(no subject)

[ksmith]

Interesting day yesterday.

I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I'd prefer Obama, but will vote for Clinton. Like others, I take exception to those "it's 3am--do you know who will answer the red phone" ads. But Clinton is, I think, trying to draw those Obama Republicans and Indies who worry about her strength. Judging by yesterday's outcomes, the ploy may have worked.

I'm not convinced idealism will carry the day here. Call me a cynic.

The thing I fear is that if Clinton wins it all, she'll just about get her footing when her husband will get caught in some scandal, sexual, financial, or other. It's possible he may behave for 4 years, but I admit that I don't trust him to not give his self-destructive streak an airing. If that happens, that's all the press will report for two years at least. Congress will have hearings, all the resident moralists will tut-tut, and nothing of worth will be accomplished for the balance of Clinton's presidency. Then the Republicans will have a much better shot in 2012.

I want to be wrong. But we're top-heavy with hypocrites in this country, sexual and otherwise, and if Clinton-the-ex-pres puts a foot wrong, Clinton the current pres will pay the price.

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

If you're a cynic, I'm a worse one. While you fear Bill's personal ethics, I question _hers_. She was part and parcel of the financial shenanigans, and has some of her own ghosts from their previous tenure in the White House.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I question whether there was anything behind some/most/all of those so-called shenanigans. The Whitewater investigation turned up nothing, and Glenn Greenwald's column today highlights the fact that it's very easy to make various types of above board transactions look shady.

If a Democrat does it, Congress holds hearings. If a Republican does it, they get the Medal of Freedom.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"...some scandal, sexual, financial, or other."

He acquired the nickname "Slick Willie" rather before running for president, and it wasn't just for the girls smuggled into the governor's mansion in state police cars.

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any serious stains on _public_ ethics, like hiring cronies for massive no-bid contracts...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

The question is, which will the Mainstream Media beat to death? The no-bid contract issues have been going on for years, but for all I've seen about them on the TV news programs, the sense is that 1) they don't matter, or 2) they do matter, but voters don't care.

But sex is easy. It grabs viewers. It does the work so the MSM doesn't have to.

I think sometimes about the President of France--divorces, philanderer prior to that, married now to an ex-supermodel who had affairs with Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton, among others, and who also had an out of wedlock child, iirc. Can you imagine the same couple going through the election gantlet here? OMG.

Sometimes you just want to shake people.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

From what I see in THE ECONOMIST, Sarkozy has been losing favor in France with his antics.

Yeah, sex is easy. I've muttered in public that the "liar" thing was Bill doing just exactly what a gentleman of the Old School was supposed to do -- no true gentleman will tell. You are supposed to carry such secrets to the grave or even the gallows. "Long Black Veil."

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I read an article about Sarkozy last week. He can apparently be a rude jerk. Be interesting to see how long he remains in office. But my point was that in the US, he would never have made it as far as an Old Boy backroom discussion.

[barbarienne.livejournal.com]

Take comfort in the thought that the Congress right now is (basically) Democrat-controlled. Barely, but enough to prevent random bullshit attacks, I think.

Also, they can't impeach the president's spouse. Bill could go on a spree of sexual escapades with ten-year-old boys, and while it certainly wouldn't look good for Hillary, she could in theory toss him to the wolves and distance herself.

Just so long as we don't have a president who thinks that private morality ought to be legislated. That's my big issue this year. I want them to pay attention to governing, not nannying.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Democrat-controlled, yes, but they can't even stand up to Mr 19% approval rating, the minority party asshats, and their own Blue Dogs. Unless there is a complete change in leadership in the House and Senate, I see them being just as hamstrung under a Dem as they are now.

[madmoravian.livejournal.com]

If I hadn't voted a week ago in early voting, the 5 phone calls from the Obama campaign in two days would have turned me away from him, easily. They had no information on callerid to enable me to ignore them.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I did not answer my phone for the last few weeks.

[mithriltabby]

I think Obama would be a more effective president because he’s got a better organization for providing bottom-up influence on Congress, and he’s already talking about bringing in some moderate Republicans in his cabinet; Clinton would have to work a lot harder to get over the partisan rhetoric.

[touchstone.livejournal.com]

I do think that one thing you have to consider when selecting a President is...hmm, how to put this. Imagine your potential President conceiving of The Best Idea EVER, and presenting it to Congress and the public. I don't mean that phrase in irony - imagine an obviously-brilliant, elegant, non-partisan solution to an acknowledged problem. Now, ask yourself 'What percentage of listeners would dismiss this brilliant idea purely on the basis of whose mouth it came from?' If that number is too high, this person is not going to be a successful President.

It might not be their fault. It might not be fair. But I think it's true. A president can totally screw things up all on their own, but actually doing something USEFUL requires getting people to go along with you.