A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
Can black magic win a general election?
Published on November 23, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Politics
When George and Laura Bush decide to weigh in on the Demoncratic race, my thoughts tend to race. The other day, Laura Bush promoted a key reason for Clinton's White House run, saying her predecessor's experience as first lady would be "very helpful" in the Oval Office. Hmmm. Bush agreed with her. Uh Oh.

I've also heard Newt Gingrich speak extensively about the former first lady, suggesting she was the toughest candidate the Republicans could face. Likewise, at a major Republican annual get together this past summer, leaders of the Republican party were openly HOPING Clinton would be the nominee. They were salavating and planning their attack. To them, no other candidates existed on the Democratic platform and they were like kids in a candy shop.

Oh, Geeze. When an opposing party wants an individual to get the nomination, there is a problem.

Clinton is a devisive figure, to be nice about it. She voted for the war, and has messaged her position ever since, trying to bring it in line with public opinion. Obama, on the other hand, has been against the war from the start. Her health care fiasco during the Clinton years leaves her open to redicule. Whitewater could rear it's ugly head, in say October 2008. You think you're bored with Bush bashing, wait until people can sink their teeth into a Clinton campaign -- Vince Foster, Hillarycare, Filegate, and Monica Lewinski will be back in our national lexicon. NO MAKE IT STOP! It's WORSE than being blasted by Markey Marc and the Funkey Bunch in a cold cell in Gitmo while being waterboarded.

I'm not sure I'm ready to vote for such a polarizing figure. True, she has achievements: child health care, women's health, and Vital Voices. She speaks on women's issues with passion and conviction which is hard to ignore. On everything else, she makes John Kerry look passionate and caring.

But people will ignore any positives. They'll look at Hillary and see evil. It's a gut reaction, an emotional response, and one you can't fight it with facts or reason. I just can't imagine right wing talk radio. They already think she's a controlling witch, and portray Bill as her neutered lap dog.

And then there's the "rightwing political conspiracy" that's "out to get her". Man, that even gives the most die-hard democrat pause. Today I was in a drug store, and there were two dolls: one of Hillary Clinton, the other of George Bush. You push Hilary's finger and she danced a jig singing about Monica Lewinsky and the aftermath. I almost slunk under the counter. And this BEFORE she is annointed queen bee.

Sigh. What to do, what to do. I'm going to church tomorrow and light a candle. Prayer, I think, is in order.

Comments
on Nov 23, 2007
Bill Clinton at least was likable. When is there going to be another US president who doesn't come off as a muddling crack addict (Bush), a conniving shrew (Nixon) or a simpleton (Reagan)?

Bill Clinton was a sex junkie, sure, but if the American peope can forgive it in a football star they can forgive it in a president. Wasn't there a poll during the whole Lewinski affair that showed some high percentage of people wanted him to keep getting his end away so long as it helped him do his job?

And people say Americans aren't pragmatic!

More on-topic: I like the idea of a witch at the helm of the US. She could have a throne of skulls or something, and use curses rather than cruise missiles to call down devastation on the heads of those who stand up to her or are simply evil-minded little thugs.

It would also fit in with the US' love for overly dramatic religious overtones in their politics.

'In god we trust', sure, but why not hedge the bet with some black magic?
on Nov 24, 2007
LOL. Imagine the bumper sticker! Curses, not cruise missiles! Vexes not Vixons!

Dubledore: don't ask, don't tell. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the others: they get the binding curse. Throne of skulls isn't looking so bad, per se, it's the baggage that surrounds the building of the thrown. Man, are we up for that? I smell blood in the water, but that could just be part of a spell.
on Nov 26, 2007

Your article begs for cliches (but then maybe it is Just hillary that does):

Be Careful what you Wish for - You just may get it.

and

The only way to win the Game is to not play.

Yes, I have no doubt with her high negatives that many Republicans would love to see her as the candidate - so cliche number 1.

But for most americans, if she is not the nominee, she cant be elected, and so cliche number 2 comes to mind.

As for Cacto's comments, all tyrants were at one time likeable.  That is how they got up their base to take control.  Bill just was not as effective as a Chavez or Castro - but that is due to his incompetance, not for lack of trying.

on Nov 26, 2007
Oh, I don't think you can really compare Chavez to Bill Clinton, now, that's a bit steep.

After all, Chavez gave oil to the poor in America -- showing Clintonesq flair for pandering -- which I think outdid even Bill in political saavy.

I hated Nafta, but there was a lot Clinton did I liked. He did try to find the middle (usually) in my view.

Hillary, however, does not win my heart. The problem is, if not Hil then who? WHO? Who is the most viable alternative to Hilary? And who is the most likely Republican candidate? Will the far right really support America's Mayor? I just don't think so....

How did we end up with this crop?
on Nov 27, 2007
Oh, I don't think you can really compare Chavez to Bill Clinton, now, that's a bit steep.

After all, Chavez gave oil to the poor in America -- showing Clintonesq flair for pandering -- which I think outdid even Bill in political saavy.


Is it just me, or did you contradict yourself from statement one to statement 2?
on Nov 27, 2007
I was drunk.
on Nov 27, 2007
I'm joking, I was doing a washingtonian argument: agreeing with you while disagreeing at the same time, covering all my basis. Geeze, it was monday, have to get back in the swing.
on Nov 28, 2007

I was doing a washingtonian argument: agreeing with you while disagreeing at the same time, covering all my basis.

You did it well.  Could it be they are {shudder} rubbing off on you?

on Nov 28, 2007
I hear what you say, perhaps I should look into that. (Sorry, what were you saying, I was busy blackberrying someone more important)
on Nov 28, 2007
I hear what you say, perhaps I should look into that. (Sorry, what were you saying, I was busy blackberrying someone more important)


lol
on Nov 28, 2007
I really only have 3 things against Hillary myself...

1) After 14 years in the national political arena, she still hasn't defined her positions on most major issues.

2) I strongly disagree with her on the few issues she has stood firm on.

3) I refuse to support anyone who expects to be treated with kid gloves.

There are a few other details about her that make me wretch, but those three are the political ones. ;~D

When I really think about it, I have more problem with her supporters than I do with her. ;~D
on Nov 28, 2007
When I really think about it, I have more problem with her supporters than I do with her.


That's interesting, Ted. I'm gonna write on that, I think. What an interesting concept.
on Nov 30, 2007
I have access to some inside information about how Hillary treats those who "work" for her & about her general demeanor, but it has not been independently confirmed so I won't write about it.   

There are those on this forum, however, who don't hesitate to publish hearsay and unconfirmed innuendo as 'truth' (only one JU blog with 'truth' as its last name I believe, but that, too, is uncomfirmed   ).