There was no Bill Clinton, no Hillary Clinton, no Clinton at all running for president in 2000 or in 2004. If the Non-Clinton Democratic candidate for president in 2000 or 2004 had been inaugurated, Naderites and PINOs could not indulge their lame “Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton” whine in 2007. But the facts do not stop the Gore hating Naderites of 2000 and assorted self-interested PINOs, from mindlessly repeating the desperate canard we debunked months ago, of a “Clinton Dynasty”.
But, cue the Naderites and PINOs. They have a new Clinton conspiracy to tout. Soon we predict, Naderites and PINOs will commence a sing-song mantra that it is 12 year old Chelsea who has been ceaselessly conspiring and plotting, lo these many years, with shrewd cold calculated cunning and unyielding persistent ambition, to restore unto herself the title of FIRST DAUGHTER.
Let no one doubt – Chelsea will be First Daughter – again! Democracy trembles.
The source of this gestating conspiracy is a New York Times article about Chelsea Clinton.
Asked which parent Chelsea Clinton most resembles, friends tick through the mother-daughter similarities. There is the habit of pre-empting questions by asking lots of them. The passionate interest in health care. The tendency to sound a bit scripted when talking about policy, even in private. The way both borrowed on family contacts to establish post-White House careers, but won over skeptical colleagues with their diligence and enthusiasm.
While funloving, Chelsea is not known to cavort around town with bottles of Jim Beam and packs of Winston cigarettes on the dashboard. Chelsea is much more industrious.
When Mrs. Clinton ran for the Senate, her 20-year-old daughter crisscrossed New York State by her side. Now, at 27, Ms. Clinton is still clapping and beaming on her parents’ behalf. She accompanied them recently on trips to Aspen, Colo., Germany and Israel. Her fund-raising efforts helped bring in more than $20 million for her father’s foundation. [snip]
“It’s ‘The Truman Show,’ ” said Jill Kargman, a friend of Ms. Clinton’s, citing the movie about a character whose entire life is a reality television program.
But like Truman, who eventually breaks free, Ms. Clinton now has her own life: a hedge fund job, a serious boyfriend, a tight circle of friends, and a permanent place setting on the New York party circuit. Lately, Ms. Clinton has been able to have her celebrity and control it, too, enjoying the perks but fewer of the drawbacks she used to suffer, from jokes about her looks to tabloid speculation about a canceled wedding or secret honeymoon. She retains a publicist, but mainly to fend off publicity; she and her parents turned down interview requests for this article, as they have for countless others on the subject.
The Hillary Clinton “Sopranos” video foreshadowed the emergence of an up to now invisible Chelsea.
Now Ms. Clinton must decide whether to surrender some of her privacy to help her mother, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. So far, Ms. Clinton is more a character than a presence in the campaign, which aims to portray Senator Clinton as a strong yet nurturing force, a friend to women and children and a symbol of progress from one generation to the next. Voters hear stories about Ms. Clinton’s childhood Christmas ornaments, fondness for “Goodnight Moon,” even her crib. The campaign’s “Sopranos” parody video included a joke about parallel parking that compared her to Meadow, that television family’s loyal daughter.
Campaign officials would not say when — or even if — Ms. Clinton would appear on the trail. “Even though President and Senator Clinton are public figures, their daughter is not,” Howard Wolfson, the campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “While Chelsea Clinton has attended events for her mom and will be supporting her parents in their political and philanthropic endeavors, she will continue to focus on her own professional and personal interests as a private person.”
Chelsea is a wonderful daughter. Like her parents she already has an interesting history.
Ms. Clinton began college interested in medicine, which would have taken her away from her parents’ orbit, into long years of hospital training. Instead, after graduating with honors from Stanford University in June 2001, Ms. Clinton enrolled at Oxford University, which her father attended as a Rhodes scholar. She arrived just after Sept. 11, and quickly banded with other Americans traumatized by the attacks. Three decades earlier, Mr. Clinton and his Oxford friends had reckoned with America’s role in Vietnam; Ms. Clinton’s group struggled over what Sept. 11 meant for their generation.
Ms. Clinton shared her answer in an earnest essay a few months later in Talk magazine “For most young Americans I know, ‘serving’ in the broadest sense now seems like the only thing to do,” she wrote. “Is banking what’s important right now?”
Her words are reminiscent of a younger Hillary Clinton, who, as the campaign frequently reminds voters, chose children’s advocacy over corporate work after law school.
Call the conspiracy stenographers, this will keep them going for years. What sounds good and lovely to us, to the Naderites will be signs of the Illuminati and messages straight from the DaVinci Code.
