What I find easy to believe about Susan Estrich is that she is a blonde. What I find hard to believe is that she actually managed a presidential campaign. Micheal Dukakis That her candidate lost, is quite believable.
Estrich is an attempt to depict Mrs. Cilinton’s vices as if they were virtues has written about the dumbest column I have ever seen:
Since when is being “nice” the basis for being president? Since when does the nicest candidate win?
Now I admt that my analyse is just a wee bit subjective. But niceness is just not a objective metric which can be researched. It is not like trying to pick the taller of the two canidates. Never the less here it goes.
2004: Bush(43) v. Kerry. Kerry plays war hero, loses.
2000: Gore v. Bush(43). compassionate conservatism. nice guy wins
1996, Clinton v. Dole, war hero loses.
1992, Clinton v. Bush(41), draft dodger wins.
1988 Bush(41) v Dukakis, nice guy wins.
1884 Gipper v Mondale, niice guy wins.
1980: Gipper v. Carter, nice guy wins.
1976 Carter v. Ford, Watergate
1972 Nixon v. McGovern, nice guy loses.
1968 Nixon v. Humpfrey, very nice guy loses.
1964 Johnson v Goldwater, Barry talks tough, loses.
1960 Nixon v. Kennedy, nice wins
1956 and 52 Eisenhower v. Stevenson, two nice guys.
Covering over a half century of presidential elections, I don’t see where one nasty canidate has ever been elected. Nixon wasn’t a charmer but did present himself as poor kid from wrong side of the tracks, as he was.
Americans don’t want a nasty president, they want a strong one. Sadlly for Estrich and Clinton nasty is not a synonym for strong.
Sadly for Mrs. Clinton, while, as Ms. Estrich admits, while she is nasty, Mrs. Clinton is not a strong woman. Strong women do abide husbands who are serial adulterers. A strong woman, would have thrown B.J. out.
(H/T photo: Slate )
Tags: BitsBlog, Democrats, Elections, Republicans
