Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Hillary?

    Posted by Jonathan on September 1st, 2003 (All posts by )

    First there was this, saying, hey, shes getting in. Then she denied it. Then we saw stuff like this saying she is being urged by the Donk leadership to run. Or this talking about the fact that she is raising buckets of money. Mark Steyn lays out the reasons she ought to run. The key paragraph:

    The way to look at it is like this: What does she have to gain by waiting four years? If Bush wins a second term, the Clinton aura will be very faded by 2008. And, if by some weird chance Bush loses to a Howard Dean, she’s going to have to hang around till 2012. Logic dictates that, if Hillary wants to be president, it’s this year or none. In her reflexive attacks on Bush over the war and the blackout and everything else, she already sounds like a candidate. The press will lapse into its familiar poodle mode (”Do you think you’ve been attacked so harshly because our society still has difficulty accepting a strong, intelligent woman?” etc.). And, more to the point, when the party’s busting to hand you the nomination, you only get one opportunity to refuse.

    You got that right. Especially the line about the party wanting her to do it. My bellwether is my Democrat wife. She wants Bill back, but shell gladly take Hillary. Hillary would get the nomination in a walk. Bill struck in 92 when it was supposedly impossible. Thats the Clinton way, brass balls. If Hillary changed her mind after all her vociferous denials? That would be no less than weve come to expect from the Clintons, either: say one thing, do another, i.e. lie. Just like the good old days. Watch, shes going to listen to America the way she did to New York, and she is going to hear America calling her to the presidency.

    Nothing has happened yet to make me waver (much) in my prediction made last December that Hillary will run, get the nomination, and that Wesley Clark will be her running mate.

    (Unfortunately, with Labor Day upon us, my prediction that the Donnas would be huge this Summer is already disproven. My wife suggests that we may be so out of it that they were and we didnt notice. Naaaah.)

     

    4 Responses to “Hillary?”

    1. James R. Rummel Says:

      The Donnas? Never heard of them.

      Until now, that is.

      James

    2. Captain Mojo Says:

      Not to get too slick willy on ya, but I think the validity of your prediction depends what you’re definition of “huge” is.

      The Donnas did go from a relitively small cult following at the beginning of the year to getting near-constant airplay on most big market corporate “alternative” radio stations. They were not an insignifigant component to this year’s Lollapalooza tour, and they were nominated for a VMA.

      Sure, they’re not “suck Madonna’s leathery social security receiving face” popular, but it’s still been a pretty good year for the ladies from Palo Alto.

    3. Lex Says:

      OK, Cap’n. Point taken. I’ll give myself a five out of ten. I was anticipating something more akin to what happened with Nirvana, say — a groundswell. Still, the Donnas are the type who just keep plugging away, and they seem to go one rung up the ladder each year and each album. They’ve got the work ethic.

      I want them to be huge so 100 all girl bands with guitar players who sound like Donna R. will start up, not to get to ZZ Top on you, “nationwide”.

    4. Skip Oliva Says:

      I remain skeptical of the various “Hillary will run” arguments. First, Hillary is not Bill; he was one of the great retail politicians of all time. Hillary is the quintessential stage managed politician. Everything would have to be perfectly in place for her to enter the race late against an incumbent president with solid poll ratings.

      Second, national Democrats are not, in my judgment, falling all over themselves to bring Hillary into the race. That was not the case in 2000 in New York where that state’s Democrats–a bunch that needs celebrity to validate their existence and power–carefully orchestrated her candidacy.

      Third, as I just said, Hillary is not Bill. When you strip away the celebrity veneer, her substantive candidacy would be no different than Howard Dean’s. And frankly, I think Dean is far more competent and intelligent than Hillary. I never understood why the popular myth persists that Hillary is some remarkable figure. She’s a second-rate corporate lawyer who married a remarkably gifted politician. That’s all.