Skip to main content

Right-wing internet gossip monger and proprietor of the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge, has attempted to spice up a slow day in the news cycle by posting a scoop from another fawning biography of President George W. Bush.   The book, Strategery: How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media, is authored by Bill Sammon, former White House correspondant/columnist for The Moonie Rag (aka The Washington Times), who is joining a tabloid paper in D.C. in the coming month.  

Of course Matt Drudge isn't as interested in the glowing portrait of the brilliant Bush, or his warm-hearted strategist Karl Rove, as he is with the Hillary Clinton-bashing that both men take part in.

Drudge has seized on several not very revealing or interesting or original quotes, from Bush and Rove (mainly Rove) and has spun it into an "article" of sorts.  Here is some fascinating insight from Rove on Clinton:

"For somebody who is philosophically very liberal, she'll be a very cautious candidate at times," he said. "That cautiousness will serve her well a lot of times -- not always, but a lot of times.

Wow.  I see Hillary in a whole new light now.

Both Rove and Bush seem to believe that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination for President, "but not in the general election!"  (exclamation mark is Drudge's)   Here is Bush on Hillary:

I think Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate," Bush said. "And I don't know the inner workings of the Democrat primary that much, but she will be a formidable candidate in the Democrat primary, is what I meant.

Rove comes right out and says that Clinton will get the nomination, but goes on to blast her for a "brittleness about her", which he sees as a political liability.  

Like so many of Drudge's other book scoops, Strategery, is published by the right-wing company Regnery, and the scoop will probably help catapult the book onto the bestseller list (with some bulk buying by Richard Mellon Scaife, of course).  But perhaps the most outrageous thing about the book is that, like Sammon's previous bestsellers, it is an openly partisan look at the Bush presidency, by a supposedly neutral "Senior White House Correspondant."  Imagine if Dana Milbank at the Washington Post had written a glowing account of the Clinton presidency?  The outrage would be enormous.  

Anyway, let them bash Hillary, she should be able to take it.  After all she's the one who, after 14 years of smears, has "outwitted" Republicans, and "confounded" the mainstream media.

For more on Drudge article see HoundDog's diary.  

Cross-posted at Dem Talking Points.

Originally posted to Clintonfan42 on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:34 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I like it (4.00)
    They can bash her and then we can pull the old switch-a-ru and nominate someone like Feingold and take the bastards out!

    "Pre-1776 mentality" - Russ Feingold

    by OregonCoast on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:36:46 PM PST

    •  Hillary won't win the nomination (none)
      She has the same problem as Kerry - she voted for the Iraq war (or the resolution to use force - for nitpickers).

      My man Russ Feingold doesn't have that problem. Both campaigns - Democratic and Republican - will be dominated by Iraq. So much easier to be able to say - "Hey I told you Iraq was going to be f'd up, thats why I voted against the resolution" - than try to explain a nuanced position like Kerry tried to do in 2004. It also gives Governors of both parties a leg up on everybody (except Feingold).

      People know Hillary, are comforted by memories of her husband's capable leadership, and she has a ton of cash. She will be a player in the primary, but I don't think she can pull it off. There is outrage about Iraq now - if we are still there and if soldiers are still dying in the Spring of 2008, no one who voted for the war will be able to be President. That includes Hillary and McCain.

      •  Although if Feingold (none)
        get it, I can't wait for the repubs to attack him, I mean what can you say bad about him other than his war position (which I agree with).  Put Wes Clark on the Vice ticket, unstoppable.

        "Pre-1776 mentality" - Russ Feingold

        by OregonCoast on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 08:26:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree she has the same problem (none)
        as Kerry, but then Kerry won the nomination, right?  Surely 04 freed us of the illusion that the average dem primary voter's sensibilities and values are those of the dem grassroots.  I don't see voting for the Iraq war as being a deal-breaker in the primaries at all.  Of course we'd then lose in the Fall.  But hey, if we weren't such experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the republicans would have to start earning all their wins.

        Bayh-partisan: it's the new joementum

        by gogol999 on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 08:31:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think she will have the same problem (none)
          as Dean eventually did.
          She's been painted as the frontrunner and as the Republicans' dream opponent.  
          If a candidate like Warner comes along in the primaries who can position himself as a more electable alternative, Hillary will be toast.  I hope she won't run since I think Feingold will have a better chance without her in it.
        •  If it was this year... (none)
          Kerry wouldn't win the nomination. Dean's anti-war message would have resonated and he would've won. He could've just banged Kerry and Edwards over the head with their Iraq votes every time they attacked him.

          Bush would've beaten Dean in the Fall of 2004, he would not beat Dean right now. This war is going to be an anvil around a lot of candidates necks.

