Happy Warrior Wanted
The phrase "Happy Warrior" is invoked in politics, most recently in connection with Ronald Reagan. Reagan had more than a bit of success when it came to winning elections and this was due in no small part to his demeanor. The guy laughed off the most brutal attacks, stayed on message and cleaned his opponents' clocks. But Hillary Clinton? Another story entirely.
Senator Clinton is in the news today for reacting to some quotes from Karl Rove (no relation) that appear in a forthcoming book, quotes to the effect that Rove believes Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic nominee and that she has a brittleness about her that may be a liability. In a similar situation, Ronald Reagan would have laughed off the quote and said something to the effect that "my opponents are trying draw attention away from their record." Hillary Clinton muddles the message.
She makes the second point but also insists that Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me." So the story now has to do with Rove's obsession. The shot she tried to land on the GOP for allegedly screwing things up ends up halfway down the page. And now she's let the world know that the evil Rove attack machine is gearing up to oppose her so maybe she wouldn't be the best 2008 candidate after all.
It's very early in the race for the White House but Hillary Clinton is unopposed and, amazingly, flailing. The past few weeks have seen her saying that the House of Representatives is run like a "plantation." She was roundly criticized and even mocked for her shrill opportunism on Saturday Night Live. Then she leveled an attack on school vouchers, raising the possibility that this would lead to "the school of the Church of the White Supremacist" or "the school of the Jihad."
Even an adoring audience was described as "puzzled". I'm no great expert on the school voucher issue but isn't it obvious that there would be no taxpayer-funded school of the jihad for the same reason that individual teachers don't teach jihad in schools now: there's control over the curriculum that is being taught and any voucher program would naturally insist upon that.
To clarify, I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton or her politics, for the most part but I don't think she's insane or evil or a communist or any of the harsh invective that gets hurled around the world of politics these days. By all accounts, she's quite charming in person. But her possible candidacy for the presidency is going to raise some interesting issues.
Senator Clinton is given to flights of rhetorical fancy, to put it kindly. To my knowledge, no reporter has asked her to defend or further comment on or even to explain those comments. And there's been a real paucity of questions about the lady's views over the past six years. I doubt one person in ten here in her home state could even tell you what she stands for. The first issue: will Hillary Clinton be a candidate whose views and words are somehow off limits for the media? After all, they have been so far.
And the second issue: given Hillary Clinton's abysmal performance so far in positioning herself, is it possible that, and here comes the blasphemy, she's not really all that bright? Not that she's dumb by any stretch of the imagination, but the sparkling intelligence she's allegedly imbued with? Is there any evidence of that? Oa plans to explore these matters again soon.
Senator Clinton is in the news today for reacting to some quotes from Karl Rove (no relation) that appear in a forthcoming book, quotes to the effect that Rove believes Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic nominee and that she has a brittleness about her that may be a liability. In a similar situation, Ronald Reagan would have laughed off the quote and said something to the effect that "my opponents are trying draw attention away from their record." Hillary Clinton muddles the message.
She makes the second point but also insists that Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me." So the story now has to do with Rove's obsession. The shot she tried to land on the GOP for allegedly screwing things up ends up halfway down the page. And now she's let the world know that the evil Rove attack machine is gearing up to oppose her so maybe she wouldn't be the best 2008 candidate after all.
It's very early in the race for the White House but Hillary Clinton is unopposed and, amazingly, flailing. The past few weeks have seen her saying that the House of Representatives is run like a "plantation." She was roundly criticized and even mocked for her shrill opportunism on Saturday Night Live. Then she leveled an attack on school vouchers, raising the possibility that this would lead to "the school of the Church of the White Supremacist" or "the school of the Jihad."
Even an adoring audience was described as "puzzled". I'm no great expert on the school voucher issue but isn't it obvious that there would be no taxpayer-funded school of the jihad for the same reason that individual teachers don't teach jihad in schools now: there's control over the curriculum that is being taught and any voucher program would naturally insist upon that.
To clarify, I'm not crazy about Hillary Clinton or her politics, for the most part but I don't think she's insane or evil or a communist or any of the harsh invective that gets hurled around the world of politics these days. By all accounts, she's quite charming in person. But her possible candidacy for the presidency is going to raise some interesting issues.
Senator Clinton is given to flights of rhetorical fancy, to put it kindly. To my knowledge, no reporter has asked her to defend or further comment on or even to explain those comments. And there's been a real paucity of questions about the lady's views over the past six years. I doubt one person in ten here in her home state could even tell you what she stands for. The first issue: will Hillary Clinton be a candidate whose views and words are somehow off limits for the media? After all, they have been so far.
And the second issue: given Hillary Clinton's abysmal performance so far in positioning herself, is it possible that, and here comes the blasphemy, she's not really all that bright? Not that she's dumb by any stretch of the imagination, but the sparkling intelligence she's allegedly imbued with? Is there any evidence of that? Oa plans to explore these matters again soon.
posted by Oa Rove at 5:36 PM
<< Home