What’s that old saying? ‘A week is a long time in politics’? If that’s true then what about 6 years? That must be a really long time in politics. But, maybe, not long enough:
“Hillary Clinton is emerging, among Democrats and political observers, as the favourite to be the candidate for the 2008 presidential race.
Until recently, Senator Clinton had maintained a fairly low profile in Washington but she is now being identified as the most likely opponent to the Republican challenger.”
Now Democrats I can understand but who are these ‘political observers’? Just a polite euphamism for the Independent editorial staff? I smell a bit of early British-left campaigning.
“Most observers worry, however, that Mrs Clinton, who has been manoeuvring to portray herself as a centrist, remains a highly polarising figure. While she may have won the affection of many New Yorkers, in more conservative corners of the country she attracts emotions verging on outright hatred.”
It’s those ‘observers’ again. The ‘worry’ is a dead give-away. That combined with the understatement. If our US readers are anything to go by then the above-mentioned emotions go way beyond outright hatred.
Still, can anybody put their hand on their heart and tell me that the thought of Hilary Clinton in the Whitehouse doesn’t send a cold shudder down your spine?
Would she be bad, do you think, because of her political views, or because of her link to Bill Clinton?
If Hillary Clinton can convince the American people
– and I mean convince us beyond a shadow of a doubt – that she is NOT a communist, then she has a chance.
But, all her behaviors to date are not promising.
Of course, handicapping a presidential election 5 years away is only slightly less insane than projecting federal budget figures 5 years out. With that said, I think the Republicans would actually enjoy facing off against Hillary. Especially, if they had the balls to run an Elizabeth Dole or Condi Rice against her.
Hillary IS a polarizing figure. And conservative talk radio would have a field day mobilizing voters against her. My one fear would be the Republicans lack of discipline though. Criticizing Hillary has to be done very methodically, so as not to seem “sexists” though the national media will probably portray them as sexists no matter what they say. We’ve seen this before in the impeachment battle. All they had to do was stay on message and point that Clinton had perjured himself, but they couldn’t help themselves with the senseless moralizing and playing to the religous zealots. It turned off the nation and allowed the debate to be changed to “it’s all about sex.” They could easily screw up again and appear to be “hating a woman who stands up for herself.”
But, despite her drive to the center, she should be quite easy to paint as a Bill Clinton/Al Gore type of candidate: someone who will say or do anything to get elected. Plus they’ll turn to her attempt to nationalize health care and they’ll pull many a passage out of her book “It takes a village” which is a big govenment manifesto if there ever was one. Again, depending on how disciplined Republicans can be, I think right now, they’d love to run against her.
But, again, that’s 5 years away, and only matters if Bush is re-elected, which is no slam dunk at all. Also, God only knows what the important issues will be 5 years hence. But, she’s definately setting herself up as a hawk, with the full knowledge that because she’s a Clinton the anti-war crowd will still treat her like a rock star.
A couple of thoughts:
Hillary’s on the Armed Forces Committee. And at some point she’s the logical successor to Tom Daschle. So she is definitely building up her bona fides.
Predicting the race 5-6 years out? Bad craziness. Who’s her opponent? Condi? Liddy? How about Bill Frist?
How about Tom DeLay? Heh.
Here’s a question for you: when they say someone is a polarizing figure, what the hell does that mean?
Polar means having two poles. Since this is a two party system, doesn’t that mean you either vote for her or … you don’t? What’s the big deal?
I think the term polarizing figure really means there are no undecideds, yes?
Or does it mean that she is a divisive figure?
She’s polarizing in the sense that you either hate her or love her. And she is. I saw some test group that was given little sensors to indicate when they didn’t like what a politician was saying and it would be displayed real time. She pegged the bottom with males and did fairly well with females.
I really can’t believe she was voted in in NY. That was scary. The thought of her in the White House…. that’s scary. And I think it would be rather unfortunate that a woman like that would make it in. There are so many other women I would rather see there. Women who would make it there without playing the woman card.
I’ve watched Hillary Clinton hedge on answers in an obvious attempt not to speak her real mind for fear of offending her usual backers. This is true particularly when being asked her views on Iraq today. She is an excellent attorney and it seems to come natural to her how to answer questions in such as way that leaves a listener confused. ???
She is sharp, she is a collectivist and she is motivated for power.
Fact: if Hilary gets the white house, some nut will snipe her. No doubt about it. There are a lot of conservatives who’d shrug off a death penalty as their patriotic duty.
I was living in NYC when she was elected. There were several reasons. When Hillary first moved from Washington DC to NY, she announced she was considering running for Senate, and did a “listening tour” of upstate NY (everywhere that is not NYC). She travelled around, met people, acted folksy, and tricked them into believing she gave shit about them. So when she began her campaign in earnest she had already built up a decent amount of support in Upstate New York.
Mayor Rudy Guiliani who was initially running against her got prostate cancer and dropped out of the race. Rudy had a majority of support in NYC, but was somewhat weaker upstate. Rudy was slightly leading in the polls due mainly to his unusual strength in NYC. I say unusual b/c he got more support there than a Republican should have, and it was a testament to his character, charisma and anti-crime record that he was competitive. But he was replaced by a less well-known candidate who lacked the appeal, charisma, record, and recognition of Guiliani. That pretty much handed Hillary the lead and she kept it to the end.
