Here Comes Clinton. A Semi-Reassuring Note for Those Who Cringe

[AHunter3]

I have said before that the Democratic primary, and the election, is Clinton's if she earns it. It is not going to be handed to her. But my prediction is that she is a scrapper and will just plain make it happen. I didn't expect her to take NH and still expected her to take the nom after losing Iowa and New Hampshire.

In the event that Obama does not manage to take it from her, I hope he comes back in a later season. Damn, he's nice to listen to! Obama supporters: the guy's got legs, he's young, he's eminently electable and it's just a matter of time. If not this time, next time. Trying for the nom and not getting it is not a political death sentence.

Also to Obama supporters and others for whom Clinton is not your ideal choice:

• there are things she wants to do (aside from "I'd like to be President"). Seriously. She wants a second run at Health Care. And I strongly suspect she'd like to play a role in changing the composition of the Supreme Court.

• the things you probably don't like about her may be assets in her line of work. She's way pragmatic and likes to do politics and make deals and connive a bit and plan and deploy plans. Straightforward and honest and non-smarmy and idealistic? Nope. But as Captain I think she can run the ship. Run it with every angle considered beforehand. Sharp. Unless you live in dread of her political intentions, that's not so horrible. Hey, a freaking competent prez in the Oval!

• she is not charismatic. Bill was charismatic. Obama is charismatic. Kennedy was charismatic. She ain't. She's your everyday spectacularly efficient administrative type writ a bit larger than usual. Efficiency and willfulness without charisma can be abrasive, but I think she's calculating enough to lube interactions where abrasiveness would result in bad outcomes. She's not likely to make people hate the US. She will be able to deal with Ahmadinejad, Kim, Poutin, and whoever else needs dealing with, without provoking them or leaving you shaking your head or jeopardizing the US or its interests, idealistic or practical.

• she doesn't phone it in. Whether you regard it as admirable, as weird, or as freaking psycho, she likes doing the work itself, getting a bunch of oppositionally-poised and aggressively self-interested parties to the table to bang out deals. The admiration from various Republicans who expected to continue hating her as Senator Clinton and then didn't is largely due to the work-ethic thing, and that she's pragmatic, not that she's a diluted Democrat. The Republicans should not underestimate her but neither should the Democrats. She'll get things done.

• OK she can be nasty. You think Giuliani can't be nasty? McCain? Heck, Carter could be downright nasty. Willful + not charismatic tends to come across like that. Fuckit. It's not like she's up to no good and you'd be worrying with good reason where she's taking the country. An occasionally ill-tempered, very competent, policy-loving, intellectual back-room deal-making end-result-getting kinda sensible person who wants to be at the helm. Got a problem with that?

[Hippy Hollow]

Excellent OP. I agree on all points.

[Lochdale]

Not a huge fan of Obama (sorry, he hasn't done anything and really doesn't actually say anything other than the usual socialist-lite sound bites Dick Gephart was spouting 20 years ago) and this is after meeting the man.

Still, I will agree that losing will not hurt him at all. In fact, it will just confirm him as the candidate in 4+ years.

[Hippy Hollow]

You know, I've spent the last few days scouring the internets - campaign sites, blogs, and so on - and really couldn't figure out why I had such disdain for BO's candidacy. He has all the traits I value in a leader, sans experience and age, and while I preferred Hillary I would be happy with him as the nominee.

But something changed for me Saturday. Maybe it was Edwards' cowardly pile-on on Hillary/ass-kissing of Obama, but I started to feel a lot of dislike for everyone in the race except Hillary and Richardson. And I thought Edwards was awesome four years ago!

I did figure out what made me question Obama's wisdom and judgment. Know what it was? Oprah. I'm sure Oprah is a nice person - hell, I have a friend who works for her and she is incredibly generous to her staff - but when Oprah endorses something, whether it be a diet, a book, or Dr. Phil, half of America suspends critical thinking and swallows what she says whole. That's more of the fault of half of the people in this country, I suppose, but Oprah has used her cathode ray tube bully pulpit to foist new age glurge and disgustingly facile "self help" gurus that promise, "If you buy my book/DVD/self-help system, you'll be happy and successful!"

So one day Oprah says, "Hey, I like Obama! I want to give him my Oprah's Candidate of the Month Award for all the sheep out there who do whatever I tell them to without critically analyzing or thinking for themselves." Obama, being a smart guy, should have said, "Thanks, Oprah, but can I maybe come on your show for half an hour instead," and gotten someone who actually does politics or policy for a living to go on the stump with him - you know, to address the fact that he's a little light on experience...

Of course that's not what he did. He went on the stump with her... and to me that showed that he was about the message and not about the specifics. And when I venture over to blogs and discussion boards about Obama, I get the same sense from many of his supporters. The Oprah endorsement and campaigning turned me off in a huge way. I wonder if other people felt the same way?

[The Controvert]

I feel the same way. As soon as Oprah started telling people to vote for Obama, I stopped thinking about him seriously as a candidate. And after I looked at his "issues (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/)" page, I thought: Geez, what a crock of vague, happy-sounding tripe! There's not a single stance there that isn't an obvious cop-out answer. Who doesn't want to reduce the national debt? Tell us how you're gonna do it. He completely avoided any serious issues like abortion, etc.

[Ca3799]

I feel the same way too. I like Obama...he's very likeable. But, I hear too much vague happy, hope talk from him and not enough numbers, dates, plans and statistics.

