Atrios and Kos have both highlighted the latest Gallup poll that presents Hillary Clinton as the leader of the pack for 2008. I see no point in linking to it because I’m sure you’ve all see the info.
I do, however, want to point out that this buzz is being created by Gallup; you know, the pollster who tilted his results towards Bush preceding the last election. Her candidacy is also being promoted by other fine progressives like Chris Matthews, Cokie Roberts, Tim Russert and Howard Fineman.
If this is not obviously a Repub scam, I don’t know what is. Why would we even consider their suggestions about who we should vote for in our primaries? The fact that her candidacy is being seriously discussed by lots of folks on dKos is quite simply appalling to me.
The Repubs and their media lap dogs would like nothing better than to obscure the issues and positions of the Democratic Party — once again — by focusing hatred on our candidate. And, Hillary is such an easy target for that purpose with loads of baggage. Her candidacy would not cause Freeper heads to explode as some predict. Instead, I’d expect them to dance in the aisles with gleeful anticipation over how spiteful and mean they’d get to be.
I realize that I am in the minority in my opinion of Hillary. So much so that I’ve never dared comment upon it at dKos or any other blog. I don’t like her and never have. I have no respect for a woman who doesn’t divorce a man who repeatedly betrays her. The basis of my opinion is just that simple. Standing by her man reveals a character flaw, a co-dependence based on mutual political ambition. Her self-esteem falls below her need for status and power.
This flaw also emerges in her recent shifts to the right. I don’t want a Democratic candidate who is hawkish and panders to anti-choice sentiments. If she had real self-esteem, she would have principles and stead-fact positions instead of side-stepping for approval from groups who will never, ever accept her. I’ve had enough of a president that is manipulated by others; I don’t want another one.
Now, you can all pile on and tell me how petty and shallow I am…
You obviously have strong feelings about her, there’s nothing petty about that. I’m indifferent to all the Hillary speculation because the fact is, the Republicans will tar & feather whoever is the Democratic nominee. Truth be told, I’m more interested in taking a look at the candidate’s positions and his/her ability to communicate them clearly. I understand the effects of the caricatures of candidates (think Kerry = Lurch), which is why the Democrats need to be aggressive in fighting against the lies the Repub. Noise Machine spread.
And let’s not do the rnc’s work for them by reiterating their frames, memes, and talking points. They have all their enablers in the “main stream media” for that.
Yes, but whoever will require new effort. The groundwork on Hillary has been etched into the media landscape. Why make it easy for them?
My feelings aren’t that strong. I don’t hate her. I just don’t respect her enough to vote for her. I actually feel sorry for her.
OTOH, there probably is very little that hasn’t already been scrutinized in Hill’s past. I doubt any new revelations or surprises would pop up. It’s kind of the devil-you-know versus the devil-you-don’t.
I couldn’t care less about her relationship with her husband and wouldn’t comment on that. Hillary is a mediocrity and without hubby would be a nobody. I remember her exemplary work on universal health insurance, for instance…
It’s not her relationship with her husband per se that concerns me. Really. It’s the door-mat quality of allowing someone to humiliate you — repeatedly — in public. You say, “without hubby [she] would be a nobody.” But, you know what? Suppose back when she became aware of Jennifer Flowers, Hillary had denounced and divorced him. Riding a wave of sympathy, she could have defeated him in the primaries and become Governor of Arkansas. She could have been a power on her own. But, you may be right; she may have recognized her own mediocrity and decided to ride his coat tails to power which brings me back to my basic premise — she’s flawed in ways I don’t want in a president.
Personal relationships are complex, and people feel differently about things. The fact that it was a public, as opposed to a private humiliation falls on the shoulders of the media and the public’s need to have this stuff on their TV every night. Personally she strikes me as a cold fish who’s relationship with her husband doesn’t revolve around the bedroom – so I’m not sure she felt humiliated by it as much as she felt it could damage political gain. (It’s thought Lyvia supplied Augustus with women to keep him at bay, while she enjoyed the power of controlling the fate of an Empire).
