11 thoughts on “Pity Party?”

  2. Travel office vs Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, wiretapping, OBL still on the loose, huge and rising deficits, partisan attorney firings, and on ad nauseum. Yeah, the Clinton years are really looking bad by comparison.

    Like

  3. How about 53 adults and 21 children (according to Wikipedia) dying in the Branch Davidian debacle (which was largely supposed to be about “protecting” the Branch Davidian children)? I know it’s uncool to mention that incident, but it really was a huge big deal.

    Like

  4. The pattern that emerged during the Clinton administration was that they were very comfortable using lethal/overwhelming force on American citizens. And that during peace time. If you focus just on how the Bush and the Clinton administration operated domestically with regard to American citizens, I think it’s pretty clear that the Clinton administration was far more likely to treat Americans the way that the Bush administration reserves for Al Qaeda. Even if you dislike Bush, I think that point has to be conceded.

    Like

  5. “Far more likely”? Amy, do you have more than one example? What about Ruby Ridge–do you blame that on Bush senior’s comfort using lethal force on American citizens or on mistakes made by the FBI?

    Like

  6. There are a couple of questions here: is HRC an unpleasant person, unworthy of our sympathy, and who has done nasty things to people when it was within her power to do it (my view being, well, yes) and then Doug said, well, George W Bush is viler and odiouser. Doug, AmyP – George W Bush will not be on the ballot next time. John McCain and some Democrat will be on the ballot. Should HRC be that Democrat? It seems to me that if you want a Dem victory, you don’t want the Dem candidate to be HRC.

    Like

  7. I just think, all things being equal, democracies ought not to have dynasties. They inevitably carry with them–and indeed, often intensify as times goes by–rivalries, interests, agendas, friends and enemies, to say nothing of concentrating power. It may be unfair in some pure individualistic sense, but really, GWB’s candidacy should have set off alarm bells simply because who he was. I’m not a Clinton-hater by any means (I even actually kind of like her book), and she’d be better than many potential alternatives, but still, I just think that a White House history that reads Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is pretty sorry reality to contemplate.

    Like

  9. And, Doug, you forgot to mention Katrina. How many children died in New Orleans? while what was Bush actually doing what (I don’t think he knows how to fiddle)?
    I don’t like Hillary, but there’s no doubt in my mind that she’d be a better president than any Republican we’ve had in my memory. So, I have pity for a good woman, who would do good things, loosing her footing.
    But, one of the reasons I come to Laura’s blog is that we (yes, the royal we 🙂 try to find a way to talk to Dave & Amy & Laura’s occasional libertarian visitors. A heads up to you guys, though, that you’re definitely not convincing me to “hate” Hillary myself (by, say, blaming her for the Branch Davidian tragedy or putting the travel office firings in the same league with Katrina, Abu Grahb, Guantanamo, waterboarding, and even, to be more comparable, the firings/suppression of dissenting viewpoints in ERA, Justice, NASA, HHS . . . ). Yeah, Dave, you’re telling us that GW Bush won’t be on the ballot this time around, but just avoiding the question of the comparison makes it impossible for us to understand what standards you’re applying when throwing verbal spears at Hillary. We’re working from a playbook where there’s no question that the world (the entire world, and America in particular) was a better place under the Clinton administration than the Bush administration, in spite of all the failings (which we’re perfectly willing to be made aware of).

    Like

  10. PS: Though I don’t want Hillary for president, I’d be perfectly happy with her as Senate Majority Leader, director of HHS, . . . so, there’s still a point to trying to convince us, rationally, why she shouldn’t be any of those things.
    I think Sullivan called her incompetent, but I don’t really believe that. I think she was less competent than Obama, but, he’s proving himself to be quite remarkable.

    Like

  11. bj, let me try again to clarify the standard of comparison. Major comparison is Barack Obama, who has managed to run a nearly flawless campaign for months, and who I see as far and away the Dem’s strongest candidate in November. Other comparisons? I see her as having the moral sense and personal charm of Richard Nixon, and the policy competence of Jimmy Carter. If nominated, people will be comparing her to McCain, not Bush. The polls I have seen suggest that Obama does better than she against McCain. Obama seems to have a far more emollient personality. Have you ever read the Brad DeLong take-down of her performance on health care?
    She seems to be doing a reasonable job in the Senate. Reid may well be following the Daschle road to defeat – he is far to the left of the Nevada electorate, as Daschle was to the SD electorate, and being Majority Leader creates a lot of incidents which his Reep opponent can use to clarify that for the folks at home. Maybe she should run for Majority Leader.

    Like

Comments are closed.