Hillary mocks her Democratic opponent... click the link for the YouTube video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwRnELfu1Ak
Terrific, unbaised LA Times story dissects the Hillary campaign's rendezvous with defeat... Not only does writer Jonathan Chait effortlessly DEFLATE every one of the Clintonista's laments in one short, simple paragraph, but more importantly, Chait retrospectively examines the notion of Bill Clinton's "black magic" political prowess of the 1990s, and discovers... it wasn't so magic, dramatic, or proof of amazing political talent after all:
<< The reality is less dramatic. Bill Clinton defeated a recession-weakened president with some help from a third-party spoiler, stopped the GOP from cutting highly popular social programs, won reelection during an economic boom and rallied his own party to thwart a wildly partisan impeachment crusade. None of these triumphs required unusual political skill. >>
Chait does another masterpiece dissection of Hillary's own popularity and vaunted political talents:
<< Hillary Clinton has tried to piggyback on her husband's ferocious reputation, boasting that she "beat the Republican attack machine." Of course, if anybody beat the Republican attack machine, it was Bill. Hillary Clinton wasn't on any ballot in the 1990s. True, her reputation was at stake, but that's a fight she lost: She ended that decade a highly unpopular figure. She remains one today, with about half of the public persistently telling pollsters they have an unfavorable view of her. >>
"She ended the decade a highly unpopular figure... [and] today, about half the public persistently tell[s] pollsters they have an unfavorable view of her."
IT DOESN'T GET ANY SIMPLER THAN THAT!
Here is Chait's masterpiece paragraph which, in five sentences, deflates the Hillary camapaign's (and her supporter's) whine that she has gotten unfavorable treatment from the press and powers-that-be... (even as Chait doesn't even mention Hillary cozying up to one of her lead tormenters, Fox corporation owner RUPERT MURDOCH, or that her husband's coziness with Bush Sr. is as indictive an example of the inside-beltway Democratic Party leadership's alignment with the radical right, as James Carville's marriage to lead Cheney spinmeister MARY MATLIN is.)
<< Clinton and her supporters rage on anyway because, for so long, they had no inkling she might lose. For Obama to take what is rightfully hers must be unfair. The Clintonites rage against the media (though they didn't mind when reporters parroted her claims of inevitability a year ago), the unrepresentative caucus system (though they have expressed no objection to totally undemocratic superdelegates) or sexism (while ignoring the benefits of white racial bias and female gender solidarity). The real reason Clinton will lose is more prosaic: Obama is a far better politician. >>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-chait4mar04,0,6465402.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
=======================================
Clinton campaign's dying light
We've seen the rage. She should now go gentle into the political night.
By Jonathan Chait, LA Times
March 4, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-chait4mar04,0,6465402.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
'Do not go gentle into that good night. ...
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
When Dylan Thomas wrote those lines in 1951, he did not intend them as political advice. But if he were alive today, he'd surely admire Hillary Clinton's campaigning style. (And probably vote for her: At 93, he'd be right inside her demographic sweet spot.) As the end approaches, she has not gone gentle into that good night.
Clinton has almost no chance of winning the nomination. Going into today's big votes in Texas and Ohio, she trails by more than 150 pledged delegates.
If she has an unexpectedly great day, she might gain by a couple dozen, but her best chances to gain ground will all be behind her. She could, in theory, win the nomination with superdelegates if she could narrow the gap, but that's not going to happen. Barack Obama will bring a triple-digit delegate lead to the convention, and party elites won't dare overturn that.
Clinton and her supporters rage on anyway because, for so long, they had no inkling she might lose. For Obama to take what is rightfully hers must be unfair. The Clintonites rage against the media (though they didn't mind when reporters parroted her claims of inevitability a year ago), the unrepresentative caucus system (though they have expressed no objection to totally undemocratic superdelegates) or sexism (while ignoring the benefits of white racial bias and female gender solidarity). The real reason Clinton will lose is more prosaic: Obama is a far better politician.
Republicans have long had a kind of black-magic fear of the Clintons' political potency. From the right's perspective, Bill Clinton won the presidency at a time when the GOP thought it had an electoral college lock. Then he beat back the Republican revolution and the party's efforts to defeat him.
The reality is less dramatic. Bill Clinton defeated a recession-weakened president with some help from a third-party spoiler, stopped the GOP from cutting highly popular social programs, won reelection during an economic boom and rallied his own party to thwart a wildly partisan impeachment crusade. None of these triumphs required unusual political skill.
Hillary Clinton has tried to piggyback on her husband's ferocious reputation, boasting that she "beat the Republican attack machine." Of course, if anybody beat the Republican attack machine, it was Bill. Hillary Clinton wasn't on any ballot in the 1990s. True, her reputation was at stake, but that's a fight she lost: She ended that decade a highly unpopular figure. She remains one today, with about half of the public persistently telling pollsters they have an unfavorable view of her.
Nor was Clinton able to shed her baggage when she moved to New York. In her November 2000 Senate race, she ran five points behind Democratic ticket-topper Al Gore in New York, and Gore himself was hardly a beloved figure at the time. Six years later, she pummeled a token opponent.
Has Clinton been unfairly attacked? Without a doubt. But she's also a mediocre orator who delivers themeless and not-terribly-inspiring speeches. She's a good enough politician to get elected in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, but not good enough to get elected president....
[continued at]
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-chait4mar04,0,6465402.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
