"24" Creator Scoffs at Hillary's Chances
by Motte Brown on 11/13/2007 at 10:14 AM
Earlier this month, Denise asked "What are Clinton's Chances?" after Hillary's poor debate performance at Drexel University in Philadelphia. And now we have the definitive answer, you are "nuts" if you think she can win. At least so said the executive producer of "24" Joel Surnow.
Here's the exact quote from a question and answer session with the Young America's Foundation last Saturday as reported by The Washington Times,
"I'm not even sure that Hillary is a fait accompli [to win the Democratic Party nomination] at this point," Mr. Surnow told a group of reporters and bloggers in a wide-ranging interview during the Young America's Foundation's (YAF) West Coast Leadership Conference. "Are we nuts thinking Hillary Clinton could be president of this country? Honest to God, just stand back and think about it."
He may be right. NYDailyNews.com has an article calling Hillary "vulnerable," saying the "bruises" she suffered in the debate last month are starting to show. And that her lead has "slipped" in some of the polls since.
Articles claiming vulnerability and narrowing polls are one thing. But when the man who created "Whatever It Takes" Jack Bauer says she's out, then it must be true.
1. Carrie said the following at 10:40 AM on Nov 13:
I really have my doubts that Hillary will win in 2008. The people get to decide and there are a lot of crazy people in the world, but I don't know if they will have the sense to find their way to the primary polls.
And, yes, I do believe you'd have to be crazy if you truly believe Hillary would make a good president.
It's not because she is a woman, but that she's close to being evil incarnate. . . and I thought this before I was familiar with her stance on abortion.
2. Kit said the following at 10:53 AM on Nov 13:
I'm not sure about the relevance of this post. We don't need to take the word of Joel Surnow as if it were the word of God. I think we are all old enough to discern our own opinions about these things. I don't think he's a politician, and his opinion doensn't really seem all that relevant to me than anyone else's.
As for Hillary, it may not be certain that she will win the nomination. As a democrat, I have followed the debates closely and her performance was pretty poor at the last one. She doesn't seem to be able to take a stand for her fairly liberal beliefs; by "softening" them in order to appeal to the "middle of the road" sorts, she is making herself weaker than if she just took a stand (ie, Guiliani) for what she really believed. She has some really great economic platforms that she is running (socialized health care and caps on healthcare expenses so a family isn't forced into bankruptcy paying medical bills, improved public education and schools, the creation of five million new jobs in conjunction with an effort to fight global warming, repairing our *terribly* damaged international reputation, etc., etc.), but she doesn't seem to be able to stand up to these platforms in the face of a debate. Her popularity seems to be waning in the face of those with better arguments or better "devil's advocate" skills: John Edwards, Barak Obama, etc.
It will be an interesting election, whatever happens...
3. Mandi said the following at 11:12 AM on Nov 13:
I have to wonder whether this is just some planted public undermining, so as to actually shore up support for a supposed underdog. I don't know what Mr. Surnow's political leanings are, but more people might actually be motivated to support her if she gets too much pity, or too many people doubt her. After all, on election day it's all about GOTV. Just a thought.
4. Louise said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 13:
This may be off topic but I believe
Guiliani doensn't have a chance.
Two divorces (with minor children from the second) and a subsequent third marriage are just too much baggage for a presidential candidate.
5. obewan said the following at 11:36 AM on Nov 13:
I don't see things changing. She had a huge lead over the other contenders and can afford to lose a substantial percentage before she would lose the primary. Furthermore, the evangelicals are so divided that my fear is that if Romney Does not win the primary, we will have Hilary. Romney is the only pro-life candiate with a substantial lead in the polls.
6. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 1:01 PM on Nov 13:
This surprises me in no way. Joel Surnow is extremely right-wing- he created the short-lived, tremendously unfunny "Half Hour News Hour" on FOX News, which was a conservative news-parody show (think Daily Show minus everything that makes that show great). He's made his politics clear- so him attacking Hilary is no more of a surprise than Bush attacking Ms. Presi- sorry, Ms. Clinton.
Just on the topic of 24, Jack Bauer himself is played by the man whose grandfather created public medicare in Canada and the most liberal party in the country. I'm pretty sure Kiefer would say nicer things about Hilary.
"We don't need to take the word of Joel Surnow as if it were the word of God."
It seems that, as long as it attacks the Democrats, Boundless will take it as truth.
7. Carrie said the following at 1:10 PM on Nov 13:
Obewan -- Ron Paul is also pro-life, he just adheres to the belief in states' rights. He has said that if it were left up to state legistlature, he would vote for an abortion ban for his state.
I still can't understand why more evangelicals aren't getting on board with Ron Paul.
