Patterico's Pontifications

It’s a shame that Kerry isn’t running due to what was clearly a botched joke that was blown up into an issue. Perhaps there should be a pledge suggesting that if bloggers and others try to keep someone out of a race they do it based on his actual policies instead of mischaracterized trivial matters.

In the space below, please list bloggers other than me that have actually gone out and asked policy makers adversarial (i.e., non-fawning, non-puffball) questions.

TLB (0c89cb) — 1/24/2007 @ 9:46 pm

There is not a single Republican who is remotely interesting. Hillary by default, and at least she will lead….to where is the question. But don’t count out Edwards. He’s been campaigning every day for two plus years now and his appearances are very strong.

Duke (2d4db0) — 1/24/2007 @ 9:47 pm

As a Democrat, why do I want to vote for Hillary in the primary?

I mean … I’ve got nothing against her, except a vague feeling of dislike for the representatives of political dynasties. But I also have nothing *for* her to help me overcome that.

aphrael (9e8ccd) — 1/24/2007 @ 11:05 pm

…clearly a botched joke…

Kerry wasn’t joking. He meant what he said and then he and the MSM developed a lame cover story when people became outraged.

…based on his actual policies instead of mischaracterized trivial matters.

Kerry’s record of denigrating America and the American soldier spans four decades. Hardly a trivial matter. Especially when Kerry reviles in the glory of “earning” three purple hearts, abandoning his command in the field and cutting and running after 16 weeks of a 52 week tour of duty.

Kerry knew that in 2008, Hillary and her MSM pals won’t let the public forget Kerry’s magic hat, his Christmas in Cambodia fantasy and his virtually non-existent legislative accomplishments. The gig was up and Kerry knew it.

Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 1/24/2007 @ 11:44 pm

at your suggestion I read crittenden on kerry (oof, one dull jerk and then another; the two should be set adrift together on a windboard somewhere) …. “Four months, three scratches and a sayonara” he writes of Kerry in the Nam. — hmm, sounds alot like crittenden’s “embed” experience in Iraq — without the scratches (or armed escort), of course. interesting how things come out. kerry is a dreadful jackass, but he hung that ass out where the bullets flew. now some chickenhawk warblogger wants to puff himself up by calling Kerry a coward. we really have entered an era beyond shame. speaking of which, i sure hope you’re wrong ab. hillary-edwards, cos jesus won’t stop puking.

lbo (f86e7d) — 1/24/2007 @ 11:55 pm

I swore to everyone who would listen that there was no way that smarmy, two-bit Arkansas hustler would get elected. But I blame the Hand Grenade With a Bad Haircut for that result.

I swore to everyone who would listen that there was no way the voters would re-elect the lying weasel. I blame the Republicans nominating Bob Dole for that result.

So consider my track record and take this for what it’s worth, but I just can’t see Hillary winning. She has 41% negatives, and the rule of thumb is, 40% means death. Of that 41%, 30% say that they would not vote for her under any circumstance. If she gets nominated, there will be a mad stampede of pissed-off people clawing their way to the polls to vote against her.

You heard it here first.

CraigC (aa6a7c) — 1/25/2007 @ 12:07 am

It’s a shame that Kerry isn’t running due to what was clearly a botched joke that was blown up into an issue.

Yeah, if he hadn’t said that, he’d be the front-runner, totally. You got it pegged.

Jim Treacher (15574e) — 1/25/2007 @ 1:41 am

The lovely Mrs Clintton isn’t exactly getting a free ride from the Nutroots.

Last week’s dKos straw poll, which sported over 22,000 votes:

Edwards 35
Obama 28
Clark 17
Richardson 5
Clinton 4

Daily Kos isn’t the entire netroots, and sure, it’s still early. We’ll likely see more movement in the coming year.

But Clinton isn’t by any stretch of the imagination scoring the early points online.

In this world, she’s an also-ran.

