Before I go any further, I have to state what should be obvious from the title of this post. I am leaning very much towards supporting Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. She is smart, she is politically savvy, and she most definitely is a leader. I also agree with her positions on most of the issues. It is an added benefit that she is a woman because it is about time.
There is so much about her announcement yesterday that shows how far ahead she is of all the other candidates, including her plan to have live video webcasts over the next week. It was very smart to make the keynote sentence of her announcement be, “I’m in. And I’m in to win,” but even more brilliant is what is on the contribution page on her website. It has a checkoff for $4200 and at the bottom of the form, in little type, it states:
Your contribution is not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes. An individual may contribute a maximum of $2,100 per election (the primary and general are separate elections). By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,100 of your contribution is designated for the primary, and any additional amount up to $2,100 is designated for the general election.
Not only does this strategy buttress her statement that she is in the race to win, but it is going to mean she can accumulate lots of money early on. It’s brilliant and gutsy. I don’t think anyone else is doing it.
I have been opposed to the Iraq war since before it started so Clinton’s position on the Iraq war is troublesome to me, but I still do not know enough about her position to say no to your question. (As I said, I am leaning toward supporting her.) I know she voted to give the President the authority to invade Iraq and I actually think that was a necessary vote in order to get the U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. And it worked. I disagreed with what President Bush did with that authority. It was not only against international law, it was stupid.
So, if by support, you mean am I troubled that she voted to give President Bush the authority to invade, then I would have to say no. If you are referring to her position since the invasion, then I need to reserve judgment at this point.
<
p>
Love ya and what you’re doing to publicize the LaGuer case. That said, I was quite sure you would be backing Kerry. After all, he’s finally decided to be against it.
<
p>
I do hope that someone runs who loudly proclaimed the war to be the potential disaster that it is. Whomever stood up and told the truth gets my vote.
<
p>
Hillary’s appeal for maximum donations leaves me disgusted. Her approach is that she will win the election with centrist stances and large donors. As long as that’s the meme, nothing will ever change.
My name is Eric, but I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have been posting on the LaGuer case but I haven’t said anything, not even to my wife, about where I am at on the 2008 race for president. Feel free to email me if you want to clear up the identity confusion.
http://www.timesonli…
“Take the Iraq war. She voted for it but with shrewd reservations. “If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” she told the Senate before voting to give Bush authorisation. “For all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.” In retrospect those were wise words – but they are not helping her now with an increasingly anti-war Democratic base, especially since she continues to refuse to disown her vote.”
About the loss and re-discovery in the White House Book Room of important billing records from the Rose Law firm that were the subject of Federal investigative subpoenas?
I have to admit that her video made me curious in the online chat thing tomorrow. She’s got great presence and feeling of accessibility in this little vid. On the other hand, I think W gives a great speech even thought he’s the most repellent person in America, so canned speaking style doesn;t really tell us much. I’ll be intersted to see how she comes across live, and if she’s tossed any tough questions or if the whole thing is stage managed.
<
p>
As for gutsy fundraising text – I wish she was equally gutsy on certain matters of substance…
“As for gutsy fundraising text – I wish she was equally gutsy on certain matters of substance…”
<
p>
That was really funny.
One thing I would need to get over in order to support Hillary is the idea that if Hillary wins the presidency, it will mean since the election of Bush 41 in 1988 the Oval Office will be held for 24 years by only two families (28 years, almost three decades if Hillary is a two-term president). It almost gives the appearence there is a loop hole in presidential term limits.
<
p>
Although a reality, the idea of an elite ruling class in the US does not sit well with me. And having 28 years with only two families holding the presidency does not seem as if it would improve the already tarnished image of the US as a ‘vibrant democracy’.
<
p>
If I percieved Hillary as a head-and shoulders-above-the rest candidate, I could dismiss this fear easily. Given that it is is a year untill the first primary, I have not given much substanative thought about my presidential front runner. However, this would be one reason Hillary would start with a leg down, for me.
She should ahve divorced him years ago – nobody in the country would have held it against her. Now, the image of him back again is as uncomfortable as poor Jane Swift’s husband as head of the Doric Dames.
“She should have divorced him!”
… but don’t let two gay people get married, oh no no no!
“the image of him back again is as uncomfortable as…”
<
p>
Clinton was actually a popular President. The pundit class consistently underestimated this throughout the impeachment procedings, and many Republicans think that their antipathy is universal, but polling shows that it simply isn’t.
than Ronald Reagan, though you wouldn’t know it during the week the latter ascended into heaven from the CNN studio.
Wait, that’s a reason to vote AGAINST her?
…is by no means anathema to many who vote democrat. He is still a hero to many and considering how well and easily he raises money, he will not be a hinderance to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.
No wars, a booming economy, deficit eliminated, yeah, things were terrible back then.
Bill Clinton didn’t come from a powerful family. No Senators in his family like GHWB’s dad. Hillary Clinton didn’t come from a powerful family either. And it’s not like they have siblings who are governors.
<
p>
It would look like a dynasty–but hey, if you want to talk about dynasties, there’s the Roosevelts. 2 terms for TR and 3 terms served for FDR.
Feb 2005: As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well” and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing. “”The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,” Clinton said.”
<
p>
So in Feb 2005, when it was clear to anyone with a brain that Iraq was going down the shitter, she was still standing there, next to John McCain, parroting Bushco lies such as the idea that suicide bombings were a sign of success.
<
p>
Well the 40% of this country that is insane enough to believe that is the same 40% who would vote for anyone over H.Clinton.
<
p>
And this is who the Democrats should nominate in 2008?
<
p>
Don’t think so.
This is not a critcism of your post, but I really would like to read the context of the statement from the source material. Like I said in my post, I am leaning toward Clinton. So any supporting information you can provide would be helpful.
USA Today, Feb 2005
Maybe she didn’t want to hurt Lindsey Graham’s feelings and it was the nicest thing she could say.
As much as there’s been talk for two years calling her the “frontrunner”, this past week was the first time she’s really been appearing in the media and acting like a candidate, and the first time I’m really looking at her as a candidate, and it was very smart of her campaign to wait until the hype had died down as much possible, and allowing Edwards and Obama to emerge as the leading candidates, (though waiting until she dropped to 4th in Iowa as maybe a little bit long), and now I’m looking forward to learning why she actually would want to be president, instead of just holding a coronation as the MSM had seemed to want.
<
p>
That said (she’s a new candidate) there are two huge hurdles:
1. I seriously doubt the Democrats will nominated a pro-war presidential candidate again after 2004. This will be a huge advantage for Obama and others who opposed the invasion, and a small benefit for better-late-than-nevers like Edwards. I can say I would not even consider voting for her for the nomination unless she seriously corrects this.
<
p>
2. Getting out from her husband’s shadow and moving beyond the idea of a “dynasty”. This will be a huge challenge in both the primary and the general, and will probably be more difficult to deal with than Iraq. We’ll see how she does it. (Not to say her husband’s popularity will hurt her, if she can make her self her own person as well).
<
p>
I am glad she’s finally approaching the public and trying to bring people into her campaign, which was seriously lacking so far.
She put a clip of her appearence on the view up. Genius.
In case anyone wants to see it, here is the link to the video. No matter how you feel about her as a candidate, posting the video is genius.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
She has more negatives than any politician since Richard Nixon. She is the most hated politician on the national scene today (OK, perhaps Dick Cheney has her beat.) If you want to be sure that the Republicans have a huge turnout, nominate Hillary. If you want to be sure that a large block of Democrats don’t turn out, nominate Hillary.
It would be helpful if you at least named some of the negatives you are referring to for those people who are trying to decide whether to support her or not. I really think the most hated politician on the national scene alive right now is President Bush II; Dick Cheney comes in a close second.
Via Neil at Ezra’s place, we learn Newsweek poll found Hillary’s favorable/unfavorable at 43/38.
<
p>
Johnny E was 34/21 in the same poll.
<
p>
Of course, you can always say that people in the 38% would never vote for a Dem anyway.
George Lakoff in Moral Politics, p. 171, suggests that Hillary Clinton is the iconic demon to conservatives:
(clears throat loudly)
<
p>
(looks over glasses, with eyebrows raised)
It would be nice to see some polling data, or specific comparisons. Personally, I have no doubt there is truth to what both of you write, but I’m not sure about specifics or numbers, which would be interesting to see, if you have time.