8. Motte said the following at 1:14 PM on Nov 13:
Kit and Andrew R.(aka Canadian Boy):
It seems I should have been more obvious with the playfulness of this tongue-in-cheek post. I actually believe Hillary could very well win the democratic nomination and then the presidency. I guess you can call me a "nut."
9. Jethro said the following at 2:03 PM on Nov 13:
Carrie,
Terming someone as 'evil incarnate' is a pretty big call. Right now there are probably millions Iraqi's who think that about Bush. There would also be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of others in US run prisons around the world, who are being tortured for information - I'm pretty sure they would think the president, vice-president and minister for defense who authorized the use of torture are evil incarnate too.
10. obewan said the following at 2:10 PM on Nov 13:
Carrie:
I am on board with Ron Paul. In fact, he is my fist choice based upon his stance on the war. However, he currently only has 2% in the polls. I am not sure I want to waste a primary vote on him if Romney has a better chance. I also favor Romney's energy policy above all other pro-life choices. I may still go for Paul as a protest vote though.
11. Kit said the following at 2:45 PM on Nov 13:
Motte:
No hard feelings, it's a fun discusion. I took the post as sarcastic, so you're fine there. :-) I just have almost no regard for celebrity opinions, if I even know who the celebrity happens to be...
12. Holly said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 13:
Obewan,
I've heard loads of people say the same thing about Ron Paul - they don't want to waste their vote in case he doesn't win. But really, voting for someone you don't agree as much with is much more of a wasted vote than voting for a man of principle who MAY have less public support.
You may be surprised at the levels of support Dr. Paul has, his winning the primary is not as far-fetched as you may think. His poll numbers may be much better than the 2% often thrown around.
He seems to be a rare candidate -- someone who really has a proven track record of supporting the Constitution. Let's do all we can for him while we have the chance!
13. Justin said the following at 3:02 PM on Nov 13:
I was going to change my registration from Republican to Democrat, until I heard Ron Paul speak at one of the debates. I'm now staying a Republican just to vote for Ron.
Though I'll probably end up voting for Obama in the General Election.
14. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 3:38 PM on Nov 13:
Motte:
Got it. I did take this entry seriously, so that explains it.
Interestingly, the President in Day 7 (this upcoming season) of 24 is female. Hmmm...
15. Gina said the following at 4:41 PM on Nov 13:
"Are we nuts thinking Hillary Clinton could be president of this country?"
I thought the same about her husband, and look what happened.
16. Jethro said the following at 6:13 PM on Nov 13:
Quote:
"Are we nuts thinking Hillary Clinton could be president of this country?"
I thought the same about her husband, and look what happened."
And thank God we did Gina, Clinton was one of the best president's we've ever had. Certainly the world thinks Bush is alot crazier than Clinton.
17. Tim said the following at 8:18 PM on Nov 13:
I tend to agree with many of you that this is a pretty useless post. If there is one thing I despise, it is people believing that Hollywood-types opinions matter. I don't care what George Clooney or Bruce Willis thinks. They are actors and they have no credentials that make them experts on politics.
However, I am extremely confused as to why Hillary Clinton is winning. Do Democrats really think she is the one to unify the country? Partisan bickering will only increase if she is nominated president. Furthermore, where are all the Democratic critics of of the presidential dynasties like the "Bush" dynasty at? Did they change their mind after Hillary entered the race? Hypocrites!
Honestly, I only perceive three candidates who could unify the country: Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama. Anyone else will just divide it further.
But, I would take Mike Huckabee any day and shame on Christian leaders for ignoring him. Did I mention he has the endorsement of Chuck Norris (who as we all know, most certainly has the credentials to talk politics).
18. Kit said the following at 8:23 PM on Nov 13:
Agreed, Jethro...Clinton's morals may not have been spot on, but his political policy was!
19. Leah said the following at 10:19 PM on Nov 13:
In other news, which Aussies think Rudd has a chance?
:P
Sorry, just had to break up the American politics for a moment ;P
20. Mandi said the following at 10:49 PM on Nov 13:
Kit,
What is so "spot on" about this?
Jethro,
With great respect, Americans should have more self-respect and self-assurance than to care so much about what other countries think of their president in assessing him or her. The opinions of terrorists about George W. Bush shouldn't be taken with more than a grain of salt. Foreign policy is an area where there aren't easy answers, necessarily. But abortion is much more clear, and the casualties have far, far outnumbered those caught in any wars overseas (and on abortion, Pres. Bush has done quite a lot of good, given that this fight will not be won in a day). That's not to say that their lives aren't precious either, but their very humanity isn't in dispute, and their survival doesn't depend on the same kinds of factors as those of the unborn. (I.e., technically, we could say all those civilians from death if, say, they were moved to safer areas, but we can do no such heroics to save developing children from saline solution or the ripping apart of their limbs or brains while inside their mothers.)
Hillary is the worst kind of news for women and their unborn children. I don't think any of us should take her chances of winning for granted at all.
As an aside, she's disgusting trying to play feminist on the one hand, and poor-me-the-boys-are-ganging-up-on-me-so-I-need-your-pity-vote on the other.
21. John D. said the following at 6:43 AM on Nov 14:
Tim wrote,
"Furthermore, where are all the Democratic critics of of the presidential dynasties like the 'Bush' dynasty at? Did they change their mind after Hillary entered the race?"
Actually, Tim, a lot of people have expressed discomfort with the dual-dynastic phenomenon of the Bushes and Clintons, America's two ruling families. The last time we had a major party national ticket without someone named Bush or Clinton was 1976. That's too long for two families to dominate the political scene. We need some fresh faces.
I think Ron Paul's terrific and I plan to vote for him in my state's primary, but he would not be a uniter, except to the extent that he would unite those who cling to the status quo against him as he worked for real change.
22. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:31 AM on Nov 14:
How about a motion that no one in the same family gets to hold ANY office (meaning that governors could no longer run for pres, and children of any politician would have to get real jobs) without a 3 generation space in the middle. That would spread things out a bit. We have what, 300 million people to choose from for less than 1000 offices? I don't see it being the least bit unfair to spread out the responsibility.
Besides, I just love the thought of meeting an auto mechanic who was the son of a former President. If that sounds shameful, stop and think about the value of honest work. Shouldn't be anything wrong with being a good mechanic, no matter who your dad is.
23. Carrie said the following at 8:51 AM on Nov 14:
Jethro, I agree that calling someone "evil encarnate" is a pretty big leap. I wish there had been some better choices in 2004. It really was a lesser of two evils vote . . . which brings me back to the subject of Ron Paul.
I'm quite tired of hearing "Well, I like him, he seems like a good leader, but I don't want to waste my vote on him because I don't think other people will vote for him". I've come across this quite a bit and in response I say the following "Move to Canada if you don't want to make a difference."
Seriously, if those of us who want to give this man a shot actually rally behind this man, everyone will be amazed. Did you not hear about his $4.2 million fundraising day?? $4.2 million in 24 hours . . . not half bad for a man that is rumored to only have spammers as his supporting backbone.
So, go to your primary poles. Turn out in droves and put in a vote for Ron Paul. If you don't vote for who you want to see run as the next president, don't complain about the poor choices that we might end up with. This is why it's so great to live in the United States of America -- the citizens decide. Not the media, not Focus on the Family, not your pastor -- you. Please don't take your voting priviledge as a citizen lightly. Get out to the polls twice in '08 and make your voice heard.
*steps off of soap box*
24. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 9:09 AM on Nov 14:
Hi Mandi!
"With great respect, Americans should have more self-respect and self-assurance than to care so much about what other countries think of their president in assessing him or her. The opinions of terrorists about George W. Bush shouldn't be taken with more than a grain of salt."
Whoa, whoa... what? People in other countries are terrorists? As a Canadian, I would beg to differ... I mean, I know our dollar is slaughtering yours, but I don't consider that to be terrorism.
Seriously, though, America cannot survive alone. It needs other countries, including mine, for trade, protection, etc. So what other countries think of your leader should matter. And I can assure you that I know few Canadians who think your president is doing a good job.
"Hillary is the worst kind of news for women and their unborn children."
I can understand how some unborn children may be killed when Hillary becomes President and fully legalizes abortion (though I'm not sure if she'll do it in her first or second term), but how is she bad news for women? Is she going to force them to get an abortion?
In regards to abortion vs. war, I have a nice long argument to make, and I hope Boundless will one day do a blog entry about the topic.
25. Kit said the following at 9:25 AM on Nov 14:
Mandi wrote: "Americans should have more self-respect and self-assurance than to care so much about what other countries think of their president in assessing him or her. The opinions of terrorists about George W. Bush shouldn't be taken with more than a grain of salt."
I respectfully disagree with you. If the world doesn't like us, we have a serious problem. When you are dealing with people who have nuclear weapons and very little patience, what they think of you matters very much. The Washington Post quotes former president Clinton as saying: "We can't relate to the rest of the world only through a negative prism, and only through telling them to do things," he told the Chamber of Commerce in Lancaster, Pa. "Why? Because if you live in a world where you can't kill, jail or occupy all your enemies, security will never be enough. You've got to make a world where you've got more friends and fewer enemies, where you make partners." This is spot on. Read the full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053101825_pf.html
There is never any way we are going to be able to "control" other countries and be able to have WORKING RELATIONSHIPS with them unless we turn the tide from how we are viewed right now. And for the global economy to be successful (and the American economy!), we will need to have stronger relatioships with those we work with. Our livelihood depends on it--we are tightly intertwined with their economies. Iraq (for oil) and China (for imports at cheap prices), to name a few. If those large (soon to be larger) powers do not like us, we are up a serious creek without a paddle, and if they pull out their support of our economy, ours will crumble in days. It is the whole John Donne idea: No man is an island, entire of itself...
