Posted on 12/25/2005 7:05:44 AM PST by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton is most certainly not the scheming, bitter, partisan portrayed in Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's bestselling book "Condi vs Hillary," which the New York Times derides in a Sunday book review as "a Fox News fairy tale."
Times Washington correspondent Robin Toner insists that the Morris-McGann tome is more parody than reality, dismissing their claims that Hillary is filled with "rage" at Republicans; along with the assertion that Clinton, "at her core . . . believes in income redistribution."
So when Mrs. Clinton bellows - as she did at a Democratic fundraiser in 2003 - that she's "sick and tired" of Republicans impugning her patriotism - or claims that the Bush tax cuts were partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as she told CNN in Nov. 2001 - that's not rage or partisanship, but merely reasoned and rational debate [at least in the Times' book].
And to call Mrs. Clinton a redistributionist would simply be unfair - even of she did tell a San Francisco fundraiser last year that if Democrats win the election, "we're going to take things away from you for the common good."
The Times is also not amused by the up close and personal view of Clinton offered by Mr. Morris, who reports:
"Surprisingly, this tough, combative, sharp-tongued woman often broke down in tears during her time as first lady. Quite often, her tears were mixed with anger, as they were at various points with me, George Stephanopoulos and Rahm Emanuel."
This reflects poorly, says Toner, not on Mrs. Clinton - but rather on Morris, whom, she insists, "clearly has some unresolved issues with Hillary Clinton."
Never mind that pro-Clinton biographer Gail Sheehy offered similar observations about the former first lady's anger management problem in her own book, "Hillary's Choice."
Or that even one-time Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers complained after leaving the White House that Hillary frequently "got really angry."
"The president didn't really attack people personally, [but] Mrs. Clinton sometimes did," Myers recalled in a 2000 interview with PBS.
"Not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around, Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience."
Sounds like Mr. Morris isn't the only former employee who has "unresolved issues" with Hillary.
Ha!
Well, I guess Morris did offer an optimistic assessment of her.
Quoth Hillary: "******* Jew *******!"
Maybe, just maybe, a release of the full Barrett Report would help resolve some of these issues about Hillary.
I'd say Dee Dee Myers is a brave soul for saying anything negative about Ms. Clinton!
You won't see the report in the New York Slimes though
I agree
It is quite interesting to compare the Democratic base's view of Hillary and Bill, to our view of the Clintons.
We see them both as far leftist Democrats. But to the left they are both the very definition of DINO. Was it not Bill and Hill who supported ending WELFARE as we knew it? The Welfare state was created by the combined efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson and the CLINTON's actively worked to greatly reduce it.
Hillary has voted to support the war in IRAQ. To the left that is the most DINO act possible. The white flag is the Democratic bases favorite fabric. To earn their support it must be freely waved.
What Hillary faces is a large portion of the Democratic party that does not want Her. They see Hillary as just another DINO presidency. They do not want a DINO as nominee. They want one of their own.
The fight in the Democratic party for control of the DNC was waged after 2004 and the Clinton's lost control of the DNC. Since they could not avoid the loss, the Clintons removed much of the money collecting apparatus from the DNC. That is why they keep reporting that Dean and the DNC is not doing well raising money.
But the Clintons are finding out that the only value of political money is to acquire votes. And if the Deaniacs and fellow travelors have the primary votes, money will not help them regain control of the party or win its nominations.
HIllary has a huge problem.. if she goes far enough left to get the nomination, she cannot win the presidency. And if she does not go far enough left to win the primaries she cannot get the nomination.
In 1992 the Democrats had only won 3 out of the last 10 presidential elections. The party base believed that even a DINO like Clinton was preferable to a Republican win. But by supporting DINOs like the Clintons, the Democrats have only won 3 of the last 10 presidential elections. The Democratic base is thinking, if our choice is a DINO or a conservative, then lets try a real choice... a real liberal against a Republican conservative. Since the base sees Hillary as a DINO, they are not likely to want to nominate her for president.
Her options are to come out of the closet and paint herself as a real lefists. She could make the case that Bill is the only DINO in the family and perhaps win the nomination.
Anohter option is to foster enough left wing candidates in the primaries in order to split the leftist base vote so that the moderate votes are enough for her to win.
None of those options are apt to allow her to win in the General election.
There is one other thing that we need to consider. The media is very biased against Republicans. But they do tend to report Democratic fights fairly.
When Hillary goes against a Republican the media is very much in her corner. But if Hillary has to go against Democratic opponents the media will tend to accurately cover the fight. If hillary looks a bit weak in the early primaries the midia will turn on her. If that happens in the contest for the Democratic Nomination for president in 2008 it should be fun to watch.
Interesting analysis.
Thanks!
Just a few thing about this story
1. Morris should stick to eating toe jam thats what he is good at.
2. Hillary is a nasty broad, with a mouth like a china sailor, and the ability to hold a grudge for years.
3.There is more to Dee Dee Myers leaving Bubba than we were told. Personally I think he probably tried to rape her.
Looking at the Democrat field from today's perspective, does it appear that Feingold is the one who might pose the biggest problem for Hillary? I haven't been following him too closely, but my impression is that he appeals to the moonbat far left, but could also lay a credible claim to being a mainstream leftist...
I really hate all this trembling and cowering before the Posting Police.
Just post the damn thing and do a "up yours" if they want do their liberal like attacks. It's good for your health and makes our reading more enjoyable.
Turd party (McCain + ??????) is the ONLY way for Hillary to actually win.
Clinton only won in 1992 and 1996 because Perot split the opposition to Clinton.
I totally agree. I was one of the stupidos who "sent a message" to GHWB. Never again.
I don't think McCain can get the GOP nomination. I don't think he can get a conservative running mate, either. He floated the *unity party* BS last time around. I don't think he or Hillary have the creativity to come up with a new approach, either.
Unfortunately, McCain can divide the GOP voters. OTOH, he may be able to also siphon moderate donk votes away from the DNC. But then you get the scenario where someone wins with 1/3 of the electorate.
I don't see a reason to post an exact article twice espesially from the same source
Well, for one, I wouldn't have seen it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.