Cycloptichorn wrote:Blatham,
Quote:Please don't take that as simply and falsely dismissive of your views but rather as a realistic appraisal of how such preferences will color apprehension/perceptions. Just imagine, to the degree that it is possible to do so, another situation (which might well have happened) where Obama had decided not to run at all and you had found no candidate who comparably inspired you. In this little thought experiment, it seems probable that your perceptions of the Clinton campaign would be quite different.
In that situation, people wouldn't be against Hillary nearly to the degree you say, you are correct.
But not for the reason you think. What has turned many away from her strongly is her actions, not her persona. I wouldn't be so vehemently against Hillary if she hadn't been pulling bullsh*t left and right in order to try and get elected; and if she had no major opponent she wouldn't be doing that, you are perfectly right about that.
Ask yourself, please: how much has the tone of the Clinton campaign changed? How different have they become now that they are threatened? And you will find your answer as to why there is so much antipathy towards her at the moment.
Blaming it on the right-wing is ridiculous. We all know that they did engage in a smear campaign, a prolonged one, against the Clintons, but much of what they said was grounded in truths, which were exaggerated for political effect. This doesn't necessarily invalidate many of the criticisms that were leveled against them at the time.
I don't personally understand where you get the idea that Obama will be as big a target as Hillary. How is it that he will have to face the problems and people who tried to bring Bill down, but she won't - tenfold?
Cycloptichorn
First, let me say that there is nothing in the Hayden piece posted by butrflynet with which I disagree. It's as close to my own view of this choice as I've seen with the single proviso regarding that which Krugman's column speaks to.
First, your last question. I see no reason (nor does Krugman) to assume that Barack won't face precisely what Clinton faced on entering office and through the progress of his term. It is a facet of the nature of the modern conservative movement to be this extreme in its quest for power (and there are enormous amounts of money at stake for the people and structures which do and will work in tandem with conservative movement principals...Iraq, as Greenspan said, was about oil, for just one example...banking, insurance and existing medical delivery interests will be no less desirous and activist in doing whatever they can to thwart Obama's medical reform plans, for another example...and we probably ought not to assume that the military/industrial corporate megalith has ANY functional interest in peace, for another example...and the petrochemical industries are not going to do everything they can while their interests are at stake to thwart any and every Obama thrust towards mitigating climate change legistlation, for a final example.
Hillary may have gathered up a big hatred-quotient within the right and within much of the media but they are a relatively small factor in where this push to get her or Obama or Edwards will come from. But its true that will make her run for the presidency quite possibly tougher and her time in office beset, by the press, say, than what we'll see with Obama.
For a while, as Krugman argues.
To say that "much of what the right said about the clintons is grounded in truth" is a contention I consider far more false than it might be true. You know, for example, how much money and manpower was invested in the Starr campaign and everything which preceded it and you know that the single consequence of that was a blowjob and deceitful statements regarding it. Do you expect less of this sort of thing to happen to Obama and if you do, I don't know why you might. Do you really think that today's middle of the night arrest of Rezko wasn't facilitated by folks who want to color Obama as involved with corruption and criminality?
The tone of the clinton campaign has changed. But there is no campaign presently in operation which hasn't changed to counter opposition as it has arisen or evolved. The divisiveness we see on the left is not absent on the right. There too we see internal debates about whether if one candidate or another is chosen then the party will be torn apart. This divisiveness is running across the boards for a whole complex of reasons. Not the least of these reasons is the nature of modern American politics. Do I think her campaign has done more than Obama's or Edwards campaigns that ought to piss us off? Yes, I do. But I also consider that bare knuckles will be necessary in the very near future and for a fair while after.
