Jonah Goldberg, as is often the case, is living in fantasy land, if he thinks "audiences will remember Whitewater, Travelgate, illegal fundraising, bimbo eruptions and impeachment." Only people who already hate the Clintons will "remember" those substance-free matters. The impeachment, to the extent it is still in the public consciousness, is now a net minus for the Republicans. The mainstream nation has gone beyond the mostly petty issues that the Republicans hit Bill Clinton with (and on to other pettiness, I suppose, but also to matters of real import).

Amen to Jon Sobel.

And a Republican 'automatically' gets over 40% of the vote? Since when? Which Republican will that be?

And if the nominee is Obama or Edwards, is this writer's unseemly salivating about his craven conservative colleagues' coming Clinton crucifixion all for nought? What will he do then?

It will be fun watching them squirm, next year.

I certainly won't predict a Clinton win next year. At this juncture, I won't even predict a Clinton nomination. She remains stastically even or ahead of her main competition - Obama and Edwards - (I know, she's running a bit behind Obama in Iowa,) but it will likely be nip and tuck at least until the end of January, at which time, we may have, if not a nominee, a clearer picture of who remains with a viable chance.

I know there are a great number of people who do in fact hate Hillary. There are others who are simply frightened by her. Some believe that she will, if elected, hang a portrait of Joe Stalin behind her White House desk. The fact is, that Hillary is not a particularly far left leaning democrat. She, like her husband is pretty much a centrist with the possible exception of her dedication to establishing national or universal health care in this country. A lot of people including a goodly number of the 40 million uninsured citizens aren't so diametrically opposed to this.

I know that a lot of people have come forward complaining of how they have been shut down by Clinton's people whenever they openly opposed her or Bill. That may be.

However, the Clinton's may be the most embattled couple in the world. They have been investigated and had virtually every aspect of their lives pretty much since they each last suckled at their respective mommas' teats, gutted top to bottom, front to back, side to side. Perhaps they found it necessary to erect ramparts and deploy the archers in self defense.

I don't defend Bill and his peccadillos, but the investigations prior to Monicagate were enough to make anyone crazy. That not a great deal came of all of it should be remembered. Even the impeachment ultimately failed. It just ate up a great deal of time, effort, resources and, of course, money, and had the effect of sapping all the energy out of the final years of Clinton's last term.

There are any number of things about Bill's dalliances with Monica which are loathsome. However, I think it likely had something similar taken place in many western european countries, it would have made a brief splash in the press, caused a good deal of snickering, but they would have likely moved on quickly with the story creating little more than a ripple, a minor footnote. Our puritanical underbelly plopped out over our sanctimonious belts creating a mountain that should have remained a molehill.

Now, it's understandable why Hillary and her people are fighting back.

B-tone

Yeah... now she has Sandy Berger, a convicted thief of classified documents working with her impeached husband. What a great team. Forget conspiracy THEORIES... this is the real deal... a man who stole documents in the run up to the 9-11 hearings... and if you want to know why, you won't see it in the major media.

TRY THIS... on my web site... just a little ol' 30 yr. cop... I explain why he may have stolen those documents... what they likely were. Its a free read and it is the only explanation that does make sense.
You can hear my edgy politcal music at the same time...

Handy, the candidates of both major parties pretty consistently get a base 40% of the vote, at least over the last dozen or so elections.

My problem with this article is that it doesn't speculate on how the conservative blogosphere will capture the attention of the swing voter.

Lance,

I attempted to check out your site but the URL didn't work.

I did check out your "conservative music" site. Don't be checking the mail for a Grammy nomination.

All it amounts to is mindless liberal bashing. But, I suppose you have some ardent fans who revel in it with you.

B-tone

Brent Bozell may be the evilest scumbag in American politics. He combines the moralistic self-righteousness of the religofascist right with the anticapitaliat ethos of the far left.

And a Republican 'automatically' gets over 40% of the vote? Since when? Which Republican will that be?

Good call on that assumption, handy - the GOP shouldn't rely on anything of the kind.

Realistically though, historically, who was the last Republican* who didn't get 40%?


_{* Not counting Bush I in '92, because of the Perot factor.}

"Realistically though, historically, who was the last Republican* who didn't get 40%?"

Bush would have no chance of being re-elected in 2008 (if that was allowed.)

Bush's waterloo is the Iraq War and his failed foreign policy.

Giuliani and Romney are proposing what sounds like more of the same.

So, how can they expect more support than Bush would get?

It was the "automatically" I was objecting to, not the 40% figure itself.

But instead of thinking up new ways to go negative to get that last 11%, the Republicans might try coming up with a positive, inclusive message that doesn't turn 49% or more of the populace off.

They won't bother to try, however.

You guys are amazing. A former Democratic governor of Arkansas went to prison because of Whitewater. The impeachement of Bill Clinton failed because the Democratic party stood 100% behind the president, ignoring the facts. Apparently the Bar was not so blind when they examined the evidence. Has he gotten his law license renewed yet?

Howard

Amongst the not guilty voters were also ten republicans including one Fred Thompson. I don't deny that a great number of people hate both the Clintons. Some of it is probably deserved. But the fact is, that a great number of people also stand by them, warts and all. I'm sure it's puzzling, even maddening to their detractors, but then, I can't imagine how anyone could have ever, and certainly not now think that George Bush is anything but an inept, inarticulate idiot. But that's just me (and perhaps around another 60 million unhappy voters.)

B-tone