Dana (3e4784) — 1/25/2007 @ 6:38 am

I’m shattered, absolutely shattered, that ol Jean Fraud Kerry won’t be riding his ego into the electoral lists in 2008. Give me a break about botched jokes–he has a long track record of being a jerk on military matters. His service in Viet Nam was honorable enough–but I would have been more impressed if he’d stayed there for the full tour instead of “three scratches and I’m outa here because I got my ticket punched”. If he’d served the full tour, I could have forgiven his Baron Von Munchausen syndrome as he recounted his supposed feats. His record of accomplishment in the Senate is miniscule if not non existent. No wonder Harry Reid could gush on the Senate floor yesterday “I love you John Kerry.” Two of a kind.

Mike Myers (4d9a65) — 1/25/2007 @ 7:46 am

CraigC is right about Clinton. She has an army of angry conservative housewives howling for her blood, the campaign has hardly even begun. But you can cancel that out with the fact that she has absolutely no accomplishments whatsoever.

Wait a minute…

Well, at least Kerry abstained. Abstinence is the only way to avoid illegitimate political campaigns. I vote for an Abstinence Only electoral process.

In all seriousness, what do you guys think of Richardson as a candidate? One way or another, he’s got enough foreign policy experience to round off an Obama or Edwards ticket nicely. Plus, he’s got the Hispanic factor.

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/25/2007 @ 8:26 am

Levi, I can’t say that I’m terribly impressed with any of the guys running, in either party. For me, the Democrats are obviously the worst of the lot (if they were any good, they’d be Republicans!) but even the Republicans running are a sorry lot.

Dana (3e4784) — 1/25/2007 @ 8:33 am

Yeah…I’m inclined to agree with most of your statement, although I must say that if ANY of the candidates (Democratic OR Republican) were any good they’d be out-and-out pirates, with parrots and ships and scimitars, the whole shebang.

Leviticus (43095b) — 1/25/2007 @ 8:59 am

It had nothing to do with his “botched joke.” That’s the same type of lame explanation you hear when a CEO gets fired: he’s “pursuing new opportunities” or “wants to spend more time with his family.”

The truth of the matter in 2004 is that the only reason Kerry was even nominated is because Bush’s approval ratings in early 2003 were around 60%, and the moral cowardice of career politicians (which knows no party boundaries) is such that no one would throw their hat in the ring and face almost certain defeat by a popular (at the time) wartime incumbent. That’s how we ended up with the 9 ugly dog opportunists that ran. Even then, had it not been for the “Yeeargh Heard ‘Round the World,” Kerry still would have not been the strongest horse in the stable.

Hogarth (a721ef) — 1/25/2007 @ 10:10 am

Hogarth is right on the money. If the Democrats thought they had a snowball’s chance to win in 2004, Hillary would have run. She would not have wanted to wait around for eight more years. (Explaining: She would have had to defer to the sitting Democratic President in 2008 and whether he won or lost she could not run until 2012.)

nk (b57bfb) — 1/25/2007 @ 11:53 am

The defeatist attitude that everyone started taking long before Hillary even announced she would run was and is discouraging. It hardly stimulates our incentive.

What has Hillary or Barrack Hussein Obama done to qualify for the presidency? In a time of war? Quick, name something. Waiting…

Unfortunately, we don’t have any shining stars on our side, so it could be Hillary by default.

That says volumes for the republican party. I thought the reps exhuming Trent Lott were trying to show they had a sense of humor. It proves they don’t, because they were serious.

rightisright (2fce83) — 1/25/2007 @ 12:38 pm

Leviticus, …In all seriousness, what do you guys think of Richardson as a candidate?

As a conservative I’ve got to honestly admit that Richardson is at the top of my list. His resume FAR exceeds that of any other candidate, particularly the fact that he actually has executive experience, and if I understand his philosophy, he’s at least relatively fiscally conservative. Fiscally, it would be hard to be worse than Bush (and I’m a Bush supporter in general).

Hillary is probably next just because she’s demonstrated that at least she’s a hard worker, though I’m almost certain she’d not be as fiscally conservative as Richardson and that we’d end up with nationalized health care. Heck, I don’t know, maybe we should. She also couldn’t be any worse a spender than Bush. Her hubby was certainly far more conservative in that regard.

I’m not impressed with the trial lawyer neo-populist Edwards and, other than being a pretty face with adequate pigment, what on earth causes Obama and his supporters to suppose that he’s ready to lead this nation?

Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/25/2007 @ 12:39 pm

And just to be silly because I feel like it, John Edwards won’t have time to be president. It takes all day to do his hair.

rightisright (2fce83) — 1/25/2007 @ 12:40 pm

While on the topic, listening to the excerpts on Kerry’s announcement that Rush was playing today, along with the comments by Kennedy and Reid made me think maybe he’s died and it just hasn’t been announced yet. Sure sounded like they were giving eulogies: “…I’ll always have fond memories of the times I spent with John Kerry …”.

I actually think this is possible for Kerry, just as it would be for AlGore. Let’s see, it would take some makeup and a bunch of miniture motors attached to various extremities, but otherwise … Might take some sophisticated logistics, like showing up early to position the body for events like the SOU speach.

Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/25/2007 @ 12:45 pm

Hillary, maybe, depending on who the Republicans run and how she appeals to the War Party. Edwards? I scoff.

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/25/2007 @ 1:44 pm

Hillary wouldn’t make the mistake Kerry did of forgetting the cotter pins (“wheels coming off” reference for the culturally illiterate) but I submit that the road ahead of her has changed from the 1990s when she and her husband last drove down it.

I thought she was right not to run in 2004, but I thought, and still think, it was her best chance. She’s missed her moment.

McGehee (5664e1) — 1/25/2007 @ 4:16 pm

President Hillary only if the social-conservative religious-right is unwilling to be the ones within the GOP to compromise for once.

According to the latest Time poll:

If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would “definitely” or “probably” support him

And:

Clinton’s popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama’s does, or indeed as Giuliani’s and McCain’s. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters)

The winner is right there in the field of GOP candidates. Will the GOP go with him? If not, enjoy President Hillary. And if Hillary wins two terms, we’ll be facing three decades of rule by two aristratic families – the Bushes and Clintons. Our founders will spin in their graves.

And btw, I find Giuliani’s leadership of NYC far more impressive than Richardson’s of New Mexico, for the person suggesting only Richardson has executive experience.

Not sure why anyone would consider Edwards a good top-of-the-ticket candidate. He was awful in his debate last time around, and on the campaign trail all he had to say was the same bullshit about two Americas ad nauseum. He’s the Ned Lamont of the presidential race.

LoafingOaf (71415b) — 1/26/2007 @ 2:42 am

Er, I meant aristocratic families.

Why would anyone think it’s good for the country to keep electing people from the same two families?

Giuliani is the man. I hope the religious-right doesn’t ruin this election for the country. They can be awfully selfish and I resent them for it.

LoafingOaf (71415b) — 1/26/2007 @ 2:45 am

but even the Republicans running are a sorry lot.

In addition to the excellent Rudy Giuliani, who was so impressive as mayor of NYC that he got international recognition for it, there is McCain, who IMO should’ve been Prez from 2001 till today. I’m not sure how people work out that McCain, a honorable, heroic man who has political courage, is a “sorry” candidate. Oh, except he’s been demonized by the Far Right as a “RINO.” I’m pretty sick of that B.S. I know who I’ll blame if I have to endure 8 more years of the Clintons.

LoafingOaf (71415b) — 1/26/2007 @ 2:58 am

McCain, a honorable, heroic man who has political courage

Except when he’s up against the Establishment Media — then he morphs into a lap dog.

I know who I’ll blame if I have to endure 8 more years of the Clintons.

Feingold?

McGehee (5664e1) — 1/26/2007 @ 9:52 am

I predict that both candidates in ’08 will be people we are not even aware of right now.

Sorry, Loafing Oaf,

If Giuliani did not have the cojones to face Hillary in a Senate fight because he was so preoccupied with the treatment for his prostate cancer which diminished his ability to please his mistress while he was still married and living with his wife and children in Gracie Mansion…. Forget him. He shone when he sent Gotti away. And he shone again but only by default on 9/11 because he was at bat and did not allow anyone else to step up to the plate. He is not Prsidential material.

