Frank Rich: Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?

[RamboLiberal]

THE Democrats can't lose the White House in 2008, can they?

Some 13 months before Election Day, the race's dynamic seems immutable. Americans can't wait to evict the unpopular president and end his disastrous war. As the campaign's poll-tested phrasemaking constantly reminds us, voters crave change above all else. That means nearly any Democrat might do, even if the nominee isn't the first woman, black or Hispanic to lead a major party's ticket.

The Republican field of aging white guys, meanwhile, gets flakier by the day. The front-runner has taken to cooing to his third wife over a cellphone in the middle of campaign speeches. His hottest challenger, the new "new Reagan," may have learned his lines for "Law & Order," but clearly needs cue cards on the stump. In Florida, even the most rudimentary details of red-hot local issues (drilling in the Everglades, Terri Schiavo) eluded him. The party's fund-raising is anemic. Its snubs of Hispanic and African-American voters kissed off essential swing states in the Sun Belt and moderate swing voters farther north.

So nothing can go wrong for the Democrats. Can it?

Of course it can, and not just because of the party's perennial penchant for cutting off its nose to spite its face. (Witness the Democratic National Committee's zeal in shutting down primary campaigning in Florida because the state moved up the primary's date.) The biggest indicator of potential trouble ahead is that the already-codified Beltway narrative for the race so favors the Democrats. Given the track record of Washington's conventional wisdom, that's not good news. These are the same political pros who predicted that scandal would force an early end to the Clinton presidency and that "Mission Accomplished" augured victory in Iraq and long-lasting Republican rule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30rich.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[Divine Discontent]

1. w/o reading all this

all I could think of when reading the title of the thread was, you mean the fake sounding laugh and uninteresting personality she's exhibiting? then ya, she's the new '2000 Gore' that was panned as wooden and not sincere.

[Frances]

2. Please don't make personality the issue here

Bush got elected because the media said he had a good personality!!!

[RamboLiberal]

3. And that they called Al Gore a serial liar

Plus calling Bush the one you want to have a beer with. The bastards in the media set out to destroy Al Gore and they did. I think some of they now regret it but still haven't learned their lesson.

I'll confess I'm not a Hillary fan though if she's the nominee I will vote for her in the general. Haven't made up my mind about supporting her financially, I may take the little I can contribute and give to Dem Senatorial and Congressional campaigns.

I do think the media is guilty of promoting her inevitability and would love to see her run against Giuliani and are doing all they can to promote those 2 candidates. I don't think they are giving the coverage to Obama and Edwards not to mention the other Dem candidates.

[Frances]

6. I haven't decided on my candidate

though I will definitely vote for the Dem.

I defend Hillary quite often on DU, not because I will definitely vote for her in the primary, but because I don't like to see any of our candidates belittled.

I would speak up for Obama and Edwards if I thought they were being swift-boated.

[janx]

15. Very true. How about Richardson? If you take a reasonable

look at his experience and qualifications, he wins hands down.

[Divine Discontent]

20. true.

he's admirable. I like him 3rd most. up from 4th (he's overtaken Biden on my list, they're all pretty good, just some are much better imo, Edwards and Obama).

[Carrieyazel]

28. If nominated, Richardson can and will win a general, Hillary can't.

He will win NM, gives you a great shot at CO and NV, (being a westerner), and gives you a leg up in Ohio. Hillary will struggle to win the 3 hardest Kerry states, PA, WI and NH and past that gives you almost nothing. Maybe Iowa and New Mexico. That's it. NO WAY she can get to 270.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Frank Rich is just part of the same corporate media that enabled Bush to power, here is a small

sample of his work.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060906.shtml

READ EACH INSTALLMENT: We had to laugh when a certain pundit reviewed Al Gore’s deeply troubling new film. But then, Frank Rich has produced this sort of nonsense for years. Be sure to read every installment:

PART 1: Gore was right on every big judgment—but Rich is in love with a narrative. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/31/06.

