The CNN Debate--The Wolf is a Beotch

Channeling Wolfie there, Max? Pay attention to the posts and substance thereof--the commenters are irrelevant. She did indeed pack the house, with the help of both CNN and the NVDP, which means some major assistance from Harry Reid and some major intimidation of the network. You can take that one to the bank.

And she'll do it wherever and whenever she can get away with it. I keep telling people not to underestimate her. I've been watching the Clintons for a quarter of a century now. Utterly ruthless. She will crush the opposition by any means available, and will do so whether or not there's even any point, if only to throw fear into future wannabe opponents.

It's not going to get any prettier as the primaries encroach. She won't slack off until there's no chance she can be beaten, and even then she'll do her best to keep the opposition muzzled and off-balance so that they can't put extra hurt on her, or walk into the convention with any power to grab part of the pot.

Knowing that they're both sleazy pols doesn't mean that I think they're nuts, or poor performers in office. We've had plenty of sleazy pols who were top performers in office. Heck, Bill didn't do too badly. I'd have taken him over Perot in a heartbeat.

I've said it over and over again--Hillary Clinton is one of the sharpest pols alive, but I do not confuse ability with ethics. Some ascribe idealism to Hillary. I don't. She's a gutter fighter, and a good one. Ideology and ego, yes, but I think the latter rules. I think she'd be a very practical Prez who would follow the polls and triangulate like hubbie to ensure a legacy. And that doesn't scare me. We've had worse. And she's the class of the leader board on the Dem side. Both Obama and Edwards are lightweights at best, and Biden and Richardon are not really in the running. Hillary's a contender.

Now if I were in Washington orbits and my career ass were on the line...I'd step very carefully indeed. When it comes to infighting, the only limits they recognize are pragmatical, not legal or ethical. They play for keeps, and when it comes to the "politics of personal destruction" they have no reason to whine--and few equals.

What I've been saying is that ruthlessness does not necessarily mean sleazy. One can make the claim that the Republicans going back to the Clinton Era and into the race between Bush and McCain were both sleazy and ruthless. The idea of the "Republican Machine" evokes a rather ruthless image. I told Democrats to stop crying about it -that's politcs. In other times, such ruthlessness (LBJ and others) has evoked envy and a certain "respect" because it is difficult to get things done sometimes without such ruthlessness. All I am suggesting is that if the goals are honorable (one agrees with principles sought) and laws aren't broken (maybe bent a bit) such ruthlessness isn't necessarily sleazy or unprecendented. Hillary obviously did something to get Spitzer to drop the driver license issue and switch to gay marriage. She pressured Reid, who does not exactly take her line on many things to pull some strings. Bill used his clout to pressure GQ. Yes, politicians do this and given the knives pointed to the Clintons from the Far Right and the Far Left, who can say this isn't an epic Darwinian struggle going on? I don't want Pelosi/Reid/Kos/Huffington to win. Aren't we all agreed on that? And if Climton is to win (no we are not all agreed on that..LOL), she must get the primaries done with, consolidate whatever power she has and focus it on the general race. I don't think for one minute Republicans won't try every trick in the book to beat her including acceptance of the word bitch from a Republican questioner, or deploying Robertson and other demigods and Swiftboaters.

I can't (nor will I ever try) to compare my small knowledge about these things with Tully's. I'm not even in the same ballpark and I mean no disrespect to him or this blog. I only bring up these things because the street I converse with daily questions these things, particularly the claim about Hillary being a "bitch" or being "ruthless and sleazy" when said in the highly pejorative way it is said (not that I ascribe that spin to Tully). Many non-Lefty Liberals I know cannot understand why the Clinton's are being singled out on this account after the seven years plus America has experianced from what many feel has been extra-ruthless and sleazy tactics from the Right Side. Is there a valid concern over fairness here? Can one be fair about being ruthless?

Could she really keep that Obama "secret" secret? And wouldn't this mean his being a VP is pretty much out? Two out of three post debate spinners being linked to Hillary is a bit unfair, but J.C. agreed with the other two. I admit CNN might have leaned a bit towards Clinton, but I don't think the other debates did this. In fact, I think they leaned a bit away from Clinton. I'm not sure the pearl questioner was Hillary's doing and is a pretty stupid move on CNN's part.

Again, the few aberations of "fairness" didn't seem to be responsible for the answers the candidates gave, or the mistakes. It appeared Obama's stumbles were his own and he had more time to speak overall than Clinton. If one takes only the answers, didn't Hillary have a better night regardless of the other issues mentioned? Was the crowd out of line to respond to Obama's answer to the immigration questions? Luisa and Porter didn't seem to have much impact, or did I miss something (again)?

here?

Nixon? He was a nasty person who engaged in criminal activities. Did he do anything positive? Yes. Did he do far more to set our country back? Yes.

I wonder what Carter would say about Pol Pot's former officals who now deny Pol Pot actually killed anyone...LOL. Of course, I haven't heard Jimmy chime in on rape victims getting lashes or the growing opposition against Ahmadinejad or Chavez from within their own ranks. For all the talk of Human Rights it is sad to see our former President silent on the extremist conference in Turkey attended by their President, the failure of the UN to slow Ahmadinejad or Hizb'Allah in defiance of the UN Carter supports as our best solution to crisis, or even events in Somalia, Myanmar, Lebanon, Georgia, Belarus, Russia and Afghanistan where he once thought arming OBL through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was a great idea despite the knowledge that those he armed carried out violations of human rights against Soviet prisoners. Didn't Carter once believe in tough sanctions?

Yes, Carter hailed from a different time. I can imagine what pundits would now say if Bill's brother was caught pissing on the WH lawn (as opposed to snorting), or if Hillary entertained some of those Carter invited to visit. Arafat was okay to negotiate with, but kissing Mrs. Arafat was a no-no. I would like to know what Carter thinks about Chavez.....well, not really.

P.S. reflecting on this thread, I did hear Russert's question long ago to Hillary about the "vast right wing conspiracy". There was a Right Wing club that went quite sleazy. After Hillary responded to Russert, I remember Lazio then getting in her face demanding she sign some paper. It was completely over the top. Had it been Bill, Lazio would never have tried this tactic. Had it been Rudy, Lazio might have gotten shoved back. Perot might have punched him. The public agreed Lazio was acting like an ass and he got trounced in the ensuing vote for Senator. When Rudy dropped out of the race before Lazio ran, most polls showed Rudy losing to Hillary in a tight race (and she was a carpet-bagger at the time, though not any more than RFK). Rudy's favorable rating in NYC was not as high as he would would like to think it was.