OUR DAILY BREAD [not really]
William F. Buckley, Jr. , inconvenienced enough in his time by the Clintons to surrender his intellect to hyperbole, wrote last Feb that Bill "is perhaps the most effective politician in the history of the United States, but he is certainly the most reprehensible". Certainly? Gosh and golly, Grant's graft was worse?
Anyway:
There are those who point to her preposterous health plan as evidence of her ideological naivete, her capacity to fondle statist models for dealing with social issues.
Well, yes, she is certainly a liberal. But there aren't any grounds for believing she is a hard-core socialist.
SCARBOROUGH: But you're not suggesting in this book, though, that you can draw a line from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton or Mussolini to Barack Obama, are you?
GOLDBERG: Well, I'm saying you can draw a line, but it's not a straight one.
-Media Matters
GOLDBERG: Well, I'm saying you can draw a line, but it's not a straight one.
-Media Matters
PUNDITS AGREE, OBAMA IS 'NOT HILLARY'
Pundits have everyone talking about Hillary, again.
Time is against Obama, because people still don't know who he is and all the primaries got bunched this year. A longer nomination process gives the electorate time to get to know him (so I disagree with Fallows).
Some (many?) of his supporters have been wasting their efforts playing a zero-sum game, the 'not Hillary' game. In retail, you have to be somebody tangible. It's probably insufficient just to be idealized ...
[AS finds this thread, for political junkies who want to compare and contrast 'authoritarianism' from the left and from the right, and its acolytes.]
