There’s always been this weird myth that Clinton was a great politician, as though scandal after scandal was good politics. People forget that without H. Ross Perot he probably wouldn’t have been President, and he got his own party’s nomination mostly because when the Dem campaign season began Bush I had 80% approval ratings and most of the field thought they should wait for a better chance.
Giving him his due, he did govern mostly from the center. NAFTA (which his wife is now running away from) and welfare reform are two significant accomplishments he should be proud of.
|
| |
Written By:
TallDave
URL:
http://deanesmay.com
|
It’s not necessarily that Rendell’s wrong (the MSM pretty obviously prefers Obama to Clinton) but Hillary can’t do what Bill did in the 90’s thanks to the wide-open media stream of today’s campaign.
When Bill was Prez, he didn’t have to deal with Fox News (until much later) or blogs, and he never had to cater to, nor answer to, a bunch of highly motivated leftists with a big bullhorn (i.e. Netroots). Hillary not only has to deal with that, she has to contend with her vote on the Iraq War (which is killing her in the Primary, where Bill had the luxury of courting the Democratic left without any real opposition).
And where Bill could say any old thing that made him look good, or even better (as you mention) spike a story that was unfavorable, Hillary is faced with loud voices calling BS on her (and Bill) from both the right and the left.
Just like McCain is getting hoisted on his own petard regarding campaign finance laws, the Clintons [ed.: yes, I meant plural] are getting triangulated Dick Morris style, just like they did in the 90’s. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
There’s always been this weird myth that Clinton was a great politician, as though scandal after scandal was good politics. C’mon. Being great at politics just means you’re incredibly adept at being in the spotlight. Bill Clinton is not only good at it, he craves it. Being a good politician isn’t much different than being a Hollywood celebrity, except that you need to be a better extemporaneous speaker and you don’t need to be as pretty.
Frankly, other than FDR, I don’t think there’s been a better politician than Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean being a "great politician" equates to a compliment. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://asecondhandconjecture.com
|
Being a good politician isn’t much different than being a Hollywood celebrity... In point of fact, Washington DC has been referred to as "Hollywood for ugly people". |
| |
Written By:
Dale Franks
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
|
I think the media is fully in the bag for Obama. That’s worth, what? 15% according to that one media guy who admitted it, no? |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
Rendell insisted that the "media has relished this fall with glee that I have never seen in any other candidate in the thirty years I have been in the business." Of course he hasn’t - he has the myopic view of any party hack. The media’s relentless evisceration of the right was/is, to the Rendells of the world, not just good, but perfectly normal. The downside however, is that with thirty years of favorable media coverage (running interference), leftist candidates have forgotten how to stand strong on their own. The right, well excepting McCain, have long been weened from the wet nurse that is the MSM. |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
|
"The media does not like the Clintons for whatever reason," Apparently they’re just going along with the trend. The Clintons just look like the 90’s and we’re at the end of the 2000’s. Sorry but since Hillary’s supposedly so effing smart - why couldn’t she figure that out? |
| |
Written By:
Bandit
URL:
http://
|
From last week, CNN’s Political Ticker:Barack Obama said Saturday he would likely be treated differently if his campaign had suffered a similar string of losses as her’s. So let me propose something crazy: the media doesn’t like or dislike any of them. The media likes conflict because their job is to find a compelling story. And the politicians like to complain about the attention their rivals get, because they can’t handle losing.
Like I said, crazy. |
| |
Written By:
J Sterlace
URL:
http://
|
"Rendell insisted that the "media has relished this fall with glee that I have never seen in any other candidate in the thirty years I have been in the business.""
It has been just over thirty years since Nixon was nailed. Too bad he missed it, I think he would have enjoyed it. Most other Democrats did, and there still seems to be some nostalgia about it. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
C’mon. Being great at politics just means you’re incredibly adept at being in the spotlight. Bill Clinton is not only good at it, he craves it. Being a good politician isn’t much different than being a Hollywood celebrity, except that you need to be a better extemporaneous speaker and you don’t need to be as pretty.
Frankly, other than FDR, I don’t think there’s been a better politician than Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean being a "great politician" equates to a compliment. I don’t agree. Bill was great at self promotion, but he didn’t achieve much. Welfare reform was a "give" to the other side in order to promote Bill.
LBJ pushed through an agenda, as did FDR. Bill tried with Hillary Care, but moved on to simple self promotion. High poll numbers don’t mean much if you can’t turn them into concrete political success.
Bush has shown real leadership on the war, loosing in the polls in the process. Bush’s failings are Bill’s strength, and visa versa. In a sense, FDR compined Bill’s and Bush’s strengths, but then that was a different time . . . |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
C’mon. Being great at politics just means you’re incredibly adept at being in the spotlight. Bill Clinton is not only good at it, he craves it. Being a good politician isn’t much different than being a Hollywood celebrity, except that you need to be a better extemporaneous speaker and you don’t need to be as pretty.
Frankly, other than FDR, I don’t think there’s been a better politician than Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean being a "great politician" equates to a compliment. I don’t agree. Bill was great at self promotion, but he didn’t achieve much. Welfare reform was a "give" to the other side in order to promote Bill.
LBJ pushed through an agenda, as did FDR. Bill tried with Hillary Care, but moved on to simple self promotion. High poll numbers don’t mean much if you can’t turn them into concrete political success.
Bush has shown real leadership on the war, loosing in the polls in the process. Bush’s failings are Bill’s strength, and visa versa. In a sense, FDR compined Bill’s and Bush’s strengths, but then that was a different time . . . |
| |
Written By:
Don
URL:
http://
|
