Yglesias think's she's either a beholden, inept hack, or a beholden, would-be cunning liar. Hmmm - which should we be pulling for?
UPDATE: This isn't a new position for Sen. Clinton, and according to Garance stems from the fact that she's a senator from New York.
Posted by armand at September 19, 2007 09:13 AM | TrackBack | Posted to PoliticsWe should be pulling for Obama. *nod*
Posted by: jacflash at September 19, 2007 11:29 AM | PERMALINKWell that is who I'm pulling for, yes. But no matter who you are pulling for, I think this is ... potentially troubling.
Posted by: Armand at September 19, 2007 01:50 PM | PERMALINKSome of us have been "troubled" by the Clintons since, oh, 1992. Nice of you to hop on our bandwagon after all these years. :-)
Posted by: jacflash at September 19, 2007 01:54 PM | PERMALINKI'm not new to the bandwagon. Back in '92 I made calls to voters in Montgomery County for Paul Tsongas (MD was one of the states Tsongas won), and have always been perplexed by the media buying into the Clinton spin that an 8 point loss to Tsongas in the NH primary was somehow a sign of great strength in the Clinton campaign.
Though given that the Clintons ended the reign of Dukakis, McGovern and Ted Kennedy types atop the party, I have often been perplexed at why so many on the right hate them with a passion. Ideologically they aren't lefty wackos - far from it. And it wouldn't surprise me much at all if Hillary tends to be to the right of her husband on a number of issues.
Posted by: Armand at September 19, 2007 02:19 PM | PERMALINKY'know, a lot of people on the libertarianish right were perfectly willing to give them a chance, up to the point where Hillarycare and the '94 crime bill (which more than any other single thing is what cost the Dems the Congress) showed us where they really seemed to be coming from.
Also, WTF is it with the Clintons and these shady NVMS Chinese donors?
Posted by: jacflash at September 19, 2007 02:57 PM | PERMALINK