Surely she has actually done something to deserve this hatred?
Well, you could make a point that both she and billy are convenient icons, used by the opposition to help focus supporters (their votes and campaign dollars) on a moralistic crusade that shifts focus from issues-based considerations. Given a choice betwen emotion or cold hard facts, emotion wins the vast majority of the time -- marketing 101. The people running these campaigs are very sophisticated, they know exactly how to push the right buttons, particularly when people want those buttons to be pushed. They make mucho $$$ doing just that. No vast "right wing conspiracy" just very effective negative PR. Hell, as proven on this board many times you don't even need facts (they get in the way) -- just a load of innuendo and a rightous headline on the e-mail or Web article.
You could even argue that working hard to villify both he and hillary was the only tactic availiable given B. Clintons success as a politician; his move towards MOR or even "conservative" positions on many issues making his presidency hard to counter by traditional tactics; and the overall strength of the economy during his time in office. In campaign PR it never pays to overestimate the target audience. People believe what they want to believe, the facts be dammed, as long as you properly package the message.
The question now is, who's next? Time for new villians since I don't think there will be a Clinton running for president next election. I mean, the campaignis still getting some milage, but please!
Hard to really hate Gore, I find myself yawning, though I do disagree with his slavish support of agribusiness.
Dashole? Another yawner.
Teddy K.? He's not goin' anywhere or doin' anything.
Nader -- nutjob, few Democrats will deny that.
Issues, once you get past terrorism it'll be another hard sell. Even terrorism may be a hard sell around campaign time, particularly with this "Office of Homeland Security" concept.
Charon
