Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Politics Now It Can Be Told
Posted by Jim Ridley on Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
Yeah, that first sentence is priceless. If he's not a Hillary-hater, why even mention it? It's kind of like when someone starts off a comment by prefacing it with, "I'm not a racist."
like
dislike
Who's the vindictive one here? Hillary, who was fighting in the trenches at the time for universal health care, or Cooper, who's dredging up all this 15 years later to give Brooks ammo to attack Hillary on Super Tuesday? Cooper says Hillary's plan has no chance. What does he know about that? His plan never had a chance, either, and everyone knew it. That's precisely why it got so much support. Politicians could say they were for something (just not anything that would become law). Meanwhile, the Clintons were right. Cooper used his health-care plan to leverage boatloads of money for his '94 Senate campaign.
Surely you're not suggesting that the timing of this piece is politically motivated. Just the other day, I was thinking that I hadn't heard any behind-the-scenes insights lately about 15-year-old policy debates.
And, by the way, Cooper is not just a supporter of Obama, he's Obama's Tennessee Chairman. And this is the second major media outlet that has written about the 15-year-old Clinton-Cooper feud (the other account broke a few weeks before Iowa's caucuses)
Sure, Cooper is bitter. Sure, Hillary plays for keeps. But at the end of the day, Cooper does his party a great disservice by trying to paint its potential nominee as the Wicked Witch of the West Wing. Shut up, already.
When is Cooper going to stop this charade and switch parties? He's only for Obama out of spite.
Even if so, why should Cooper be any less entitled than Clinton to use spite in the service of principle?
Woods -
Cooper sure has raised Obama a considerable amount of money if he's only in support of him out of spite. Hillary-lovers: you folks are hilarious.
How amusing.
A Democrat tells the truth about Hillary and all the Hillary lovers can do is tell him to shut up.
"Just the other day, I was thinking that I hadn't heard any behind-the-scenes insights lately about 15-year-old policy debates."
Well since she's trying to bring back the same socialized medicine scheme right now, I'd say it's relevant and fair game to bring it up.
Gilbert Martin -
Very good point, my man. After all, this is the same candidate who continually touts that her experience is supposedly paramount in order to get the job done. "We need help, not hope," she cackles. It sounds to me like we don't need her kind of experience in the White House. She's seemingly impossible to get along with.
I'd agree, if the article were about the drawbacks of her proposal beyond "nobody woulda voted for it." It would be useful and entirely on point for Cooper and Brooks to talk about the debits of her current plan. That's worth attacking on Super Tuesday. Instead, the article just rehashes a bunch of 15-year-old "Hillary's a ballbuster" gripes. After South Carolina, I don't think anybody needed a lecture in ancient history to prove the Clintons can be utterly ruthless.
She's seemingly impossible to get along with.
We're electing a president, not a college roommate. I'm not voting for Clinton and praying she doesn't get the nomination, but she couldn't be any less of a coalition builder than what we've got.
"I'd agree, if the article were about the drawbacks of her proposal beyond "nobody woulda voted for it." It would be useful and entirely on point for Cooper and Brooks to talk about the debits of her current plan. That's worth attacking on Super Tuesday. Instead, the article just rehashes a bunch of 15-year-old "Hillary's a ballbuster" gripes."
It is usefull and on point to demonstrate that Hillary wasn't willing to try to debate the merits of her plan and instead simply wanted to shove it down everyone's throat by any means she could.
It is also relevant considering her constant harping about how much "experience" she has as if she were some proven manager. Cooper's revelations further demonstrate she's an incompetent manager. She wasn't in an official position of authority at that time and she was acting as if she'd been crowned Queen . Just imagine how much more imperious she'd be if she actually was the President.
Far more imperious than the current one.
Bush isn't trying to force me to participate in a socialized medicine scheme.
Bush didn't proclaim he was going to "take" the oil companies profits to "invest" in alternative engergy.
Bush wasn't the one who proclaimed that some people will have to do with less because she was going to take their money to pay for the "common good".
Bush isn't the one who wants to unilaterally rewrite the terms of mortgage contracts by declaring a moratorium on foreclosures and dictate mortgage interest rates.
Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
