Hillary Derangement Syndrome

[babylonsister]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/04/hillary-derangement-syndrome.html


Hillary Derangement Syndrome
by Michael Tomasky Apr 4, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Are Republicans really going to try to damage Hillary Clinton by digging up old non-scandals no one even remembers? They’ll do damage, all right, says Michael Tomasky, but not to Clinton.



Do any conservatives really believe that if Hillary Clinton does run for president, Americans will care a bit about the old stories from the 1990s? Two commentators I respect seem to think so. My colleague David Frum, in a column about Clinton’s 2016 chances that elsewhere makes several thoughtful points, seems to believe that the old Clinton White House issues could rise again. MSNBC analyst Jimmy Williams, across from whom I sat on the sound stage Monday, invoked Filegate and something else. Conservatives have spent two decades trying to destroy Clinton. They’ve only helped make her the most popular woman in America. And if they keep at it, they’re going to help make her president.

snip//

So now, nearly 20 years later, the reptiles’ and crones’ successors (and some of them are still the same people), who by 2016 will have spent eight years talking the same way about Obama with evidence consistently proving them wrong, will seem as boring to most folks as dotty old aunts. Journalists will still scribble down the things they say, but most Americans have by now tuned all that toxicity out. After all, if vitriol won presidential elections, Republicans would never lose.

Vitriol doesn’t win presidential elections. Now: Hillary could lose. She could make some errors. She may take too much for granted (although she did that in 2008, and she has tended in her public life never to make the same mistake twice). If the economy is back in the dumps, the nation may just want change. As Frum notes, more recent revelations having to do with Bill—how he’s been earning his many millions—may present problems. And one supposes there could conceivably emerge some kind of damaging Benghazi-related tidbits. Even absent all those things, she will have to do a lot of things right. Americans admire her greatly, but they will rightly demand that she make a case to them that she wants to be the president for reasons that have more to do with them than with her.

But on the basic questions of vetting and character, they will give her the very wide latitude that she has earned. Fox and Friends could bring Craig Livingstone on every day, and that wouldn’t change. We’ve been fighting the culture war in this country over Hillary Clinton for 21 years now. The right-wing failed to notice that, about five or six years ago, she won it hands down.

[liberal N proud]

1. The republicans have been obsessed with hating the Clintons since 1992

[BeyondGeography]

2. Probably one of the best arguments for her candidacy

It will remind more than enough voters how useless the GOP is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. The more they hate the Clintons, the more I will work my ass off to make sure Hillary's in the White

House, should she win the nomination.

[Beacool]

4. Clinton Derangement Syndrome doesn't just afflict the Right.

It afflicts some in the Left too, they even use similar talking points.

[dsc]

5. Oh yes

we have many a clenis fearer on this sight.

[karynnj]

7. Actually the ONLY people who speak of clenis are people like you

There is a HUGE difference between people who speak of HRC killing Vince Foster and those who think that the Clintons are more centrist and hawkish than they would prefer. It is silly to equate the two - and it will not help Hillary Clinton..

[dsc]

9. I have seen several posts on DU about Mena

several posts saying that Clinton forced people out of races. sorry but the clenis is alive and well at DU

[karynnj]

10. On Mena, there is some thread of truth there

It is absolutely true that the CIA allowed Contra drug and gun running mostly out of that airport. The Reagan administration and the CIA were involved. I have never seen any legitimate report that said that Bill Clinton, then the Governor of Arkansas approved that, knew about that or facilitated that in any way. The CIA in the 1990s said the Kerry report on that issue was accurate.

As to "forcing" people out of races, I have seen that more with Obama - where some try to make a case about his Illinois opponents pulling out of the race (due to scandals.) I saw bizarre claims that Kennedy forced Edwards out - though it was then clear he couldn't win and later known that he had major problems beyond getting enough votes. Who were the Clintons said to have forced out of races.

[dsc]

11. the latest alledged casualty is ashley judd

[Cha]

6. They did it to President Obama.. of course,

they'll do it to Hillary. But, all they have are attacks..nothing to attract.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

8. Hell, you have purists on the left doing it right here on DU. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. Amen! We need strong Centrists like Hillary who will show the courage and leadership to

promote free trade, push through entitlement reform, strengthen our military, reduce the regulatory burden on job creators and end the left-wing war on Wall Street

[Comrade_McKenzie]

20. I used to think DU wasn't far left enough...

My name is a monument to those days.

And there's still no far-left candidate or economic policy I wouldn't support if I thought it had a chance. FDR was great. Huey Long would've been better.

But life is too short to be stressed out all of the time. So I look at things pragmatically now, keep my standards for public servants low, and mainly enjoy the theater of politics.

[treestar]

12. One good argument for Hillary's candidacy

is they have dug up all the dirt, and it's all old.

[karynnj]

13. Actually by Republican methods, they haven't put out all the dirt

Why? Because they make stuff up!!

- Would you have thought 15 years ago that there would be a LONG TERM accusation about someone with a valid US birth certificate being born in a foreign country?

