Hillary Clinton: "I'm in. And I'm in to win."
Hillary Clinton just announced the formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee, and that means she is officially running for President.
Her announcement begins with "I'm in. And I'm in to win."
As I have said on more than one occasion, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, and I really do not want to see her as the Democratic candidate in '08.
This is a going to be a bit of a free form riff, so I apologize now if what follows seems a bit disjointed.
There are many reasons I do not want Hillary to be the nominee. Where to start?
I don't like her on a personality level, and it is an epic understatement to say I am not alone in that regard. Without question, she has the intellect and experience to be President, but she does not have the temperament. And before anyone even tries to raise it, my previous statement has nothing to do with fact that Hillary is a woman. I don't care if the President is a woman or a man. I want the best person for the job.
Hillary has extreme electability problems. Whether she deserves to be this or not, she is the single most divisive person in American politics in the last 20 years--even more so than her husband. To Republicans, Hillary makes Nancy Pelosi look like Aunt Bea from "The Andy Griffith Show." I said it repeatedly during the 2004 campaign, and I think it is still true today and will be true in 2008--any Democrat who wants to win a Presidential election has to get some Republican votes. Of all the Dems currently in the race, the one who by far has the least chance of doing that is Hillary. Hillary instead will galvanize the GOP. In 2004, there were plenty of Republicans who were looking for a reason not to vote for Bush, but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry. That sort of behavior would increase significantly if Hillary is the candidate. Maybe things could change, but for now I can say I do not know a single Republican (and being in Texas, I know a lot of Republicans) that would vote for Hillary. I think most Republicans would be more likely to vote for Ted Kennedy than Hillary--and that is not intended as hyperbole. And don't think that just because the Republicans collectively got their asses handed to them in November that negative campaigning is finished. The Republicans lost because so many of them were hypocritical a-holes and that fact was glaringly obvious. Negative campaigning is still effective, and the easiest target is Hillary Clinton.
And I can tell you something the Republicans will show over and over and over again. It will be the press conference that she and Charles Schumer (the other NY Senator) held after 9-11. There was Schumer, coming across as completely sincere, completely concerned, completely determined to do something. And standing next to him was Hillary, fidgeting and looking annoyed that she had to be there. I was shocked.
One of the things I dislike about Hillary is how she has methodically tried to rebrand herself as a centrist. If she truly had become a centrist, I would not mind. However, this centrist trend has been a deliberate and calculated sales job to the American public. In others words, I see it as disingenuous. For all politicians out there--be who you are and what you are. I know that is what I want to see and hear, and after this most recent election, I think more and more people want that as well. I will combine this thought with the gender issue. Although I do not agree with her on every issue, and even though at times she is too far on the liberal end of the scale for my liking, I would much rather vote for Barbara Boxer for President than Hillary. Boxer is a liberal, she is proud of it, and she never tries to be anything different, AND she never tries to turn away from being called liberal. She is sincere, and you know what you are getting from her.
For me, the prime example of Hillary's centrist ploy is the issue of Iraq. She voted for the war. She refuses to say that was a mistake or that she was in any way wrong in her support of the war. Instead she has tried to have it both ways. That is exactly the same bullshit Kerry tried in '04. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Even John Edwards, who was a big-time supporter of the war and unapologetic about it during the '04 campaign (which is a reason why he was a poor choice for a running mate), has stepped up and said he was wrong. He hasn't tried to rationalize or dance around the issue. He has flat out said he was wrong. And let me tell you, I have a lot more respect for Edwards now because of that. Hillary is trying to keep from offending Republicans while trying to show the anti-war crowd that she is being tough. After the '06 election, this approach is not going to work.
UPDATE on 1-21-07: Via one of the long time members of the Clark Community Network, I found a link to this analysis by Bob Harris on Hillary's Iraq problem.
Part of Hillary's personality is hard core personal ambition. She is power-hungry. I think that is a major, if not the major reason she stayed with Bill despite his years of infidelity. For those who think that view is uncalled for, unfair, and/or irrelevant, then look at how she got to the Senate. Before running for office, where had Hillary lived? Let's see...She was born and raised in the Chicago area. She went to college at Wellesley College, which is in Massachusetts. She went to law school at Yale, which is in Connecticut. She married Bill and then lived in Arkansas until 1992. Then she lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years. And then she decided she wanted to be a Senator from New York. C'mon. Before that, Hillary had never lived in New York and had no direct ties to the state. This was absolutely a calculated decision. New York had enough liberals that she had a chance to win, and being a Senator from New York would carry much more prestige and prominence than most other states. By the time Bill left office Hillary Clinton was as much a New York citizen as I was. I guess since I was a New York football Giants fan this year, I can run for Hillary's Senate seat in '08.
I'm not interested in having a power-hungry person as President. I've had enough of that since 2001.
There is certainly more to say on this topic, but for now, I'm done.
Her announcement begins with "I'm in. And I'm in to win."
As I have said on more than one occasion, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, and I really do not want to see her as the Democratic candidate in '08.
This is a going to be a bit of a free form riff, so I apologize now if what follows seems a bit disjointed.
There are many reasons I do not want Hillary to be the nominee. Where to start?
