[Talkhard]

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

The truth of the thing is, this cartoon is pretty much accurate (not it's point about who could be faithful, etc). President Clinton has done more damage to Hillary's campaign than good (at least, imho). She's doing a good job of coming off phony, but President Clinton is really making things smarmy.

I can't put into words what it is about Hillary that is irritating, but it's so phony and campy.

[dudleysghost]

It's kind of sad. She's actually pretty good on policy terms. It isn't just a campaign stratagem for them, she actually knows her stuff and her team comes out with perhaps the best policy of any candidate running this season. But she just comes off badly, as someone who will do anything and say anything to get elected, because in some ways she is like that. It's too bad though, because if she would just chill out and try to be more sincere and less smarmy and rankly political, she probably could have been our next president.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by dudleysghost

It's kind of sad. She's actually pretty good on policy terms. It isn't just a campaign stratagem for them, she actually knows her stuff and her team comes out with perhaps the best policy of any candidate running this season. But she just comes off badly, as someone who will do anything and say anything to get elected, because in some ways she is like that. It's too bad though, because if she would just chill out and try to be more sincere and less smarmy and rankly political, she probably could have been our next president.

Yep. In some ways, that's a bad thing about our political system. The candidate who appears to come off better can win (see the last 2 elections).

But also, Hillary has done this to herself. She comes off so phony bologna, that the good ideas and points she might have, are ignored.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by Hap

Yep. In some ways, that's a bad thing about our political system. The candidate who appears to come off better can win (see the last 2 elections).

But also, Hillary has done this to herself. She comes off so phony bologna, that the good ideas and points she might have, are ignored.

That's absolutely it. It reminds me of a piece I read in the New York Times a while back from a guy who worked on a previous campaign with Mitt Romney, who basically said that Romney is actually a very reasonable, intelligent and moderate guy who would make a great president, but that nobody can see it because he deliberately changed his persona to fit what he thought the political system required him to be. Watching Romney and Clinton, they just come off as super fake, and it's creepy. I think that these experienced politicians truly believe they have to act all fake to get elected, probably because it has been a successful strategy for many politicians in the past. I feel a little bit sorry for the people who thought they had to act that way only to find out that it just doesn't work right now, but I'm very glad that the American people this year seem to be rejecting that kind of persona in politics.

[mook]

Originally Posted by Hap

The truth of the thing is, this cartoon is pretty much accurate (not it's point about who could be faithful, etc). President Clinton has done more damage to Hillary's campaign than good (at least, imho). She's doing a good job of coming off phony, but President Clinton is really making things smarmy.

I can't put into words what it is about Hillary that is irritating, but it's so phony and campy.

I agree, although Bill Clinton's historical lack of faithfulness in his marriage has done an immense amount of damage to Hillary's campaign (and the Democratic party, and the country).

imagine if he could just somehow resist the temptation of Monica Lewinski. pretty easy to imagine Gore winning in 2000. which would mean the Iraq fiasco would never have happened. you'd then have Lieberman running against Hillary and Obama this year, which I think Hillary wins. (our country wouldn't be as screwed up, so "change"/Obama campaign wouldn't have so much luster. Hillary would kill Lieberman because while they are both policy wonks, Lieberman is somehow even less charismatic and personable than Hillary.)

yeah, it's kind of a big game of "what if." but it's interesting to think about how much of our nation's fate was decided by a sex stain on a dress.

[Stevenson]

Originally Posted by mook

imagine if he could just somehow resist the temptation of Monica Lewinski. pretty easy to imagine Gore winning in 2000. which would mean the Iraq fiasco would never have happened. you'd then have Lieberman running against Hillary and Obama this year, which I think Hillary wins.

Almost. I do agree, Gore wins in 2000 under that sceanrio, but I doubt he wins 2 terms - it's just not historically accurate to think we would have 8 years of Clinton and then 8 years of his VP. Certainly, if that were true, this would be a Republican year.

[dudleysghost]

It's very speculative. The country seemed to turn on Republicans after the impeachment deal, but they definitely seemed to have "Clinton fatugue" running into the 2000 election, which cost Gore. Then there was 9/11. If that had happened under Gore, the Republicans in Congress would have blamed Clinton/Gore for allowing it. That is, if a Gore administration hadn't been more inclined to stop it, which they might have. Who knows?

[Dan]

I know this is cliche'd to say, but is anyone else just kinda tired of the same two families running things? Clinton and Bush. And considering McCain is a Bush lackey now, might as well include him.

Im not sure if Obama is the "new bread" of politicians (uh oh, Im going against the Liberal Hand book there), but at least he's not of the same self congratulatory and self indulgent political families that Clinton and Bush are.

Never a more phony duo of families has U.S. politics known

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Hap

Im not sure if Obama is the "new bread" of politicians . . .

You must be thinking of "Wonder Bread." That's the type with very little substance.

[Hector]

I got news for you guys. 50% that Hillary is the next President, 40% Obama, and 10% McCain. Book it. And she is not phony. She's lethargic. Needs to pick her spots of when to appear, as McCain does, to hide her age by providing brief spurts of high energy. Obama's advantage is youth, in skinny looks and consistently energetic words.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Hector

I got news for you guys. 50% that Hillary is the next President, 40% Obama, and 10% McCain. Book it.

How can we book that? No matter who wins, you can claim you were right.

I'd give Hillary a smaller percentage and McCain a larger percentage than you did. Maybe 30,40,30.

barfo

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Hector

I got news for you guys. 50% that Hillary is the next President, 40% Obama, and 10% McCain. Book it.

I'd say you've got it backwards. McCain has the best chance to win it all, since many of the followers of Clinton or Obama will vote for McCain in the general election rather than for the "other guy" they've grown to hate in the primaries. Polls actually show McCain beating either Clinton or Obama in the general election.