Very interesting piece by Rachael Maddow on how Hillary might differ from President Obama in her approach to handling the GOP. She follows up on something Paul Waldman had pointed out yesterday-and I had written my own piece on that. How to deal with GOP obstruction.
UPDATE: Here is Rachel's piece.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/hillary-clinton-ready-to-take-on-republicans-544751171939
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/paul-waldman-on-elephant-in-room.html
Waldman had made the great point that Dem caniddates can make all kinds of promises but how do you get this through GOP obstruction? I agreed that Waldman showed the weakness in Bernie's idea that he can force the GOP to pass a $15 minimum wage and universal college by waging a permanent campaign.
Waldman is right that after the Obama years there's no longer any room to pretend that bipartisanship works in any way shape or form.
I did argue though that Hillary might be a little better than the President was in his early years for one major reason: Obama came in thinking he could reason with these guys and break an olive branch.
Hillary Clinton would never have such illusions. After her experience in the 90s with the way the Right wing conspiracy attempted to destroy her and her husband this is understandable. Obama by contrast didn't come in with this baggage.
In Chicago, even Republicans are pretty reasonable folks. So he was shellshocked by the scorched earth opposition he found in Congress. Hillary on the other hand who remembered her husband's first two years in Washington in 1993 and 1994 would have been under no such illusions.
Obama was probably stunned when Mitch McConnell declared that the number one goal was to ensure that his Presidency was only one term. But this surely didn't' shock Hillary.
Rachel did a great job of framing this. How Obama refrained from criticizing Republicans-other than the Bush Administration of course-for the problems in the country during his 2008 campaign.
Obama talked about a post partisan world. He insisted that he wanted Republican votes on his healthcare bill that made the process take twice as long and weaken the bill while GOPers never had any intention of voting for anything. Obama at the time would marvel that even things they said they wanted once he gave it to them, they voted no.
Rachel played some clips of Hillary last night. She played clips where Hillary went after the GOP. I mentioned this myself last night. I argued that she was already looking ahead to the general election.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/hillarys-debate-last-night-was-almost.html
I think that's right but I also think that Rachel picked up on an added dimension. At the end when Anderson Cooper asked about enemies, Hillary said she's proudest of her GOP enemy.
She was on this meme all night. Rachel played a clip where HRC vowed to 'Take the fight to the Republican enemy.'
She is sometimes criticized as being too hawkish but this is one way I think her hawkishness will be welcome.
Perhaps this is why even a conservative magazine like the National Interest which warns GOPers that they ought to be scared of her.
"The Vegas debate should be sounding alarms in the GOP. One thing seems clear: the new Clinton that emerged last night is unlikely to be taken down by House Republicans poring over her emails."
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-the-gop-should-fear-hillary-clinton-14076
UPDATE: Here is Rachel's piece.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/hillary-clinton-ready-to-take-on-republicans-544751171939
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/paul-waldman-on-elephant-in-room.html
Waldman had made the great point that Dem caniddates can make all kinds of promises but how do you get this through GOP obstruction? I agreed that Waldman showed the weakness in Bernie's idea that he can force the GOP to pass a $15 minimum wage and universal college by waging a permanent campaign.
Waldman is right that after the Obama years there's no longer any room to pretend that bipartisanship works in any way shape or form.
I did argue though that Hillary might be a little better than the President was in his early years for one major reason: Obama came in thinking he could reason with these guys and break an olive branch.
Hillary Clinton would never have such illusions. After her experience in the 90s with the way the Right wing conspiracy attempted to destroy her and her husband this is understandable. Obama by contrast didn't come in with this baggage.
In Chicago, even Republicans are pretty reasonable folks. So he was shellshocked by the scorched earth opposition he found in Congress. Hillary on the other hand who remembered her husband's first two years in Washington in 1993 and 1994 would have been under no such illusions.
Obama was probably stunned when Mitch McConnell declared that the number one goal was to ensure that his Presidency was only one term. But this surely didn't' shock Hillary.
Rachel did a great job of framing this. How Obama refrained from criticizing Republicans-other than the Bush Administration of course-for the problems in the country during his 2008 campaign.
Obama talked about a post partisan world. He insisted that he wanted Republican votes on his healthcare bill that made the process take twice as long and weaken the bill while GOPers never had any intention of voting for anything. Obama at the time would marvel that even things they said they wanted once he gave it to them, they voted no.
Rachel played some clips of Hillary last night. She played clips where Hillary went after the GOP. I mentioned this myself last night. I argued that she was already looking ahead to the general election.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/hillarys-debate-last-night-was-almost.html
I think that's right but I also think that Rachel picked up on an added dimension. At the end when Anderson Cooper asked about enemies, Hillary said she's proudest of her GOP enemy.
She was on this meme all night. Rachel played a clip where HRC vowed to 'Take the fight to the Republican enemy.'
She is sometimes criticized as being too hawkish but this is one way I think her hawkishness will be welcome.
Perhaps this is why even a conservative magazine like the National Interest which warns GOPers that they ought to be scared of her.
"The Vegas debate should be sounding alarms in the GOP. One thing seems clear: the new Clinton that emerged last night is unlikely to be taken down by House Republicans poring over her emails."
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-the-gop-should-fear-hillary-clinton-14076
No comments:
Post a Comment