Not that I have any admiration for Bill – I think he did way too much damage to the Democrats. He was a politician first – at which he excelled – however I doubt he had any personal convictions, and neither does she. For the Clintons it’s about power, about going with the flow to achieve your goals, it’s not about saving the country.
So I will agree with you that she is flawed.
I have to figure that there were others before Jennifer Flowers, that there was a private confrontation between them before the public ever knew. I’m not accepting of these kinds of arrangements because of personal experience.
I don’t blame the media for reporting on the affairs of politicians. It’s sensationalist and that sells.
I think you’ve identified the heart of my objection to Hillary — a willingness to compromise values and ideals for political expedience.
I agree with you about Hillary not being my candidate of choice also, but for far different reasons.
I like her. I think she’s one of the shrewdest politicians we have. She is in my opinion principled and highly motivated and in the best of all worlds could, and probably should be the next President, but:
We don’t live in that world and at the present time I believe her candidacy would be a mistake.
With so many issues that have the potential change the face of this nation in ways we cannot yet even imagine, to have an election so tied to personality and perceptions would be counter productive.
Although it goes without saying that the attacks from the right would be unfounded, to have to expend so much energy to defend against them would only take away from the real and pressing issues that this election should be about.
The fact of the matter is that years were spent, with attack after attack, to turn her into the “divisive candidate” she is today. That fact cannot be changed simply because the attacks were untrue, and the characterization unfair.
With so much at risk, we simply cannot afford to spend the time and effort needed to sway so many closed minds.
.
I’m most ambivalent about Hillary. In principle I agree with some of your objections. I had hoped you would have provided some links though, as to her voting record. I am not able to follow all the Congressional presentations, speeches, etc.
I believe the Democrats need a personality, who is experienced, but perhaps has not traveled the road to fame yet. I’m thinking about a person like John Edwards or Bill Richardson, you need an upright politician.
My impression of the policy positions taken by Hillary as too close to a Joe Lieberman, the establishment of Washington DC, on many issues and policies in the mainstream. For many decades, politicians have taken a policy position sculptured by the lobbyists and corporate power. As example on foreign policy, the Middle-East position, not even-handed with the Israeli-Palestine imbalance in power, and the road toward a peaceful settlement. The dividing lines between these Democrats and Republicans are too thin. For the Republicans, John McCaine has an identical problem.
Therefore, the Democrats will need to come forward with a NEW face, someone who has not been labeled yet and can give fresh insight toward policy making in “fish-bowl” DC. The Democrats need to raise hell with the Republican agenda and failures over the last 5 years. Therefore definitely not a senator, who has voted too often in line with the wishes of Bush.gov. Perhaps a Democratic governor as presidential candidate, any suggestions?
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Yes, John Edwards or Bill Richardson or Elliot Spitzer even. Or even, goshdarnit, Dean! Right now, I feel the need for a zealot to drive the money changers from the temple, someone who will come in and sweep corruption from the halls of power. Or, at the least, appear to do so.
It seems inevitable that the US is going to become a second-rate power but I’d like us to do so by taking our place along side the UK and Europe with integrity and honor as we confront the rise of China and India.
Sorry I don’t have the energy to hunt for links but I’ll just say she voted to confirm Abu Gonzales and that’s too much of a compromise for me.
I agree that Hillary would be a mistake, more because she’s Republican lite than anything else. Then again, last time around I was rooting for Kucinich so I probably shouldn’t talk.
I am thinking Schumer might not be a bad choice, he’s been great lately. Or Dean.
and I don’t think it’s Hillary. Personally, I think she and Bill have hurt women in general. (I’m from Arkansas.)
We’re not going to find a perfect candidate, ie, one that can’t be slimed somehow by the slime-masters.
My choice is Wesley Clark for many reasons, but one of them is that he can smack down the slimers better than anyone else I’ve heard.