So Hillary Clinton has announced that she’s forming an exploratory committee to look into running for president.
I have several problems with this:
First of all, when she ran for Senator, she swore it wasn’t to position herself for a presidential run, but rather because she loved New York and wanted to serve its citizens. If she’d been in that position through, say, 2012, I might be convinced she saw the gig as something other than a means to an end. As it is, I feel as if she were here for the minimum amount of time necessary to establish some political cred. That’s a touch too manipulative for me.
Second, she’s come across to me as too mealy-mouthed and–there’s that word again–manipulative on various issues. Even her announcement about running isn’t firm and positive: She’s announced that she’s sticking her toe in the water. Say you’re in, say you’re out, but make a decision. It makes me think of Mr. Miyagi telling Daniel something like, “You karate yes, fine. You karate no, fine. You karate maybe, you get squished like grape.”
Third, I don’t think she’s electable. I just don’t. I don’t think she’ll play anywhere outside of large metropolitan areas, and even in some of those. I’m not sure Barack Obama is, either. I don’t think he’s got enough experience and, frankly, I still think there’s sizable pockets of this country that don’t put a black man in office (hëll, I grew up in the 1960s where assassination was the order of the day, so I’m worried some white supremacist is going to pop a cap in his head.)
As crazy as it sounds, I’d almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it. Hëll, Richard Nixon came back from a loss, and that wasn’t even an election where he won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike everyone else in the field, he’s got a six year track record of being actively involved in something other than trying to get office and stay in office. He’s been sounding the alert about serious problems this planet faces while the administration had its ears covered saying “la la la, I’m not listening.” What’s wrong with electing a man who has demonstrably been ahead of the curve on one of the gravest problems these next generations will face?
PAD
• 
The first question that comes to mind is: has any elected official lost reelection immediately after comparing homosexuality to a predatory perversion, like pedophilia or bëšŧìálìŧÿ? Has any radio talk show host lost his slot for comparing the Abu Ghraib torture photos to gay pørņ?
Micha: “Luigi, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It has a picture of a man slamming his head into a brick wall. You can have one at the color of your choice.”
I don’t think those tee-shirts are selling very well.
“Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks”
What about Muslims?
Miles Vorkosigan: Maybe I’m just naive, but why can’t people just elect Barack or Hillary or Al or whøëvërŧhëfûçk based on their track record? Am I an idealist, or just stupid?
Luigi Novi: I’m guessing the former, but hey, that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. I think the reason that it may not be this simple is because in the case of Hilary, the spinmeisters of her opponents can use her record against her, and in the case of Obama, her doesn’t have much of a record, which may count against him in the eyes of voters who either prefer to vote for someone who has one, or who can be manipulated by the spinmeisters into thinking that way.
Bobb Alfred: What? There’s any kind of prejudice that’s acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?
Luigi Novi: I think SER was talking about “is” rather than “ought”. In terms of “is”, there are many groups for whom it is “acceptable” to exhibit prejudicial attitudes, because whether your group is subject to this or not is as much a matter of how well it or others have used PR to promote its visibility as a group of actual human beings deserving of respect than of the moral consistency of the rest of society, even those who generally men well.
We had a thread some time ago in which Peter mentioned something to the effect that some group (I don’t remember which, maybe it was comic book fans) that is the “only” group for whom prejudicial attitudes are acceptable. I responded there are many groups subject to prejudicial attitudes, like Indians, Arabs, Gypsies, Native Americans, atheists/agnostics, Trekkies, soap opera fans, fat people, unattractive people, etc. Whether you notice them depends on who you are, where you live, and in general, the exposure you’ve had to the information about them and their lives. The fact is, there are still people who hold quite overt prejudicial, and even outright hateful attitudes against not only these groups that I’ve mentioned, but even the ones that may be perceived in liberal circles to be afforded respect, like blacks, gays, women, etc.
I wasn’t current on the Hillary whisper campaign because I’m not caught up on my reading of Moonie periodicals:
Gee, either a Hillary rep leaked a false rumor in a manor that would unambiguously trace it back to her — or it’s another Republican Whisper Campaign,™ and they couldn’t use the siring of a black baby this time because Obama is the black baby in question.
Pitiful.
people who say that Red Dwarf isn’t funny should rightly be treated as second class citizens and fans of the films of Uwe Boll should be shunned and segregated from the rest of society for the greater good.
There are people who don’t find Red Dwarf funny? There are fans of Uwe Boll?????
I don’t live in New York, but I can’t imagine it’s that green in January.
It is. It looks like it was filmed right across the street from where I live (I’m about 5 minutes from the main government offices). Gotta remember, we just got our first real snowfall on Monday morning – until then, it’d been greener than Seattle here.
