Carville and Begala are back!

DallasBlog.com | Tom Pauken:

“I got to know Bill Clinton when we were both students at Georgetown University. He always struck me as a likeable scoundrel. He reminds me of the travelling salesman played by George C. Scott in the film The Flim-Flam Man. By contrast, Hillary strikes me as a cold-blooded ideologue who bought into the hard left radicalism of the late ‘60s. She would have fit in well with the late 18th century French Revolutionary crowd, but the idea of her having the enormous powers and responsibility of the Presidency of the United States sure makes me nervous.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

It always used to depress me how American Presidential elections degenerated into reverse popularity contests. After a seemingly endless bombardment of lies, mud-slinging and defamation of character, Americans would traipse to the polls and choose between two irreparably damaged politicians. Victory went to the candidate who did the better job, not of presenting a thoughtful program for dealing with the problems facing America, but of painting his opponent as a buffoon or an opportunist or a scoundrel ... or a "cold-blooded ideologue".

Mr Pauken's post would have been a prime example of the kind of politics that depressed me. No discussion of the issues, the candidates' stands or their political principles. Only an attempt to typecast the candidates in an unflattering role. Even Bill Clinton, the devil incarnate to Republicans for eight years, is now compared favorably to his shrew of a wife. That old scoundrel, Bill, was never as bad as what the country will get if that Robespierre Hillary is elected, right?

All very depressing, no? Lately, I've wavered in that opinion. I knew, or thought I knew, what the country was getting when George W. Bush became President in 2000. Tax cuts, sure, but spending cuts, too. Limited government. Weaning the country from entitlements. No nation-building abroad. Federalism at home. That he was painted as irresponsible as a young adult, inexperienced in government, clueless in foreign affairs, disengaged, maybe even a bit of a dimwit actually, none of that mattered. The charges were mostly just politics, right? It was the platform that mattered. Where would he lead the country?

Now, five years later, I look back and have to wonder what really did matter. Most of the campaign platform from 2000 lies in tatters. Most of the attributed character flaws have proven to be more or less on the mark. Maybe I shouldn't pay so much attention to what a candidate says in his campaign about what he wants to do in office. Circumstances will change anyway. Maybe I should pay more attention to the attacking and parrying concerning the candidates' characters. Maybe I should listen to how the other side pegs the character of their opponent. It may turn out that's exactly what we'll get in office. At least that's how it worked out this time.

It's still too depressing. Please tell me why I'm wrong.