Bill Maher showed up
on Larry King the other night and complained about the presidential race. Here's an excerpt of the transcript:
MAHER: I mean, this is the Democrats' problem. Is that they never do anything bold once they get the nomination. You know, I'm still for Obama, but I have to tell you, he's trying my patience.
MAHER: Well, moving to the center on so many issues and just doing what I saw Kerry do, what I saw Al Gore do. I thought he was going to be different. He didn't have that "I'm going to blow it" look on his face like those two did. But he's doing sort of the same thing: moving to the center, moving to be a kind of a lighter version of the Republican candidate.
KING: So who do you--who do you handicap? Do you think it's going to be one of these three boring white guys?
MAHER: I do, but I think that's, again, the wrong--the wrong sort of strategy. At this point I think they need Hillary Clinton.
MAHER: Yes. Look, I may change my mind tomorrow. I've been thinking this way a long time, but I swear to God. Not just because it's bold and they need to show bold, but you know what? I think they need the Clinton ruthlessness onboard. I really do.
I'm beginning to think Bill Clinton is still the only guy in that party who really knows how to do this, as far as talking to the American people, making the counter argument to the Republican arguments that, again, Obama just seems to be cozying up to their way of thinking. "Oil drilling? Yes sure. I'm for that. Wiretapping? Like that, too. Religious nut? I can get onboard there." I'm telling you, I like this guy but...
Bill, Bill, Bill, you seem so surprised that you're so disappointed. When anyone who wasn't caught up in Obamania could have told you all this stuff back in January. The way he attacked Edwards' and Clinton's health care plan from the right was omen enough. Voting for telecom immunity just closes the deal on Obama's sell-out credentials.
And you'd think the Democrats would have learned by now that tacking to the center does not win them elections. *grr* I mean, look at Gore. When his name has become synonymous with
planet hugger, it won him a Nobel and
an Oscar. (Oh, and by the way, all you old school lefties who opted out of the 2000 election because there was "no difference" between the two candidates--I hope all of you committed harakiri at least two years ago.)
I agree that adding Clinton to the ticket, as opposed to "some boring white guy," would be a bold move. (Where's all that "transformative politics" BO was yelling about when it really counts?) I mean, can you imagine going to the voting booth and casting your ballot against that ticket? The weight of the shame of your descendants alone would be stupefying. Not to mention that the entire world would be inspired by the election. This country is has been in desperate need of some face-saving for a long time.
And that's even more important than the Clinton "ruthlessness." But, interestingly, the recent Atlantic
article reveals that her campaign was not actually as ruthless as it could have been when going up against Obama. Mark Penn had some truly nasty ideas for anti-Obama attack ads that would indeed have been the "game ender" that he said they would.