Ann Coulter Endorses Hillary Clinton

February 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm (frightening things, movies/video/clips, politics) ()

What universe is this?

Brace yourselves, comrades.

This is going to be some kind of fucked up ride.

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. coollikeme said,

    Crazy!! This is planet earth. Isn’t it?

  2. ballgame said,

    Um … how about this … Coulter believes the Republicans have a far better chance of holding on to the White House (and thus avoiding any chance of substantive convictions for their criminal conduct over the past 8 years) if they’re running against Obama than against Hillary. Most Democrats know that Coulter is a raving lunatic, and would see Coulter’s “endorsement” of Hillary as yet more evidence that Hillary is “not a real Democrat” and would therefore be more likely to vote for Obama as a result.

    Coulter may be vile and evil, but she’s not stupid.

  3. Daisy said,

    Interesting theory, ballgame — that definitely might be it.

    My other thought was that it was less a comment about Clinton and more an elaborate insult to McCain.

  4. Daisy said,

    One thing about your idea, though — the conventional wisdom is that Clinton is less electable, right, due to widespread irrational hatred of her. (I’m no fan, of course, but the revulsion doesn’t seem to have anything to do with her bad policies.) Do you think the reverse is plausible?

  5. Emily said,

    Daisy: are you asking whether or not irrational hatred of her (and not her policy plans) might actually make her seem more viable to annoyed and defensive democrats?

    I have nothing to suggest–just trying to clarify your question.

  6. Daisy said,

    Not exactly. I’m asking whether it’s possible that someone like Coulter could reasonably think the Republicans would face more of a challenge from her than Obama, who has broader appeal.

  7. Desipis said,

    Daisy:

    the revulsion doesn’t seem to have anything to do with her bad policies

    If you look at her pre-senate policies (i.e. those she had as first lady) you’ll see they were very “left” in terms of American politics. From the very start of her Senate career it was clear that her ultimate aim was the white house. Many of those on the right believe that her current moderate policies are simply to get her voted in, and once she is in her policies will shift significantly back towards the left. Much of the repulsion comes from the assumption she’s a “dirty socialist”.

    Republicans would face more of a challenge from her

    I think Coulter’s quip was much more to do with internal Republican politics and that it was using a comparison with Clinton as a form of insult, but she ended up putting her foot in her mouth due to the ‘bipartisan’ representation present. I think a lot of Republicans are more afraid of the potential damage Clinton would do to their policies/cause (in comparison to Obama) rather than simply losing the election.

  8. Daisy said,

    Desipis: I also get the impression that much of the revulsion comes from the fact that she’s female. I mean, she laughs, the media trashes her. She cries, the media trashes her. You don’t see her male cohorts getting that kind of treatment (they laugh, nothing happens, they cry, the media lauds them).

    I think a lot of Republicans are more afraid of the potential damage Clinton would do to their policies/cause (in comparison to Obama) rather than simply losing the election.

    Why would that be, though? She’s more conservative than Obama. And possibly McCain, as Coulter pointed out.

  9. ballgame said,

    She’s more conservative than Obama.

    She is? I compiled a comparison of scores comparing Hillary with Edwards a while back. Here are the updated ones incorporating Obama instead of Edwards:

    ACLU: HRC 83 Obama 83
    Public Citizen’s Congress Watch: HRC 76 Obama 69
    NAACP: HRC 95 Obama 100
    Human Rights Campaign: HRC 88 Obama 89
    League of Latin American Citizens: HRC 100 (Obama na*)
    Christian Coalition: HRC 0 (Obama na*)
    NEA: HRC 100 Obama 100
    Nat’l PTA: HRC 93 (Obama na*)
    Def’s of Wildlife Action Fund: HRC 100 (Obama na*)
    SEIU (union): HRC 94 Obama 75
    US Public Interest Research Group: HRC 91 Obama 86
    Friends Committee on National Legislation: HRC 92 Obama 92
    NOW: HRC 100 Obama 100
    Americans for Democratic Action: HRC 100 Obama 95
    National Journal Composite Liberal Score**: HRC 80 Obama 86

    *”na” means I didn’t notice a corresponding score for Obama.

    ** means the National Journal considers Hillary to be more liberal than 80% of the Senate.

    A couple of big caveats:

    First, the Hillary scores were derived for comments I wrote back in March of 2007, and so may not incorporate the most recent year of Hillary votes. However, even many of the Obama ratings are from 2005 or 2006.

    Second, I’m taking the list of ratings that I culled for Hillary and Edwards, and simply finding the corresponding score for Obama, so it’s conceivable that there were some important Obama ratings that aren’t in this list.

    Third, these are the latest rankings (as of the time I culled them, March07 for HRC, today for Obama) and may or may not accurately portray their overall ratings during their complete tenures.

    Fourth, these are ratings based on their Senate records. You may feel that their behavior during the campaign is more important for assessing their ‘true leanings’, or that individual issues (like Iraq) may be of overriding importance.

    All those caveats aside, it appears that Hillary is marginally more liberal than Barack, as judged by what I consider the most important progressive organizations here (USPIRG, ADA, SEIU), while the conservative National Journal regards Obama as somewhat more liberal.

  10. Daisy said,

    Ballgame: very interesting comment. My actual position is (like yours?) that it’s essentially a tie, but since I do think the war is of overriding importance (as do many of our fellows), I think it’s fair enough to say Obama is more liberal, if barely. Then again, considering that her “tougher” stance on “terror” may simply be politically necessary compensation for her gametes, perhaps they are equivalent.

    What do you think?

  11. Meandering Election Thoughts « Our Descent Into Madness said,

    […] Democrats, and we’re left with two candidates who I find undesirable, and perhaps actually indistinguishable. So in light of Edwards recent departure, I’m sorry to say I have no substantive advice for […]

  12. ballgame said,

    Daisy: I agree. My unease with Obama is I don’t think he’s nearly as electable as Hillary. I suspect the current polls which say otherwise are strongly affected by the relative absence of negative coverage for Obama, which will last just until the Democratic nominee is chosen, and then the gloves will come off if it’s Obama. (They’re already off for HRC.)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: