Geffen gives Hillary a Bad Weak, Obama handles it well.

[JMS]

I don't think much of Kristol. He's one of the neocons which landed us in Iraq. Fluff for brains with a good head only for diction. But I agree Geffen's comments were interesting and needed to be said, and thought Obama handled this hurdle well.

comments?

William Kristol [/i]]

You Go, Geffen!

Hillary Clinton's very bad week.

by William Kristol

03/05/2007, Volume 012, Issue 24

We know from the philosophers that a true statement is true without regard to the reliability or sagacity of the person who utters it. We have it on good authority that the truth shall set us free. David Geffen spoke truth to Maureen Dowd last week. And he may have triggered a series of events that will set the Democratic party free from its Clinton captivity.

Here is what the Hollywood mogul told the New York Times gossip columnist:

I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is--and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?--can bring the country together. Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. . . .

I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person. . . . I think [Republicans] believe she's the easiest to defeat. . . .

It's not a very big thing to say, "I made a mistake" on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't. She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base . . . that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive. . . .

Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice? Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling.

There it is, in black and white. Will it set the Democrats free? It could. Hillary Clinton was cruising along, raising big money, triangulating on Iraq, rounding up supporters who felt they had little choice but to sign on. And then Geffen spoke up. Suddenly Democrats all over the country may be thinking to themselves, "Well, what about that? Why exactly do we have to be for Hillary anyway? Shouldn't we consider some alternatives?"

Once unleashed, this series of thoughts is subversive. So much of the Hillary Clinton candidacy depends on an aura of inevitability, supported by oodles of money and a fear of retribution if you're not on board. But what if she's not inevitable? And what if the retribution isn't so all-powerful?

That's what is now being tested. Now that it has been raised, the thought that Hillary isn't the ideal nominee might spread. Hence Team Clinton's need to enforce omertà. Hillary's attack dog, Howard Wolfson, couldn't even take the time to do some basic fact-checking before rushing out an attack email demanding Obama denounce the remarks of Geffen, "his campaign's finance chair." But Geffen is not and has never been Obama's finance chair. He has no official role in the Obama campaign.

Obama's aides pointed out the falsehood. Obama himself commented, "It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else's remark." (Notice he didn't exactly disavow the remarks.) And Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs fired back: "The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when [he] was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Then the next day, Obama convinced a credulous Adam Nagourney of the New York Times that he personally hadn't been aware of his aide's statement. After all, he got himself quoted saying on page 1 of the Times, "I don't want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we're spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played."

Nicely done. Geffen's comments get repeated in three days' worth of stories--because how can you report about the spat without reporting the remarks that started it?--and Obama gets to rise above the fray. And consider the original response by Gibbs. He went out of his way to respond not to Hillary Clinton, and not to Howard Wolfson, but to "the Clintons": "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons. . . . The Clintons had no problem . . . "

Very nicely done. Is Sen. Clinton not her own person? Are we again getting two for the price of one? Hillary Clinton's popularity soared after the Monica affair, when she achieved a kind of political separation from her husband. That's what made her Senate race possible, and her current presidential candidacy plausible. Relinking her to Bill makes her political life more complicated.

Obama is running an impressive campaign. But if he ultimately falters because voters think him too inexperienced--then the experienced, antiwar-from-the-start, and environmentally prophetic Al Gore is waiting in the wings. It was a bad week for Hillary.

--William Kristol

© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/319zlxge.asp?pg=1

[ZoEd]

If Hillary or Obama win the Dem nomination it all but guarantees a Republican win. I was listening to a political talk show the other day and for over two hours the guy pleaded for people to call in and tell everyone what Hillary or Obama have done legislatively while being in office and no one could do it. Several people called in and talked about how America needed a change and how both Nominees are inspirational speakers. The guys response was "how does that qualify them for being President?"

Someone even said that Obama and Hillary would bring millions to the polls that typically wouldn't vote. Wouldn't it also bring out millions of people who typically wouldn't vote because they don't want another president who doesn't have adequate experience in politics? I honestly think the Dems best shot is Gulliani, I know he would have my vote and may be the only candidate that can actually take votes away from the Republicans instead of the other way around. :2cents:

[Teller]

How long until Geffen "commits suicide?" *wink wink, nod nod.*

[Enter Apotheosis]

If Hillary or Obama win the Dem nomination it all but guarantees a Republican win. I was listening to a political talk show the other day and for over two hours the guy pleaded for people to call in and tell everyone what Hillary or Obama have done legislatively while being in office and no one could do it. Several people called in and talked about how America needed a change and how both Nominees are inspirational speakers. The guys response was "how does that qualify them for being President?"