I don't like her on a personality level, and it is an epic understatement to say I am not alone in that regard. Without question, she has the intellect and experience to be President, but she does not have the temperament. And before anyone even tries to raise it, my previous statement has nothing to do with fact that Hillary is a woman. I don't care if the President is a woman or a man. I want the best person for the job.
Hillary has extreme electability problems. Whether she deserves to be this or not, she is the single most divisive person in American politics in the last 20 years--even more so than her husband. To Republicans, Hillary makes Nancy Pelosi look like Aunt Bea from "The Andy Griffith Show." I said it repeatedly during the 2004 campaign, and I think it is still true today and will be true in 2008--any Democrat who wants to win a Presidential election has to get some Republican votes. Of all the Dems currently in the race, the one who by far has the least chance of doing that is Hillary. Hillary instead will galvanize the GOP. In 2004, there were plenty of Republicans who were looking for a reason not to vote for Bush, but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry. That sort of behavior would increase significantly if Hillary is the candidate. Maybe things could change, but for now I can say I do not know a single Republican (and being in Texas, I know a lot of Republicans) that would vote for Hillary. I think most Republicans would be more likely to vote for Ted Kennedy than Hillary--and that is not intended as hyperbole. And don't think that just because the Republicans collectively got their asses handed to them in November that negative campaigning is finished. The Republicans lost because so many of them were hypocritical a-holes and that fact was glaringly obvious. Negative campaigning is still effective, and the easiest target is Hillary Clinton.
And I can tell you something the Republicans will show over and over and over again. It will be the press conference that she and Charles Schumer (the other NY Senator) held after 9-11. There was Schumer, coming across as completely sincere, completely concerned, completely determined to do something. And standing next to him was Hillary, fidgeting and looking annoyed that she had to be there. I was shocked.
One of the things I dislike about Hillary is how she has methodically tried to rebrand herself as a centrist. If she truly had become a centrist, I would not mind. However, this centrist trend has been a deliberate and calculated sales job to the American public. In others words, I see it as disingenuous. For all politicians out there--be who you are and what you are. I know that is what I want to see and hear, and after this most recent election, I think more and more people want that as well. I will combine this thought with the gender issue. Although I do not agree with her on every issue, and even though at times she is too far on the liberal end of the scale for my liking, I would much rather vote for Barbara Boxer for President than Hillary. Boxer is a liberal, she is proud of it, and she never tries to be anything different, AND she never tries to turn away from being called liberal. She is sincere, and you know what you are getting from her.
For me, the prime example of Hillary's centrist ploy is the issue of Iraq. She voted for the war. She refuses to say that was a mistake or that she was in any way wrong in her support of the war. Instead she has tried to have it both ways. That is exactly the same bullshit Kerry tried in '04. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Even John Edwards, who was a big-time supporter of the war and unapologetic about it during the '04 campaign (which is a reason why he was a poor choice for a running mate), has stepped up and said he was wrong. He hasn't tried to rationalize or dance around the issue. He has flat out said he was wrong. And let me tell you, I have a lot more respect for Edwards now because of that. Hillary is trying to keep from offending Republicans while trying to show the anti-war crowd that she is being tough. After the '06 election, this approach is not going to work.
UPDATE on 1-21-07: Via one of the long time members of the Clark Community Network, I found a link to this analysis by Bob Harris on Hillary's Iraq problem.
Part of Hillary's personality is hard core personal ambition. She is power-hungry. I think that is a major, if not the major reason she stayed with Bill despite his years of infidelity. For those who think that view is uncalled for, unfair, and/or irrelevant, then look at how she got to the Senate. Before running for office, where had Hillary lived? Let's see...She was born and raised in the Chicago area. She went to college at Wellesley College, which is in Massachusetts. She went to law school at Yale, which is in Connecticut. She married Bill and then lived in Arkansas until 1992. Then she lived in Washington, D.C. for eight years. And then she decided she wanted to be a Senator from New York. C'mon. Before that, Hillary had never lived in New York and had no direct ties to the state. This was absolutely a calculated decision. New York had enough liberals that she had a chance to win, and being a Senator from New York would carry much more prestige and prominence than most other states. By the time Bill left office Hillary Clinton was as much a New York citizen as I was. I guess since I was a New York football Giants fan this year, I can run for Hillary's Senate seat in '08.
I'm not interested in having a power-hungry person as President. I've had enough of that since 2001.
There is certainly more to say on this topic, but for now, I'm done.
posted by WCharles @ 1/20/2007 01:17:00 PM
1 Comments:
Dubya2, I hereby dub you an honorary New Yorker. Based on your somewhat left of center positions, you probably would fit in better as an upstater as opposed to an ultra-liberal downstater.
It amazed me when she was elected to the Senate representing NY and even more amazed when she was reelected, knowing the antipathy towards her. But, that probably is more of a commentary on the lack of strength with her Republican challengers.
Saying she's in it to win.... what's the alternative? "I'm in it to spend your money even though I know I don't stand a chance of winning the election." "I'm in it to prove American men are male chauvinist pigs and don't have the courage to vote for a woman." "I'm in it because I love visiting Iowa since they are a big party state." "I'm in it because Bill doesn't think I've got what it takes and I want to prove him wrong."
And let me commend you on one of the most jointed posts I've seen you write in a long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home