McCain has balls, brains and ability but he could be the biggest mistake Republicans make. Everyone is talking about Hillary’s negatives among Democrats. Like you said, McCain has a lot of negatives among the Republican base.

nk (47858f) — 1/26/2007 @ 10:27 am

In my eyes, I only see a race between Gore, Richardson and Giuliani. I fail to see why people even would contemplate Edwards. Obama is impressive at speaking, and has lots of charisma, though he lacks any realistic experience for president. I honestly see Big Media putting out lots of hype over Clinton and Obama. I do not see much over Edwards or anybody else for that matter. (When I’m saying big media here, i’m going beyond the news progams… stuff like MTV, Entertainment Tonight, ect…) Its almost if the ‘big media’ want to put those two together and ignore the candidates who actually have exectutive experiences. But that will backfire on them, because hype can only get you so far.

G (722480) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:03 pm

NK #25,

Don’t you think that was a low blow on Giuliani?

DRJ (e69ca7) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:20 pm

I dunno. It seems to me like Obama is Clinton’s worst nightmare. Before Obama, everyone on the left was saying that, “It’s gonna be Clinton, no question about it”. The thing was, they saw her as an inevitability rather than an appealing candidate. I don’t even think the left LIKES her all that much…

Obama’s got star-power like no other (…for the time being; I think he peaked too early, but nevertheless…), but no real experience in the Big Leagues. Richardson’s got no star-power whatsoever, but arguably has more (pertinent) experience than any candidate out there. The two balance each other really nicely; the question now is how long will it take them to realize it.

Leviticus (e5dabe) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:40 pm

DRJ,

Are you talking about the SNL skit where Janet Reno punches Giuliani in the crotch?

Leviticus (e5dabe) — 1/26/2007 @ 12:44 pm

Before Obama, many democrats didn’t like Clinton… And yes, Obama is a threat to Clinton. Though… look at last election… the first front runners were Dick Gephardt (sp?) and Howard Dean, who tore themselves apart while John Kerry got some support.

I still think Gore’s got the best chance of winning. Simply the fact that A: He’s won the popular vote before. B: His environmental movement. C: His government background. D: He’s removed from the democrats in the Senate and Congress. The more the democrats screw up, the bigger chance Gore has to capitalize.

I just think Gore’s on the side lines, he gets coverage, he’s got support, and he gets to criticise anything wrong in the government.

G (722480) — 1/26/2007 @ 1:00 pm

Levi,

I hadn’t really thought of that. I was kidding (and I am kidding, NK!) about his below-the-belt comments on Giuliani and McCain. Having said that, I got what I think was his point – that McCain has more of the right stuff than Giuliani. While I don’t agree with him on that point, I do appreciate the symmetry and style of NK’s prose.

DRJ (e69ca7) — 1/26/2007 @ 1:40 pm

nk: I think fighting cancer is a pretty good reason to skip a grueling senate race.

And you’re silly suggesting that Giuliani’s handling of 9/11 could’ve been done just as well by anyone. We saw how elected officials from mayors, to governors, to the federal government mishandled the New Orleans disaster – something they had warning of before it happened.

Giuliani’s success in NYC before 9/11 goes well beyond taking down one crime boss. He turned what was considered an ungovernable city around and did so by sticking to his conservative guns in a Democrat city that was demonizing him as some kind of Hitler. If you don’t like Giuliani because he had marital troubles (like millions of Americans go through) that’s your right. But don’t use your dislike of people who go through marital problems as a reason to not give credit where it’s due on his successes as a mayor of the biggest city in the country (running NYC is more difficult than running some entire states).

BTW, Ronald Reagan had all kinds of marital and family problems throughout his life as well.

LoafingOaf (9f37aa) — 1/26/2007 @ 2:11 pm

Honestly, guys, the only thing I have against Giuliani is that he could have beat Hillary with one hand tied behind his back and he dropped out of the race. Which really makes me want to cut him no slack. It’s kind of like a corrolary to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I consider the Clintons more dangerous to America than a brigade of 9/11 hijackers and I resent Giuliani for not helping to send them to political oblivion.

(I do have a problem with adulterous behavior but as a rule try not to be preachy about it. Sometimes I do get preachy. Sorry.)

nk (41da82) — 1/26/2007 @ 4:53 pm

1/24/2007

You’ll Have to Find Someone Else to “Swift Boat”

33 Responses to “You’ll Have to Find Someone Else to “Swift Boat””

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out