« True Crime roundup | Main | This is Too Bad »

Open Letter to Hillary

The Tampa Tribune has a message for Hillary Clinton: please don't run for president. And the editors certainly didn't mince their words:

If you run for president, chances are good that you'll secure your party's nomination. But realistically, how do you think you can win the White House? You are the most polarizing figure in the Democratic Party, and your negatives among likely voters are prohibitively high. Many people simply don't trust you. You may share your husband's name, but what people liked about him is not transferable to you.


You are not the person to help define a party that needs to convince voters it can govern from the vital center.

Even yellow dog Florida Democrats express profound reservations about your presidential ambitions. They worry that you cannot attract moderate and independent voters and that your presence will hurt the election chances of other Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.

They fear, Hillary, that you would doom Democrats to impotence for decades. Republicans might relish that prospect, but on reflection, they would acknowledge the importance of a strong two-party political system. Should the Democratic Party be crippled, the Republican Party is likely to become complacent, uninspired and unaccountable.

It finally ends with this:

Think, Hillary, not about what you want, but what's best for your party and country.

Fat chance. If Hillary chooses not to run, it won't be out of concern for her party or country but because she doesn't want to lose and embarrass herself.

Read the entire letter. It's quite entertaining.

Hat tip: Drudge

Kim Priestap blogs at Kim Priestap: A Conservative Blog in Flyover Country


Comments (34)

"Should the Democratic Part... (Below threshold)

"Should the Democratic Party be crippled, the Republican Party is likely to become complacent, uninspired and unaccountable."

You mean it's not already?

Hit the nail on the head...... (Below threshold)

Hit the nail on the head... Wrong hammer. http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/

The Democratic party isn't ... (Below threshold)
LJD:

The Democratic party isn't already crippled? From Dean to Kerry, and now Mrs. Clinton, their choices for a 'moderate candidate' boggle the mind. They are so blinded by their ambition, they don't even see that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Of course, they can always challenge the election to support their disillusionment... LOL

Robb is right, the worries ... (Below threshold)

Robb is right, the worries that some bloggers have voiced over the years about the consequences on the political system of a Dem collapse do seem to be well underway already. Then again, I'm not all that sure the Republicans troubles are a consequence of the Dems' sickness so much as conciding with it. Were the Dems in better straits right now they might actually have a chance of regaining both houses of Congress this November -- but they're too far gone to capitalize on the GOP's struggles, as they themselves are increasingly aware.

I think this all comes down to the shallowness of politics in general these days, thanks to a single overriding issue that settles the question for most voters regardless of their political leanings: we're at war with people who want to destroy our civilization.

Even significant issues like Social Security reform and health care, pale in comparison -- except among the wack-a-doodle fringies on both sides of course.

Anyway, I think Hillary missed her moment by not running in '04.

Another problem with Hillar... (Below threshold)

Another problem with Hillary is that regardless of the content of anything she has to say, every time she makes a speeech, her voice is in one of two modes: either a dull monotone or a shrill screech. Either one is very off-putting.

McGhee, I've always said th... (Below threshold)

McGhee, I've always said that the only reason GWB's ass is planted in the oval office right now is because the best the DNC could produce was Kerry. Had they had the balls to put up a Lieberman / Gephardt ticket, they would be sitting pretty right now (hell, I'd have voted for them).

But instead, they decided to listen to the Kos & DU crowd for their talking points.

And trust me, it pisses me off to no end. I don't care for the social engineering most Democrats engage in, but they make a good counterweight to the excesses of the Republicans. Well, they used to at least. Now, with nothing to restrain them, look at what we've got.

"In one of the tale's more ... (Below threshold)
candycane:

"In one of the tale's more curious twists, Mr. Frist, who is likely to seek the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008, was in California on a fact-finding mission on port security last Tuesday, as the story reached its crest. After threatening to support legislation that would block the deal, Mr. Frist was photographed in a helicopter flying over the Port of Long Beach: a picture that made the front pages of the next day's papers, speaking volumes about the brewing political storm.
On Sunday, Senator Frist claimed credit for brokering the face-saving arrangement."

