Once again I’m reading that Senator Clinton is the 2008 favorite of feminists and liberals.
I consider myself a feminist: I’ve been around long enough to have been rejected for a promotion to underwriting analyst because it was “a man’s job,” and I still embarrass anyone who in my presence refers to a female adult as a girl.
I consider myself a liberal: When I hear the positions of those labeled moderate Democrats, they sound like Republicans to me.
So why am I not on the Hillary bandwagon?
(That link is going to ask you what year you were born, etc.)
In fact, is there a Hillary bandwagon outside the insiders?
Don’t take me wrong; I’m not anti-Hillary. Should she be the Democratic candidate, I’d no doubt vote for her as I voted for John Kerry, unenthusiastically, because the Republicans are incapable of nominating anyone I’d support. But I’ve seen her as too cautious ever since she was presented with Ferdinand, in the form of the nation’s obvious need for single-payer universal health insurance, and refused to take the bull by the horns. She could have rung the cowbell to get everyone’s attention and led us toward preservation of U.S. jobs, financial stability for the country and the people, and better health for all, but what she gave us was a complicated triangulation that tried to offend no one, appealed to no one, and regardless, was attacked as if she was presenting something radically un-American, like HMOs.
Since she first ran for the Senate, she seems to have been shifting right, and she’s reached the point of sponsoring a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, which to me is the epitome of pandering pointlessness.
The Democrats I know in the real world are mostly to the right of me, as I measure politics. Of Democrats I know or read online, some are to my left, I think, more are to my right, and some it’s hard to tell where they’re coming from. A lot are beating the drums for the new Al Gore, a lot are pushing some Warner guy from Virginia who wasn’t married to Elizabeth Taylor, and most of them are like me, not enthused about anybody in particular and keeping their options open. But nobody I know is encouraging me to support Senator Clinton.
Yet everybody who gets paid to talk politics, write politics, or poll politics tells me she’s going to be the 2008 Democratic nominee for president.
So what’s going on? Anybody want to let me in on the secret?
Near as I can tell, its 4 things.
1. Bill.
2. Her popularity in her present office.
3. Her war chest.
4. Her intelligence.
But I think the Repugs are concentrating on her because they want her. They're as sure as I am she'll lose.
I "second" spiiderweb's items 1 through 4.
Republican Corporate-Lite, Middle Eastern Warrioress, she would lose a presidential election: the USA "Nation" (such as it remains) is surely---both Republicans and Democrats--- virtually the opposite of her present New York [City]/Washington, D.C. constituency. Oh, she would get some New Jersey votes too.
I find it hard to believe that Hillary is the favorite of feminists and liberals. Do the Kos straw polls mean nothing? She didn't even register in those straw polls. The article seems to assume that the centrists are the base. I don't know who in hell these centrists are, but as far as I'm concerned, the progressives are the base of the Democratic party. My guess is that the centrists he refers to are the DLC types, who hate the "outsiders" especially those perceived to be in the rabble known as the blogosphere.
The one thing pretty convincing about the article though is that Hillary can't win. Which is fine with me, because I don't even want her nominated. Just one example of why I detest Hillary. She supports the flag burning amendment. And hey, Hillary, what about admitting you were wrong about the war? But she won't admit it, because she still thinks her vote was just fine. I want a bullshit detector as President. Was I just lucky in guessing that Bush was full of shit when he said we needed to go to war. Maybe Hillary had more "facts" than I did. Well, I guess this just goes to show that facts aren't everything.
Hill has no passion because, well, she has no passion.
But what is it all about? It is certainly not because she is a woman. I would vote for Barbara Boxer in a heart beat. Now there is a politician with passion, conviction, and feeling. And she has demonstrated her ability to rip the neocons a new one.
And Feingold. Yeh, there is someone who represents what should be the ideals of the Democratic party.
And while we're talking about politics, let's get rid of Lieberman. Maybe he can get a cabinet position with the Bush administration.
