‘Sage’ Advice: Think Twice About Hillary
April 30, 2007 on 1:29 pm | In Main, National |
The Sage has written yet another scathing column on Hillary. This is not surprising since Morris has (since leaving the Clinton White House) been on a personal crusade to expose the former First Lady as (at best) an overly ambitious phony and (at worst) Lady Macbeth with a different sexual orientation.
To make matters worse, Morris is so sleazy he makes my skin crawl. Any criticism of Hillary, therefore, has to be taken with more than a grain of salt — especially coming from someone who once sucked the toes of a prostitute. He is, however, often right, though not always.
Now, if you’re interested in seeing results in a public official’s performance, Morris’s recitation of Hillary’s record in the White House is compelling. From various White House appointments, to healthcare, to her insistence on a female attorney general, it was one failure after another. And what memorable work has she accomplished in the Senate, aside from lacking the political courage to vote against Bush’s Iraq war resolution?
So even her critics are supposed to acknowledge her vast “experience?” That word is a double-edged sword. I have a hunch if Hillary is elected president she would do a worse than Bush.
P.S. And please don’t tell me, “At least she’s smart and wants to do the right thing.” Jimmy Carter was smart but a failure as chief executive. Reagan was no rocket scientist but is one of the better presidents of the last century. Depth of intellect and good intentions are of little consequence in that job …
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Reminds me of Rush. So much time and negative energy obsessing about the Clintons. It’s probably the crazy glue that holds these guys and guys like them together. But as Don Henley sings:
Get over it.
Comment by Terrence McCarthy — April 30, 2007 #
Except in this case, I’m not sure it’s time ill-spent if he’s looking at the record of someone who would be president.
Comment by Terry — April 30, 2007 #
Dick Morris…
His name says it all!
Comment by Marshall Miles — April 30, 2007 #
If all those failures can be attributed to Hillary, surely there isn’t much worry that she can get herself nominated. Personally I’m willing to put $100 down (and have) that it will an Obama/Romney general election. And for my money, I’d be happy with either.
Comment by Jake — April 30, 2007 #
There’s a very amusing Tom Tomorrow from 4/26, titled “Four Years Later”, which shows the brilliant prognostications of Dick Morris and a few other famous talking heads. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tomorrow/what-they-said_b_46907.htm
Comment by Peter Halle — April 30, 2007 #
I’ll look at it, Peter. But I’m sure Tom left out all the times Morris has been right.
Jake, Still with Mitt, eh? What did the Sage have to say about him?
Update: Peter, Your link is dead.
Comment by Terry — April 30, 2007 #
Jake: I’ll take your bet.
This country is not yet ready to elect a black or a woman president.
Comment by Doug Richardson — April 30, 2007 #
Doug,
That means we get Romney in the White House?
Comment by Terry — April 30, 2007 #
I think not.
Comment by Doug Richardson — April 30, 2007 #
Romney thinks that Iraq is a just and needed war, and that what we are accomplishing is worth the thousands of lives lost there. That is, as long as neither he or any of his five sons has to make the sacrifice.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — April 30, 2007 #
Yes, still with Romney. His polling in the important primary states (something one never sees in the press) are at or near the top. McCain has trouble with the party and Giuliani doesn’t look so hot when you break down his numbers. Morris always mentions Romney when he talks Republican, but there’s no way he or anyone else can know for sure. But I still like Romney’s chances.
Doug… you’re on. Not sure how you want to do the wager. I did mine the Betting Exchange.
Tom… It’s never been clear to me why the career decisions of adult children should determine the politics of various candidates. Should Romney be required to have a child in the military before he can support the GWOT? How would that work in practice? The whole “ChickenHawk” meme kind of works if you have rich kids avoiding a draft, but in the all volunteer era, it doesn’t quite work. I’ll remind you that the draft was ended in 1976.
My nephew has orders to Marine OCS this summer. Is it OK for me to like the war now? Or are my years as a Marine officer enough? Please enlighten me.
In any case, Obama is by far the most interesting candidate. As a Republican, I don’t like his politics much, but as a candidate, he is great. We’ll see if he can last over the long haul. But he certainly is a natural.
Comment by Jake — May 1, 2007 #
I have to agree, Jake. I am no fan of this war, but the chicken hawk charge has never been particularly compelling to me. With only one exception, the people I talk to in the military don’t think it’s an issue. Using that same logic, it’s an outrage that Clinton sent our troops into Haiti, the Balkans and Somalia but never insisted Chelsea enlist. There have got to be better arguments against Romney than that, like the illegal immigrants who mow his lawn, eh?
Comment by Terry — May 1, 2007 #
Again with the but,Clinton. How long will you keep trotting that old chestnut out. Actually, he did not send our troops into Somalia, Bush I did. Clinton inherited a mess there and did not handle it well. How old was Chelsea when he sent our troops to Haiti? I did not use the term “ChickenHawkâ€. I still have a problem with someone saying that situation in Iraq is worth dying for as long as its not me or mine who is doing the dying. Jake, if you support the war, have a son of age, and do not encourage him to sign up, then no, your years as a Marine officer are not enough. In my life I have seen too many of our troops sent to die for a mistake by leaders who were not willing to make the sacrifice themselves.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — May 1, 2007 #
A minor point, but Bush 41 sent the first troops to Somalia. Clinton sent more before withdrawing after the Blackhawks went down; ergo Clinton also sent troops to that country, n’est pas?.
The “But Clinton” is merely to point out a possible double standard.
Chelsea turned 18 in 1998, old enough for duty in her father’s second term; the Bush twins were 22 in 2003. This is a silly argument.
Focus on the war and its many faults but to slam Romney because of the choices his kids have made proves nothing, other than that his kids don’t want to be in the military and Mitt didn’t force them to enlist. Besides, how do you know Mitt didn’t “encourage [them] to sign up,” but they rebelled instead. Big deal …
Comment by Terry — May 1, 2007 #
I said that Clinton handled Somalia poorly. We were taking sides in a civil war. That sounds familiar! How old was Chelsea at that time? None of our troops died in the Balkans. How old was Chelsea at that time? The silliness of the argument is that you are comparing Bush’s use of military force to Clinton’s. That’s ridiculous.
A lot of Republicans say privately that Mitt has said that he did not encourage his sons to sign up. There are troops in Iraq who are Mitt’s age. Why hasn’t he signed up?
Comment by Tom Cowgill — May 1, 2007 #
Both sides of the aisle are as rife with Dodgers as the Exec. branch denizens. But my vote for the most contemptible? Dick Cheney, of course…when asked why he didn’t serve in Viet Nam, his only reply was “I had other priorities.”
It doesn’t get any worse than that.
Comment by Doug Richardson — May 1, 2007 #
I haven’t made up my mind between Obama and Clinton yet (or even Edwards) but I’ll say this for Hillary - she is conscientious. At the Norht East Community Center we routinely send newsletters, benefit invitations, etc. to various legislators - her office always personally calls to respond and I just got a wonderful, very personalized letter from Hillary in response to an invitation to our benefit - a staffer took the time not only to read what we sent them but to go to our website and learn more - this wins points with me!
Comment by Jenny — May 3, 2007 #