[From Loaded Mouth]
I generally like Salon, enough to be one of their paid subscribers. But sometimes their partisan Democrat bias makes my bullshit-meter explode. Case in point, this Farhad Manjoo War Room post about poll numbers shining favorably on Hillary Clinton, which ends with this paragraph:
Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, tells the paper that “over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated… and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably.” Is it possible that the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity we suffered during the 1990s wasn’t so bad after all?
Yes, I know the “long national nightmare of peace and prosperity” line is a joke from the Onion, but let’s cut the crap. There was peace during Clinton’s term in office? Well, if peace means that Bill didn’t commit any overt actions of war, then yes; but I’d have to say that this is a pretty narrow defintion of “peace” during a time period where we saw genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, a couple US embassy bombings, Clinton ordering air attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan, and not to mention the continuing aerial assault on Iraq that, along with oppressive sanctions, helped to leave hundreds of thousands of people dead — in fact, more than Bush has killed. As for the prosperity, I have no doubts that Clinton would handle today’s economy better than Bush, but let’s get real. Clinton received huge benefits from the computer boom and all the jobs which the Y2K problem created. If he managed the economy today, it certainly wouldn’t reflect the prosperity of the 90s, especially since he supports the same globalization pacts which have sent so many jobs overseas.
As for Hillary’s chances, please. She’ll never be elected, and relying on high poll numbers from a time period when Bush is seeing his lowest approval rating is just plain foolish, especially since the 2008 election is over 3 years away and the Democratic nominee won’t be running against Bush. But we also have to remember that Clinton never won 50% of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996. In 1992, Perot split the right’s vote. Poppy Bush would have been reelected if it weren’t for Perot. In 1996, Dole was a weak candidate, and Perot’s campaign was certainly weaker, but Clinton still didn’t get 50%. I hate to burst the Democrat’s bubble, but the Big Dog wasn’t that popular. Thinking that Hillary can repeat his success without a third party spoiler to split the right’s vote is silly, especially knowing how pumped up the right is to face her. It’s the race they’re waiting for and nominating her in 2008 will only lead to the Democrats slaughter at the ballot box. I certainly hope that members of the party take their partisan blindfolds off to have a look at the current reality before inadvertantly creating their own.