Posted by: t on June 12, 2006 9:03 AMGotta agree with t's analysis and more.
Bush43 grew up with a lot of issues, ideas, people and "solutions" left over from Reagan. These failed answers have been hammered into our current bizzare administration. Rumsfeld et al, will do anything to prove that they were right the first time around. To some extent, we all do that. Its human nature.
That HRC will bring her own retreads, is a given. Too many people who will misapply the solutions that were crafted in 1992-2000 to todays world. Too many people who have a stake in archaic answers. Too many debts are owed. Too much baggage. It is obvious in her political stances.
This whole serial nepotism thing is not good for democracy. Time for something new.
Posted by: m on June 12, 2006 10:21 AMHas anyone done a poll or is it just that right-wing commentators will go on assuming that we like her no matter what we actually say? Does nobody remember that a genuine liberal is unlikely to care for a corporate lawyer?
On discussion groups for years now I've found that a certain kind of conservative poster tries to bait the likes of me with digs at Hillary Clinton, just like some of the folks we met in Kentucky presumed us to be vegetarians. Seems like some people can get so thoroughly conditioned to the use of straw men/women that they can't see the real live folks in front of their faces.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on June 12, 2006 11:51 AM"m's" final point is important. Two people must not be nominated:
Hillary in '08 and Jeb in '12. Can't imagine a worse succession than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush! Dynasties are poison for democracies.
Despite her one or two episodes of pandering ( she is a politician afterall) I think she has reached a level in political and cultural power where she is best suited in the senate. She isn't the first Democrat to signal conservative Democrat and actually govern more to the left (think Bill).
I see the Democrats presidential future with Russ Feingold and Wesley Clarke. The media may not be giving these two all the attention they deserve, but both are making major contributions, along with Howard Dean of reshaping the party and the country. Russ has had a major impact in the way he has pulled back the current and revealed the hypocrisy of these big gov'ment conservatives. While Wes Clarke knocks down right-wing talking points like flys when he appears on Fox ( I'm surprised they keep having him back.)
Though that is where I lean in presidential preferences and Clinton is a good legislator, I wouldn't mind seeing her in a future Democratic cabinet ( Secretary of State?, but I think Bill would be a great SOS. The world loves Bill Clinton, he could do a lot to regain our moral standing.)
Seriously, this Feingold guy -- has he got a chance?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam on June 12, 2006 10:27 PMThat's an interesting comment about retreads, m. The current administration is full of guys still fighting the Reds, and as incompetently as they fought them the first time. They bluster after an unworthy target (socialist Afghanistan then, secular Iraq now), which makes them feel all machohappy as they create worse messes (al Qaeda made powerful with U.S. Stinger missiles then, Middle Eastern uproar and who knows what else now).
I suppose a Clinton retread administration would give us another bizarrely complicated but not universal or single-payer health plan (like Kerry's proposal), free-trade away another couple of million of the few remaining jobs, and, learning from past mistakes, require total celibacy from every appointee.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on June 13, 2006 9:39 AMAbout the polls, Martha, my understanding is that questions are asked like "Who would you like to be president in 2008?" or "Which of the following would you support [list of Clinton plus people like Vilsack that only 2% of people outside Iowa have ever heard of]?" Respondents answer with the only name normal (not politically obsessed) people have ever heard as a possible future president and thus Hillary gets way more mentions than anybody else.
How this translates into "liberals and feminists favor Hillary," I have no idea. Just an MSM meme?
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on June 13, 2006 9:53 AMRe Feingold, I don't know if he stands a chance. Actually, I don't know that much about him. Some bloggers promote him because of his censure resolution, an aspect that appeals to me, too; on the other hand, IIRC, he believes the president should be able to appoint whomever he pleases with the exception of a few egregious instances, and so he has affirmed quite a few appointees I found egregiously disgusting. Overall, he'd probably appeal to me if I knew more about him; he has a chance, maybe.
I've never understood Clarke's appeal. In 04, I saw him on C-SPAN a couple of times, and my concerns don't seem to be his concerns. Plus he seemed kind of bland and unenthusiastic. I've seen very little of him since then, and if he's a regular commentator on Fox News, then that explains his absence from my field of vision. How does he expect to rally Democrats to nominate him for president by hanging out with Republicans where Democrats never see him?
And Vince, how would you support the statement that Clinton governed to the left of where he ran? Admittedly, he ran to my right; his staged diss of Sister Soldja, whom he purposefully misunderstood, led me to never vote for him. Still, he governed with NAFTA and the end of welfare as we know it and 100,000 cops. I'd say he ran right and governed right. (Of course, now, compared with Bush, he looks fabulous, and we miss him.)
Who will I support? I have no idea. Nobody in particular inspires me, and I'm hoping some fabulous candidate emerges from the woodwork to state the case for single-payer universal health insurance, diplomacy, higher taxes, reining in corporate traitors, individual liberties plus a rewoven safety net, a decent infancy for every newborn, high-quality free education for all as far as their effort and intellect will take them, and a lot of other stuff. Keep hope alive!
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on June 13, 2006 10:47 AMI think some of Hillary's appeal is that she's the first woman to have a real chance at a Presidential nomination. Elizabeth Dole got mentioned first, I think, but Hillary could actually get nominated.
My guess is that nominating her would kill the Democratic party. The empty shell would stumble on for a while, but without relevance.
I think the DLC is a Republican front, a CIA-type operation meant to destroy the Democrats. The so-called safe states strategy managed to do the same to the Greens in the 2004 election, helped by the twenty-some million the Democrats spent trying to avoid democracy by keeping Nader off the ballot.
In addition to the censure resolution Feingold's also known for McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance reform attempt. Of course the law was gutted before it was passed, but Feingold tried to do something useful there. I don't think he has a realistic chance at the nomination, but he might very well drive the debate left. He's the only Democrat on the scene now about whom I'd be enthusiastic. I'd probably vote for Edwards, and possibly Gore, if he spoke on the campaign trail as he's speaking now. I wouldn't vote for any DLC candidate. Haven't so far, don't intend to.
What the DLC pulls off is, I think, the issue. They'll fight anyone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and they'll spend whatever it takes to market Hillary. They're saying she's the presumptive nominee in the same tone of voice that Bush claims everything's going swimmingly in Iraq. And with the same justification.
Posted by: Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) on June 13, 2006 11:48 PMYou've got a point, Chuck, about the first woman with a chance to be nominated. Wasn't Shirley Chisholm the first woman to receive votes at a Democratic convention?
I'm hoping Howard Dean's 50-state strategy drives the party toward the grassroots and away from the DLC-Beltway cabal. Maybe I'll post on that if my new Ubuntu project doesn't show up soon. I just got an invitation to a DSCC fund-raiser, with a minimum contribution of $500 and up to $26,700 for a sponsor. Maybe I should be flattered instead of flabbergasted.
And now that you've relocated, let us know what's going on, politically and culturally, in your new state. Wasn't your new governor indicted? I, too, wish your former governor had been indicted; he did have a lot of financial improprieties going on.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative on June 17, 2006 9:13 AMMy published letter to the editor on this topic:
Re http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/114987751172920.xml?pennxxx&coll=1
Peter Brown's "Clinton candidacy raises questions" used up yet more newspaper space on the popular inside-the-Beltway parlor game "Can Hillary win?" At least the pollster confined himself to silliness like only "the really left-wing types" are put off by her Constitutional amendment against flag burning and didn't, like the New York Times and David Broder, insist voters are as obsessed with the senator's husband's sex life as they are.
For a change, could we look forward to the 2008 elections by discussing our nation's problems, proposing solutions, and developing intelligent questions to ask candidates next year as they proffer themselves?
Otherwise, we'll once again elect the one we'd like to have a beer with rather than the one we'd trust to steer the ship of state.