Someone even said that Obama and Hillary would bring millions to the polls that typically wouldn't vote. Wouldn't it also bring out millions of people who typically wouldn't vote because they don't want another president who doesn't have adequate experience in politics? I honestly think the Dems best shot is Gulliani, I know he would have my vote and may be the only candidate that can actually take votes away from the Republicans instead of the other way around. :2cents:

Since when do the American people care about the issues and voting record? It usually comes down to malformed, preconceived notions about the candidate/party and the tevised debates/bickering. The most charismatic, convincing, and tactful speaker usually wins... it has nothing to do with leadership and effectiveness, just the illusion thereof.

[Teller]

Since when do the American people care about the issues and voting record? It usually comes down to malformed, preconceived notions about the candidate/party and the tevised debates/bickering. The most charismatic, convincing, and tactful speaker usually wins... it has nothing to do with leadership and effectiveness, just the illusion thereof.

So you believe Obama will win in a landslide? Even I can see that he fits your above description better than anyone else in the race.

[ZoEd]

Since when do the American people care about the issues and voting record? It usually comes down to malformed, preconceived notions about the candidate/party and the tevised debates/bickering. The most charismatic, convincing, and tactful speaker usually wins... it has nothing to do with leadership and effectiveness, just the illusion thereof.

Too bad you're for the most part right. However, GW has never benn a great speaker. The best man doesn't always win. Hopefully this election we'll see some candidates with the pedigree and track record to unify America and regain faith in our Gov't.

[Enter Apotheosis]

So you believe Obama will win in a landslide? Even I can see that he fits your above description better than anyone else in the race.

Landslide? No. Again, there are those "malformed, preconceived notions" that will play in to the equation. I do think that he would be able to go toe to toe with almost anyone (be it Hilary in the primary, Giuliani, or McCain) but I can't say for sure he'd come out on top.

Too bad you're for the most part right. However, GW has never benn a great speaker. The best man doesn't always win. Hopefully this election we'll see some candidates with the pedigree and track record to unify America and regain faith in our Gov't.

Was Gore or Kerry at ALL charismatic? Hell no... but they still ran a dead-even heat. Bush just won because he fit the Republican bill of being a god-fearing, "morally grounded" leader and seemed more down-to-earth than his opponents.

I mean... look at Clinton and Reagan. They both had quite a few flaws but were EXCELLENT speakers and knew how to appeal to the American public. Really, its been that way ever since Kennedy was elected.

[ZoEd]

Landslide? No. Again, there are those "malformed, preconceived notions" that will play in to the equation. I do think that he would be able to go toe to toe with almost anyone (be it Hilary in the primary, Giuliani, or McCain) but I can't say for sure he'd come out on top.

Was Gore or Kerry at ALL charismatic? Hell no... but they still ran a dead-even heat. Bush just won because he fit the Republican bill of being a god-fearing, "morally grounded" leader and seemed more down-to-earth than his opponents.

I mean... look at Clinton and Reagan. They both had quite a few flaws but were EXCELLENT speakers and knew how to appeal to the American public. Really, its been that way ever since Kennedy was elected.

Likability is a huge part of being elected. It's that way in life as well. People will follow a person because they're charimatic not because they're the most qualified or experienced leader. However, that will only take you so far, if you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground sooner or later people will see right through you.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Likability is a huge part of being elected. It's that way in life as well. People will follow a person because they're charimatic not because they're the most qualified or experienced leader. However, that will only take you so far, if you don't know you ass from a hole in the ground sooner or later people will see right through you.

But when it comes to politics it usually takes far too long for people to realize this... and you really only have to be appealing to the American public a grand total of two times to be President for 8 years.

[ZoEd]

But when it comes to politics it usually takes far too long for people to realize this... and you really only have to be appealing to the American public a grand total of two times to be President for 8 years.

Again you're right. Trust me I'm not arguing with you.

I think recently a lot of people have been voting for a candidate not because they're the most qualified or the "best" but because they just don't want to see the other guy elected. It's voting for the lesser of two evils.

Most people went to the polls for Bush because a lot of people thought Gore was a spineless assclown and Hillary was really the Vice President.