While you debate about Hillary, you should be more worried about the current President and what he's doing to destroy the GOP in '06 and '08. Hell, I'd even say that right now, the GOP is, to borrow a term they used so successfully in 04, "flip flopping" like beached fish.

This is why I don't ask pep... (Below threshold)

This is why I don't ask peppermint-flavored, congealed corn syrup for political advice.

Robb: You think Kos picked ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Robb: You think Kos picked the Democratic Candidate?

Seriously, that is an insane statement.

Anyways, this article talks about what's better for the party and country in regards to polarization.

In the last 100 years, have we ever, ever ever had a President who has polarized more than GWB? Not by a longshot. Kind of a silly editorial.

jp2, that's not quite the p... (Below threshold)

jp2, that's not quite the point. Even though GWB is "polarizing", he still managed to get enough votes to be re-elected. Could Hillary gather enough votes to get elected in '08? Probably not - and that is the point.

As for Kos, I think the point was that people who would agree with Kos are the ones who secured John Kerry's position. Or, to put it another way, do you think Kerry would've been the Democratic candidate without the support of Kos and those like him (i.e. those who read or would read Kos and like/agree with him?).

Actually the reason Kerry g... (Below threshold)

Actually the reason Kerry got the '04 nod was that he was considered less of a liberal looney tune than Howard Dean. Kind of tells you how screwed up the Dems are doesn't it?

"As for Kos, I think the po... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"As for Kos, I think the point was that people who would agree with Kos are the ones who secured John Kerry's position"

90% of the liberal netroots pulled actively for Dean. I don't think anyone was ever too excited about Kerry for Kerry. I mean, he's a good man and Senator and they would have been proud if he had won - but a minority of the netroots were really gunning for him over most of the other candidates. As far as positions, he was really not all that close to Dean on his positions, especially Iraq. Netroots and Kerry were not really on the same page.

I know, Dean is really loony. But he's been right on about so much stuff, it really isn't loony anymore.

This is looney:
"Mission Accomplished"
"Bring 'em on"
"I truly believe we will be welcomed as liberators"

Ouch! Did someone mail thi... (Below threshold)
JAT:

Ouch! Did someone mail this to her? I'd love to be in the room when she read this.

I know, Dean is really l... (Below threshold)

I know, Dean is really loony. But he's been right on about so much stuff, it really isn't loony anymore.

Really? So when Screamin' Howie gets on TV and proclaims that "not one dime" of Abramoff money went to Democrats, you believe that as the gospel truth, do you?

Yes.Read, weep.</p... (Below threshold)
jp2:
candy... thing is... Bush i... (Below threshold)
Synova:

candy... thing is... Bush isn't up for reelection. Nor, believe it or not, does the dictonary entry for Republican Party include a picture of Bush.

What matters far more is what Democrats have to offer as an alternative. Last presidential election Bush did not win because his approval ratings were high... they weren't, a whole lot of people would have loved and excuse to vote for some other candidate. They just didn't get one. I mean... how hard did the Dems have to *try* to find someone who couldn't defeat Bush? It's amazing, really.

And will they do it again? With Bush not in the picture, will the Republicans come up with someone better? Will the Democrats find a candidate who can win any kind of majority at all? To capture the middle will he or she lose the fringes?

I think that the Tampa Trib is wrong about Hillary. Oh, not that she'll get the nomination and not the presidency. That seems likely. But that if she choses not to run for the good of the party that the party would chose a candidate that *could* win. What reason do we have to think that's true?

Her only hope, really, is that the Republicans choose an even worse candidate than seems possible.

Yes.Read, w... (Below threshold)

Yes.

Read, weep.

Yeah, nice try. Try this link for the actual contribution figures and while you're at it, why don't you drink some more of that kool-aid with your pal Screamin' Howie. I'll bet it goes down real smooth.

This is why I don't ask ... (Below threshold)

This is why I don't ask peppermint-flavored, congealed corn syrup for political advice.
Posted by: McGehee at February 27, 2006 02:55 PM

Holy crap, that made me LOL!

Again; read, weep.... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Again; read, weep.