          And the anti-war sentiment is way deeper than the just the Dem grassroots. It is the main reason that our emperor has a job approval rating of 34%.

      •  Not likely (none)

        I'd give Hillary about a 2/3 chance of being the nominee.  I'd go 25:1 at best on Feingold.  

        If you're reading electoral tea leaves from liberal blogs or your activist friends, you're going to be in for a very rude surprise in the winter of 2008....

        •  If Russ is in the primary (none)
          The activists will go nuts.  I may even quit my job and work full time toward getting him the nomination.
          Remember, we are becoming the media, by 2008 we will have just as much control as the MSM.

          "Pre-1776 mentality" - Russ Feingold

          by OregonCoast on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:18:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do wish you luck.... (none)

            But I think it's more likely to have a January without rain in Astoria than for Feingold to be the nominee.  And frankly, that's good -- he'd get crushed in the general, unless maybe the GOP nominates Tom DeLay.  Too liberal and downright negative national security credentials (i.e., lone vote against PATRIOT).

            I'm not saying I like those facts, I don't, but there's a whole lot of educating to do before you'll elect a "progressive" in a national election.

            •  The campaign will be about Iraq... (none)
              and to a lesser extent pocketbook issues (that is never not an issue). We will have about 4000 KIA by the time November 2008 rolls around.  And Feingold's "No" vote on Iraq is going to be enough to fuel a candidacy. It will be either him or Clark or Richardson or Warner. There is not a single Democrat who voted for the war who will win the nomination.

              You are going to see what I mean this November. There is a world of hurt coming down on incumbents and the GOP in general, because almost all of them voted for the war. I think people have finally realized how bad Iraq really is - they also know that we can't just pull out. We got sold a lemon and the cost of the lemon goes up every day. GOP corruption will be the theme, but really it is all going to be angst about Iraq.

              There is literally no more important thing for politicians to do than to decide when it is necessary to go to war. They fucked that up. George Bush, and to a lesser extent the GOP congressional delegation, and to even to a lesser extent Dems who voted "yes", fucked up their most important responsibility. Let me write Feingold's campaign commercials, McCain and Hillary won't even leave the gate. Rudy would be a different story - but apparently he never got the memo to reinvent himself into something that the conservative wackos can tolerate (like McCain did).

              If you think an independent is going to care about the Patriot Act more than the Iraq fiasco - you need to interact with independents and moderates more. To wit, George Bush's latest approval number is 34%. Think that other 66% cares about the Patriot Act not getting renewed? It is about Iraq now, it will be more about Iraq in 2008. If you don't have political cover on that issue, you're dead in the water.

  •  Druge is (none)
    a complete idiot and sammons is a cultist tool. Anything that they have to say on any subject is a joke.

    The trolls on another website were salivating about the story of the Sadaam tapes because of what was on Drudge's website. When the story of the tapes ran, of course, it just reinforced the story that Sadaam didn't have WMD's.

    How many times are people going to allow themselves to be burned by Drudge? Apparently, if you have an R by your name, there is no limit. LOL.

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:46:23 PM PST

  •  it is somewhat confounding (none)
    that hillary seems to mean & represent so much more to the republicans than she does to the democrats. to them she is some kind of wildeyed leftist. to me she is kind of a drag.

    i'm an agnostic, i'd be an atheist if it weren't for mozart

    by rasbobbo on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:46:57 PM PST

    •  I agree (4.00)
      They spend waaaaayyyyyy too much time and preoccupation with Sen. Clinton. And for every one of them that are pushing/hoping/making it seem like a done deal because they desperately want her to be the candidate that they believe they can defeat, good luck with that.

      Blah, blah, blah. Pretend that was something profound and that I said it.

      by niteskolar on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:51:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they are really trying to sell that she's got it (none)
        but I don't think she's gonna win the nomination.  I think, like Rove says, "the Democrats to be hungry in 2008."  If they are hungry they aren't going to nominate someone who can't win.
        •  As opposed to... (none)
          ...how not-hungry we were in 1988, after 8 lovely years of Raygun, when we nominated...
          •  fair point, but (none)
            Reagan was never as unpopular as Bush is now.  I mean we probably couldn't have won in '88 regardless of who we nominated, because Reagan was pretty popular.  But by '08 people will be really sick of Bush and the GOP and the Dems (i hope) will take advantage and get someone in the White House, even if that person isn't as progressive as some might like.
    •  I think it has to do with Bill (4.00)
      He has been the only person to really get under their skin in 26 years.
      Also she is a woman, that is 2 strikes.
      And she pulls in a ton of cash....3rd stike.