As far as abortion, of course it grieves me. I personally am a democrat who is pro-life. I cannot imagine doing to a child what is done during abortion. However, it is already leagal, and voting for a pro-choice candidate is not going to make it any more legal than it already is (I do agree that Bush has done good things for this issue). That battle has already been lost, and it is, unfortunately, ulikely at best that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. So the question is not: how do we make it illegal again but instead, how do we improve the current situation? The government should proactively create programs that would assist a young, pregnant woman who didn't want her baby. We could have programs that would encourage her to carry it to term if she didn't have to pay for ANY of the medical care up to and including the birth; or pay to put it up for adoption. Perhaps she could get paid leave from her employer if unable to work for a time. 75% of abortions occur because for whatever reason, a woman thinks she cannot afford to have a baby. These are just suggestions, but I think it could work. Making it completely illegal is only going to drive the issue "under the table"--it won't solve it. Think about prohibition.
Lastly, I doubt we could save all the civilians from death simply by moving them to more rural/safer areas. In a country as large as America, this would be quite difficult/complex and seems unrealistic to me, especially when you consider this would have to take place when under the panic of an attack. It would be mass chaos. Think for a minute about most large, urban areas. The traffic on the beltways and highways would be so stopped up with people trying to "get out" that America would turn into one stopped mass of traffic in a situation like this.
I feel, personally, that the key to helping us out of the mess that has been created the last several years rests in improved (very improved!!)international relations, the elimination of both national and civilian debt at such high levels, the creation of jobs on American soil that provide health/medical insurance to all employees, and fighting global warming before we completely destroy the beautiful creation God has given us to enjoy. (Read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Although not specifically about "global warming," she speaks of how we in the 20th century are absolutely destroying what we have been given, in very compelling terms).
Just my thoughts...
26. Motte said the following at 10:18 AM on Nov 14:
For my part, I'm glad the world thinks Bush is a lot crazier than Clinton; especially the radical Islamic world.
Clinton did nothing to curb terrorism; he enabled it. When he had Osama's camp surrounded, national security advisor Sandy Berger would not give the go ahead to take him out. Then Sandy Berger goes on a mission to destroy the records from the national archives directly related to Clinton's inadequate response to the increasing threat of Al Qaida.
For all of Bush's mistakes, his response to terrorism has proven far more effective than "Monica's missiles."
27. Novagirl said the following at 8:42 PM on Nov 14:
Jack Bauer for President.
Enough said.
28. Jethro said the following at 1:37 AM on Nov 15:
For those who think only Muslim's dislike Bush, here is an insightful article published in the SMH, a major Australian Paper, outlining why Bush will be judged one of the worst president's ever. So yes, it matters a lot what the world thinks. After all, we all live in it.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/history-will-judge-bush-among-worst-presidents/2007/11/14/1194766768765.html
29. John D. said the following at 7:39 AM on Nov 15:
So, Novagirl, you want a violent thug and extortioner for President.
Remember that Hillary was the White House official who gave the order to send tanks in to burn down the Branch Davidian compound on April 19, 1993, killing men, women and children.
I think you found your candidate.
30. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 9:47 AM on Nov 15:
"Jack Bauer for President.
Enough said."
Oh man, yes! He'd personally solve all of America's problems in 24 hours!
31. obewan said the following at 12:30 PM on Nov 15:
Good post Jethro. It does matter what the rest of the world thinks, including the nearly 70% majority of Americans who are opposed to the Iraq war. I suspect there might also be many dead non-combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan who (if able) would also dislike Bush. We would not be where we are today if a man like Ron Paul were president.
32. Becky F. said the following at 2:35 PM on Nov 15:
I mean no disrespect to the non-Americans who read and comment on Boundless, but I do think it is interesting that non-Americans have so much to say about American politics. I am only speaking for myself, and not for my country or my countrymen, but I don't know the names of really any foreign leaders, and I have really no opinions on how they lead their respective countries. Maybe I'm just so apolitical that I've never had much interest in who is in politics around the world. I'm barely interested in who is in politics in my own country! Haha.
Maybe if America wasn't self-designated as the world police, other countries' people wouldn't be as interested in who our leaders are. Though, it is funny then that people (Americans mostly, I think) complain that America doesn't become involved in what's going on in other countries that "need more help" etc. Maybe America should do something for every country that needs something, or maybe we should keep to ourselves. I think people would hate us more if we kept to ourselves, though, than with our current pick-and-choose-a-country-to-"help" attitude.
Something to think about, I guess.