Take look here:
<
p>
http://msnbcmedia.ms…
<
p>
This poll includes a “very negative” category. Here are the “very negative” results for some candidates:
<
p>
Barack Obama 6%
John Edwards 8%
Joe Biden 6%
Hillary Clinton 26%
<
p>
John McCain 4%
Rudy Guiliani 5%
Mitt Romney 4%
<
p>
Clearly this isn’t the whole story. Hillary has the highest negatives here partly because she is the most well known, but these are the results before the smear campaign even starts.
Does the poll test John Kerry’s negatives? I’d like to see how she compares to someone else who was the victim of a nationwide smear campaign.
<
p>
(I can’t seem to get the link to work — it crashed my browser!)
In December 2006, they were 27%. They were 29% in October 2004 and 21% in December 2004. I quess people disliked him less after he lost the election. Maybe the negative responders were all Republicans.
True, the negative campaign against Edwards and Obama hasn’t started.
<
p>
But the negative campaign against Hillary has been around since 1990. Sixteen years of the kind of slime she’s had to deal with, and still only a 26% very negative?
<
p>
Hillary’s the Teflon Don, according to your data.
Take the most recent poll — she has a 44% unfavorable rating, more than any other announced Dem candidate! I would suspect that those miiiight be Republicans. Pretty much, entirely Republicans.
<
p>
One thing in Hillary’s favor: we know all the arguments against her, and she neveretheless has a 54% favorability rating in that same poll. I would say that is a much firmer number than the favorables of someone like Obama, which is based as much on his dazzling smile than anything else. 54% of the vote gets you in the White House.
<
p>
Of course, those with no opinion come down to 3%, and favorables are at 54%
In recent polling, Hillary Clinton bests McCain and Giuliani who, I suppose, you were about to tell me are the best liked politicians in the U.S.
<
p>
I swear there’s a huge Republican Wurlitzer out there playing the tune, with all stops out, that the Clintons are unpopular. This belief somehow survives actual empirical evidence.
<
p>
Eager Democrats, like the many who, unlike denali are not disaffected, are queasy about Clinton-esqe triangulation. It undermines the Democratic brand.
unveiled last July, failed to mention the war in Iraq, saving Social Security, addressing the climate crisis or stopping the massive transfer of assets from the working to the wealthy.
<
p>
But it did include a swipe at other Democrats as “angry.”
<
p>
The bases of both parties dislike her, but she’s really the dream candidate for the GOP, because she’s their best weapon for rallying their disenchanted base in ’08.
<
p>
Also, needless to say, the single person with the least credibility to address the national health insurance crisis is Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons.
Obama does something similar in how he implies that Democrats are unkind to people of faith.
<
p>
It’s as if there’s a game of Prisoner’s Dilemna going on where various Democrats can be interesting in a media-oriented way by disagreeing or even denigrating parts of the Democratic message or base. It’s completely toxic. Lieberman overdid it and that’s why Lamont was able to win a primary against him. I’m reading Schaller’s Whistling Past Dixie and he says that conservative (mostly white) Democrats win in the South by running against Washington — which to them includes the Democratic Party. This ongoing game of Prisoner’s Dilemna is what gives us organizations like the DLC. (Apologies, Central Mass Dad.)
<
p>
I think that a big part of this is structural. I remember reading an interesting post on MyDD (I believe) which suggested that a significant bloc of Democratic voters hate partisanship. Republicans don’t have such a bloc. That’s part of why Republicans are much more loath to speak ill of one another. They don’t even have a Republican version of the DLC.
How do you know that Denali is disaffected, or that “eager Democrats,” (whoever they are) are uneasy about “Clinton-esque triangulation” (whatever that is)? There are lots of other potential explanations for the comment. It seems to me that a more effective argumentative technique would be to address the substance: do you disagree, for example, that Hillary Clinton has strong negatives or, perhaps, do you think that whatever negatives she may have are not significant?
Denali wrote the following post on September 27, 2007:
I called Denali a disaffected Democrat because that is how he characterized himself.
<
p>
I “won” that one, Mr. Score Keeper.
Yeah, that’s me. I can’t stand our wonderful single-party system here in MA. (Though I voted for Deval anyway. He at least made a few noises that he supports shared parenting. Not that anything will happen with that — everyone on the judiciary committee is a lawyer and nothing gets past them that isn’t good for lawyers.)
<
p>
Despite my disaffection with MA democrats, and politics in general, I still have this silly notion that the Democrats might be a little less enthusiastic about destroying the constitution and our planet.