Many interviews with Ms. Clinton’s friends followed the same pattern: requests not to be identified in the article, followed by warm descriptions of Ms. Clinton, then moments of anxiety that she would find out about the praise. Still, in more than a dozen interviews, a consensus portrait emerged, that of a sincere, serious woman who, consciously or not, has picked up a few politicianlike habits.
Often taking positions similar to those of her parents, Ms. Clinton discusses policy more than politics, and easily summons statistics — the number of uninsured in this category, the cost of expanding coverage in that one — to support her arguments.
Uh, Oh, here we go.
More recently, Senator Clinton has called her daughter one of her two “greatest advisers,” along with her husband.
If Chelsea Clinton returns to the White House, her role, or lack thereof, could be a clue to her own ambitions. She is biding her time, say friends, who toss out possibilities: A life in finance? The Clinton Foundation, which could pass from one generation to the next? Or, would Ms. Clinton run for office herself?
Get the smelling salts! Naderites and PINOs by the bushel are about to turn purple then swoon.
It is a topic of constant speculation in Ms. Clinton’s circles. When Ms. Kargman first heard her deliver a speech at a ballet benefit, a few years ago, she wondered if she was watching the future first female president. “She is going to go all the way,” she thought to herself.
To the public, Ms. Clinton has given just the barest hint of that sort of impulse. In her essay about Sept. 11, she wrote that she felt “a new urgency to play a part in America’s future.” She did not know where life would take her, she said, but one thing was certain. “I will somehow serve my country,” she promised.
it really galls me when the nutroots on mydd and daily kos howl from the rooftops”no more clinton/bush dynasty”wtf there had been one clinton presidency and a 6 year senate term. 2 bush presidencies, a senator, and 2 elected bush governors. now that is a dynasty. degenerate nutroot kooks!!!!!
Morning terrondt & all,
When they start with the dynasty business, I just say: what dynasty? Take the Bushes out of the equation and you’re left with the memory of a Democratic two term president who brought us Peace and Prosperity for eight short years…Where do you see a problem with that?
I dunno, but Chelsea would be a wonderful addition to the Clinton administration after Hillary is elected. Perhaps, as a children’s advocate (as was her mom) for Health Care or Education, both very important 21st century issues needing an instantly recognizable advocate.
Whatever she chooses, she’s be a ‘first’ as a historical activist figure just as her mom..
good morning mrs. smith. i should not ruin a good morning by mentioning the nutroots but they get under my skin. ok i should think positive thoughts on seeing hillary back in the white house along with bill and chelsea. GO HILLARY GO!!!!
Go Chelsea Go!!!!
Today’s Rasmussen tracking # is out.
Hillary 41
Obama 23
Edwards 14
Richardson 4
Looks like Hillary has solidified her gain to 17-19 points post the dust-up.
Great!
SFTimes
Clinton avoids the Hispanic vote’s rifts
Obama can learn from her navigating tricky South Florida waters.
If sweating the details wins elections, Hillary Clinton stands to be the Democrat who runs away with Florida’s crucial Hispanic vote.
When an obscure Puerto Rican Democrat, Darren Soto, in the spring won an Orlando area state House race, the Democratic presidential front-runner immediately fired off a congratulatory press release.
When Republican Fred Thompson in South Carolina last month made a clumsy remark about Cuban immigrants, she pounced: “Apparently he doesn’t have a lot of experience in Florida or anywhere else, and doesn’t know a lot of Cuban-Americans.”
And last week she went after Barack Obama for saying in a televised debate that he would unconditionally meet with leaders of hostile foreign countries like Cuba or Venezuela in his first year as president.
“Irresponsible and frankly naive,” she called Obama’s statement, saying she wouldn’t consider such meetings without clearly outlined goals.
“She is so smart to jump on these issues because it displays how moderate she is. It positions her in the center and confirms her position as the only Democrat who’s going to get a large percentage of the Cuban vote,” said Dario Moreno, a Florida International University political scientist and expert on Hispanic voters. “Among Cuban-American voters right now in Florida, it would probably be Republican Rudy Giuliani leading, followed by Hillary.”
The Obama-Clinton skirmish highlighted both Clinton’s caution and her knack for navigating the minefield that South Florida politics can present.
Still, Florida Obama supporters and other Democrats say they’ve heard little or no backlash among Hispanic supporters since last week’s comment on meeting with leaders of rogue countries.
In South Florida, anything that smacks of softness toward Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez is politically volatile. So Ricky Arriola, a Cuban-American businessman in Miami who recently changed his party to Democrat to help Obama, immediately worried about the fallout when he heard Obama answer that question in South Carolina.
“But amazingly it’s had no impact, there’s been no buzz at all,” said Arriola, 38. “If he’d said, ‘End the embargo,’ that would have been different, but the concept that you’re willing to meet with some of those folks just isn’t that inflammatory.”