Dean:
"There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we've looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that's true..."

I linked you to the FEC report. Did you find a Democrat? Thought so.

What Robb Allen said in the... (Below threshold)

What Robb Allen said in the first comment was EXACTLY what I was going to say when I read this post.

The Democrats have moved so far Left that the Republicans don't have to try anymore.

I've seen your pho... (Below threshold)
I've seen your photo on your website - what a looker (if fat, in-bred, rednecks are your thing).

Heh. I comment on the intellectual barrenness of your commentary, and you call me ugly.

Dean:"There is no... (Below threshold)

Dean:
"There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we've looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that's true..."

Oh terrific, a Dean quote. THAT'S real convincing. Apparently we're just supposed to accept the word of one of the Democrat Party's worst partisan hacks as the gospel truth, right?

That's pathetic.

Did you even bother to click on the link I provided? Thought not. Keep drinking that kool-aid, jp2, you're not convincing anyone but yourself.

So let's recap...you claim ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

So let's recap...you claim Dean said no Democrats took money from Abramoff.

I provide you with the original statement by Dean and the FEC records of Abramoff, which show no Democrats. Then you resort to personal insults.

You lose.

The only thing that can sto... (Below threshold)
yeatanothejohn:

The only thing that can stop hillary is hillary. She has the money, the support of the democrats and has the access to the right people in the democratic party. Read it and weep. The only difference between the MSM analysis and mine is that I would prefer her to run so she could lose and the MSM would prefer her not to run so that she doesn't lose.

http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/2006/02/20/the-upcoming-hillary-clinton-wreck.php

So let's recap...you cla... (Below threshold)

So let's recap...you claim Dean said no Democrats took money from Abramoff.

Well, yeah. That's what Deanie-boy claimed. You're disputing this?

I provide you with the original statement by Dean and the FEC records of Abramoff, which show no Democrats.

An "original statement" by Dean. My, my. That's worth about as much as a fart in a windstorm.

Look, all you "provided" was a quote from the uber-partisan hack Dean making claims about the FEC records of Abramoff. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but not everyone blindly and uncritically believes everything that Howard Dean says, as you apparently do, at least not without some independent verification. So in response, I found a link pointing you to evidence to the contrary i.e. showing that Dean was full of shit. Naturally, you ignored this.

Which really doesn't surprise me. I've noticed that lefty moonbats usually prefer to deal with contrary evidence by by pretending it doesn't exist. Your defense of Dean's tomfoolery is the verbal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't HEEAAAR you!"

Oregonmuse,If you ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oregonmuse,

If you follow your own link and then sort the list by "Detail by Donor", you will find that Abramoff personally gave nothing to Democrats, which is what Dean was talking about. Of course, as I've said before, this has very little to do with the criminal investigations or the trouble that some politicians will find themselves in. Abramoff's personal contributions were not illegal, they just look bad now because he's a crook.

But Dean was right, and your attempts to claim he was wrong are misrepresentations.

If you follow your own l... (Below threshold)

If you follow your own link and then sort the list by "Detail by Donor", you will find that Abramoff personally gave nothing to Democrats, which is what Dean was talking about.

OK, fine. But Howie was talking about nothing of the sort. A few weeks back, he was hacking away on the Sunday morning talk shows desperately spinning as fast as he could to attempt to show that no Democrat ever had anything even remotely connected with Abramoff. He kept repeating his talking point "not one dime" over and over again as if there was a difference between receiving money directly from Abramoff and receiving money from a group or organization at the behest of their paid lobbyist Abramoff. So what he said was either complete bullshit or he was making a meaningless distinction. Both of which amount to pretty much the same thing. His attempted spin "this is a Republican scandal and we Dems have absolutely nothing to do with it" simply won't wash.

Here's Dean <a href="http:/... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Here's Dean talking to Chris Wallace on FoxNews (1/30/06):

DEAN: Yeah, they are pretty clean, Chris, and I'll tell you why. First of all, every dime of Jack Abramoff's money went to Republicans. Not one dime went to any Democrat or any Democratic organization -- his personal money.

