Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Secretary of State;

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for “a path to full and equal citizenship.” And if Congress refuses to act, “as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further” than President Obama has.

“This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. “Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one.”

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal — Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

It’s a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. They’re certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. That’s why they’re dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesn’t have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole.  When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obama’s Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, we’re told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

They’ll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romney’s image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans’ animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. They’ve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; they’ve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried “Wolf!” so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

Reader Comments 0

1915 comments
hamiltonAZ
hamiltonAZ

It is not something we'll look forward to, but the Former Secretary Clinton will have to walk the gauntlet of insanity to get to the White House. It can only be hoped that the distraction by the lunatics within this country doesn't embolden the lunatics without.

UncleLeo
UncleLeo

My guess is that Hillary is out shopping for more pants suits with her 88%, no?

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Guess Jay's gonna have some more Kooky Komment Kleanup work to do today.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@MRS-MASTURBATOR @Visual_Cortex

I have a problem with serial sockpuppeteers making fools of themselves.

I don't mind if they keep this stuff in the closet, but when I have to see it? ew.


heading upstairs.

LeninTime
LeninTime

@UncleLeo  just woke……….how many CVSs and QTs did the democrats pillage and plunder over night? 

***
So I guess you're a happy little Republican voter, huh Leo?

Care to share a touching testimonial with us about how the party meets your needs?

gadem
gadem

@MRS-MASTURBATOR @consumedconsumer you vote for people that want babies to starve and not have medical care. you vote for people that shelter their money in offshore bank accounts, and that makes them moochers because they refuse to pay their taxes.

JamVet
JamVet

@MRS-MASTURBATOR @LeninTime @UncleLeo 

What is a thriving, vibrant, intellectually written, liberal blog without moronic controlls like this one? (not to be confused with contrails)

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

fedup52
fedup52

Just woke……….how many CVSs and QTs did the democrats pillage and plunder over night? 

++++

Uncle

Were you this concerned about the people of gulf coast after the BP oil spill?  You ought to know the spill was caused by deliberate negligence by BP.


BTW a lot more businesses were affected than just a hand full of businesses in Baltimore.

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

@fedup52 SO WHAT MORON...  BP paid billions, THUGS???  Not so much

Kamchak
Kamchak

Activists linked to James O’Keefe secretly recording GOP lawmakers to push Texas further right

Conservative activists linked to prank filmmaker James O’Keefe have secretly recorded video they plan to use against Texas lawmakers in upcoming elections.

John Beria, spokesman for the American Phoenix Foundation, recorded more than 800 hours of covert footage as conservatives plan to target incumbent Republicans and shift the Texas Legislature further to the right, reported the Houston Chronicle.

fedup52
fedup52

@Kamchak Pushing Republicans to further right in Texas?  Is that even possible.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

men are forced to pay for 18 years by gunpoint for children they do not want.

So, odds that td1234 is, or has been at some point, a deadbeat dad? 

Pretty high, I imagine.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Visual_Cortex  There does seem to be a disconnect between "NO abortions" and "Oh lordy these men are forced to pay at gunpoint for children they don't want".  Seem that if you were really concerned about "dads at gunpoint"  you would be for abortion option.  Of course then its okay to make moms bear children at gunpoint.


Unless of course its rape....cause when your argument is based on the bible, we all know the Lord said "no abortions, well...except for rape, then I'll look away"

JamVet
JamVet

Finn, outstanding article!

And this, the creme de la creme of it:

...this is the crime of which I accuse my country and my countrymen and for which neither I nor time nor history will ever forgive them, that they have destroyed and are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives and do not know it and do not want to know it...but it is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime. ~James Baldwin, 1962

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

I understand there are historians who think Ghengis Khan's mass murders, destruction of entire cities, was better for the political system generally.


consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@Visual_Cortex Others think Stalin's purges were necessary to bring the Russians into the 20th Century. Same with Mao. Bad things happen. Very bad things. But society as a whole moves on. It's the nature of life. 

consumedconsumer
consumedconsumer

@alexander2 @consumedconsumer any more than those less fortunate here appreciate the bounties of capitalism. variations on a theme. least we're kind enough to provide food money for them. for a while anyway.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@consumedconsumer @alexander2

I'm going to admit to cribbing this Ghengis Khan business from a guy who does a history-buff podcast I've started listening to.

He asked a provocative question: didn't Hitler murdering all those Jews in the Holocaust wind up being a net benefit for the State of Israel? (and yes, this is a horrible, horrible thing to say.)

And his conclusion was that no, you can't divorce the Holocaust from the aftereffects, just as you can't divorce the destruction of a city of a million people, and probably hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants, from the legacy of Ghengis Khan. And that if you were to ask the surviving family if they'd take their lost loved ones back in a trade for that supposed net benefit, they'd do so in a heartbeat.

Realize I'm getting a wee bit far afoot here.

alexander2
alexander2

@consumedconsumer I don't think anyone doesn't believe in a safety net ( of course there is a lot of disagreement on the size, etc. of net). I can always do more and will work on it.

UncleLeo
UncleLeo

What is Hillary spending her 88% on today? 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@UncleLeo

...I think we have this year's version of "Voted 'Present' Most of the Time" whopper, btw.

LeninTime
LeninTime

Bookman is getting slower coming up with the daily entry to What are those wascaly Republicans up to? 

Maybe even his heart isn't in it?

fedup52
fedup52

@LeninTime Leave him alone.  He is sunning himself for a good tan.  LOL

lvg
lvg

What will Big Bill be doing if Hillary wins and what will his speaking fee be? Anyone know?

LeninTime
LeninTime

One of the two party system's main functions is to give right wing trash an easy target to vent their violent fantasies.

Finn-McCool
Finn-McCool

The article goes on to discuss how we do burn down our own communities - when our sports teams win the big game:


"We do so when our teams lose the big game or win the big game; or because of something called Pumpkin Festival; or because veggie burritos cost $10 at Woodstock '99 and there weren't enough Porta-Potties by the time of the Limp Bizkit set; or because folks couldn't get enough beer at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake; or because surfers (natch); or St. Patty's Day in Albany; or because Penn State fired Joe Paterno; or because it's a Sunday afternoon in Ames, Iowa; and we do it over and over and over again."

KUTGF
KUTGF

@Finn-McCool  And they did it all without being called "thugs" by many who now can't stop using the term. 

JamVet
JamVet

@KUTGF @Finn-McCool 

In this instance, I believe they are not called that because of the racial implication that it is now used.

i.e., white thugs and gangs, and even non-thugs, co-opted the definition to work perfectly for them and to differentiate acceptable white thuggery from Those People's unacceptable. version..

Though Those People are fighting 400 years of injustice, and much worse, while the preppy little arsonists are mad that their sports team lost.

One is a noble fight, the other moronic...