Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (37224)	3/8/1999 2:45:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

THE TRUTH ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION POLLING, FROM THE WASHINGTON POST: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Republicans in Congress?(Asked of 1/2 a sample) (Date)2/14/99(F)39(U)46(No opinion)15 COMPARED TO: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the Republicans in Congress, or don't you know enough to say? (Asked of the other 1/2) (F)22 (U)30 (No opinion)48 Democrats in Congress(Again, broken into two groups, one with the simple fav/unfav question): (Date)2/14/99 (F)51 (U)31 (NO)18 COMPARED TO: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the Democrats in Congress, or don't you know enough to say?(Other 1/2) (F)26 (U)23 (NO)50 (My comments):When permitted by the question to admit their comparative ignorance, nearly have of Americans will answer "no opinion". Frequently, their answers reflect an unwillingness to admit to ignorance, or to be impolite, and have no real significance or depth.

To: Neocon who wrote (37224)	3/8/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Run, Hillary, Run! magazines.enews.com By The Editors Now that Bill Clinton's political future has been settled, Topic A in Washington is the political future of his wife. Should Hillary Rodham Clinton run for the Senate in New York in 2000? She has let it be known she'll decide "later this year." We think she should quit hedging (and thereby quit selfishly forcing other would-be candidates to put their own planning on hold). Run, Hillary, run. We're far from certain that her brand of righteous liberalism is what the people of New York want or need in the United States Senate. But we are sure that it would be healthy for the country to find out. For the past six years, the first lady has played the power behind the throne in Bill Clinton's White House, wielding the kind of unofficial clout over both personnel and policy that makes staffers quake in their boots--but for which she cannot formally be held accountable. It's time that this democratically untenable situation came to an end. All first ladies risk being accused of meddling in affairs of state--and, in many cases, the charges are accurate. (Remember Nancy Reagan and her astrologer?) Even before the start of the Clinton presidency, however, Hil and Bill were particularly brazen about portraying themselves as a two-for-the-price-of-one package deal. But as critics--tnr included--pointed out at the time, only one member of the team answered directly to the voters. Hillary's role fostered widespread mistrust, especially when she took the helm of the administration's health care plan in 1994, directing what would have been an overhaul of one-fifth of the nation's economy from behind closed doors. Her high-handedness and sanctimony played badly in Congress and helped doom the plan--and then, in the 1994 congressional elections, the HillaryCare fiasco helped defeat the Democratic Party, too. After that, the White House labored to recast the first lady in more traditional, apolitical terms, turning her into a cheerleader for wholesome-sounding causes like child care and human rights--and dispatching her on goodwill tours around the globe. But, even in her lower-profile role, the first lady continued to call many of the shots at the White House and to raise hackles with her occasionally errant policy pronouncements. Of particular note, speaking via satellite to a group of Arab and Israeli children gathered in Switzerland last May, she observed: "I think it will be in the long-term interests of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state." This clumsy (but undoubtedly intentional) utterance at a sensitive moment prompted then-Representative Charles Schumer to charge that the peace process had been damaged. The White House apparently agreed; it felt constrained to dismiss Clinton's sentiments as "personal" remarks that in no way reflected a shift in the long-standing U.S. policy that the ultimate political status of the Palestinians should be worked out in talks with Israel. But it was too late: Arab and Israeli leaders, perfectly aware of whose opinions count at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, had already drawn their own, rather different conclusions. It would be interesting to see how the first lady handles questions about this misstep when she visits, oh, say, Brooklyn during her New York campaign. She would have to make the political Hobson's choice between standing up for her view or disavowing it--and she would have to make similar choices on a whole range of complex policy issues ranging from trade to Social Security reform to crime to welfare. And what the Republicans didn't press her on, the media would. Hillary has never had particularly warm relations with reporters. As an unelected and formally unaccountable first lady she can deal with the press on terms of her own choosing. But as a Senate candidate Hillary would forfeit that right. The press would be entitled to question her not only about her favorite policy issues but also on her least favorite personal questions--everything from her curious dealings with an Arkansas commodities trader to the missing Rose Law Firm billing records. Early polls show her ahead of New York City's Republican mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and the buzz is that Giuliani would bow out of the Senate race rather than take on Hillary. A Giuliani wimp-out would be a shame, not only because it would represent the presumptive victory of a democratically untested politician over a twice-elected public official with a solid record of accomplishment. It would also validate the first lady's too-cute transition from feminist icon to apostle of celebrity victimhood. As a policy wonk trying to overhaul the nation's health care system, she was loathed by the public. As a wronged wife smiling serenely on the cover of Vogue, she is America's darling. This is a posture that also deserves to be tested in the rough-and-tumble of the electoral arena. Despite her reputation--and self-conception--as a feminist, the truth about Hillary is that her career in law and politics has been largely derivative of her husband's career; her power and her celebrity are, and always have been, a function not only of her own smarts but also of her marriage to this particular politician. Even before the Year of Monica turned her into a postergirl for wronged womanhood (in heaven, Tammy Wynette is enjoying a hearty, ironic chuckle over that), Hillary Rodham Clinton never truly personified female liberation but rather the old adage that behind every great man stands a great woman. Win or lose, entering the New York Senate race would at last oblige Hillary to step out from the shadow of the flawed man she has been standing by so steadfastly, and it would let some actual voters decide just how great she really is. (Copyright 1999, The New Republic)