NY Daily News' Goodwin: Sen. Clinton "better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba"
In his April 5 New York Daily News column, Michael Goodwin wrote that because Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) first-quarter fundraising total rivals that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Clinton has "less room for error, which means she better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba" -- a reference to Sen. Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.
In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 70 percent of respondents thought that President Clinton "will do more good than harm" for Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Goodwin also claimed that Clinton "mostly ducks serious interviews as though she doesn't want to say anything controversial." In fact, on March 13, Clinton gave a lengthy interview to The New York Times about her position on the war in Iraq. Clinton's interview, according to the Times, is "the first in a series of interviews with the 2008 presidential candidates in both parties about how they would handle the issues they would confront as president."
From Goodwin's April 5 New York Daily News column:
So despite how Obama rocked her boat yesterday, and despite all the doubts, Hillary remains on course to get the nomination. It's going to be a grind and not as sure as it looked. And now there is less room for error, which means she better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba.
But she can't get too cautious, either. The answer to the Obama cash is for her to sharpen her game and speed up her metabolism. She often looks like she's in a celebrity bubble, waving, doling out hugs and spewing platitudes like a visiting dignitary. There is no spontaneity, no raw energy for the quest. She mostly ducks serious interviews as though she doesn't want to say anything controversial. One concerned supporter described the rationale of her campaign as "inevitability," which isn't exactly a turn-on to voters.
Invention is indeed a grand endeavor.Invention of facts - not so much.Wow, since her candidacy announcement months ago, she has given one, ONE, substantive interview? And since she's been Senator Clinton, I cannot remember even one interview where she was confronted or challenged on any of her positions.
Most politicians shy away from tough questioners and tough venues, she is really no different - but it's about time all of them step out from behind their handlers, spokespeople and PR goons and be clear and specific on the direction they would lead our country. If we demand any less, then we get what we deserve.
I am all for demanding less, Government that is.
You should be happy with the lack of government we've had the past 6 years. I'd like to see more competent government, and see it done without stealing our money,redistributing it to the rich and spending us into oblivion.
That's why I'd like to get the GOP out of the picture.
You are one confused puppy if you think conservatives are big government spenders.
Are you not from Long Island? Is not your state government totally dominated by Democrats in all statewide offices and your state assembly is under the lopsided control of Democrats? Didn't the mutton headed voters of your state elect a Democrat to the Comptroller's office who had to resign after the election because of a fiscal scandal involving his misuse of state assets for personal services? Did your shiny new governor not just ram through a budget that increases New York's debt load by 20% and at the same time increases overall state spending by about 10% to some outrageous amount like 125 Billion dollars? Show me another state, any state, that has done anything similar this year. Then show me a state with a Republican controlled state house that has done the same. If you can do both, then I will buy your argument.
Otherwise, I will claim that your post is simply a pant load.
Look at a map of the United States.
Now find Huntington, Long Island and Huntington Beach, California.
That's about how far off you are.I can't tell you much about LI, but I was speaking of National government and our current administration's fiscal accomplishments.
Lets see Clinton balanced the budget and Bush doubled the National debt. I think YOU are a pantload.
Tommy- I have seen Hillary give a number of interviews and speeches, and for the most part, I also haven't seen many people challenage her positions... Personally, I think that may be so because she is IN TUNE with her constituents, and comes up with policies that most people LIKE... To me, she is a budding Oprah on the political field...
Mr.L.
I like policies like "we need better education, we need better health care, we need safer streets, we need this, we need that".......but that is all politician feely-good doublespeak and means nothing.
The devil is in the details and politicians are allergic to dispensing those out for fear of their feet being held to the fire. Well, we should be holding their feet to the fire and demanding specifics, and how they intend to pay for all their "we needs.........."
We are almost two years out from any of the candidates taking office. There's plenty of time to work up the details - for now, it's more important to see where they stand.
And from what I've seen so far, none of the RepubliKKKan candidates offer anything that's appealing to me.
I would imagine if you label them KKK members, you would still be more than fair in examining their positions, however.
I've spent a lifetime studying politics, starting with helping my late mother distribute literature for JFK in 1960 when i was 7 years old. Over all those years, I have found very little worth supporting under the GOP banner.
Especially since James Dobson and his fellow assholes overran the party.
My parents made me do the 'focus on the family (no, not with cross-hairs...)' work books for 'developing' children and I hated it! He and his policies can go straight down the toliet... and I hope they do...
his point was that they have offered NO policies... and he is correct to mention that we are many months away from elections...
Really? I thought the capitalization of the KKK's were the real point he was making.
I could be wrong.
You are... the KKK is a play on words in a word and used for humor... like the 'republican't' tag, or the defeatocrats.. get it?
Thanks for clarifying. So it's just like when Ann Coulter used fa88ot as humor and a play on words? Whew, for a minute I thought it was just selective humor/double standard at work.
Coulter used "fa@@ot" as a play on words? Care to explain that one?
Ah Tommy don't you just love the spin some here use? Yeah KKK is just humor. How did we miss that ;-) It would never be selective humor/double standard....
Demotraitor Demoterrorist Demoappeaser Democommie Demopanderer...or Taxocrats
Hey Mr. L is right... this is humorous ;-)
What's your point? We see cons here using various Demepithets all the time. I've never noticed anybody getting their panties in a bunch over it. Unless you can point to where wzwriter specifically condemned them, then there's no hypocrisy here.
Clams,
Mr. L. wrote:
the KKK is a play on words in a word and used for humor in the word RepubliKKKan
Just joining in the fun ;-)
Relax.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with it, but Tommy was charging hypocrisy and I thought you were joining in with the old double standard argument.
Of course you have no problem with it, because it embraces your name calling partisanship and you don't have the good sense to see where it, and Ms. Coulter's slur, have no place in decent people's discourse.
It's not hard to see why you're in the dark about the connection.
The master of misrepresentation strikes again. I said I don't have any issue with the silly variations on the words Republican and Democrat. Show me where I've ever indicated otherwise.
And it was you who made a weak attempt at making some equivalency between RepubliKKKan and "fa@@ot." Don't try to turn it around and claim that I have no problem with Coulter's remark, because I do. Show me where I've stated otherwise.
As for accusing me of name-calling partisanship...Well, that's rich. Here's just one recent link where you refer to Democrats as "wussies," "weak-kneed" and "ninnified." But you would never lower yourself to partisan name-calling, right?
[link to mediamatters.org]
What I said was that you saw no problem, apparently, with putting KKK in Republican, because that fits perfectly into your race baiting, sleazy card that you play endlessly. Because when someone, mostly me, disagrees with you, which would also be pretty much anyone from the right, you call them, mostly me, a racist - so inserting triple K's in that word makes perfect sense to you.
And no sensible person would compare calling a Democrat a ninny, with calling Republicans clan members.....which explains why you did it, I imagine.
And if you spent less time linking to my posts, and more time figuring out why everyone opposed to your views are racists, you'd grow into an adult.
Everyone who disagrees with me is a racist? Man, you're throwing out the crazy generalizations faster than I can shoot them down today. I've probably referred to only four posters as racists (you, Proud-Christian, Wesley, and Col.Roy Campbell), and I've backed it up every time. I called them racists because they made racist statements, not because they disagreed with me. If you'd like me to link back to some of your own racist statements right now, I'd be happy to.
Oh, be my guest......make my day.
How about just one for now? This thread is a good one, just because it has so many gems scattered throughout. You begin with a premise that's just an outright lie ("[Obama] belongs to a church that espouses a separatist doctrine") and then you repeat your ignorant "what if it were a white church" argument over and over again, conveniently ignoring hundreds of years of history, then you top it off with a few slams about minorities playing the victim.
[link to mediamatters.org]
Did you also link to the posts of yours that were deleted because you called me an "ignorant racist", and then laughingly claim that you have no clue why your posts were deleted - duh?
Oh, silly me - you can't link to them because..they...are.... poof...........................gone.
Nope, they're there. As you are already aware, because it's been pointed out to you repeatedly, both deleted posts were reposted and they are still there for all to read.
[link to mediamatters.org]
I can't possibly keep up with your incessant racist charges against me, so perhaps some did stay put........that's ok, it goes more to your whining and victim mentality by playing your delightful race card, than anything about me, so let your words stand.
Oh, and by the way - wrong thread where your posts were bounced.....do you deny it? Come on, deny they were deleted? PLEASE, say they were not deleted, I beg you!!!
What are you raving about? You're a little child. I didn't deny anything. So I've had a couple posts deleted (and then reposted). What's your point? You've had dozens and dozens deleted. So what? You're more obnoxious then me? Fine, you win.
And that's not the wrong link. Read the whole thread and you can plainly see where a post of mine was deleted, and you can plainly see where it was reposted a page later.
Distract, distract distract...
Clams,
Actually I was being a tad sarcastic too. Since Mr. L thought RepubliKKKan was so darn humorous I figured I'd make up a few of my own equally as "humorous" play on words...just to test his "humor". I fully expected Mr. L wouldn't be as amused with my examples. Sometimes when the tables are turned people lose their sense of humor.
But I figured I'd just have some fun with it, instead of telling Mr. L he was full of it ;-)
J,
The point we were making is these epithets go unchallenged here all the time - while those making them are denouncing some media figure on the right for doing just that - and despite their excuses, it is the height of hypocrisy. I love Clams excuse, well we do it all time here.......see how desensitized they've become to their own slurs, but they are on their metal ready to slam somebody else as soon as they utter something offensive to them.
Let's see if they can live by the standards they set for everybody else.
Oops, I misunderstood Clams previous post after a re-read. He was charging that us "cons" use Democratic epithets all time, not that they do.......which is still ridiculous. Of course they do.
Tommy,
I'm afraid it will go over their heads. Or they are simply in denial. Or they are just plain old stubborn.
I've decided I'll just use humor/sarcasm to make my points when reasonable discussion is ignored.
Yeah, I understand your point, but since nobody's taken offense at your "Dem" examples, I think the point has fallen a bit flat. And my post was not a "two wrongs make a right" argument. My point was that I don't really see anybody getting too upset about some poster saying "Defeatocrat" (or whatever), so Tommy was trying to stir up a double standard accusation without any basis for it.
And, T0mmy, that's the second time that you've implied some sort of equivilancy between Mr. L writing "RepubliKKKan" and Anne Coulter using the word "fa@@ot." Do you really want to keep trying to sell that point? If so, then please answer my question that I asked you above.
It's a waste of time on you big fella......because one is perfectly acceptable (KKK in Republican), and the other is abhorent (fa88ot).
In reasonable people's minds, they are both hideous slurs....but your selective outrage at just one of them, while embracing the other is all we need to know. But thanks for trying.
Just keep shifting your attacks around and maybe one will stick. Just a few posts back you were claiming that I didn't "have the good sense to see where [RepubliKKKan], and Ms. Coulter's slur, have no place in decent people's discourse." But since you discovered that I'd previously condemned Coulter's slur, now you want to attack me for not condemning both. I guess you're beginning to see the slippery slope you're on, because you're trying to establish an equivilancy between "fa@@ot" and "RepubliKKKan," but it's a short slide to all the various insults that you've thrown out in the past. How can keep trying to point out the hypocrisy of others, when your own is exposed here on a regular basis?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(what a tool!)
What was that you just said about name-calling?
That's Tommy's end game catchy phrase... he's used it on me when he can't defend his reasoning or can't answer a question from another.. pssst! (just between you and me, I don't think Tommy understands some of the reasoning and logic that people use here... methinks he's sttill growing up and trying hard to keep up with a debate)
Yeah, logic is consistently wasted on him. And following his own personal brand of logic is nearly impossible, but I think I just figured out why he keeps bringing up those two posts of mine that were deleted. It always seemed like a diversionary nonsequitur to me, but now I think his combination of narcissism and authoritarianism makes him believe that when a post of mine is deleted that means that a moderator has taken his side on an issue. He takes it as a verdict on the argument. He just chooses to ignore the fact that he's had countless posts deleted.
Tommy
How many posts have you been caught misrepresenting your own arguments or others in the last few weeks? How many posts have you continued to argue in when it's painfully obvious to everyone reading that your wrong, but not big enough to admit that or let the issue drop? How many times have you chastised other people for name calling when it's an activity that you participate in on a regular basis? You preach personal responsibility yet when your confronted with your own words you attack the messenger instead of answering the charge.
Why should anyone take your soap box sermons seriously when you cannot bring your own behavior in-line with the high standards you expect from everyone else.
"I'm afraid it will go over their heads."
Was that supposed to be a funny? HaHa. Look you and Tommy are not as clever as you think you are in this thread. Hiding behind the funny card when your arguments fall apart is not going over anyones head. It' extremely obvious.
And the ACTUAL point that anyone with the SLIGHTEST sense can see is the difference is VAST between what is said by anonymous posters on a message board and what is spewed to a NATIONAL AUDIENCE IN A NATIONALLY SYNDICATED PROGRAM. Pretending they are the same thing is ludicrous on the face of it. Its the difference between calling your sister in law a whore at a family bar-B-Q and taking out a full page ad in the LA Times calling her a whore.
And I'm still waiting for Tommy to explain exactly how Coulter's use of "fa@@ot" was a "play on words."
My guess is that will be a long wait. I see no possible play on words.
I thought for sure that you were going to pull out a Robert Byrd reference. Or remind everyone that it was indeed a Republican who freed the slaves. Those are the "normal" talking points. How dare you get away from the requirements like that...
And when Mr L has a national syndicated audience to play his word games you will have a point. As of now you have NO POINT. When are you going to stop pretending that anonymous postings on a message board are the same thing as spewing hatred to a national audience in what is supposed to be actual political dialogue? Its flat out dumb.
TOMMY conducts thorough job interviews. Whether for a teacher's position, or another plumber on the payroll, it's not enough to evaluate character, work record, and find out the broad positions on the most important issues connected to the job. Tommy wants the teacher's entire lesson plan, AND exactly what she's going to say to the students each day. The plumber must explain how each leak is to be fixed, and each fixture is to be installed.
Oh, and that interview for weatherman? He has to predict the weather for the next year. And if the climate changes, he will be held to his hiring statements, and excoriated for either "getting it wrong", "Flip flopping", or both.
Yeah, Tommy is tough on those job interviews, demanding all possible scenarios promised in the most exhaustive detail. Too bad the WORLD, let alone politics, doesn't work that way.
For example, with BUSH, you got the broad strokes, like "preemptive war". The details, like providing armor to our soldiers ... hell, not a word said on THAT detail. You got the broad stroke of "compassionate conservative", who knew that meant lavishing even more wealth on the already wealthy while allowing healthcare for injured veterans to descend into squallor?
Anyway, Hillary is getting her message out, and the American people are hearing her. Bush's 30% feigning that they "don't know where she stands" increasingly is seen as a learning deficiency on THEIR part, rather than any lack of information from Clinton. If they choose to be willfully ignorant, they'd do well not to advertise that they just can't comprehend that which average folk understand easily.
Thanks, Tex, for taking the time.
It gets pretty old, being asked by the con posters for detailed plans of any Dem candidates entire term, while ignoring their boy Bush who's 6 or 7 years into the job without any discernible program.
I saw part of Sean Hannity's interview with Mitt Romney, and it was the epitome of the generalized "mom and apple pie" positioning by a politician. He's against taxes. He's for the troops. Hell, that's almost good enough for me, THIS GUY IS PRESIDENTIAL.
Actually, he did get into detail about Pelosi's trip to Syria, which he found horrifying. This total dismissal of Congress signals another wanna-be IMPERIAL PRESIDENT, and we will never again consider such an animal. Bush has shown us the way, Mitt, and nobody wants to go there (except maybe Sean, who is jonesing to be dominated by rightwing governmental tyranny).
Agreed... and I have this sinking feeling in my tummy that ANY politicians' plans to improve ANYTHING in this country is going to require substatial monetary funds that, mysteriously, WON'T be there because of the whole Iraqmire... It feels weird to me that we have homeless people and no universal healthcare, but, dam it all!, we ARE going to help Haliburton get those CONTRACTS they so richly deserve...
The only relevant question for this campaign: Why haven't you impeached Bungle yet, and all his cohort; and when do you now plan to act on this need?"
Take it up with your Democrats, who used to complain they couldn't do anything of the sort before because they were out of power.
They aren't now, what's stopping them?
I don't recall too many democrats calling for impeachment before they were in power, and in fact, the leadership of Congress hasn't called for impeachment either. There are a few Senators and or Congressmen and women who may want to do it, but they don't have the support from either their fellow party members, or republicans to get it started.
Mainly, the support they lack is the Corporate Media (think WaPo v Clinton) screaming "Impeach" on the average of two stories per day, per outlet, for six or eight months. We have already seen that the public doesn't need to back the impeachment, nor actually even the majority of either house of Congress, to begin; there don't have to be any facts supporting the case, nor even a case that makes Constitutional sense. Heck, by those standards, we should already done Bungle, and there might even be a basis for conviction somewhere in all the lies and thefts and subornings and general corruption.
My, you sound impatient and persnickity today, Tommy- take a chill pill... things happen OVER TIME and require FACTS and RESOURCES that need to be presented in an orderly fashion... who is to say the impeachment machine hasn't started to churn...?
Hey, if they haven't done it in the little over 2 months that they've been in power then they must just be weak democrats, or something like that...
Then again, if someone had really been calling for impeachment, I'm sure Tommy would be crying "witch hunt" just like all the right wing talking heads would be.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I have been hoping for impeachment since 04. For those that say, but then Dick will be president, I say get real he already is. His turn to be impeached to immediately follow. I know a double impeachment would be a disaster but , we are Americans and we should have the guts to admit our mistake, impeach the both of them, let the Iraquis discover what sacrifices are neccessary to be a democracy and get our military back where it belongs.
That's quite a good "farvorite," yes. It killed many fewer people than "bring it on," though, didn't it?
Talk about needing a muzzle and leash...
Putting a muzzle on Bill would be reckless for Hillary. When Bill is able to make an appearance and net $100k for his wife's campaign in just a couple of hours, shutting him up would be huge mistake. She couldn't couldn't buy a better cash cow than her own husband!
Pete,
I agree......but it will be interesting to see how her campaign unfolds because I do believe that Bill is bit of a double-edged sword for her.
He still demands huge crowds and many still adore him, he is very persuasive, incomparably skilled, very savvy and intelligent, and as you say, a great fund raiser.
But I wonder as her campaign gets more serious, and if she should get the nomination, will his ego get in his or her way. He can't appear too "presidential" for some will view her as having less stature. He risks overshadowing her and becoming more "the story" than a contributor and a loyal husband/first gentleman.
I bet there are "tender little exchanges" between them already discussing how they both see his role.....interesting.
How can the man "not" look Presidential really? He was, after all, the President. Bill is nothing but good for her campaign. She knows it. He knows it. Hell, everyone knows it except for the talking heads who seem to think that a former President who had an incredible approval rating even though he was attacked from day 1 he stepped into office, would be not beneficial to her campaign? That's just insanely silly. And aside from that, think of the advice he could give her about actually being President. It's good to have Bill Clinton on your side.
I agree, it's good to have Bill Clinton on your side. Just not sure it will be all roses for her if he's muscling in on her territory during a campaign.....she ain't gonna liiiiiiiiike that.
Especially about relaxation techniques for when the Repugnants start to get to you? And being careful to collect and clean all the blue dresses involved?
Sorry, I just cannot resist, even though Clinton was my personal favorite President of the many whom I have survived.
If she gets the nomination I don't know if Bill would help or hinder - maybe both and then a washout. But if by chance she became the first woman president, that would be such an overwhelming first, such a piece of history, that very little light from the spotlight on Hillory would spill over to Bill.
Tommy. The money is already there. It is all in the allocation of funds.Maybe if your government stoppped starting wars all over the place the $ that you have already payed in taxes could go to the worth while cause you wrote of.Priorities my man. A nation with no health care is an unhealthy nation.
The money is already there? Well, then can you please tell that to the politicians who want to raise taxes to pay for their programs? Because they can't find it, apparently.
You're a cute obtuse little fellow... taxes need to ALWAYS be there to KEEP programs running- right now, taxes are supporting a VERY COSTLY program called 'WAR'!
I think Tommy is against raising taxes. Not getting rid of existing taxes. If the government spent your money as wisely as we are all expected to do in our personal lives I believe taxes could remain the same or even go down but waste and abuse absorbs all
How about rolling back those tax cuts that helped the richest of the rich folks, and stopping corporate welfare handouts? I mean, that would roll in some much needed money. Not to mention if we didn't have to pay for what appears to be an endless and somewhat rather pointless war and all. Not to mention Bush spending like a drunken sailor throughout his entire term as President thus far.
They don't need any more money, they have plenty - they just waste it and are irresponsible with it. Let them prove they are competent stewards of our money first. Until then, the gravy train to politicians pork and wasteful appetite is dried up - or at least it should be.
I agree that they do, indeed, waste a lot of money. Not to mention we wouldn't be looking at a social security issue if our elected officials would keep their hands out of that particular cookie jar and all. But remember, when Billy was in charge, we did have a budget surplus, and where oh where has that gone now that there is a "conservative" in charge of the White House?
We "did" have plenty of money, it's just that Bush spent it all.
Tommy is actually giving pretty good advice here. I don't think anyone is paying attention to it though.
Democrats would do better to get a handle on spending long before increasing revenue.
Hey polititians. Tommy asked me to tell you not raise taxes but still get the programs he wants. How you ask? Well maybe stop funding usless wars.
MMFA posted the general NY Daily News contact page. To contact conservative Michael Goodwin directly, email him at mgoodwin@nydailynews.com
"better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba"
Does anyone else get creeped out when kinky conservatives like Goodwin start sharing their apparent female domination fetish fantasies with the rest of us?
" . . . she better put the muzzle and leash on Bubba."
GREAT Idea, Goody . . . not utilize the public charisma of the man who left the Executive Office with the highest approval ratings of any US President, and is still enthusiastically received abroad . . .
Haven't ran too many political campaigns have you, Goody?
"One concerned supporter described the rationale of her campaign as 'inevitability,' which isn't exactly a turn-on to voters."
No, Goody - what turns voters off is continuing to fight an illegal war that costs billions of dollars and takes thousands of their loved ones' lives, while the Boy King who started it will neither admit his mistake or listen to a dialogue concerning their return . . . a fact the voters made plain this past November.
The NY Daily sNooze and the Rupert-owned NY comPost are nothing more than tabloid print versions of Faux News . . . the same spin, BS, and blame of Clinton as you have 24/7 on the tube
So, let's see here. The Republicans spent 50 million dollars of taxpayer money to investigate nearly every facet of the "corrupt" Clintons and found...a fib about a blowjob. Wow! That's value for the money. In fact, I'd say Hill and Bill have been the most investigated couple in politics, bar none. And, by that measure, the cleanest. I wonder what we'd find if we spent 50 million on Independent Prosecutors to check out Rudy G., or Shrubya, Or Dark Uncle Dick Cheney, or Alberto "Dr. Torture" Gonzalez? I'd say that with the current administration's record, Bill Clinton has been fully rehabilitated. He could go on TV and say: "Hey, I'm just a guy who lied about a blowjob. These guys have lied about everything BUT the blowjob!"