Hillary vs. Who?
Check out this article on Hillary's management/leadership style in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
The frightening thing is that she sounds like a Democratic version of George W. Bush (not a good thing in my mind). That being said, I respect someone that can learn and grow in their career.
I think it's a done deal that she will be the Democratic candidate. Any differing opinions?
Who's the Republican? Giuliani? I still find it hard to believe he can win the nomination.
posted by Carl Spackler @ 8:49 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
She certainly will have my vote in the primary season – even though Florida’s won’t count. As to who will be opposing her, I still think Giulani has the best chance.
Giulani will fight his way through the primary season to the nomination and yes, there may be some setbacks in SC, GA and AL. But, ultimately he’ll be recognized as the best chance to take the White House from Mrs. Clinton and the famous First Gentleman.
When we head into the general election season, I think we Democrats may have a somewhat more difficult time because of the Electoral College arithmetic. Examples:
1. New York has 31 Electoral College delegates. Giulani was elected twice as a Republican in what could arguably be described as the most democratic city in the Empire State. While Hillary did relatively well in the rest of the state on her senatorial campaign, it was the city that carried her into victory. In my view, a Giulani candidacy puts New York in play. A loss of New York by Hillary would seem like an automatic Giulani presidency.
2. New Jersey’s 15 Electoral College delegates are also up for play because of the same reason.
3. I understand the general malaise the Republicans are under (thanks, George!!) but what states would Hillary take in 2008 that Gore did not take in 2000 or Kerry in 2004? Florida, maybe? I doubt it….. the Cuban-American community is more solidly anti-Hillary than it was anti-Kerry (donde esta Elian?); the New York transplants are pro-Giulani and I think the only lever Billy Bob in the Northern part of the state would pull on Hillary’s behalf would be that of a guillotine if her head was under it.
4. Hillary has been too nuanced on Iraq also. She voted in favor of the authorization, then came out against “the status quo,” then expressed the need for a “suspension of disbelief” to General Betray-us, then said she could not guarantee a pull-out by 2012 if she was the President and now, to make matters worse for all of us Democrats, there are significant indications that the surge is working and our allies in Iraq (al-Qaeda) may be retreating.
And I don’t want to sound too gloomy out here, but then there are the perennial issues with our candidate…. First, there’s that Hsu guy and the Chinese dishwashers in Chinatown making large donations to our candidate (for the record, I donated and encouraged her as well when she was in doubt as to whether or not to enter the race). Then, there’s the recent Zogby poll, wherein she barely squeezes by Kucinich when the sample population was asked “Whom would you NEVER vote for President of the U.S.?” (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376). And last, but not least, is how close she is polling to the as of yet undecided Republican candidate (their race is much closer).
Bottom line, I think the electorate is too dumb to realize what a great President she’d make. And to think how much closer to Canada or Europe she’d get us…..
Spackler, while Hillary may sound to you like a Democratic version of GW Bush, in many ways she is the polar opposite. According to this piece and others I've read she is a voracious consumer of information, is highly organized, has learned to be flexible in policy and strategy, and chooses to surround herself with people that are willing to speak truth to her power. This is a marked dichotomy to the six and a half years of incompetent ideological nepotism we we have suffered under an obdurate president notorious for his aversion to knowledge or information and who refuses to listen to or appoint anyone daring to hold a difference of opinion with the "decider". I am no fan of Hillary on ideological grounds, but on the question of brains and competence I have little doubt that a Hillary administration would be a vast improvement over GW and his merry band of HeckuvaJob Brownies. On that count alone she is not any version of GW Bush.
I agree that she will be the Democratic nominee, and I consider it the fortunate lesser of numerous evils in the Democratic field. I won't be voting for her, but if she wins the general election I can at least expect that she will reintroduce a sorely missed measure of competency to the presidency.
Centerline, I was more than a little shocked at your assertion that the positive progress the United States is now making in Iraq is unfortunate because it may have adverse implications on Democratic political chances here at home. You may find this difficult to swallow, but some of us closer to the center DO NOT consider Al-Qaeda our ally and we actually think that Al-qaeda's retreat is a good thing regardless of the domestic political effects - and I say this being no fan of Bush or his Iraq policies whatsoever. You reinforce the worst sterotypes the rest of us believe about those on the left - that they prefer their personal political expediencies over the good of the nation. The future of this country is dark when poisonous partisanship trumps patriotism. Screw patriotism, it now trumps common sense. United we stand, yadda yadda....
