On the one hand, in my experience Joseph Wilson doesn’t call himself much besides “me” or “I”. In fact, he calls himself “Ambassador Joseph Wilson” only as often as Marty Peretz calls himself “Failed Academic Turned Well-Kept Househusband Who Ruined The Magazine His Wife Bought For Him Marty Peretz.”
Tag Archive for 'hillary-clinton'
Today Andrew Sullivan writes a short blurb concerning Ambassador Joe Wilson’s endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton for President. Here it is, in its entirety (post entitled “Joe Wilson For Hillary Clinton”:
He endorses the machine candidate. Why am I not surprised?
What does this mean? I know Andrew doesn’t like Senator Clinton or Ambassador Wilson, so is this a shot at both? At one of them? What does the “machine” reference have to do with anything? Does that imply that Wilson is supporting the establishment candidate? Why is Andrew not surprised? Seriously, I want to know.
I’ve posted previously about Senator Clinton’s campaign song contest and we can all breath freely again as the suspense is over: we have a winner! Thats right folks, Celine Dion’s “You and I” is the official campaign song of Senator Hillary Clinton! I know, I know, very exciting. Actually its not exciting at all as thats a impressively lame choice but what are you going to do? TNR’s The Plank ran their own little contest and here’s the result.
Via First Read and updating a previous post (found here), Senator Clinton’s campaign has announced the finalists in the contest to pick her campaign song. Sadly my selection, the Dixie Chicks, didn’t make the cut. You can see the finalists and top write in’s here (and vote for them too). I think I’m going with Smashmouth’s “I’m a believer” this round.
After the jump there’s a pretty amusing video featuring Senator Clinton herself.
At the moment I have no overwhelming preference amongst the Democratic presidential candidates. I’m still waiting for something to swing me one way or another (or perhaps another candidate to declare). Perhaps this is what I’ve been waiting for: porn star Jenna Jameson has given her support to Senator Clinton. To wit:
PR.com: “Who’s your favorite Democratic front runner for 2008? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?”
Jenna Jameson: “I love Hillary. I think that in some ways she’s pretty conservative for a Democrat, but I would love to have a woman in office. I think that it would be a step in the right direction for our country, and there would be less focus on war and more focus on bettering society.”
PR.com: “Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?”
Jenna Jameson: “Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office. When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It’s sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide…I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us, and I know that once all our troops come home, things are going to be better and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now.”
There is something highly amusing about Jenna Jameson saying that the Clinton Administration years were good for the porn industry but I like to think my humor has a high level of sophistication so I won’t go there. Regardless, as I continue to ponder who to support I will certainly consider who has the support of which adult film stars.
Senator Clinton is holding a contest to select her campaign theme song. All the choices are pretty lame but I went Dixie Chicks figuring the combination of Senator Clinton and the Chicks would explode the mind of every conservative in the country. (via the Plank)
The Associated Press asked the Presidential candidates what was the last fiction book they had read and while there were the usual answers (John Grisham) some are quite interesting. To wit:
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: ”The administration’s energy plan.”
California Rep. Duncan Hunter: ”The Democrats’ proposal to balance the budget.”
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: ”An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore.
Well played sirs. The oddest though was Senator Clinton’s choice, ”Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Unless I am mistaken (and I’m not) “Team of Rivals” is a work of non-fiction, not fiction like the question asks. Maybe this is a very sly swipe at the plagerism allegations against Doris Kearns Goodwin (but somehow I doubt it).
Whoa, my second post on Bob Shrum's new book, who would have thought? This little tidbit pointed out by Political Wire is certainly worth it though (and I still plan on addressing the point made in the comments to the previous post). The NY Daily News is reporting that:
Sen. Hillary Clinton's agents lobbied for her to be John Kerry's running mate in 2004, but she was crossed off the list as too radioactive, according to political sources and an upcoming book.
"A quiet round of polling helped guide the search. Hillary Clinton had high negatives - she would hurt the ticket," Democratic guru Bob Shrum writes in his memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner."
Clinton associates pressed Kerry to get her on the list of vice presidential candidates, well-informed sources confirmed to the Daily News.
"Her name was proactively put on the list," said one source.
I have no idea why Senator Clinton would have wanted to be the VP nominee, that doesn't seem like something she'd want at all. I'm assuming she thought President Bush was quite beatable in 2004 (as did I, for the record) but she'd have to wait 8 years to run for President if Senator Kerry had run and she wouldn't have had nearly the power that she would have had if she stayed in the Senate.
If I had to guess this was more a move on Senator Clinton and her peoples' part to get her name out there in the conversation rather then an actual effort for her to be the selection. Would have been interesting though, a Kerry/Clinton ticket.
In the "totally inside baseball category" of political news today comes word that Senator Clinton is dropping (or deemphasizing) "Rodham" from her name and going with Senator Hillary Clinton or "Hillary" or "Hillary Clinton".
"The shift to Hillary Rodham Clinton signaled a new investment in her husband's career as governor and president, during which she was a key adviser, leading up to her own election to the Senate in 2000. But now, as a presidential candidate, she's Hillary Clinton — or just Hillary — and some analysts say it makes sense for her to streamline her name. Dropping 'Rodham,' they contend, would erase feminist overtones and soften her image, taking the edge off one of the more sharply polarizing figures of the last two decades." (Boston Globe, via Political Wire)
Stuff like this is, in my opinion, made up shit by political consultants who are trying to earn their salaries Who really cares about this stuff? Is anyone going to vote for a candidate based on whether or not they include they keep their maiden name? Sadly of course the answer is probably yes but it still seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the people who make these decisions know what they are doing but it seems unlikely to me.
One wishes that Presidential campaigns could be about important things like plans for health care, energy and Iraq but a depressing amount of the time it seems to be more about the trivial things that matter to no one who lives outside the Beltway.
This came as no surprise to any one who's, say, breathing, but Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Saturday that she's forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee; essentially kicking off her 2008 campaign. In the interest of fair play (after linking to Senator Obama and Senator Edwards' videos previously) I give you the link to the video in which Senator Clinton made her announcement.
I'm going to agree with the comment made by Ezra Klein , and that I've seen voiced other places at well: I think establishment Washington has overestimated dislike for Mrs. Clinton. Right now I would hazard to guess that polls showing the Senator with high negatives are because of how people are responding to what they think she's like, i.e. her general reputation, but they haven't actually been exposed to the Senator herself. When she's out campaigning across the country and people get to actually meet/see/hear her, rather then just hear of her, I think she'll do quite well for herself.
Certainly she's a very formidable opponent and, with some caveats, be considered the front runner to win the Democratic nomination and, following that, the general election in 2008 (that should not be taken as any sort of endorsement).