A Few Reasons Why The Internet Is Great
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Wednesday, I saw a quote from noted Demo political strategist James Carville. He's long been a Hillary Clinton kind of guy.
He said, "She's behind. Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."
And then this:
"For ... you Democrats out there, I got good news for you. We have to literally talk our way out of winning this election.
"For the Republicans, being a lifelong member of the Democratic party, I can assure you we are perfectly capable of doing that."
My how times change. That's why the Internet is so great.
It's easy to look back and see what these people were saying in the past.
Like in July 2006 when her name was being tossed about as a potential presidential candidate.
Lots of Democrats were saying things like, "Hillary Clinton really is one of the weakest nominees with whom the Democrats could be saddled," or "Democrats are worried sick about her chances," or "Just give someone else a chance, so we in the Democratic Party can elect a Democrat," or "She's too polarizing," or "She's too cold, she's not amiable" or "She's not a good communicator."
Not Carville. He said the detractors were wrong.
The woman who gave the War Room its name knows how tough politics at the presidential level can be. Adversaries spent $60 million against her in 2000, and she endured press scrutiny that would have wilted most candidates. She gave as good as she got, and she triumphed.
For those who think that the politics of personal destruction might be rekindled against Hillary or her husband, we can only remind people how consistently that approach has backfired in the past. Bill Clinton would certainly be a huge asset if Hillary decided to run.
In fact, Hillary is the only nationally known Democrat (other than her husband) who has weathered the Republican assaults and emerged with a favorable rating above 50 percent (54 percent positive in the latest Post-ABC poll).
That column was headlined "The Power of Hillary," by the way.
This Carville guy has made a tidy living in political analysis. Seems to me he's in the wrong business.
I was always a Hillary detractor. I always thought that even if, if, she won the nomination, she had no chance of becoming president.
She would motivate Republicans to come out and vote against her. People who hadn't been to the polls in years would show up to vote.
They, like me, are part of the ABC crowd. Anybody but Clinton.
But in Carville's defense, I can see where he would think it would be a good year for Democrats.
Honestly, who in history has been a more unpopular president that W?
How could the Demos lose?
Well, the only political entity polling lower than W is the Demo-controlled Congress.
And right now, in head-to-head polling against both Barack Obama and Hillary, the Republican heir apparent John McCain is polling quite well.
He's ahead of Hillary and behind Obama - but all within the margin of error of the polls.
How could that be?
Easy. It's the Democrats unyielding penchant for screwing things up when it comes to elections.
The country, I think, is yearning for somebody a little moderate.
So who do the Demos throw up there? Two of the most liberal Senators in Washington.
Don't they know Bill Clinton was popular because he was moderate?
On the GOP side, you've got John McCain, whose positions on things like immigration and campaign finance have enraged the far right fringes of the party.
So be it.
He's conservative, but he's moderate. That's what voters want. They don't want the fringy stuff on either side of the aisle.
That's why, despite McCain's stance on the Iraq war and W's raging unpopularity, McCain is polling dead even with the Demos.
Amazing.
Here's something I wrote to a friend of mine in August 2006 before the midterm election.
Honestly, I think most people are happy as long as NASCAR is on cable and the beer is cold. Sometimes we - people like you and I who pay attention to politics world events - tend to forget that the majority of people don't pay attention to politics world events.
That's where I believe the Demos are screwing up. The party leadership seems to be of the opinion that the whole country thinks like the MoveOn.org crowd and all the liberal bloggers that keep egging them on. The whole country doesn't think like that. Failing to recognize that is a huge political blunder.
I think it still holds true today.
And one more thing.
What is up with this Superdelegate nonsense the Demos have cooked up?
It's unbelievable to me that they could come up with such a bizarre system of choosing a nominee.
Basically, if the election is close, the whole thing gets thrown to a bunch of party insiders, politicians and Demo loyalists.
It's crazy.
I was listening to David Wilhelm talking on CNN. You may or may not remember he was Bill Clinton's national campaign manager in 1992.
He lives in Ohio and he's a Superdelegate. He came out Wednesday and endorsed Obama.
CNN's John Roberts asked Wilhelm straight up, "If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, who will you vote for as a Superdelegate?"
Wilhelm's answer? Barack Obama, of course.
Aren't Democrats the ones who are always whining about voters being disenfranchised?
They don't want you to have to show a picture ID when you vote because that would be "disenfranchising" you as a voter.
They've been against all manner of legislation aimed at curbing voter fraud for fear it would "disenfranchise" voters.
So what's their answer? Put in place a bunch of Superdelegates whose single votes counts as much as 13,000 or so average voters. And to top it off, these Superdelegates get to vote however they want. They're not bound by anything, not even the will of the voters in their state.
So even if Hillary wins Ohio, Wilhelm will cast his Superdelegate vote for Obama.
