Just a couple of bad leaders

Conventional wisdom said Hillary Rodham Clinton was the smartest candidate among the crowded fields for both the Democratic and Republican Presidential nomination.

The same conventional wisdom promised great things from Nancy Pelosi – the first woman to lead the House of Representative as Speaker.

So much for conventional wisdom.

As we head into the primary season next week, Hillary is scrambling to hold on to that once perceived insurmountable lead as the Democratic contender, felled by a seemingly unending series of campaign gaffes, logistical screw ups and dumb mistakes.

With her campaign now a nightmare of political misadventure, Hillary moves from one SNAFU to another.

Nancy went home after a year of failure, leading a Democratic Congress down the path of capitulation to George W. Bush, the most unpopular President in American history.

Couldn’t happen to two more deserving failures as political leaders.

The two most prominent Democrats in Washington have set the cause of equality for women back at least 50 years then I’m guilty as charged.

I never expected much out of Pelosi, despite the pipe dreams of others who thought she could handle the job. She was, is, and always will be a political lightweight.

Not so with Clinton. She was another story. She may be cold, and calculating but few considered her dumb.

She was the Dick Cheney of Bill Clinton’s administration, the power behind the man, the manipulator of policy and, many thought, the architect of her husband’s political success.

But looking back on the Clinton years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we should have seen the warning signs.

I remember all too well that infamous television interview during the beginnings of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when she defended her husband, said she believed he was faithful to her, and blamed the whole thing on a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

Yeah, right. If Hillary didn’t know Bill was screwing around on her she was the only one in the country and, as H.L. Mencken once noted, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

When DNA tests finally forced Bill to ‘fess up, Hillary turned into the woman scorned, angry at her husband’s betrayal. The act was so good that some actually felt sorry for her.

Now she wants us to believe that the woman who didn’t realize she was married to the biggest Presidential whore hound since JFK is the most qualified candidate for the highest office in the land?

And, to make matters worse, she – along with too many other Democrats – voted to let George W. Bush launch his illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

That gives her something in common with the other over hyped woman in Washington – Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who failed to deliver on a contract with voters who demanded change on Capitol Hill.

This column was edited on January 10, 2008, to remove language that, after reconsideration, I considered in poor taste. My apologies to those who were offended.)

Comments

  1. bryan mcclellan

    You’ve got to admit it was one hell of a merry go round SEAL.I for one have learned many useful lessons from all the banter.Long live CHB…..

  2. Carl Hatcher

    Heh, heh, well put Evan. I’ve met Mrs. Thompson and I’ll bet Doug gets laid real good real often. Probably a lot more and a lot better than JoyfulC. Maybe that is what bugs Joyful.

  3. Evan Johnston

    On December 18th, JoyfulC, the self-appointed guardian of civility on Capitol Hill Blue, posted the following in response to a column by Doug Thompson:

    “Doug, you need to go out and get yourself ‘laid real good.’ “

    This from the woman who castigates Doug for his use of language. This from the woman who dares question the use of language by others. This from the woman who is, at best, a bald-faced hypocrite.

    Joyful, you need follow your own advice. Getting laid might loosen up your tight-assed attitude.

  4. AvidFan

    Joyful C or whatever the hell your name is: You say “here’s the facts.” The only facts I see are the pathetic, pitiful whines of someone with an obvious personal grudge against the publisher of this web site. Your obsession with Mr. Thompson is blatant and sad and your agenda is obvious. You have no interest in facts. Your only purpose here appears to be a rude attempt to advance your obvious hatred: So sad, so transparent and so beneath contempt. Mr. Thompson has responded to each of your diabtribes in a courteous respectful manner and you have chosen to continue your worthless, anonymous diatribes. The fact that he has not banned you from the site shows that he is a gentleman but you are no lady. My name is John Reilly. Do you have guts enough to tell us yours or will you continue to be a coward who hides behind a screen name?

