet laureates, why shouldn’t a bunch of brutal redneck fascists like us have a sport laureate?

    Besides, Condi in a Cowboys cheerleader uniform?

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 27 at 09:03 PM • permalink

  30. Well, I like Newt Gingrich.  Yes, I realize he resigned from Speaker of the House because of some piddly ass scandal over book royalties or some such.  But he’s so politically astute and a good speaker that he would galvanize the Republican right.  It was also his Rove-like planning that allowed the right to take both the House and the Senate.

    He would also be a damn good President.  Quote me if you want.  Newt in 2008.  If you do, be sure to pay me a rather large royalty.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 27 at 09:27 PM • permalink

  31. wron, Newt in ‘08 is my “don’t jinx it by talking about it” dream. But since you brought it up…

    He’s fucking brilliant. Again, though, he’d get hammered on the divorce. But, oh, would that be sweet - and Condi might be willing to go for VP.

    Newt/Condi ‘08! Sounds nice, dunnit?

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 27 at 09:58 PM • permalink

  32. I would kvell over a Rudy/Condi ticket…

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 28 at 12:21 AM • permalink

  33. Rudy yes.  Condi yes.  Gingrich, no fucking way.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 01 28 at 12:36 AM • permalink

  34. but is that formidable in English or French.

    Posted by crash on 2006 01 28 at 12:44 AM • permalink

  35. #10 Rebecca
    My preferred candidate for the presidency in 1992 was a woman, but for some reason Margaret Thatcher’s name wasn’t on the ballot.

    Powell could have had the pack nomination in 96 but he turned it down, so we got stuck with Buggins’ Turn Dole.  Powell won’t get another chance.

    The only trouble with Condi is that she has never been elected to any political office.  If she had served as a governor, even for a short time (two years, like Woodrow Wilson, say) I’d be in favor of her like a shot.  There is another negative I think.  The only other candidate who went from Cabinet Secretary to President was Herbert Hoover.  Not a good omen.

    Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 28 at 01:14 AM • permalink

  36. hasn’t osama also thrown his turban in the ring for the dem.s?

    Posted by hooligan on 2006 01 28 at 03:08 AM • permalink

  37. Guiliani, Powell, and (to only a slightly lesser extent) McCain will be hobbled for the nomination by a perception among the base that they have RINO tendencies. After the spending orgies of the last few years, I think they’ll be looking for a 1994-style Republican.

    Speaking of which, I need some advice. What should I do about my RINO Senators, Snowe and Collins, this November?

    1) Write a letter to them saying that I will not vote for them because they are frauds;

    2) Vote for them because even a nominal Republican preserves the Senate majority;

    3) Write a letter to them saying that I will not vote for them because they are frauds, then vote for them anyway to preserve the Senate majority.

    I know my vote will make no difference, but we have to act as if it does, right?

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 28 at 03:29 AM • permalink

  38. ok, I’m well into the chardy, but am I the only one who thinks a military confrontation with Iran is inevitable? if that crazy dictatorship gets nukes, as it is plainly determined to do, so too will all their islamafacist friends (some may already have them, eg. Syria courtesy Sadam). and if they get nukes its innevitable they’ll use ‘em. the only chance to avoid this is if the US leads a determined (military) opposition while time permits. so my question is, after Bush is there such a leader in the US?

    Posted by hooligan on 2006 01 28 at 03:30 AM • permalink

  39. Gingrich served his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Second wife Marianne Gingrich was informed of an affair and the request for a divorce last May in a telephone call.

    Screw Gingrich and the horse he rode in on. If people think Newt would make a great president then they should vote for Hillary, both seem to be political pen pals now.


    Clinton and Gingrich have forged a relatively close relationship working on a panel to come up with ways to improve military readiness. Gingrich says he has been struck by how pro-defense Clinton has turned out to be. “She’s been consistently solid on the need to do the right thing on national defense.” Gingrich said. “The speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common”

    What a scam, we get the short end of the crap stick while our political grifter class keeps putting the pea under a new shell.

    “I’m sure it’s taken many by surprise,” Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said of the planned signing of Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and House Majority Leader Dick Armey when they leave office in January.

    Yeah real stalwart right wingers there, sell out to the ACLU after they turn our freaking country upside down because our fornicator in chief can’t bloody keep his cigar out of a girls clam. Gingrich fucks over 2 wives and gets a free pass from right wingers. Then Newt teams up with Hillary to scam the suckers on the right even more.

    Anyone for 3 Card Molly?  10 bucks up front please. Chumps.

    Posted by 13times on 2006 01 28 at 05:07 AM • permalink

  40. I think Condi has a choice in the matter. If nominated, she will not run; if elected, she will not serve.

    Doesn’t matter . . . the last guy who said this should have been nominated, should have run, should have been elected and should have served.

    Condi - the nation and the Free World needs you.

    Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 01 28 at 05:33 AM • permalink

  41. Ok, here’s a longshot.  We elect Joe Scarborough the next US senator for PA.  And by 2008 we elect him President

    Joe Scarborough

    Intelligent, congenial, conservative.  A 1994 Congressman who ran with the desire of cutting spending.  We need more of those.

    Posted by wronwright on 2006 01 28 at 05:56 AM • permalink

  42. Have a friend who is a heavy-weight in NYC Republican Circles. Good oil is definitely on a Rudy G Candidacy for 2008, with Condi as VP. Booyah! Unbeatable combination.

    Posted by StuartSkelton on 2006 01 28 at 07:35 AM • permalink

  43. Gingrich is brilliant, but has been permanently demonized in the public mind.  I am betting on Rudy in ‘08. Though he has some liberal tendencies in terms of social policy - abortion, gay rights - he is tough on the war and his leadership was demonstrated on 9-11-01 and thereafter.
    The only chance the democrats have is to out-hawk the republicans on the war. They would have to run someone like Lieberman or Zel Miller, and that ain’t happening.  The democrat party is firmly under the control of the moonbat wing.

    Posted by Latino on 2006 01 28 at 11:31 AM • permalink

  44. Yes, Gingrich is radioactive. Mitt Romney’s name has been much bandied about, including an article about the impact of a Mormon running for pres. My guess is that the ‘08 candidate will come from the Republican side of this list.

    Some have said Dem TN Gov Bredesen has a chance at the nomination, but he’s as southern as Hillary and has really blown his chances by being ham-handed with TennCare reform. TennCare was a program of using the state’s coffers to cover the uninsured and uninsurable. But he lost several lawsuits (one of which required TennCare to provide lava lamps for “medical purposes”) which blew its budget and he essentially killed the program for all but those who qualify for Federal medical insurance anyway.

    Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 01 28 at 12:44 PM • permalink

  45. Have a friend who is a heavy-weight in NYC Republican Circles.

    Are these the guys who gave us Michael Bloomberg? No thanks.

    Posted by Dave S. on 2006 01 28 at 01:42 PM • permalink

  46. Gingrich says he has been struck by how pro-defense Clinton has turned out to be. “She’s been consistently solid on the need to do the right thing on national defense.” Gingrich said.

    Does that mean she won’t make US troops wait in line in the desert sun for an hour and a half while she and her entourage eat breakfast next time?

    Does that mean that, in her own words, “Bill and I really hate the military…”?

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 28 at 02:04 PM • permalink

  47. Was Gingrich using “national defense” in the traditional sense, or in the “we’re strictly for isolationist self-defense and not anything like promoting democracy abroad, but boy will we ever be ready if the Chinese come invading!” sense that seems prevalent among Democratic “military strategists” these days?

    Posted by PW on 2006 01 28 at 02:32 PM • permalink

  48. Hillary is always triangulating. Just now she has come out in favor of a filibuster against Sam Alito, knowing full well there won’t be a filibuster. So she placates the moonbats without the embarassment of actually having to filibuster. She makes noises that appear to support the troops while never letting up on Bush’s conduct of the war, without, of course, offering a constructive suggestion. She is dangerous but I don’t think she has a realistic chance. Too many voters would have to be fooled.

    Posted by Latino on 2006 01 28 at 03:20 PM • permalink

  49. On the Update-There goes Bush and Rove (and Gingrich) pushing the Wicked Witch of the East, Old, and I mean Old, Hilary, as a viable candidate for President. They will do anything to make the Dems look even more foolish than they are.

    Posted by stats on 2006 01 28 at 04:08 PM • permalink

  50. Update again- Mad bitch Sheehan has offered to oppose Looney fool Feinstein in the California primaries. I do hope that Bush comes out and calls Sick Cindy a “formidable” candidate.

    Posted by stats on 2006 01 28 at 04:26 PM • permalink

  51. 41 WrongNotRight, you can’t be serious.  Scarborough is an imbecile.  An IMMMMMMmmmmmbecile!

    Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 28 at 04:59 PM • permalink

  52. The blue states will vote for Hillary today, tomorrow and in two years. Oh sure right now the blue staters are being fickle, but place a conservative face next to Hillary and they will be on her like a blowfly on a lamb chop.

    Bill Clinton is a brilliant and flawed man, the first black president.

    Newt Gingrich is a brilliant and demonized man.

    Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in America.

    Yep.
    West Coast: LA, SF, Portland, Seattle and Beijing are a lock for Hillary.

    Posted by 13times on 2006 01 28 at 07:42 PM • permalink

  53. Dave — That should be NYC Republican Circle.  They’re like California Repubs, so clueless and completely paid for they couldn’t organize two circles if they tried.

    Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 01 28 at 09:59 PM • permalink

  54. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.