Candidate Hillary Clinton - Not "Anybody But Her"

The VRWC is calling for my head as you read this.

Published on February 20, 2005 By greywar In Politics

Here in the TOC we just finished watching Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Lindsey Graham on CBS. I hadn’t seen a “issues” interview from Senator Clinton in quite a while but this was definitely one.

I was a it distracted during the interview so I couldn’t catch it all but I definitely took one thing away from the overall tone : Triangulation.

The interview was purest Clinton.. Bill Clinton that is… Any doubts I had about a Senator Clinton Presidential candidacy in 2008 are gone. Every question was answered with a distinctly center movement. Senator Clinton actually talked about a need to increase the size of the military! Howard Dean must be apoplectic.

If you are looking for a brutal fisking of the interview or a condemnation of Senator Clinton you will be disappointed. She was calm and poised throughout the interview and issued no crazed statements (thought I caught anyway). This is the face of your next Democratic contender folks and (as political savvy goes) she is much stronger than Senator Kerry ever was. Senator Clinton’s weak link is the right’s srong personal distaste for her but the most recent election proved that “Anybody but X” is not an effective political strategy.

My point? Well really I would simply like to issue a word of caution to the right. Don’t fall for the easy lure of personal hate. Stick to the issues folks. If you dip into the personal attacks ala the Democratic Underground the voters won’t stand with an neither will I.

Personally I am dying to see an all-out battle between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. But I want to see the battle waged over issues and not just mud slinging.

Comments (Page 1)

whoman69

on Feb 20, 2005

Hillary Clinton would polarize the right to vote in even higher numbers than they voted against Kerry. She is the poster child for everything the right hates, and its a long list. She is additionally a horrible public speaker.

The only person that could be a worse pick would be Condi Rice. She would have no support from the Southern Republican base, has no experience in elected office, has no knowlege on domestic issues, has lied before Congress in stating that there was no briefing on Osama Bin Ladnen, and has been giving some very questionable advice to the President on foreign affairs. The only thing Republicans are looking at is taking the black vote from Democrats. Short sighted. If they want to lose in a landslide, then pick Condi.

greywar

on Feb 20, 2005

has no knowlege on domestic issues, has lied before Congress in stating that there was no briefing on Osama Bin Ladnen, and has been giving some very questionable advice to the President on foreign affairs. The only thing Republicans are looking at is taking the black vote from Democrats. Short sighted. If they want to lose in a landslide, then pick Condi.

Wow what and insightful and constructive comment loaded with alternatives and solutions! Or not. Dr. Condi Rice has no knowledge of domestic issues? Were you sober when you wrote that? The Bin Laden thing is a mem. If you aren't sure what a meme is Google for it. Don't drink every cup of kool-aid you are fed my man.

Sturgee

on Feb 20, 2005

I've also noticed that Hillary has amazingly come much further to the right over the last couple of years. I firmly believe that this an attempt to be viewed as more of a centrist, in an attempt to gain more of the centrist vote in America. She already has the base liberal Democrats, but needs to bring moderates into her camp in order to win. The thing to remember is that she was a pretty dedicated liberal for decades. She didn't really become a centrist until she became a Senator. I'm not sure of all of her votes in the Senate, but I get the impression that her voting and actions are still pretty liberal, but her "speeches" are more centrist. She talks a good game, but I have no doubt that if she were elected, she would institute a wide range of liberal policies (much higher taxes, socialized health care, etc.). Let's not forget, socialized national healthcare was her pet project when she was the first lady. These aren't "wacky, radical" ideas she had as a young women in the 60s and 70s. These are convictions that she has tried to act on as recently as a few years ago. That disturbs me. Not to mention some of the ethical and legal concerns that were brought to light during the Whitewater and other similar investigations. I think that the Democratic party has other members who would make great candidates (Sen. Russ Feingold one of them), and allowing the Clinton political machine to keep marching on in control of the Democratic party would be a shame. We'll have to see what shakes out in the next 3 years.

Madine

on Feb 21, 2005

The only way a democrat can win is by being centrist. It would be helpful for that democrat to be someone who the liberal base believes is a true liberal, even as the candidate emphasizes centrist issues. I think Hillary could get the nomination and run a competitive election.

kingbee

on Feb 21, 2005

Personally I am dying to see an all-out battle between Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. But I want to see the battle waged over issues and not just mud slinging

you'd prefer jello? (and i thought i was sick

)

kingbee

on Feb 21, 2005

She talks a good game, but I have no doubt that if she were elected, she would institute a wide range of liberal policies (much higher taxes, socialized health care, etc.). Let's not forget, socialized national healthcare was her pet project when she was the first lady. These aren't "wacky, radical" ideas she had as a young women in the 60s and 70s. These are convictions that she has tried to act on as recently as a few years ago. That disturbs me. Not to mention some of the ethical and legal concerns that were brought to light during the Whitewater and other similar investigations. I think that the Democratic party has other members who would make great candidates (Sen. Russ Feingold one of them), and allowing the Clinton political machine to keep marching on in control of the Democratic party would be a shame.