  5. Carol Anderson

    Joyful, I don’t know if you are a bitch or not because unlike you I don’t make value judgments based on a cursory reading of what I have read here. But I do know Doug Thompson and I find no fault with the way he writes or expresses himself, either here are in person. It would seem to be that you are obsessed with Doug and such obsession is in itself unhealthy. If what he writes upsets you so much why do you read it? Why work yourself into such a lather when all you have to do is avoid his writings? I like and respect him as an individual and a writer and your ranting and raving about him do nothing to change that opinion.

    And, by the way, I once saw him stand up to a county official who was out of line at a public meeting and he had the guts to tell him, to his face, that he was a “goddamned liar and a stupid son-of-a-bitch.” The county official backed down and apologized. So once again you are wrong: He does, to use your words, have “the nerve” to express himself face-to-face with those he feels are abusing the public trust. I also note that he does so with his name while you choose to hide behind a screen name. That tells me a lot about who has “the nerve” and who doesn’t. It’s easy to lob accusations while hiding your identity. It’s also the act of a coward.

  6. Carl Nemo

    Yo JoyfulC…

    “Look, here’s the facts:” …?!

    It seems to me dear lady that the only facts are: that you’ve got either a hair up your butt, or have been having an extended “bad hair” day concerning Doug Thompson and his “rough and ready” no holds barred editorial writing style…no?!

    You don’t seem to realize the impending danger to “we the people” when we find ourselves with aspiring miscreants to the throne such as “Billary” and one that’s already in place; ie., Pelousy a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic!

    When you have to deal with traitors or potential traitors to the Republic and the Constitution for which it stands, you don’t use “Marquis of Queensbury” rules. This is UCF cage-fighting and it seems “we the people” are the underdogs at this point history. So if you care about your territorial safety up north, then you best gird yourself for tough times in the literary trenches, or worse, if we foolishly let the likes of “Billary” ascend to the presidency of the United States. She’s nothing but a “running dog” for the NWO/AIPAC cabal and most assuredly the MIC.

    You’ve got enough of your own problems up north dealing with the necessary extrication of your PM Stephen Harper, a Bush clone and NWO plug-in module…!

    He’s in tune with selling out Canadian sovereignty and more than willing to combine Canada with the U.S. and Mexico. Nice guy huh…! Evidently he doesn’t value the relative peace, prosperity and tranquility of Canada enjoying seven years of budget surplus in the Canadian treasury and the appreciating Canadian “loonie” against the USD. You’ve got a “nation-wrecker” of your own to deal with!

    Carl Nemo **==

  7. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    Doug! NO-NO-NO! Hillary & Nancy are NOT TWO DUMB BROADS -They are TWO DUMB DAMES!!!
    (that’s a very down-right up-right way to state it)

    PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

  8. JoyfulC

    Well, obviously, I’m a paid political operative for Hillary Clinton. Isn’t that the conclusion drawn by Carl Nemo and now implied by you? Maybe I should check my P.O. box for a cheque.

    So are you suggesting that we dismiss any politician who someone somewhere might describe as a “bitch” or an “asshole”? How ridiculous. You can call anyone a bitch. For all I know, maybe you think I’m a bitch because I cringe to see Doug using foul language and focusing on people’s private sex lives, and because, unlike the rest of you who claim you don’t prefer it, I stand up and take issue with it.

    Look, here’s the facts:

    Even the people who defend Doug admit that his language in this rant and others recently has been over-the-top and not what they’d prefer to see.

    You, yourself, admit that Doug presents himself very differently in print than he’d ever have the nerve to do face-to-face.

    Doug, himself, has within the past few months acknowledged that he was part of the problem, that civility and cool-headedness was important, and that he needed to turn over a new leaf. He wasn’t successful at it, sadly, but even he has acknowledged it.

    Perhaps you’re better off talking some sense into your friend at this point. Everything you’ve said to this point seems more to support what I’ve been saying all along than to serve as rationalization for Doug’s outrageous behaviour.