Boy, wouldn’t we all love to see that honest slogan on a politician’s billboard next to a smiling face:
<
p>
I think I’d rather stab myself in my left eye with an icepick!
Brownback’s inauguration?
Voted for the Iraq war and defended it until recently – rather than recognize that the war was a catastrophe, she cosponsored a bill with Lieberman to increase the military by 100,000 troops. Voted for the first draconinan bankruptcy bill (2001) – misssed the vote on the second but says she would have voted against. Voted for both “Patriot” Acts. Evaded the attempt to censure Bush for the clearest attack on the Constitution ever made by a President. Sole sponsor of legislation to criminalize flag burning. Supports Middle-Class destroying “free” trade with China, and most other “free” trade agreements.
<
p>
“No insurance CEO left behind” HillaryCare.
<
p>
Largest congressional recipient, by far, of big-money contributions (why might that be?). Had a fund-raiser thrown by Rupert Murdoch. Director of Wal-Mart for eight years. Likely proxy attacks, frothing ones, on Howard Dean after his success in the last election.
<
p>
Each of these events can probably be spun by pointing to some some mitigating factors – but put them together and, I think, the picture is pretty clear.
<
p>
I’ll be voting for someone from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party this time ’round.
-First I refuse to endorse any candidate who is still remotely pro “stay the course in Iraq” and Hillary through her votes and rhetoric is that same person
-Second similarly I will not vote for someone who voted for the war or has refused to sincerely admit it was a mistake
-Third I will not vote for a candidate who has defended DOMA and opposes civil unions, let alone marriage equality for gays
-Fourth is the dynasty factor and having Bill be a co president
-Fifth is the fact that she wont get elected in a general election
-Sixth is the fact that she is an egotistical calculative politician with no style or substance
-Seventh I will not vote for a woman I hate simply because she is a woman
<
p>
And these are just the ones I could name off the top of my head. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination I shall vote, regardless of how close my state is (I split time between IL and MA so probably blue even with Hillary) I will either vote Green, Libertarian, or write in candidates I actually like.
<
p>
This is a solid promise.
These are not facts:
<
p>
“-Fifth is the fact that she wont get elected in a general election”
“-Sixth is the fact that she is an egotistical calculative politician with no style or substance”
<
p>
In regards to #1 and #2
<
p>
“In Iraq, the mistake of waging a pre-emptive war based on faulty intelligence, fanciful scenarios and bluster has turned out to be a one time only doctrine with no deterrent effect.”
<
p>
“We do need to begin, I had hoped by the end of this year, a phased redeployment. I joined Senators Levin and Reed, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House, in proposing a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq during this year, 2006.”
<
p>
That was Hillary Clinton, in October of 2006.
<
p>
LINK: http://www.hillarycl…
<
p>
So she wants to change policy, but yet stay the course? Hillary can be criticized for many thanks, but lets keep to actual facts.
<
p>
It does your side no favors to argue from what you THINK she said, when reality is quite different.
I just watched her announcement video. I hope she does away with the swaying camera bit. I got so distracted by it–wondering why it was swinging first toward the lamp, then to the window–that I found myself not listening to her.
<
p>
If she can’t hold attention with her words, moving the image around ain’t gonna help.
Let’s get a few things off the table:
<
p>
1) Bill Clinton is still enormously popular and nobody holds his faults against Hillary. That said, wiith the exception of his ability to raise money, he is a non-issue in this election.
<
p>
2) Experience doesn’t matter. Most lefty democratic policy wonks don’t seem to get this, so I’ll repeat it – experience doesn’t matter. There is nothing that can provide adequate preparation for assumption of the presidency. Why do you think all presidents’ hair goes white within their first year in office? The only necessary qualification for the presidency is winning. Period.
<
p>
3) Rhetoric does matter. Eloquence in the service of moral conviction has always been the most effective tool in politics – not money, not resumes.
<
p>
So, Hillary won’t lose because of any “qualification” issues (including her sex). She will lose because she is unable to convincingly articulate any core principles to support her aspiration to power. Her much touted “centrism” simply comes off as cowardice to those who care about the issues (especially the war), and her coziness with the corporate plutocracy is repellent to the party’s activist base. Let’s face it – “centrism” occasionaly succeeds as a strategic electoral position not because it excites and motivates voters, but only because it is least likely to elicit animosity. Remember, too, that Bill Clinton won despite, not because of, his canoodling with the DLC. He won because he is a charismatic, hard working charmer.