Hispanic voters make up only about 5 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, compared to as much as 18 percent of the Republican primary electorate and at least 12 percent of all Florida voters. The last Democrat to perform well among heavily Republican Cuban-Americans was Bill Clinton, who won 40 percent of the vote in 1996.
“Being soft on Cuba will not win you a Democratic primary in Florida, but can certainly cost you a general election, as Al Gore learned because of Elian Gonzalez,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican consultant in Miami-Dade. “If Obama is the nominee, you can bet that his answer in that debate will be in a commercial for the Republican Party.”
All the major Democratic candidates argue that America needs more diplomacy, but Clinton and Obama differed when asked in last week’s debate if they would commit, without precondition, to meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of their presidency.
“I would,” Obama responded. “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous.”
Clinton disagreed: “We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.”
Miami-Dade Democratic chairman Joe Garcia, who is neutral in the presidential race, said Clinton won the round by answering with a pragmatic response, rather than a philosophical one as Obama did. But Garcia said the exchange would have no impact on the Hispanic vote in South Florida. “Do you actually think there’s any chance on God’s green earth that any of these people stirring this up are going to be anywhere but the Republican side?”
LOL. While this was a cute article, it also serves the purpose of showing how ridiculous the Bush-Cheney-Bush-Cheney argument is.
Now we can tell the NADERITES, “YEP, it was all a consipiracy masterminded by Chelsea Clinton”
I mean BUSH-Clinton-Bush Clinton. I am so used to writing Cheney and Bush in the same phrase that it just slipped out
BTW, this is a major nonsequitur, but I love reading the funnies posted on the left.
I saw this Chelsea article last name on AOL and thought it was well-done.
typo, lol. I meant “last night on AOL.
Today’s ARG polls have a couple of distressing results. According to the polls, Obama and Hillary are even in New Hampshire, and Obama slightly leads in South Carolina. On the good side, Hillary leads by a wide margin in Iowa in the ARG poll.
Those are distressing numbers, except for Iowa. I just went to the ARG Web site, and Obama appears to be surging in NH and SC, erasing big Hillary leads.
Anyone have an explanation? Maybe her calling Obama’s approach “irresponsible and naive” backfired. I think that got a lot more play, unfortunately, than him calling her “Bush-Cheney lite.”
I need some cheering up, lol.
I think part of the problem with her comment was, people kept saying she called HIM irresponsible and naive, which sounds worse than saying his approach is that way.
I have to confess I was worried about how that whole brouhaha last week would impact the race. I was kind of hoping it would be status quo. Oh well.
From Staff:
This is a wait and see moment on the ARG polls. No need for any further reaction.
On the one hand the ARG polls make very little sense. On the other hand they make some sense. On the other hand they may be partly right, partly wrong, in some states but partly wrong in some states or both. But we only have 2 hands.
The ARG polls run counter to everything we have thus far seen. The ARG polls also disagree with the trends noted by Rasmussen.
However, Obama has begun a big advertising campaign. Advertising is effective regardless of those that denigrate its usefulness.
But even taking into account the effectiveness of advertising, the ARG polls make very little sense. Clinton in Iowa flying all the way to 30% (last Iowa poll had her at 22%) and Edwards down to 21% (last Iowa poll had him at 27%) is good news but doubtful because Obama’s numbers don’t reflect the impact of his advertising in this antiwar state.
Clinton losing ground in SC and NH also doesn’t make too much sense except for the fact that Obama is advertising everywhere and Edwards is advertising in NH.
While comparing polls from different poll companies is not wise these latest ARG polls diverge with too many others.
We doubt that the Battle of Charleston has anything to do with these numbers on ARG. Time to wait out ARG and see what the picture is later.
Paula & DC,
Polls are for fainted hearts. You can’t rely one poll to draw any conclusion. ARG is extremely volatile. Get ready for more bumps ahead!!
Thank you for the post. I did check the ARG polls in NH and SC further and learned that Hillary is actually leading among nonDem primary voters, which is unusual, but losing among Dems to Obama. Perhaps the Battle of Charleston hurt her in the short run but helped her in the long run by establishing her CIC creds among swing voters.
You make an excellent point about advertising, however. That could explain his gaining in those states but not seeming to make inroads nationally. His advisers say he’s running a state-based camapign.
BTW, when do you think Hillary will start advertising?
“Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton” is a really DUMB argument.
By term:
BUSH (Poppy) – BAD
CLINTON – GOOD
CLINTON – GOOD
BUSH (Junior) – BAD
BUSH (Junior) – BAD
That’s not an argument against electing Senator Clinton, that’s an argument against electing Republicans.
I’m just a born worrier, kostner, lol.
I’m glad you’re cool as a cucumber!