It was a highly unfortunate occurence, as Hillary is one of the worst statists in the world. She is the epitome of all that every freedom and rights loving person rails against. I don’t know what’s worse, that people are so stupid that they can’t see her for what she is, or that they see her for what she is and agree with it. I dearly hope that Bush is able to somehow persuade Condi Rice to be his VP in 2004 and to run for Pres in 2008. She is infinitely more capable, is actually a real person with a spine, and is the most expedient political choice aside from Powell who has already refused multiple times.
Yeah, my hope is for Condi to run. More than anything else, she just oozes competence.
“I think the term polarizing figure really means there are no undecideds, yes?”
“Or does it mean that she is a divisive figure?”
Yeah, Ara, it’s both. There are few undecideds where she is concerned. The only undecideds are probably independent (non-party affiliated) women. She is devisive, because people who don’t like her, REALLY don’t like her. For example, Neal Boortz, a libertarian syndicated radio talk show host in America calls her the most dangerous politician in America. Not a whole lot of ambiguity in that statement.
The people who like her are partisan democrats who worship at the alter of “give em hell feminism.”
But, everyone (both left and right) know that she is first and foremost, motivated for power, as Elizabeth put it. Why else do you think she, a self described feminist, stuck with the moral vacuum that is her husband? And that is what will be divisive. People will spend FAR less time talking about the substance of her ideas than on the woman that is Hillary Clinton and what she says about both her detractors and defenders. And each side will view the other as just this side of evil.
American politics are so bitter now and Hillary had a definate hand in making it that way. It was her, even more than her husband that mastered the gameplan of destroying the character of your opponent instead of arguing against the ideas of your opponents. She plays the game of politics with a winner-take all mindset and she is very good at it. I mean she learned from probably the most skilled politician I’ve ever seen, her husband. She would be a formidable candidate but one that I hope would be seen as bad for the country. But, that’s 5 years from now and as we’ve said, that’s really tough to predict.
Of course, she could still enter in ’04 if Bush looks beatable. She doesn’t need the head start the other guys do as she could raise millions of dollars overnight.
If she does decide to run, I suggest starting a website (anyonebutclinton.com) that is dedicated to in-depth profiles and interviews of every other candidate, major and minor, including the Democratic party. That way there would be a forum for informed debate, and the bias would be clearly indicated in the URL.
I can’t fathom the idea of Hillary as President, but I kind of like the idea of her as the Democratic candidate. That should assure a republican president, almost regardless of the candidate.
Now, Condi as president? That, I could dig.
Mark my words well. Hillary Clinton will never, ever be president. Never. Bring in Hillary, and the “center” vanishes in a massive rightward shift that plunges the eastern seaboard into the ocean. People forget that she has to run as a centrist because of how conservative Americans really are, and there will be no humanly possible way to obfuscate who that woman is. She’ll wind up spending more money on damage control than on campaign ads.
The only way she can even keep in the running is to hedge, dodge, prevaricate and otherwise keep out of sight. The instant she has to start answering questions about her actual plans, and her actual record, she’s done. If she tries it, and wins the Democratic primary, Hillary will lose, and she’ll take the Democrats down with her.
Geez, all these posts and nobody mentions the, er, elephant in Hillary!’s living room – her husband Bill. Never say never when it comes to politics, but I think it extremely unlikely that America will send Bill Clinton back to the White House, and a vote for Hillary! is a vote for Bill in the White House.
Not only that, but what will she do with him while she is campaigning? You will recall that her 2000 campaign was run as if he didn’t exist, to the point that she didn’t even use her last name. That was possible while he was President, but now, not so much. If he campaigns with her, he reminds everyone of who and what he is. If he doesn’t campaign, a major topic of political conversation will be why not? More than anything else, Bill Clinton and his legacy are standing between Hillary! and the White House. Marc Richards, anyone?
I pray that she runs. She is unelectable, and the face of statist hypocrisy – a dynamite combination for discrediting both the statists and the Democrats.
Never say never. Let’s look at an easy scenario.
Bush either loses in Iraq (thru withdrawal or actual defeat), or goes into the election with a weak economy. Either way, he’s likely toast.
Also, the Republicans could be weakened either by the effort to kick Bush off the ticket, or a brutal internal battle to select his replacement.
Hillary runs, with large campaign funding, backed by a unified Democrat Party. As a top political technician, already well wired into the establishment, both are almost certain.
The mainstream media canonizes her. I saw this in the California papers for 8 years. Every week pictures of Hillary feeding the poor, healing the sick. During the election we’ll see her walk across the Potomic River to work.
Do not underestimate the power of the US media guild — and it is like a medival guild.
List her stengths: personall skilled, high name recognition, well financed, with committed support from the media guild, unions (industrial, teachers, civil servant), academic establishment, the entertainment industry, and much of the corporate sector.
Cons: many people do not like her. She overcame that in upstate NY, a moderately conservative region.
If the economy and/or the war discredit(s) the Republicans, almost any Democratic candidate probably will have an easy win.
Hillary could win with a landslide, a basis on which to carry on where FDR left off — reshaping America.
She’s likely bolder than Bill, and with 8 years experience at weilding the Presidential power — an advantage previously held only by FDR.
As a registered voter from NY state, let me just add just one observation.
The only reason why she is senator of the greatest state in the nation (though I do live in DC, currently) is due to New York City and Albany. Anyone who lives north of Westchester County (except Albany), and even most residents of Westchester itself (since it is the preferred residency of many NYC business executives, stockbrokers, etc.) absolutely loathe her.
Almost all of NY state is occupied by people who could either be described as faithful Republicans or Steven den Beste-style Engineerists. We tend to be a gun-toting, tax-hating, demolish-big-government type of people. They rarely set foot in NY City, and find the city lifestyle and political mindset to be completely alien, if not downright offensife. I live upstate for 22 years, and I have been to NY on four accasions, two of which were after I aclimated myself to urban life in DC.
In my hometown, Glens Falls, the local populace is largely paper mill workers, all of whom are union, and even they wont vote for the damn woman. I’ve been slowly deprogramming my mother over the last seven years, who has made the remarkable transformation from board member of the local Democratic council to virtual libertarian. She had few colleagues before, and now she probably is much closer to the majority opinion.
But unfortunately NYC, portions of Long Island and Albany combined have a voting population far in excess of the rest of the state, as well as much more economically powerful fundraising ground. NY state is dying economically. Young people (such as myself) as leaving in droves, since there are no real jobs to speak of (thanks, Pataki). Tax laws are insane, and founding a small business is, unless you have a real niche market, an exercise in futility.
Upstate NY is starting to resemble much of rural New England, in the sense that the only prosperous towns are either the home to colleges or tourist traps of one sort or another. Any other locale without these assests is falling apart. The economic and demographic conditions of NY state will continue to favor the few major cities at the expense of rural and surbuban residents, and I don’t see this trend changing.
> she learned from probably the most skilled
> politician I’ve ever seen, her husband
You know, I hear this kind of statement all the time, and there’s certainly evidence of it in his electoral record, but I sure don’t get it. The guy just reeks insincerety, so who in the world is it that finds his campaigning compelling? (For the record, there are many Republicans who are similarly awful–the late lamented Senate Majority Leader among them!)
Julian:
Are you saying that a proportion of US conservatives are nuts because they will fantasize or actually try to “snipe” Hillary (?) Clinton if she were to become President?
That sounds a tad extreme to us on the other side of the pond though it gets me thinking….
The only women to whom she appeals are STUPID…beyond belief stupid !! But they get to vote, so there’s the prob.
Anyone who lives north of Westchester County (except Albany)…absolutely loathe her.
Don’t forget Ithaca. I think that’s where all the hippies settled after Woodstock.
Greg:
It’s not just Albany that’s in the statist left. I’m unfortunate enough to have to live in Maurice Hinchey’s district. Hinchey may be the 2d most socialist member of the US House, after only Bernie Sanders. In addition to being one of the several members who believes that the solution to the problems caused by government intervention in health care is to have the government make that intervention complete by making a health-care monopsony, Hinchey has also favored taxing people who want to give up US citizenship. Hinchey is also predictably statist on issues like victim disarmament, government financing of campaigns, thought crimes, and the like.
This district also happens to be the home of Jeff Cohen of “Fairness” and “Accuracy” in Reporting, FWIW.
I seriously doubt any conservatives would ‘snipe’ her. While it’s true many hate her, they also hated her husband just as much, and they really really hated Jimmy Carter. I don’t remember any assassination attempts on them. Ultimately, it’s more enjoyable to make fun of them. If Hillary didn’t exist, what would people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly do?
Personally, I can see an upside. While I’m not a fan of Hillary, she is utterly and completely ruthless. In times of war (which no doubt will still be the case in 2008, unfortunately), presidents like that can be useful.
(I also tend to think she’d be relatively moderate in practice, much like her husband, and more so than Gore would have been. Have you ever read any of the Gore’s books, especially Tipper’s? They’re completely nuts)
I am relatively new to politics so could some one quickly recap what Hillary has done to deserve such enmity and to be so polarizing? Was it trying to nationalize health-care or that “left-wing conspiracy” comment she spouted a few years back? I could use some more examples.
For Johan..
For a LOT more examples of Hillary’s activities, read Gary Aldrich’s book “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” (Regnery Publishing). Aldrich was assigned to the White House for routine FBI security duties, typical duties during all presidential administrations.
That book was published in 1996.
If the contents of that book don’t scare you, nothing can scare you.
Johan:
I would also recommend Peggy Noonan’s book. I no longer have my copy, but I believe it was called “The Case Against Hillary Clinton.” Bill was bad enough, but Hillary is truly frightening – ruthless, amoral and basically, a criminal. They ran the most corrupt administration in decades. The American people were subjected to an endless parade of scandals for 8 long years (insider trading, selling secrets to the Chinese, illegal subpoenas of FBI files, destruction of records – the list is endless). The thought of her as President should make every American shudder.