tdaxp

Morris, D. (2008). In contrast to Obama, Hillary plays the race card. Real Clear Politics. January 16, 2008. Available online: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/in_contrast_to_obama_hillary_p.html.

Dick Morris is right on:

Frustratingly for the Clintons, Obama had achieved this likely solidarity among black voters without, himself, summoning racial emotions. He had gone out of his way to avoid mentioning race -- quite a contrast with Hillary, whose every speech talks about her becoming the first female president. But precisely to distinguish himself from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of American politics, Obama resisted any racial appeal or even reference. His rhetoric, argumentation, and presentation was indistinguishable from a skilled white candidate's.

As I mentioned before, Hillary Clinton's style is so bad that it will hurt the country.

If elected President, Hillary Clinton will continue the worst behaviors of the Bush Administration.

By this, I do not mean the Iraq War. The Iraq War is a good thing, and Hillary is a firm supporter of it. By this, I do not meant the Containment of the Kremlin. Twisting the bear's nose while Russia slides into oblivion is a good thing. By this I do not mean the "separate lanes" policy toward China: while not ideal, "separate lanes" at least keeps our countries moving in the right direction.

Rather, Hillary Clinton will not be able to explain why we are fighting this Long War.

Because defending America is a preoccupation of Republican candidates, every serious contender for the White House among the GOP can elucidate better rhetoric than George Bush. On national security issues, however, sympathy towards our enemies and suspicion about our own power tends ot make this difficult for Democrats in the post-Vietnam era.

The candidacy of Barack Obama is a unique opportunity for Democrats. Obama's rhetorical "hope" recall nothing so much as the speeches of John F. Kennedy. Further, his comfort in the English language combined with family still living in Africa, that he will be able to militarily execute and politically defend operations on that continent.

The candidacy of Hillary Clinton would waste this opportunity. Worse, Hillary's focus on domestic politics would prevent any coherent message. A Clinton presidency would present us with crisis-by-crisis defenses of policy, rather than the unifying themes possible under a McCain or Obama Presidency.

Hillary's latest:

Clinton, the former first lady, reflected on her memorable moment of emotion the day before she gained her New Hampshire victory. "Maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public," she said.

One wonders what Barack would have to do to "liberate us and let black men be human beings in public."

Hillary is a sex-monger, just as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are race mongers. She is bad for our country in the same way they are.

(The sad part is that if Barack defends himself, he may have to resort to the same nonsense as a matter of self-defense. This is what cheapening the political conversation does to people. )

Such was Terry McAuliffe's description live-on-MSNBC description of this:



And such is really good evidence for why Hillary Clinton's style is so bad that it will hurt the country.

Relatedly: Clinton defeats Obama in N.H. primary.

Who would be less bad?

Who should I root against?

As someone who who has been generally favorable on Hillary Clinton, as long as social issues aren't involved, David Brooks' warning of the ability of the presidency to magnify character flaws was an interesting read.

The short of it: the Presidency makes your worst traits more pronounced and more serious. Therefore, Presidential candidates should not be chosen on the grounds of who would do best, but who is least likely to do very badly.

Certainly a warning for the Hillary supporters out there.

One of the hardest, but most important, tasks facing America is the integration of the Western hemisphere. But like the integration of Europe across the pond, the dream of the Americas is for half the world (by land and sea area) to live in peace, prosperity, and democracy. Certainly the New World stands a much better chance at tranquility than the old...

President Bush has been a tireless advocate of immigration, and bravely stood up against the hidebound of his own party in struggling for it. He failed, but he was on the right side.

Unlike Senator Clinton, who came out recently against even free trade deals with Columbia and Panama (hat-tip to Democratic Underground). Panama is a country created/liberated by the United States to build the Panama Canal, and Colombia (Panama's previous sovereign) is facing a narco-fueled Marxist insurgency. Free trade in capital and goods is far easier to achieve than free trade in labor, yet Clinton opposes even that small step.

I hope Hilldog is being deceptive, like her husband rallied against NAFTA and the "butchers in Beijing" before signing a free trade deal with Mexico City and paving the way for China to join the WTO. Given that the Clinton circle is close to the Wall Street faction of the Democratic Party, I certainly think she is.

