The problem with Hillary is she should not have been trusted with my vote
Tim Grieve notes that beyond the Iraq question, there's just something wrong with a person who thinks this is an explanation.
One version of the nonadmission admission she offered this weekend: "The problem with this president is he should not have been trusted with this authority."Let's just say this about that: We're pretty sure we'd get an "energetic but not ecstatic reception" if we tried that kind of line at home.
On overspending: "The problem with this iPod is that it should not have been acquired with this credit card."
On drinking too much: "The problem with those margaritas is that they should not have been consumed in such quantity."
Mmm... margaritas.
Comments
so Daniel, if the election were today, and your demo choices were, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Gore, and Biden, where would your nickel fall?
Posted by: jake | February 14, 2007 11:58 AM
That's not exactly a fair question, since there's so much more that I still need to hear from the candidates. Clinton and Biden are out. I like what I've heard from Gore as a non-candidate, but what would he say if he actually ran? He does have more experience and a heftier intellect than Obama and Edwards, but that's not everything. I like Edwards a lot, especially on Iraq and health care, but some of his economic populism strikes me as unserious. Obama seems good, but I don't really know much about him yet.
Sorry for dodging the question, but between those three, I'm not ready to just throw a dart.
Posted by: radosh | February 14, 2007 12:07 PM
I know that this doesn't mean everything but Obama was the Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review. Think what you will of Ivy League credentials but that doesn't go to intellecutal lightweights. I like Gore but he as always struck me as someone posing as more intellectual than he actually is.
I'm not willing to throw my dart yet either - though Edwards is my gut choice - but this is a much better field than we had 4 years ago. Even Hillary would be a better choice than Kerry.
Posted by: Charles | February 14, 2007 12:56 PM
Why does Gore have a heftier intellect than Obama? Experience maybe, but intellect? The media is too focused on the rock star angle at this point for him to shine in that capacity. And I love the new Al Gore. Certainly had it right from the beginning about Iraq (just like Obama), but the way he ran that totally winnable 2000 election into a brick wall . . . gotta take off points for that.
Besides, I'm originally from Chicago, Barack Obama has to be the best candidate.
Posted by: David John | February 14, 2007 1:01 PM
Well, you know, Obama seems to have a natural ability but, um, I mean...
Yeah, I guess that's mostly perception based on Gore being all professorial. I am very intrigued by Obama. And yes, Gore will have to prove that he's not the same guy who fucked up in 2000. He can start by bitch-slapping Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: radosh | February 14, 2007 1:12 PM
For my own 3 cents, Gore is my ideal 1st pick. He's one the right side of the two most important issues (Iraq and the environment) and as the most government experience (except maybe Biden). I don't blame him for 2000, he was mugged by the supreme court. I mean, what did YOU do to stop the hijack? (you being anybody). But of course Gore isn't running, and as much as we might hope he will, I don't think he will. He knows how ugly elections are and he's doing a very good job bringing attention to what concerns him most....
so of those left I support Edwards. and actually for the very reason Daniel doubts him. I think his populist anti-poverty message strikes at the core of this countries problems and I give him extra points for trying to make it an issue when no one else seems to care...
as for Obama, I just feel like I have no idea who he is, but it pisses me off that he's running for president. How about spending a little time in the senate and making a record for yourself?
as for Hillary... oh God, does anyone here want her to be the candidate?
Posted by: jake | February 14, 2007 1:29 PM
To clarify, I think Edwards' willingness to address poverty and class stratification is one of his best selling points. And some of his solutions are very promising. It's the fierce protectionism I don't like. I think it's a cheap analysis and utterly disconnected from the reality of the global economy. I'd rather have someone like Gore who gets the importance of free trade, with regulations that benefit people more than corporations.
Posted by: radosh | February 14, 2007 1:42 PM
Hillary's stock response to the question of her vote is: "If I knew then what I know now, I never would have given Bush that authorization."
From that answer I can only infer that she feels she made the right decision based on what she did know at the time.
Posted by: Zack | February 16, 2007 2:59 AM
That answer is bullshit on two levels. 1) The entire world knew enough then to know what was really going on. If she really didn't she's too naive to be president. 2) As Hitchens has demonstrated, she made repeated forceful arguments for regime change for purposes that had nothing to do with WMD. She was on board with the neocon agenda -- or at least talked like she was. The only thing she could know now about that that she didn't know then was that it wouldn't work. (And most of us knew that too).
Posted by: radosh | February 16, 2007 10:05 AM
How long before Hill;arey uses this line: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"
Posted by: Ron Mwangaguhunga | February 17, 2007 3:10 PM