PART 2: Gore had made a string of sound judgments. But omigod! Someone laughed at his jokes! See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/1/06.

PART 3: Rich says Gore was right in 2002. In 2002, he said different. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/2/06.

PART 4: Before the Swift Boats, Rich invented Love Story. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/5/06.

PART 5: Right to the end, he Frankly proclaimed—Gore was a clown, just like Bush. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/7/06.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Money quote: Suggests a follower rather than a leader. Oh, yes,

that is something I've been pointing out alot. If you really look at her actions and thinking, it's pure follower.
she just does not and has not shown any leadership skills.

So far her post-first-lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader. She still can't offer a credible explanation of why she gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq (or why she voted against the Levin amendment that would have put on some diplomatic brakes). That's because her votes had more to do with hedging her political bets than with principle. Nor has she explained why it took her two years of the war going south to start speaking up against it. She was similarly tardy with her new health care plan, waiting to see what heat Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama took with theirs. She has lagged behind the Democratic curve on issues ranging from the profound (calling for an unequivocal ban on torture) to the trivial (formulating a response to the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad).

[Frances]

18. I like Obama too

but I prefer to hear about him in positive terms, not in terms tearing down another candidate.

In other words, I would prefer to hear "Obama had the courage to speak out against the war from the very beginning." Then I would like to hear details of what he did. I think that approach will get more support for your candidate.

In my case, I am not decided as to who I will vote for in the primary. At this point, it will be Obama, Edwards, or Hillary.

[frazzled]

5. No one did more to deep-six Al Gore in 2000 than Frank Rich

I hate to say it, but I remember it all too well. If Clinton turns out to be our nominee, for better or worse, we don't need this same cast of characters (Rich, Dowd) singing the same sad song.

Stuff it, Frank. Gore was okay then, especially in comparison to G. W. Bush, who was a total idiot from the beginning (something you never found much time to write about), and Hillary will be okay now, if that is what the people decide.

When it comes to politics, they're all "wise old men"--who don't know jack.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Sometimes I Think People Like Rich And Dowd Only Care About The "Game"

They are relatively "loaded" and their lives won't change regardless of who is president...If another Pug gets elected they just have more to write about...

Time changes a lot... In 00 many of the people now attacking Hillary as a centrist sellout were attacking Al Gore for the same thing...

I did post grad work in Government and politics is my passion... Sometimes the trivialization of politics makes me so fucking sick that I just want to turn my television to the ESPN Channel and be done with it...

[blm]

16. Actually, Rather's report showed that election fraud was set up in 1999, so THAT

is really the only thing that deep-sixed Gore who actually won that election by a much wider margin.


Because of the media's distraction with the memes presented afterwards, like Gore lost because he ran a bad campaign, or lost because he ran from Clinton - that was all LIES set up to obscure the CRIMINAL CONTROL OF THE ELECTION and the VOTECOUNT.

Who fed those lies? The Democratic powermongers.

[stlsaxman]

8. So it begins... again!

Surely Rich will be plagiarizing himself- taking all those articles he wrote slamming Al Gore and replacing his name with Clinton's and the "character traits" slightly altered to the same effect.

Whores make the best money when they learn how to repeat what works best for the client.

[janx]

13. "the laugh," "the sigh," "the scream"...

And people believe this crap that the media shovels out, all the time.

[rosesaylavee]

9. No.

In 2000, Gore had more years of experience in govt and in governing than Hillary has now. He also had a host of innovative legislation he had sponsored to point to as indicative of his thinking capacity.

So, Frank Rich. She is not the new Al. Never will be. What a dope he is.

[BootinUp]

10. Nice try Frank

But no, Hillary is not Al Gore.

[Carrieyazel]

11. Sure, Democrats can lose the election next year.

Just nominate the unelectable, polarizing, lousy national candidate. Who cackles.