go back to 2000, change the name to gwb, configure the issues to fit the candidate, change 'whitewater' to 'harken' or 'sec', and 'clinton political machine' to 'bush political machine' and there seems to be more than lil bit of ironic symmetry

Sturgee

on Feb 21, 2005

Kingbee, I agree that the Bush machine is similar in many ways to the Clinton machine. I think that the GOP has better candidates within the party as well (Sen. McCain would have been a great choice in my opinion). I'm interested to see who the Republicans will come up with in 2008. Jeb Bush has already denied that he'll pursue the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see him in 2012 or 2016, depending on how the 2008 elections turn out.

Fair and Balanced

on Feb 21, 2005

The thing about Hillary is that her voting record has been straight left in her time as a Senator. Her big issues have always been education and health care. well Bill put her in charge of Arkansas education in his tenure as Governor and Arkansas climbed from 49th in the nation in terms of education all the way to 49th. Thank God for Mississsippi. The there was her National Health Care plan and the fact that it didn't exist. So her two strongest issues are just theoretical. Then post-911 she didn't attend a single funeral for the victims. If I were Hillary I'd be more worried about 2006 to 2008. I've heard rumors that the Republicans might run Rudolph Guliani against her in the Senate bid. And this time, Hillary won't have taxpayers funding her campaign. Also, it's been made clear that Americans don't particularly want Northeasterners in office. The last one was JFK and as I recall it had somewhat of a disastrous end. And worse yet, she's posing as a Northeasterner! That's even worse. The Dems would be truly desperate if Hillary was there high card for 08.

As an aside, I request that we stop fantasizing over the 2008 election. We don't know what the issues will be (For instance after the 2000 election who here thought that The War on Terror, Iraq, and Moral Values would be the key to the next election) or the candidates or how the political landscape has changed (electorally).

Deference

on Feb 21, 2005

Christ. Would Dems are actually let Hillary run? Let's keep fucking up, people.

shadesofgrey

on Feb 21, 2005

HRC has been moving toward the center since she won her Senate seat. It's not a new thing--her voting record proves it.

greywar

on Feb 21, 2005

It's not a new thing--her voting record proves it.

I agree... it is the pace that has increased....

singrdave

on Feb 21, 2005

Hillary has read the writing on the wall: that no hand-wringing, whiney, liberal president except Carter has been elected when there is a threat to the country. (Carter's election was just a knee-jerk reaction against anyone involved with Watergate.) Bill Clinton was elected when we thought the Berlin Wall was down, therefore the war was over.
Democrats cannot fight wars. (Remember Carter's "it's all right to cry" address to the nation?) It just shows that liberals don't win wars or keep peace. And the American people (at least a slim majority) know it, too. Thank God, or else where would we be?
The reason Hillary has slithered from her typical crazed, bilious, liberal anti-Bush ranting to a centrist position is that she knows that it ain't gonna win her any votes. From either side.

greywar

on Feb 21, 2005

It just shows that liberals don't win wars or keep peace.

well they do a good job of keeping "peace" while dictators re-arm:)

whoman69

on Feb 21, 2005

Yeah, its too bad that Wilkie didn't beat Roosevelt. We might have done some big things in that war if we had.

Lee1776

on Feb 21, 2005

The sad thing is, by the time 2008 rolls around people will be so sick of the Democrat's obstruction tactics, they will jump at anybody (with a name from their party) that will bring them back to the good old days. Hillary is trying to keep her hands clean. Look to a few good compromises and ideas coming from her camp with regards with dealing with the Republicans in the next few years.

If she can distance herself from Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean then buddy up with McCain, Frisk, along with mean moderate new age Democrats, she would make it hard for the Republican attack machine to use their hard ball attacks without looking petty as the Democrats did this last time.

While I personally will never vote for her (She prevented me from my dream job, but that's another story), I can see where many will jump at anything moderate.

Senators and Congressmen historically make poor candidates as Presidents, but great VPs. I would look for her to run as VP with someone like Governor Richardson, then slid into the Presidency after him. Just remember 2008 is a long way away. Hillary’s hate factor is still about 35%. Anybody that has 35% of polls saying that they would never even consider voting for them, will have a very difficult time getting the votes needed.

On the lighter side, just check this Toon out:Link

That's My Two Cents

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!