Isn't that "disenfranchising" a whole state's worth of voters? Honestly, if I was a Democrat, I'd be pretty peeved at the way things are being run in my party right now.[[In-content Ad]]
Wednesday, I saw a quote from noted Demo political strategist James Carville. He's long been a Hillary Clinton kind of guy.
He said, "She's behind. Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."
And then this:
"For ... you Democrats out there, I got good news for you. We have to literally talk our way out of winning this election.
"For the Republicans, being a lifelong member of the Democratic party, I can assure you we are perfectly capable of doing that."
My how times change. That's why the Internet is so great.
It's easy to look back and see what these people were saying in the past.
Like in July 2006 when her name was being tossed about as a potential presidential candidate.
Lots of Democrats were saying things like, "Hillary Clinton really is one of the weakest nominees with whom the Democrats could be saddled," or "Democrats are worried sick about her chances," or "Just give someone else a chance, so we in the Democratic Party can elect a Democrat," or "She's too polarizing," or "She's too cold, she's not amiable" or "She's not a good communicator."
Not Carville. He said the detractors were wrong.
The woman who gave the War Room its name knows how tough politics at the presidential level can be. Adversaries spent $60 million against her in 2000, and she endured press scrutiny that would have wilted most candidates. She gave as good as she got, and she triumphed.
For those who think that the politics of personal destruction might be rekindled against Hillary or her husband, we can only remind people how consistently that approach has backfired in the past. Bill Clinton would certainly be a huge asset if Hillary decided to run.
In fact, Hillary is the only nationally known Democrat (other than her husband) who has weathered the Republican assaults and emerged with a favorable rating above 50 percent (54 percent positive in the latest Post-ABC poll).
That column was headlined "The Power of Hillary," by the way.
This Carville guy has made a tidy living in political analysis. Seems to me he's in the wrong business.
I was always a Hillary detractor. I always thought that even if, if, she won the nomination, she had no chance of becoming president.
She would motivate Republicans to come out and vote against her. People who hadn't been to the polls in years would show up to vote.
They, like me, are part of the ABC crowd. Anybody but Clinton.
But in Carville's defense, I can see where he would think it would be a good year for Democrats.
Honestly, who in history has been a more unpopular president that W?
How could the Demos lose?
Well, the only political entity polling lower than W is the Demo-controlled Congress.
And right now, in head-to-head polling against both Barack Obama and Hillary, the Republican heir apparent John McCain is polling quite well.
He's ahead of Hillary and behind Obama - but all within the margin of error of the polls.
How could that be?
Easy. It's the Democrats unyielding penchant for screwing things up when it comes to elections.
The country, I think, is yearning for somebody a little moderate.
So who do the Demos throw up there? Two of the most liberal Senators in Washington.
Don't they know Bill Clinton was popular because he was moderate?
On the GOP side, you've got John McCain, whose positions on things like immigration and campaign finance have enraged the far right fringes of the party.
So be it.
He's conservative, but he's moderate. That's what voters want. They don't want the fringy stuff on either side of the aisle.
That's why, despite McCain's stance on the Iraq war and W's raging unpopularity, McCain is polling dead even with the Demos.
Amazing.
Here's something I wrote to a friend of mine in August 2006 before the midterm election.
Honestly, I think most people are happy as long as NASCAR is on cable and the beer is cold. Sometimes we - people like you and I who pay attention to politics world events - tend to forget that the majority of people don't pay attention to politics world events.
That's where I believe the Demos are screwing up. The party leadership seems to be of the opinion that the whole country thinks like the MoveOn.org crowd and all the liberal bloggers that keep egging them on. The whole country doesn't think like that. Failing to recognize that is a huge political blunder.
I think it still holds true today.
And one more thing.
What is up with this Superdelegate nonsense the Demos have cooked up?
It's unbelievable to me that they could come up with such a bizarre system of choosing a nominee.
Basically, if the election is close, the whole thing gets thrown to a bunch of party insiders, politicians and Demo loyalists.
It's crazy.
I was listening to David Wilhelm talking on CNN. You may or may not remember he was Bill Clinton's national campaign manager in 1992.
He lives in Ohio and he's a Superdelegate. He came out Wednesday and endorsed Obama.
CNN's John Roberts asked Wilhelm straight up, "If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, who will you vote for as a Superdelegate?"
Wilhelm's answer? Barack Obama, of course.
Aren't Democrats the ones who are always whining about voters being disenfranchised?
They don't want you to have to show a picture ID when you vote because that would be "disenfranchising" you as a voter.
They've been against all manner of legislation aimed at curbing voter fraud for fear it would "disenfranchise" voters.
So what's their answer? Put in place a bunch of Superdelegates whose single votes counts as much as 13,000 or so average voters. And to top it off, these Superdelegates get to vote however they want. They're not bound by anything, not even the will of the voters in their state.
So even if Hillary wins Ohio, Wilhelm will cast his Superdelegate vote for Obama.
Isn't that "disenfranchising" a whole state's worth of voters? Honestly, if I was a Democrat, I'd be pretty peeved at the way things are being run in my party right now.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092