[rove karl rove]

27. she still won two senatorial races anyways

She shouldn't be underestimated...all that's been said before about her and was proven wrong.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. "the laugh" is just as deadly as "the sigh"

The both rang false, and they both reeked of haughty condescension.

As for it being somehow petty to enforce party rules on assholes like the Florida Dems who support moving up the primary, I heartily applaud Howard Dean for this. People who don't feel beholden to the rules of a group to which they belong are dishonorable and selfish. If they had a problem with these rules, they should have fought them earlier and through the avenues of redress that exist within the organization.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The Difference Is Hillary Uses The Laugh To Fend Off Criticism

If Gravel told me he was "ashamed" of me I would have told him to perform an anatomically impossible act on himself...

Gore sighed because he rightfully thought Bush was a cipher...

The most you can say about the laugh is that it rings false...I assure you if that tactic ceases to be useful a politician as adroit as Hillary Clinto will not use it...

Al Gore, god bless him, imploded... Hillary Clinton will not... She is our version of the "Iron Lady"...

[PurityOfEssence]

23. No, I can say more than that; here goes.

The laugh is not only false and rings untrue to many of us, it's also haughty. It's a dismissal of questions as not merely "quaint" or "funny", but as the ravings of inferiors. The more it's done, the more she tells us all that we're imbeciles. In fact, almost everything becomes a joke. She's so far above the rest of us that she can hardly contain her condescending chortles.

This is death in American politics; as a people, we HATE the appearance of a feeling of superiority in our leaders; it's not just "intellectualism" that Americans have in their craws, it's presuming oneself better.

Much as I can't stand her, dread her nomination due to virtual--if not literal--unelectability and deeply abhor her studied positioning, I want her soundly defeated on policy and evasiveness, not on what is basically facile performance clunkiness. I'm hardly a shrinking violet, but I don't engage in calling people names based on their looks or their height or things like that, and although this is behavior rather than physicality, it's straying near my off-limits zone; I want the issues to be the determining factor, because that's what's important.

Hilarity Clinton's calculated "mirth" is simply dreadful acting, and it's ruinous to her and to her opponents. I don't want pro or con arguments about her devolving into whether her guffaws are real or not, I want to hammer her and her opponents on her deep, deep dishonesty on issues. Her supporters will be somewhat justified in crying "foul" if people just "pick on" her grating yuks. This will keep us from substantive arguments on her actions. She does NOT fight against the right; she fights for herself. She's the most conservative of the current Dem candidates regardless of what she says. She's on every side of every subject and it's all calculated to avoid taking a hit. She's pro-corporate pretty much across the board. She's precisely the opposite of what she portrays herself as, and that's what should be the focus of the conversation. She doesn't even want to offer proposals and expects others to fill the table for her to make her decisions. As if that's not weaselly enough, she bristles with self-righteousness that she should even be required to answer questions. That's just bullshit, and it's CERTAINLY not leadership.

[Thickasabrick]

26. Very well said and I heartily agree. nt

[hedgehog]

19. Rich may be anti-democratic party but I think he's hit the nail on the head, here.

Consider this; is it possible that a perfect, careful campaign the perfect target for swift boating? If the candidate comes across as luke warm, maybe the candidate only draws luke warm support. If that candidate presents a safe, boring story, then the more intersting trash talk from the other side gets all the play. Who is going to repeat a policy paper when there is a good sleazy rumor to spread around?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Please Let Them Try To SwiftBoat Hillary

Hillary will do her little passive-aggressive thing that will have her opponents spoiling themselves....

[cali]

22. What??? Sorry, this is just insane, and could only be written

by someone who does NOT read Rich.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. His Forte Was Reviewing Plays...

And he's not anti-Dem...

He does "misunderestimate" Hillary Clinton badly...

[Thickasabrick]

24. I want Edwards but will vote for her if I have to. Rudy's latest campaign

slogan is "I'm not Hillary". I think we are doomed if she gets the nom but we'll see.