Saturday, January 20, 2007

Shock! Amazed! Unprecedented!

Hillary Clinton is running for President, some would say "officially" and I will say "still." (And it looks like SAWB and I will feast at a luncheon where Sprout picks up the bill....)

Like we didn't see this coming back in 1992...

For some more unpredictable shenanigans, click here.

8 comments:

patsbrother said...

As a matter of preparation, please link to the original bet's post. I am unable to find it on my own, and I want to be sure how much I'm in this for.

And don't get too antsy for that meal. If memory serves, this bet will not become effective until early 2008.

Anonymous said...

Have you heard about the "broken glass" Republicans? These are people who would crawl across broken glass just to vote against Hillary. There are a lot of them. Her presence will bring out folks who would never even think to vote.

It should be interesting.

S.A.W.B. said...

"Takin' money! Takin' PB's Money!..."

paT should be more or less familiar with that tune. And yes, I can't wait to enjoy the ubiquitous free lunch.

Patrick Armstrong said...

PB: You can't find the link?!? And yet you admit to losing the bet here? Weeell. I found the link, and it says that you owe SAWB and I big with 10 - 1 odds in our favor. There were others that took you up on it, too, so expect them to contact you shortly.

No, I will not be publishing the direct link, because I want you to suffer through the search. A printed copy will be prominently displayed at the dining table that is chosen at the leisure of myself and SAWB. Kinkos is ready when I am.

What were you thinking to make such a bet? Oh, and btw, the bet is official right now, because Hillary declared officially right now. That was your only stipulation.

Collection will occur next time I am in Athens, and we'll even let you sit at the table with us. I mean, you'll have to be close by for harassment purposes anyway. You'd best hope it don't go on when SAWB is in New Orleans and we just send you the bill...

Anonymous said...

Listening to all the radio and TV people declare how "historic" Hillary's canidacy is made my want to puke. It's not a big surprise. She is the first First Lady to run for Pres but Margaret Chase Smith, a REPUBLICAN, ran for president in 1964.

I agree with Hillary that something drastict needs to be done about health care. In a country as rich as ours it should be available, somehow, to everyone. But, according to a high ranking official in Tennessee state government involved in state provided health care (my sister, who is an adament Democrat), Hillary style provided health care doesn't work. So we'll need a different model, maybe Hillary can come up with something better.

Contrary to the opinion of some, I never rule out a candidate based on party affiliation. The Dems have less than two years to convince me and many others to vote for them. So far they've shown me nothing but a bunch of patting themselves on the back. The minimum wage law is a joke and Pelosi conveniently tried to excluded her fishy friends from it.

The Dems are already acting like they've saved the world when, in effect, they've done nothing. As on TV announcer said, the first 100 hours were closer to 50. (Not that the Republicans are any better.) Some old story, same old song and dance, my friend.

patsbrother said...

Until you publish a link and prove otherwise, Pat, I hold to the belief that I said Sen. Clinton would in the running "at this time" in 2008.

In other words, if she remains in the race come primary elections, then the bet is effective. It is called a condition precedent.

patsbrother said...

Actually, paT, I did find it, you haven't won the bet yet, it does not become effective until Sen. Clinton is a candidate IN 2008, and only you, s.a.w.b., and I are in it. Also, there were no 10-1 odds: it was a flat $10 bet, payable on January 31, 2008.

For further details, go back to the post.

Either way, I suppose the three of us will have an entertaining meal sometime in early '08. 'Till then, tis just a bet.

Patrick Armstrong said...

DADv: Yeah, I ain't too much impressed with the first 100 hours of this Congresses' actions, either. Not to say there weren't some good things in there, they just aren't the big, whalloping changes I had hoped to see. They actually got a whole lot done just by being elected, and allowing for the removal of Bolton and Rumsfeld. But their own record is, to date, quite lackluster. I'm still hoping that will change. It has, actually, been only a few weeks, and after the last Congress, lackluster is still an order of magnitude better than what we did have.

(Consequently and not-totally-unrelatedly, we won the 1991 Gulf War in a quicker span of time, proving that when you know what you're doing, nothing should take so long...)

I won't even mention that there was no Gulf Coast Marshall Plan in place on the agenda for the first 100 hours, despite the fact that the Katrina-Rita-USACoE-FEMA response disasters played a huge role in eroding support for the GOP way of doing things. There hasn't even been talk of getting something done about that in the 101st hour.

I've taken a lot of Democratic shenanigans on the chin, but that may be an unforgivable omission.

Having walked the ground down here has, obviously, reiterated to me the national security level importance of American disaster response and recovery planning, and the price we, as a nation, will pay for inadequate leadership at any level.

And then Sen. Lieberman, who I defended adamantly during the election, decides not to hold hearings and investigations on the Katrina related Federal Failures.

Not quite impressed at all, is what I'm saying. Again, it must be stated that this Congress only holds office because the one immediately preceeding it was perhaps the worst Congress evar.

Then again, maybe two more election cycles of turning out incumbents is exactly what we need...I'm still waiting for something more impressive.

Back to the Presidential election: we have the opportunity (as I discussed with SAWB) of having a Presidential election cycle in which the cycle itself is better for America than any of the candidates eventually winning. Obama's reconciliatory tone. Rudy's executive effectiveness. Hillary's understated savvy. Newt's policy explanations. Edward's blue collar liberalism. Brownback's dinner-on-the-ground conservatism.

With a little suspension of disbeielf that each candidate isn't merely a hypocricy, a very important conversation about what America is, what America wants to be and where America wants to go could be about to happen for the next two years.