- Would you think that the Republicans would question the patriotism and the courage of a nominee with a Silver Star and a Bronze Star with valor? That they would make up elaborate stories convincing people that he was hiding things in his military record - the summary of which was a summary the Navy wrote at his request when he first became Senator.

The fact is they even have new stuff on Clinton - they have conspiracy theories on the Benghazi tragedy. Their were whispers about her concussion - the impacts and whether she really had one. (even though the NY hospital put out the information.

I would bet by 2016, they will have a whole new set of lies. I hope for the sake of any Democrat that the public is getting wiser.

[treestar]

14. The lies about Iraq

should certainly cause the public to question the Republicans' credibility. I hope the voters have the sense to do that.

[karynnj]

18. The lies about EVERYTHING

- Iraq
- The Navy's record of John Kerry's service
- Bush/Cheney's lie in 2004 that they were not thinking of privatizing SS as Kerry said -- and Bush tried in early 2005
- Obama's birth certificate

and I hope by then,

- the lies on what ACA does

Like you, I would hope there gets to be a time when people who lie often are seen as liars. I don't think we are there yet - and it mystifies me.

[davidpdx]

16. The stuff from the 90s wont stick given how much time has gone by & the fact that she served as SOS

Her four years as SOS will trump everything else, which is going to piss off the Republicans.

Personally I think the idea of her running should be tapped down a bit just to keep a lid on the idea. As someone said in another thread the earlier she's announced (or a frenzy about her becoming a candidate in my opinion) happens the more chances the media and the right at taking potshots at her

She has over a year and a half to decide and set her own schedule (for once in a long time) before deciding.

As I've said I don't know who I'll back and will stay undecided until the spring two years from now which is the same time I decided in the 2008 election.

[karynnj]

17. That's what I said - My point is that they will make NEW stuff up

I do think the fact that she is a KNOWN quantity makes it harder for new stuff to stick. Imagine that Senator Kerry was as well known nationally as he was in Massachusetts in 2004. The SBVT would have been laughed off completely. With HRC, even in 2008, she WAS as well known nationally as he (or any Senator or Governor) were in their state.

I do think the Republicans will smear ANYONE who runs - including HRC. Just look at how they are using her justifiably aggravated response to Senator Johnson (Teaparty, WI). They are taking her comment asking "if it matters" to be indifference to the deaths - something completely inconsistent with her obvious grief speaking of it a day or two after the Ambassador died. That is classic Republican smear tactic - take something provably real (the comment) and distort the context - often to the point of turning things around 180 degrees.

I agree that the later she announces the better. For most other potential candidates they need to announce early to get the name recognition up. Obviously, Hillary doesn't. I agree that the 4 years as SOS is an asset - no one could say that she has inadequate foreign policy experience without getting laughed off the stage.

So, there is no gain to putting her out there now unless the intent is to clear the field. The downside is that it exposes her to the minute by minute scrutiny given any candidate - where no matter how careful their comments are, there will be some sentence or part of sentence that will be misused. As she is a very strong candidate, clearing the field and not allowing an alternative to gain traction might not be worth as much as keeping things more low key. (It might also be that - announced or not - she is a RW target.)

I assume that she likely is running and see the outlines of how she will be framing her time as SOS. I suspect that she will project it as having been the world's strongest advocate for women and human rights - and as she says it needs to continue. (cynically, this is win win for her. If there is real progress, which will be really difficult, no matter who in the world does it, it will be claimed that she started it. If nothing progresses or thing get worse (ie when we leave Afghanistan), it will be that others did not fight as hard for it.) This is not the typical role of the SOS, but politically it is likely to play well.

[treestar]

19. You have good points

They will beat Benghazi onto her but they may have already beat that to death. By not being SOS these four years, they won't have any new dirt. Granted they will scrutinize every comment, but as you pointed out, Hillary already has national presence and she can get away with more. Also with Faux and Rush ratings going down, I'm starting to get some hope people are finally seeing them for the lying liars who lie they are.

[Beacool]

21. I'm surprised that they are not blaming yesterday's 5 deaths in Afghanistan on Kerry and Obama.

The tin foil crowd fell asleep at the wheel on that one.

[karynnj]

22. The reaons is it is Afghanistan - and there is an open war and has been since 2001

One that they agree with. In addition, though a foreign serve officer died - it was not specifically an attack on the US consulate or embassy. In addition, there is no ongoing Presidential election, The key point about Benghazi is that it happened right before the election and the Republicans view (lunatic view that it is) is that if the American public knew the full truth they would have rejected Obama, They then attack Susan Rice for covering up and Hillary for not speaking for months and then they twist her comment into something that NO official would have meant.

I suspect that the US attention span on Benghazi was over some time last fall.

[Hekate]

23. LOL, I thought you were referring to DU for a minute

Good article by Tomasky, btw.

[Jennicut]

24. Hillary would not be first choice to be the Dem nominee but

she would be about 1,000 times better then the nuts on the right. And the crap flinging just makes the right look out of touch and ridiculous. In a recent Marist poll both her and Biden would beat Rubio or Rand. Christie matches up more closely. But I have a feeling the Repubs will go the "we need a more conservative candidate" route.