<
p>
Finally, anyone who doesn’t think that Deval Patrick’s gubernatorial run was in part a trial balloon for Barack Obama’s presidential bid has their head in the sand. Face it, these guys have been pals for years and are obviously in close consultation. If you want to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, just take any article regarding the run-up to last year’s state democratic convention and substitute “Clinton” for “Reilly” and you’ll get the picture.
<
p>
Not that I think Clinton is likely to fuck up as badly as Reilly, but, unless he is caught strangling puppies on the streetcorner, Obama is going to walk away with this thing.
And as Deval steps on land mine after land mine, littering Mass. with broken promises and compromises which leave both sides unhappy, maybe people will re-think that ‘experience irrelevant, rhetoric rules’ stuff.
One thing that Patrick has HAS made a particular point of is that government cannot be run by soundbites and gimmicks. (You’ve no doubt heard that line for so long it must be wearying.) That, however, is an important point.
<
p>
This runs from what Matthew Yglesias elegantly diagnoses as The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics to childish hopes that if we just elect the right magician we’ll be living high on the hog in Happy Land.
<
p>
I voted for Patrick not because I felt he’d Solve Everything but because he would be the right governor to help our Commonwealth come to terms with reality — and, just as in foreign policy, coming to terms with reality equips one to improve it.
Tom Reilly’s a great guy.
<
p>
However, he never TRIED to win. He spent two years acting like the governorship was his, and how dare others question his right to it? He never did the first thing every politician learns … asking people for their vote.
<
p>
Deval realized this early, and did the exact opposite, he went to every event and asked everyone for their help and support.
<
p>
We know how that worked out…
<
p>
No one could make Reilly want to campaign.
<
p>
No one is silly enough to think Hillary Clinton will run that kind of campaign.
and we’ll see what he’s really about. Whether it’s about winning at any cost or something more substantial, I don’t think we know yet. If, like Patrick, he can withstand the withering campaign to come–and it’ll be far worse than what Patrick encountered–then I think we’ll be in very good hands. Seems too good to last, however.
Obama ‘walking’ out of the primaries with the nomination is unlikely with Edwards around. I may agree with your first point, but the second and third are hard to swallow. Yes, devoted volunteers will be essential to counter the GOP GOTV superstructure and having appealing rhetoric can generate that popular support; but if, as you said, the only qualification for the presidency is winning, than rhetoric just won’t be enough. Democrats saw Kerry go down, knowing that he would be more capable as president, simply becuase he was a poor candidate: he couldn’t control his own message, and was worn down by the perptual Republican assault. If only because she’s taken every punch the Right has thrown at her, and kept on cussing & kicking, Hillary will be nominated. Unless Richardson makes a serious challenge to her on the charisma front, Hillary will win, not for her policies, or ‘centrism’, but for her resillience. The reason this campaign will be Hill v. Bill is because your second point is so fundamentally wrong. Experience does matter, not just in terms of exposure to foreign policy, but in terms of facing opponents beyond staged debates, but in the acrimonious miasma that defines partisan politics.
Hillary Clinton is just like Tom Reilly?!! There is no comparison. Hillary Clinton is a master at campaigning. She understands politics as much as, if not more than, Bill Clinton does. That is how she won her Senate seat and more than likely how Bill Clinton won the presidency. She also will have the benefit of Bill Clinton as a campaign manager/worker. Disagree with her positions on issues, but it is folly to assume that she is not good at campaigning or at holding a crowd during a speech.
<
p>
Here is a prediction: Barack Obama’s campaign will be dead in the water by this time next year. (I may be wrong, but please wait till next year before you start smacking me down because of my prediction.)
…but where are her abilites on GOVERNING?
You’re right, folks. Of course it’s silly to compare Clinton to Reilly. I wanted to comment on strategic issues more than personal ones and misstated my position – it’s more about the parallels between the approaches of Patrick and Obama. I’m not out to dis Hillary. Whatever policy disagreements I may have with her, she’s obviously a thoughtful and capable person. If she’s the nominee, she’s got my vote.
<
p>
My statements about experience vs. rhetoric had to do with electoral viability not the worthiness of the candidates, and I stand by them. Like it or not, people don’t vote for resumes. Kerry was the most experienced and well informed candidate in the last final and everyone knew it. Same with Gore. So…?