GW II was successful because Kerry was also an assclown who just happens to look like the scarecrow off of Wizard of Oz, was incabable of taking a stand on any topic and just happened to have the personality of a door knob.

I for one know I voted for GW not because he was the best candidate but becuase Kerry appeared ball less and there was no way I wanted him to run our country. I don't care what party a candidate is representing, I'll vote for whoever I feel will run this country the best, Dem or Repub. Oh yea, and whoever promises to legalize pot.

[aszumilo]

I honestly think the Dems best shot is Gulliani, I know he would have my vote and may be the only candidate that can actually take votes away from the Republicans instead of the other way around. :2cents:

Guilliani is a republican.

[twa]

Obama is about to get a taste of real politics, once the Clinton machine cranks up....it will be just a kindler ,gentler Night of the Long Knives :laugh:

Be interesting how he copes ,If he survives I will be impressed.

[JMS]

Guilliani is a republican.

I was wondering when someone would mention that.

Guilliani, pro gay rights and pro reproductive rights is in fact a Republican. The fact that he's 10 pts ahead of hillary after a week in the race might not help him get the Republican nomination.

I like obama, He's smart. He thinks on his feet, and he's a great public speaker. My wife was telling me that he had a serious Coke habit, which he detailed in his book. That's a pretty serious lack of judgement there. Bush and Clinton both were rumored to have the same problem. But they never came out and admitted it. That could sink him.

Hillary is hillary. It's unlikely the Republicans will dig up new dirt on her during the race. Then again they don't have too, they've got plenty. Also Bill might go off the reservation and sink her campagn. Wonder how many more women and photographs the Republicans have lined up of him this time?

As for experience we've had presidents with less experience than Hillary, Teddy Rosevelt had only been police commisioner and a state senator. FDR had only been a mayor and then only one term 10 years prior to winning the Democratic nomination. JF Kennedy was a single term senator when he ran in the early 1960's. I don't think experience will be the biggest problem for Hillary or Barak. There biggest problem will be avoiding being swift boated.

With the all the states rushing to get their primaries done early, I think the race is taylor made for the front runner. That being said, Hillary has a significant edge and it's probable her race to loose for the Democratic nomination.

Republican race seems more wide open.

[@DCGoldPants]

Right now, if the Republicans want to win, they go with Rudy. However, they will only get a Republican in name. One that a lot of Dems could easily live with too.

Sad truth is, as far as hardliners for each side. Neither part has much to show right now.

Here's to Hilary dropping out. I wish.

[Air Force Cane]

"I honestly think the Dems best shot is Gulliani"

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the democrats best hope is to run against Giuliani in the general election? Or to have Giuliani as the democratic candidate?

Because you do know that he is going to win the GOP nomination right?

[Enter Apotheosis]

"I honestly think the Dems best shot is Gulliani"

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the democrats best hope is to run against Giuliani in the general election? Or to have Giuliani as the democratic candidate?

Because you do know that he is going to win the GOP nomination right?

Does it matter? The Dems will be relatively happy if Giuliani wins the election and even happier if he loses to the Democratic candidate.

[ZoEd]

Guilliani is a republican.

I've been educated now but I could have sworn he was a democrat. Still think he could do well getting votes from both sides and like has already been pointed out he's a candidate most dems could probably live with.

[@DCGoldPants]

If this were 2000, you know the Bush Campaign would say Rudy isn't a Republican.......they'd also say he's on the 3rd wife, and had a secret black baby. Or something of that sort.

[Air Force Cane]

Whoever said Theodore Roosevelt was only a State senator and had no experience before becoming President does not know much about politics:

"In 1884 his first wife, Alice Lee Roosevelt, and his mother died on the same day. Roosevelt spent much of the next two years on his ranch in the Badlands of Dakota Territory. There he mastered his sorrow as he lived in the saddle, driving cattle, hunting big game--he even captured an outlaw. On a visit to London, he married Edith Carow in December 1886. During the Spanish-American War, Roosevelt was lieutenant colonel of the Rough Rider Regiment, which he led on a charge at the battle of San Juan. He was one of the most conspicuous heroes of the war. Boss Tom Platt, needing a hero to draw attention away from scandals in New York State, accepted Roosevelt as the Republican candidate for Governor of New York in 1898. Roosevelt won and served with distinction. "

www.wikipedia.com