Still, it's crummy to hope that politicians are lying. And opposing free trade with Columbia and Panama is a crummy thing for Hillary Clinton to do.

My friend (and fellow-Husker) Jason of SoDaPo criticizes Hillary Clinton for her baby bonds proposal. (Baby bonds grant newbornes $5,000 to be invested, that can be cashed out for either a first home or a college education.)

Baby bonds are a truly good idea. Home-ownership and college education generate positive externalities: they are not only good for the individuals who go down those roads, but also for the country as a whole. That is one reason that the government subsidizes both.

As someone who cares about the country but also is suspicious of big government, I'm OK with the first part (helping out home ownership and college education) but suspicious of the second (a large faceless bureaucracy making the big decisions on its timetable).

Thus, I support Hilldog's great idea. Baby bonds are a first step in what President Bush calls an "ownership society," where many social welfare initiatives and not hand-outs but rather capitalizations. Baby bonds connect every family in the country to the bond market in a meaningful sense. (Everyone already is through social security and medicare, but decades of misconception cloud that fact.) Finally, baby bonds amount to a delayed payment for procreation -- a great idea in a world where growing our population is a prime concern.

Hillary Clinton: Huzzah!

Hay, P. (2007). Hillary slayer. The American Spectator. September 17, 2007. Available online: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12030 (from Real Clear Politics).

HIllary Clinton is my prefered nominee out of the major Democratic candidates -- she is a good politician -- but she should not be President.

Rudy may be the Republican to stop her:

Last week, all Republican politicians worth their weight came out blasting MoveOn.org for taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times smearing Gen. David Petraeus on the day he was scheduled to deliver his Iraq progress report to Congress. The outrage among conservatives only grew as leading Democrats failed to condemn the ad, Hillary Clinton questioned the general's honesty, and it was disclosed that the far left group was given a drastically reduced advertising rate in the New York Times.

But while other Republicans complained, Rudy Giuliani did something about it. Speaking to reporters in Atlanta on Thursday, Giuliani demanded that the New York Times give his campaign the same discounted rate so it could take out an ad defending Gen. Petraeus and assailing Clinton and MoveOn.org for "character assassination of an American general in a time of war." He also called on the paper to run the ad at the time of his choosing (Friday, the day after President Bush's primetime address to the nation).

...


As demoralized conservatives begin to fear that another Clinton presidency is inevitable, this episode demonstrates that Giuliani may represent the Republicans' best shot at defeating Hillary in next year's election.

Throughout his career, Giuliani has excelled at relentlessly pursuing opponents, whether in the courtroom or political arena. As a young prosecutor in the 1970s, before he became a celebrity for taking on the mob, he gained notice for his successful prosecution of Democratic Congressman Bertram L. Podell in a bribery trial. The New York Times magazine recounted the dramatic conclusion in a 1985 profile: "Under Giuliani's intense cross-examination, Podell faltered, became so nervous he poked out his eyeglass lens, asked for a recess and gave up, pleading guilty."

...

While it is popular for conservatives to lament the existence of the liberal media, Giuliani understands that it is a reality. Rather than belly-ache about it, or, as the Bush administration often has done, ignore attacks by assuming people aren't paying attention and they will go away, Giuliani understands that conservatives need to simply be better at using the media to their advantage, as he did when he fought entrenched liberal interest groups as mayor.

"If I run against Hillary Clinton, I'm perfectly prepared to carry this battle, not expecting that the New York Times or the major networks…are going to give us anywhere the same kind of favorable coverage they will give her," Giuliani told Hugh Hewitt last week. "I'm a realist, I'm not saying that in any way where I have a chip on my shoulder. I've lived with this all during the time I was mayor of New York City. The reality is we just have to be better at communicating."

Agreed. We -- Republicans, Americans -- need a speaker and a fighter. Rudy fits the bill.

Good:

The former first lady says she has learned from the 1990s experience, which almost derailed Bill Clinton's presidency and helped put Republicans in control of Congress for years to come. Aides say she has jettisoned the complexity and uncertainty of the last effort in favor of a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control and consumer choice.

The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.

Bad:

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.

Of all the candidates, Rudy Giuliani seems to have the best health care plan for the moment.