Secondly, he did direct contributions to mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats. But the Democrats, A, didn't know that he directed that -- his clients to give them money and, B, they never produced anything for Abramoff.

Here's you:

OK, fine. But Howie was talking about nothing of the sort.

Care to revise or elaborate on your assertions?

You can call it a meaningless distinction if you want (I don't think it is, in that it shows who Abramoff was and on who's team he was playing), but your repeated assertions that Dean was lying, or spinning, or whatever, are false. Try again.

Oregonmuse,You are... (Below threshold)
Good Lord:

Oregonmuse,

You are so intellectually dishonest it makes my tummy hurt.

I truly hope you are getting paid for whoring out your brain.

Simply go to every single site that allows you to search FEC databases (I think newsmeat.com works the best, but by all means, try opensecrets.org, fec.gov, or tray.com) and type in the last name Abramoff. It's not hard, and really the least you can do.

Then come back and apologize for talking out of your ass.

Care to revise or elabor... (Below threshold)

Care to revise or elaborate on your assertions?

OK. To your claim that Dean wasn't spinning, I say, of course Dean is spinning. All he ever does in spin. After all, that's what he's paid to do, isn't it? Dean is the the worst partisan hack the Democrats have produced ever since they coughed up that hairball James Carville.

If all Dean was trying to say was that Abramoff did not write any personal checks to Democrats, then that is a trivially true but an ultimately meaningless statement. If I hire someone to kill my wife as opposed to kililng her myself, do you think mentioning that as part of my defense is going to hold up in court?

And this is how Howie spins:

But the Democrats, A, didn't know that he directed that -- his clients to give them money and, B, they never produced anything for Abramoff.

First, as to his (A) statement, big f'n deal. He never bothers to explain why this makes a difference or why we should care. Dean's (B) statement may or may not be true, but again, how is this relevant? It's just another attempt to change the subject.

What Dean tried to do is to make a technically correct statement, yet one that has some broader implications that are, at the very least, debatable, and then tries to get you to focus on the broader implications as if they're undisputed fact.

Dean's technical assertion is:

(1) There are no contributions to Democrats with Jack Abramoff's signature on the check.

I will concede this point. I was arguing against it earlier, but I was wrong. But the broader implications are:

(2) No Democrat ever had anything to do with Abraham and no Democrat has anything to fear from any subsequent investigation.

So by repeating his talking point (1), Dean wants his audience to either hear (2) or conclude (2). At the very leasr, (2) is arguable.

This is how spin works. Bill Clinton used to be real good at this sort of thing. He could do it effortlessly. Mad Howie always looks like he's floundering around out in the ocean grasping for anything hoping it might be a rope or life preserver.

In the last 100 years, h... (Below threshold)

In the last 100 years, have we ever, ever ever had a President who has polarized more than GWB? Not by a longshot

Actually, I think we have. I'm old enough to remember Richard Nixon. If any president could get the Democrats and their allies in the media and entertainment industries whipped up into a febrile, foam-and-spittle-flecked hysterical temper tantrum, it was Nixon.

I will concede this poin... (Below threshold)
Good Lord:

I will concede this point. I was arguing against it earlier, but I was wrong. But...

No. No "b-b-b-b-buh..." Just stfu.

Actually, I will commend you for being the first GOPbot in 5 years not to utter "b-b-b-b-but Clinton..." when on the ropes. Quite remarkable.

Still, stfu.

And you are correct he was ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And you are correct he was spinning, at least as much as any other politician does. In any case I think we all will have to wait and see who is implicated in this whole Abramoff deal (i.e. who took bribes for political favors, and actually delivered those favors), and what can be proven. I would not be surprised if Democrats participate in some illegal quid pro quo with lobbyists, but so far it doesn't look like many did with Abramoff. We'll see.

I would not be surprised... (Below threshold)

I would not be surprised if Democrats participate in some illegal quid pro quo with lobbyists, but so far it doesn't look like many did with Abramoff. We'll see.

Right, and this is why I predict that the Abramoff brouhaha will go precisely nowhere, just like what happened with Enron, i.e. bi-partisan involvement will guarantee it'll get swept under the rug.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy