Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hershey Highway | In Seattle We Can Ride the SLU... »

Monday, September 24, 2007

Bush’s Pick: Clinton

posted by on September 24 at 13:34 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, breaking his rule not to talk about presidential politics, says he believes Hillary Rodham Clinton will defeat Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries.

UPDATE: Candidate Chris Dodd’s somewhat cryptic response:

I can understand why the President would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee.

RSS icon Comments


He hopes. All the GOPers want big bad Hillary to win. It's the only chance they have.

Posted by monkey | September 24, 2007 1:46 PM

I see a possible uptick for Obama in the polls from this. It's kind of like getting an endorsement from the KKK.

Posted by tsm | September 24, 2007 1:53 PM

I'll file that with "Weapons of mass destruction," "Greeted as liberators," and "Mission accomplished."

Posted by Greg | September 24, 2007 2:03 PM

I do not care what dirt the get on Obama, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE OBAMA GETS THE NOMINATION!!!! Even if that means cheating and massive mud slinging against Hillary.

So let me begin, Hillary IS a militant lesbian who will attack Iran!!! Hillary wants war with Iran!! And let's see....what else can we say?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 24, 2007 2:04 PM

Slow Chris Crocker news day, Eli?

Posted by Clint | September 24, 2007 2:05 PM

I think you guys are seriously underestimating Hillary. Really. Bush said she'd win because it's kind of ... obvious. She leads polls by 20%. So far, she has run an amazing campaign. And if she continues to run this well after the primaries, she'll win. Mark my words.

Posted by arduous | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM

Dodd is seriously going to be eating those words in a few months.

Posted by E. Steven | September 24, 2007 2:20 PM

Uh huh, @6. Just as Howard Dean was clearly headed to victory in October 2003.

What matters is who wins IA and NH, and primaries in those little states can be quite unpredictable. No one saw Kerry coming before Iowa last time around.

Posted by tsm | September 24, 2007 2:29 PM

Is the presumption here that Bush is advocating Hillary because... he thinks telling the Democrats to endorse Hillary will CAUSE them to endorse Hillary? He thinks his recommendation has positive causation with Democratic voters? Is this really what you Hills-haters are arguing?

Posted by Big Sven | September 24, 2007 2:29 PM

A Hillary nomination means the following:

The fundamentalist Christians will vote against her no matter who the GOP fields. They hate Hillary far worse than Bill. (Jerry Falwell was right about that aspect of Hillary Clinton unfortunately)

Secondly, Hillary will alienate the liberal base of the Demoractic Party many of whom will support a third party candidate. If Obama gets the nod (please plese!!) the liberal base will turn out to support him. They will not be as enthused to support Hillary.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 24, 2007 2:39 PM

Here's a tidbit for all Gore fans out there. Some interesting things on the horizon.

Posted by Gabriel | September 24, 2007 2:41 PM


Before you get all breathless over Gore, let’s review his “advocacy” of gay issues:

“At the outset of his Congressional career in 1976, Gore called homosexuality "abnormal." In 1980 he voted for an amendment prohibiting the Legal Services Corp. from assisting homosexuals whose rights were denied because of their sexual orientation. As a senator, Gore repeatedly backed anti-gay measures devised by Jesse Helms that sought to deny legal protections for gay people, and supported an amendment to use HIV tests to discriminate against immigrants and people seeking health insurance. Even worse, Gore voted with Helms to restore the anti-gay sodomy law in the District of Columbia after the local city council tried to repeal it.” The Weekly News (Miami) on August 31, 2000

Gore = Helms… Don’t forget that.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | September 24, 2007 2:53 PM

This is all meaningless.

It's either Gore or Obama for Pres - the question is will they let Clinton be VP or do the best thing for America and have Gore/Obama or Obama/Gore instead?

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 24, 2007 3:05 PM

@13 Gore would never settle for being VP again. And it would be crazy for the much less-experienced Obama to take the top of the ticket when Gore is easily the best possible Democratic candidate right now.

Posted by Gabriel | September 24, 2007 3:14 PM

confidential to everyone in these comment threads who keep on hyping gore: give it up already. anyone (in either party) who is not currently actively running and raising money for the nomination of their respective party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated. it is TOO LATE for gore (and gingrich, or any other "savior") to jump in to the race and have any hope of being competitive. serious campaigns just don't magically materialize overnight, and all the finite campaign resources (staff, dollars, etc.) in each party are already pretty much sewn up by the current crop top tier candidates. there is no possible way for someone else to jump in, unless they happen to have an extra $100M lying around (gore doesn't), or one or more of the current frontrunners seriously implodes (very slim chance). for better or worse, the 08 dem nominee will either be HRC or obama with a slim chance for edwards, if he wins iowa and wins either new hampshire or south carolina.

@11 IMHO, winning a nobel (and an oscar) makes gore even less electable than he was in 2000. the republican smear machine would use those awards as further proof that gore is an elitist, and the great majority of middle america would buy into it.

Posted by chris | September 24, 2007 3:24 PM

An open letter to the guy who repeatedly commands Gore supporters to give it up already.

Dear guy who repeatedly commands Gore supporters to give it up already,



Posted by elenchos | September 24, 2007 3:30 PM

@ 16. gore's an amazing man. no doubt about that, and in a perfect world he'd be our president. however, he's not, and he's not running. for the first time in a long, long time, the Dems are running a full slate of excellent candidates, almost all of whom are more than qualified to be our president. i just wish y'all would put some of your surplus energy into ensuring one of the real candidates gets into the WH next year, rather than sit on the sidelines wishing for someone who apparently no longer has any interest in being (or running for) president.

Posted by chris | September 24, 2007 3:53 PM

@8, the difference is that in the 2004 campaign, kerry was the annointed one originally, and dean was the upstart that gained and then lost traction. remember the slogan? dated dean, married kerry? kerry's eventual win was a reclamation of his original front-runner status. kind of like if mccain wins this election. in the 2008 election, clinton is the annointed one by the dem insiders. she is the kerry role. obama is the deaniac "outsider." so, no, your analogy doesn't hold.

Posted by arduous | September 24, 2007 3:54 PM

what @6 said. hillary's ahead by most estimations, thanks in no small part to her exceptional capability. i'm no crystal ball reader, but i'll be crazy shocked if she doesn't win the nomination. have you guys complaining about her likability and electability even been watching the debates? there's another one on this wednesday.

Posted by Kim | September 24, 2007 5:01 PM

My concerns with a Hillary nomination are similar to @10: Hillary will bring the base out of the woodwork to vote for any doorknob w/ the republican label. Furthermore, where does Hillary have strong electoral college appeal outside of NY and CA? I believe she will have enormous trouble winning the swing states in the general election.

Obama's a fine candidate, but Harold Ford was spring training compared to what the republicans will do to him in the general election.

In all the pointmaking, you guys have forgotten the poll leader in IA, John Edwards, who also mostly polls better than the other democratic candidates in head to head matchups against the republican presidential candidates.

Posted by neo-realist | September 24, 2007 6:28 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).