Paula,
I haven’t checked the internals, but if what you said was true, that internals do not make any sense at all. LOL. From all past polls, Clinton polled much stronger among democrats in NH than among independents.
LOL.
Paula, what Staff left out in his post. Those numbers from ARG would be good news if true. A Clinton win in Iowa would mean the race is over immediately. [especially with Obama coming in a weak third]
We like Clinton winning big in Iowa and tied in NH. If this translated to what happens in primary season this would mean a big Hillary win in Iowa followed by another big win in Nevada and a catapult win (at the very least) in NH and SC.
As to when Hillary will start advertising: That decision must be made by her campaign inner circle who are very very good and will have the facts as to finances and poll positioning in all the states.
The campaign inner circle will have all the facts and will be able to apply balance tests when deciding when to advertise. The team will also look at the other campaigns and their status when making that decision.
Our advice is always to remain very cool. The later the money spending on advertising begins the better since there will be more money for later. But a lot of thought has to be applied to these decisions. Hillary is well known so she does not need as many bio ads as Obama. However, if Obama ads make inroads then a response can be considered. But staying cool and making rational decisions, not based on momentary bumps is best.
The Clinton Team will know what, how and when to advertise.
Kostner: I well know the truth you are telling, and I am confident in Hillary’s ability to go the whole way, but I like the inevitability narrative better than the bumpy road narrative.
Hey y’all, Sound advice and good reassurance from admin. My sense is that Hillary and Bill have incredible intuition about things political and as admin points out their inner circle knows advertising, campaigning and politics. They are the best. And, as we’ve established Hillary is so Presidential, seasoned, experienced. I think these little Obama bumps are flashes in the pan. MollyJ says, fasten your seat belts, it’s gonna be okay. –MollyJ
DCDemocrat, I like it more, too, lol. But I think once it was clear Obama would be a formidable opponent, her campaign knew it would be far from a cakewalk.
Another thing, kostner: The ARG poll in SC also has her losing to Obama among women (I forget if that was the case in NH). That left me scratching my head.
admin, Did Obama begin his advertising blitz right after the SC debate? I know he was running ads some places before that, but I’m curious if it picked up substantially very recently.
Paula and DC,
Regarding advertising, I agree 100% with the admin. I actually believe the longer she postpones advertising following Obama’s heavy early ads in early states, the better her polling internals are.
Obviously, if her campaign sees any leakage of her polling number in early states and major breakthrough of Obama, they will be under immediate pressure to put up ads.
If they don’t do this, that will only mean one thing: They are confident with the status of the race in that particular state.
Ads can usually give you a temporary boost if you don’t follow through.
Paula,
You’re right. They picked up pace after SC debate. They must have seen major leakage in polling data.
“Obviously, if her campaign sees any leakage of her polling number in early states and major breakthrough of Obama, they will be under immediate pressure to put up ads.”
Excellent point. So if we see no such move on her part, we can assume there hasn’t been any fundamental change in the numbers.
BTW, do you think Obama’s going to advertise nonstop for the next six months? That’ll burn up a heck of a lot of $$$. Yikes.
What do you make of this latest American Research Group poll in New Hampshire?
wbboei, admin has some good posts on it above.
Thanks Paula, I must have skipped over it. Mea culpa.
Paula, still not seeing it.
Paula, see Just Hillary breaking news. That is the one I am talking about.
From Staff:
The polls are only one factor to consider in advertising decisions. The campaign has a lot to consider including what states to put resources into and what the other campaigns are doing in terms of resource distribution. Just because a campaign starts advertising somewhere does not mean there is softness in the polls. It’s all part of a much bigger picture.
It appears true that Obama did start advertising due to weakness everywhere and in his must win state of SC. In order to win SC Obama knew he had to improve his numbers in the earlier states. The ARG numbers are very bad news for Obama because if Obama comes in 3rd or 4th in Iowa, he’s cooked. Let’s remember – Obama is from a neighboring state, has campaigned extensively in Iowa and has spent a lot of money in Iowa – yet he keeps falling behind.
Hillary has much more room to move in. For instance, with the rise in importance of Florida, which votes on the same day as SC, Hillary does not have as much invested in SC as Obama. Obama must win SC, Hillary does not. Likewise, Edwards must win in Iowa, Hillary does not.
The point to remember is that these decisions are best left to the campaign inner circle. With Hillary we can have confidence in the decisions made by her team. This is usually not the case for Dems in presidential elections. Usually our team does not know what it is doing (for example, edwards and obama) and we remain jittery. The Hillary Team is worth investing confidence in. Obama supporters and Edwards supporters are the ones who have to second guess every move their campaigns make and worry about every fluctuation in the polls. We don’t have to worry or second guess.
I’m under the impression that Obama has an “I’m a
Christian” ad going in SC. Is this correct?