      "Pre-1776 mentality" - Russ Feingold

      by OregonCoast on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 07:51:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please please please (none)
    let them keep focusing on Hillary.

    Lol.  it's funny.

    •  I agree...this diary is actually funny I think. (none)
      They're just so rabid about her...personally I hope she just stays a Senator but it's funny what just dropping her name can do to most white men.
      •  Billary (none)
        "personally I hope she just stays a Senator"

        I do too but then again I visualize President Hillary Clinton and the wingnuts going crazy. It is such fun. They are foaming at the mouth now, imagine how they will behave if she is elected.

        They will keep throwing things at her. By the time the 2008 comes they will publish books accusing her of killing babies and drinking their blood. In a way they are helping her. They are demonizing her to such an extent that when people start to focus on her they will say she is not such a monster, she is not that bad. By lowering the bar for her they are making it easy for her to sell herself to the public. I watched this happen in 2000 during the NY Senate campaign.

    •  Seconding. (4.00)
      Let them keep their guns on her. For someone like Hillary, it's easy to weather the whimpering shrieks of the RW noise machine. When we nominate someone else like, oh, say, Feingold, in the primary (lol commas lol) we'll see how fast the fuckers can change gears.

      And then what will they do? Whine about "BUT HE WAS DIVORCED!" yeah, that'll work when they have people like Gingrich around. That he's "too liberal?" Fuck them, that's WHY we chose him. We can't risk America having someone aligned even one whit with Bush's disastrous plans. Just let them try and smear Russ. I think they'll find out that America's had just about enough of them screaming about wolves and whatnot in the middle of the night.

  •  Did our president (none)
    really say "cautiousness" instead of caution? That's unpossible! I'm so embarrassed to be an American.
  •  Sludge (none)
    The book's title reads like a parody.

    I am sure Osama is laughing his head off in his cave.

  •  Sammon is a hack (none)
    His first claim to fame was a book on the 2000 election in which he claimed that Al Gore was trying to steal the election.  He has since written books about Dubaiya that make Bob Woodward's recent books look like a smackdown of Bushco.

    "We will not walk in fear, one of another." -- Edward R. Murrow

    by Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 08:12:46 PM PST

  •  Yep, a real snoozer (none)
    "Snark!" was my first reaction to the title of the book, "How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media."  

    And upon reading Drudge's review, I wondered why anyone would bother to read--much less review--yet another fawning depiction of Our Dear Leader.  What did Drudge expect from an author who has been a bona fide member of the right-wing noise machine from his former tenure with the Washington Times and appearances on Fox News. Sammon also wrote the absurd, "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election."  

    I think the comments about Hilary are a posturing setup by the WH.  Who knows what the WH really believes?  I'd never give credence to any comment the WH staff would make about any Democrat, positive or negative. Not today, not tomorrow, not 20 years from now.

  •  Hillary will prevail (none)
    It's going to happen.  The Clintons are savvy and can actually play the media like real pros.

    If she gets the nomination in 2008 (things can happen: health problems, scandal, accidents, etc)
    then I think she will actually become President.

    The Republicans are still sliding down the slippery slope and have not yet reached the bottom.

    If you think you are fatigued at Republicans and Buschco being in charge of Washington now, just wait 3 more years.

    Thank you John Kerry.

    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 08:56:55 PM PST

  •  They are trying to bait us into nominating her. (none)
    RoveCo and the RNC thinks they can pick our nominees to their choices and tastes. They would like to bait us into running Hillary.

    They think we are stupid. Well, unlike their fan club, thinks that all they do is right (well, they have been always wrong), they think they can pull this shit, as well.

    Hillary will not be nominated......Gore will!!!

    "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

    by alnc on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:38:43 PM PST

    •  Based on that theory (none)
      We would have nominated Howard Dean.

      Remember, the GOP was obsessed with the guy and always screaming about his "nutty comments" and his "anger" and how "liberal" he was.

      So if it didn't work with Dean, why would savvy Mr. Rove think it works with Hillary?

      See, I actually believe they are scared of her.  They were also scared of Howard Dean.  It's the ones they don't think about that give them no fear.

      Just my opinion though.  Who knows what the fuck they're thinking really.

      Thank you John Kerry.

      by diplomatic on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:47:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Step Aside Hillary (none)
     I just wish she would step aside, so we can stop the distraction. All it's doing is taking money away from someone who could win, and be a better pres. 1st. Amendment rights are nothing to fool with, she cooked her own goose.

    -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

    by OneCrankyDom on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 10:18:51 PM PST

    •  She's a U.S. senator (none)
      What do you expect her to do in order to please you? Resign from the Senate and never speak a word in public again?

      Thank you John Kerry.

      by diplomatic on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:37:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site