And please, could people make an effort to spell Obama’s name correctly? One B. Just one. It’s not that difficult a name to spell, and misspelling it, especially right now when Fox News enjoys mooshing him in with bin Laden, is just petty and juvenile.
It’s a small request, really,…
“There are fans of Uwe Boll?????”
Scary, but all too true. Google “boll fans” and weep.
Hillary has enough clout to get past sexist prejudices against her. She can win by getting the coastal states, Ohio, Michigan and a few others. She doesn’t need the bubba states.
I say this because there are enough people tired of the GOP to simply vote against that party. They might not want Hillary per se, but ousting the GOP from the White House is worth putting up with her. (No matter which Republican might win, we would see the same supporting cast we’ve seen since Nixon. THAT alone is dreadful enough to hold our noses and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.)
The conventional wisdom is that voters prefer one party controlling legislation and the other party controlling the presidency, because one party controlling both is disasterous regardless of the party.
Reagan and Clinton seem to be the obvious examples. Maybe Bush 41 was counting on voters’ bipartisan preference to give him room to disregard how unhappy they were with him. The best combination seems to be republicans controlling the purse-strings in congress while a democrat cuts US military spending (to something below half of all military spending worldwide).
Unless voters can count on a party-switch in congress, a republican with some liberal cred, like Giuliani for New York, Romney for Massachussetts, or Hagel for being the maverick McCain takes credit for being, has the edge in the general election. I think 2008 is still the bubba states’ election to lose.
It looks like I was wrong about kerry–sources say he will be dropping out of the race. Good move and one that I’m sure was tough for him to make.
Kerry has just officially announced that he’s out of the race and will concentrate on getting reelected to the senate.
On the other hand, Newt Gingrich said this week on Fox “News” Sunday that he’d run only if he absolutely had to as a “last resort”.
So, in other words, he’ll only run if we beg him too. What an ego.
Den,
Of course he has an ego. So do McCain, Clinton and anyone else who actually believes they can make a difference.
BTW, I am SO glad Kerry has decided not to run. If I had to pick a former candidate, it would be Gore. I feel kerry is the epitome of the opportunistic, blowhard politician. While I disagree with Gore on many things, I do feel he is truly passionate about the environment.
Hillary isn’t unelectable. All those female swing voters (and even male) will vote for her just to affect history.
Barack would be a nice VP candidate, but no way America is gonna elect a black male before a white female.
John Edwards and Al Gore are seen as losers, and today’s political climate is a lot different than Nixon’s. The media doesn’t care about actual journalism over profit margins any more.
My vote is for Hillary. The Republicans don’t have anyone to go up against her except McCain and Guliani who I think she can beat.
Even with all the attention Obama is getting–and with the advantage of people not knowing anything about him–Hillary is clobbering him in the polls.
Hillary also has an advantage no other has–everything negative that could have come out about her has already done so. There are no surprises left. Nobody else can say that.
Theres another factor as well–both McCain and Giuliani have tempers and, in the heat of the campaign, might show a side that isn’t attractive. It doesn’t have to be anything much, it’ll still be the Youtube video of the week (witness Dean’s “Yeargh!” moment). Hillary may show the emotional range of a toaster but not everyone is looking to elect the Feeler in Chief. I cringe when I hear the people around her talk about how they are going to “humanize” her (One problem with these professional handlers is that they turn into regular Chatty Cathys when given the chance, always yapping about how they are responsible for the candidate choosing Earth tones or changing their style to specifically appeal to soccer moms or whatever. Cripes, just do it don’t tell people you’re doing it!
Anyway, I’m more convinced than ever that Hiallry is a lock on the nomination and not a terrible early bet to win the whole enchilada (obviously a lot depends on the Republican candidate and that is far less in the bag).
But there seems to be (or was in the past) a deep seated dislike toward Hilary. Has she been able to overcome it?
I think anyone and everyone who voted for Hillary’s Senatorship in the past with the belief that she wasn’t running for President with the New York Senate seat as a steppingstone… gets what they deserve.
40% will never vote for her. It’s a high hurdle to overcome but she can still win–especially if enough of those 40% stay home. I don’t know if her unpopularity ratings are much higher than what Bush’s were in 2004. As long as you are running against someone even less popular it doesn’t matter.
First Hillary is going to win the nomination because she wasn’t above sleazy whisper campaigns, now she’s going to win the primary because she’s leading in polls at the same time in the campaign her husband was at 1%. It’s the infinitely-climbing fire. How will republicans survive the deprivation of not voting for Hillary in the democratic primaries?
I don’t know if her unpopularity ratings are much higher than what Bush’s were in 2004.
I don’t know anything about Hillary’s popularity ratings, but she got elected to a Senate seat in New York… twice. That’s saying something, I suppose.
That, and she doesn’t intend to ignore Bill, a fatal mistake in Gore’s campaign.
Bill’s popularity was, iirc, still pretty dámņ high after all the Lewinsky stuff, and there are probably some who would vote for Hillary just to get Bill anywhere near the White House again and back as an official player in world politics.
Sure, theer are those who would love to get Bill back but there are also Democrats onthe fringes of the left who are almost Fallwellian in their blaming teh Clintons for whatever defects they see in the Democratic Party (which is to say, it not being as radical as they are). I’m amazed at how anti-Hillary some of the popular leftwing sites have become.
In the end though, they’ll come around. What choice will they have?
“In the end though, they’ll come around. What choice will they have?”
Never underestimate the left’s ability to commit suicide.
But what I’m afraid is going to happen is thatthe Republicans will run somebody he will be sufficiently disassociated from Bush, but who will support all the appropriate conservative issues — taxation, tough on crime, ‘family values’ that much of america seems to support. On global warming the Republicans are already moving to take the issue away from the liberal aresenal. And on the issue of terrorism and Iraq they will try to present their (male) candidate as better able to deal with these problems than the softy (female) liberal candidate.
Wrong actions of doctors often lead to death which then carefully become covered by lawyers of clinics WBR LeoP
Considering you are commenting to what unambiguously qualifies as an anti-Hillary post, how do you account for your tolerance of the amazing radicalism of the site administrator?
Or has your presence here — weighing democratic lapses the same as republican corruption, weighing fantasy conspiracy theories against democrats the same as rumors against republicans you admit are likely rto be true — always been a form passive-aggression against a fringe left-winger?
And on the issue of terrorism and Iraq they will try to present their (male) candidate as better able to deal with these problems than the softy (female) liberal candidate.
Except that Hillary has been very aggressive on terrorism and Iraq. With all the various adjectives that have been used to describe her, “softy” is not one of them.
In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists. In the novel Weapons of Choice, an alternate history science fiction thriller features the aircraft carrier USS Hillary Clinton, named after “the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States.” I’m not sure that’s not a fairly likely possibility.
“In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists.”
Thanks Bill. That’s very interesting.
“In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists.”
Thanks Bill. That’s very interesting.
“In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists.”
Thanks Bill. That’s very interesting.
“In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists.”
Thanks Bill. That’s very interesting.
Well, I don’t think it was THAT interesting! 🙂
So the myth of big-government spending will be overlooked — to maintain a foreign occupation most republicans no longer support?
If by “interesting” you mean “inconsequential” then it was very interesting. Why don’t you just paint a target in the road and place on the bull’s-eye a dish labeled “Free Democratic Candidate Birdseed?” Then when a democratic candidate who isn’t Hillary stops to feed on it, you can drop an anvil on him.
“Even with all the attention Obama is getting–and with the advantage of people not knowing anything about him–Hillary is clobbering him in the polls.”
Well, they just showed an Iowa poll with Hillary running third behind Edwards and Obama. I think the poll results for at least the next twelve months are going to be like the 2004 pre-election polls. Who’s on top is going to be based on where you poll, who you poll and who did the poll.
“Well, I don’t think it was THAT interesting! :)”
Well, it actually was interesting. I’m always interested in how different people perceive political situtions. But the quadruple post was obviously the result a a computer bug, and I though posting an “I’m sorry” will be like making loud shsh sounds in a theater — counterproductive.
In any case, I haven’t decided if it is right for me to vote in the next election, but I’m certainly not going to vote in the primaries. I hope the Democrats pick a good candidate — and I was curious to see if Obama or Hilary are perceived as such. I must admit there is something in me hoping that the time has finally come to break the gender or race barrier in the presidential elections.
Well, they just showed an Iowa poll with Hillary running third behind Edwards and Obama.
Well that’s Iowa for you…Hillary just made her FIRST appearance there and some of the others have practically lived there the last year or so…in my opinion she can easily lose Iowa with little, if any long term harm, especially if the talk about moving California to an earlier date comes true.
Hillary is going to win the nomination, barring any unforseen disaster. That’s my presdiction and I’m sticking with it (and it isn’t like being worng is going to cost me anything; I haven’t bet the mortgage on it (last I saw betting on Hillary did not give a great return. On the other hand, betting on Arnold or Bill Clinton gave GREAT returns, possibly due to the pure impossibility of it).
Al Gore has just been nominated for a Nobel:
If he wins — and considering his unique qualification to run as retaliation against a president who arbitrarily started an unpopular war — 2008 will be his election to win or lose.