-Ico
Ico, the fact remains that when it comes to the single issue deciding elections today, Iraq, there has been remarkable consistency on the right and left (right or wrong) and remarkable inconsistency in the center. The right and the left positions have reflected on the electorate polling from the beginning as the core base of support and opposition to the war. The center has slowly but surely shifted its position from one of approval to one of disapproval – also represented and clearly visible in the polling. So think of the so-called center (to which Hillary is the closest Democrat in the race) as more of a fair-weather fan, ready to modify positions as a function of what is politically expedient.
In that respect, I actually think the further away from the center you get the more purity of thought – and consistency. The majority of Democrats in Congress, to which Obama and Edwards are closer on this issue than Hillary, have agreed with Spackler from early on and have been consistent throughout:
1. The war was a mistake;
2. Bush got us into it through lies (not Spackler’s position);
3. The sooner we leave Iraq the better our interests are served;
4. The surge can’t and thus won’t work.
The Republicans took a full bet on a continuation of the Iraq effort, fully vested themselves in the notion and lost the 2006 election unbelievably enough on a foreign policy issue – namely Iraq. Meanwhile, we Democrats also took a full bet on withdrawal/redeployment of the Iraq forces, fully vested ourselves in the notion and won the 2006 elections against all historical trends.
The problem we Democrats face is that the surge may actually work. And that it may be a first step towards a political reconciliation that may establish a functioning society over there. Yes, it is a political problem that SHOULD be overwhelmed by the larger strategic interests of our country. But I stand by my original assertion. The political interests of America’s left, when it comes to Iraq, are much more closely aligned with al-Qaeda than they are with the Republican’s.
And Hillary has attempted to ride both sides of this in what the electorate may perceive (I am a supporter of her candidacy and this is how I perceive it) as political opportunism.
If the American public ever understands the actual positions that Hillary holds on many issues she is unelectable. This is a big if…..
The liberal media will try to cloud her positions (nuanced I believe is the way centerline likes to spin it) and Hillary herself will continue to bump her gums up and down and make noises on our television sets - all the while never saying anything of substance....never getting pinned down on a clear belief or position. If we are lucky she will use her ‘blacent’ and that creepy laugh too
Here are just some of the issues for the GOP to highlight (we miss you Lee Atwater) on Hillary
On Abortion - Hillary supports taxpayer funding and partial birth abortion, she is against parental notifications and supports allowing minors to cross state lines for abortions with out parental consent
On Immigration - she supports drivers licenses for illegal immigrants (I mean undocumented workers) please enjoy this clear explanation http://www.imao.us/archives/009037.html So…where EXACTLY does she stand and what would she do? She does not recognize English as the official language and supports a ‘guest worker’ program.
On Taxes – She supports $20 billion in new gas and energy taxes, she will roll back the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ and use the money to finance her Health Care plan and fund Social Security? Will eliminate the 95k cap on earnings for social security…
On Gay Marriage – full support and equality of benefits/status across the board (even in cases where the two women are not smoking hot)
On Gun control – favors assault rifle ban, background checks and waiting periods
On Islamo-Facists – She rules out nukes against Iran, wants to start planning the Iraq withdrawal immediately, opposes profiling at airports, here is a good summary of her Iraq position http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/democrats__iraq__heres_hillary_opedcolumnists_dick_morris__eileen_mcgann.htm
one other thing Ico - you say "we actually think that Al-qaeda's retreat is a good thing regardless of the domestic political effects" but also that you are "no fan of Bush or his Iraq policies whatsoever."
I don't get it - If Bush's policies are bringing on a desired result (the al Qaeda retreat that you justed acknowledge) what don't you like about them/him?
Do you dispute that Bush's polices achieved the current results? do you think there was a better way to get the same results? or are you speaking of prior policies?
I tend to support the policies that get me the results I want? Although I realize that is counter to the tax policies of most liberals ;-)
Great. Here comes righ-ty webb with his 2 cents. Hillary takes Charles de Gaulle's famous principled position: "In politics, it is necessary either to betray one's country or the electorate. I prefer to betray he electorate."
Hillary can't let the electorate know exactly what she means to do for the good of the country.
good article re: The Hill....
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23380
" Here’s a real question for you: As the ultimate insider in the administration of a pathological liar, with her own long track record of dishonesty, double talk, financial misdealing and “clarifications”, why in the hell would anyone, even a hard-core but honest liberal even consider voting for you?”
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home