I do think that an Clinton/Obama ticket would be just the thing, though. It seems they would balance each other out nicely.

[John Mace]

I feel the same way too. I like Obama...he's very likeable. But, I hear too much vague happy, hope talk from him and not enough numbers, dates, plans and statistics.

I do think that an Clinton/Obama ticket would be just the thing, though. It seems they would balance each other out nicely.
If Obama chose to be Hillary's #2, I'd never vote for him again. That would show him to be just another shameless politician. And if Obama wins the nomination, I hope to hell he doesn't pick that ass-kissing Edwards as a running mate. Please don't do that to us, Barack.

[Malodorous]

If Obama chose to be Hillary's #2, I'd never vote for him again. That would show him to be just another shameless politician. And if Obama wins the nomination, I hope to hell he doesn't pick that ass-kissing Edwards as a running mate. Please don't do that to us, Barack.

I seriously doubt that any of the oneish term senators would choose another of their number as a running mate. So no Clinton/Edwards/Obama combos.

That said, why would Obama choosing Hillary as a running mate be "shameless"?

[John Mace]

That said, why would Obama choosing Hillary as a running mate be "shameless"?
Well, I was talking about the case where Obama agreed to be Hillary's VP. His biggest campaign message is that he's an agent of change and she isn't. If he jumps on her bandwagon, I think it will be more about his own personal ambition than about actually fulfilling that campaign promise. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, and he doesn't have a ton of experience, so the main reason I'm voting for him is that I like his decision making process, and I like the fact that he is (or at least appears to be) cut from a different mold than your typical pol. If it turns out he isn't, then he's just another junior senator with presidential ambitions. In that case, I'd say go to the back of the line-- we've got plenty of those to choose from.

[you with the face]

I think it's unreasonable to judge Obama negatively just because Oprah endorses him. Now if he went to her and begged for her televised support, then yeah, judge away. But if it happened the other way, what was he supposed to really do? "No, Oprah, keep your endorsement. I don't want that kind of attention." That's a high expectation to have for a politician.

The main reason why I don't think Hillary should be elected is because the amount of venom that her mere presence generates will inevitably lead to nonstop political warfare. You can count on the Republicans doing their level best to oppose any legislation that has HRC's fingerprints on it, just to appease their anti-Hillary constitutuents. The Dems currently are in the majority, but that might change in 2010. I don't think Hillary can generate the bipartisan backing to make the kind of changes her supporters envision. There will be more strife than progress with her in the White House.

I don't see that happening with Obama. The haters have had a loooong time to foment their hate for Hillary. But Obama is new.

[fluiddruid]

My biggest beef with Hillary is that she was an ineffective Senator. What makes me think that she will be an effective President? She didn't care about her constituents then, why would she care about the American people now?

Obama, on the other hand, shows passion and concern. He is also arguably the most intellectual of the candidates, so it's easier for me to accept him. He's arguing about raising the tone of political discussion, and dragging political negotiations into the light of day, something that's sorely needed (though surely difficult to achieve).

While I have no doubt that Hillary knows how Washington works, whether or not she will achieve anything of interest to me is debatable. Universal health care will be extremely difficult to pass, and that's the focus of her platform.

[Malodorous]

My biggest beef with Hillary is that she was an ineffective Senator. What makes me think that she will be an effective President? She didn't care about her constituents then, why would she care about the American people now?

Obama, on the other hand, shows passion and concern. He is also arguably the most intellectual of the candidates, so it's easier for me to accept him. He's arguing about raising the tone of political discussion, and dragging political negotiations into the light of day, something that's sorely needed (though surely difficult to achieve).


Hillary's uncared for constituents re-lected her by a wide margin (and she wasn't running against Alan Keyes). And by what measure was she a more or less effective senator then Obama?

[AHunter3]

We do not regard her as an ineffective Senator. Lots of folks said "carpetbagger" when she first showed up. But she's made good.

[MovieMogul]

• there are things she wants to do (aside from "I'd like to be President"). Seriously. She wants a second run at Health Care. And I strongly suspect she'd like to play a role in changing the composition of the Supreme Court. This is true with every candidate.• the things you probably don't like about her may be assets in her line of work. She's way pragmatic and likes to do politics and make deals and connive a bit and plan and deploy plans. But this is only attainable if she can build coalitions and bridge divides. There is a tremendous amount of hate and resentment for her amongst the GOP. How does she expect to deploy if she's facing a political party ready to obstruct her at every turn, sheerly out of spite? The biggest failure in Clinton's campaigning is her unwillingness to address this reality. She can't be much of a "doer" if there's already a large percentage of people (which innumerable polls demonstrate) committed to seeing her fail.• she is not charismatic. Bill was charismatic. Obama is charismatic. Kennedy was charismatic. She ain't. She's your everyday spectacularly efficient administrative type writ a bit larger than usual. "Spectacularlly efficient adminstrative types" don't draw attention to themselves, don't engender so much hostility, and don't immerse themselves in drama and theatrics. She may not be charismatic like her hubby, but she's hardly this benign presence in the political arena.• she doesn't phone it in. Whether you regard it as admirable, as weird, or as freaking psycho, she likes doing the work itself, getting a bunch of oppositionally-poised and aggressively self-interested parties to the table to bang out deals. The admiration from various Republicans who expected to continue hating her as Senator Clinton and then didn't is largely due to the work-ethic thing, and that she's pragmatic, not that she's a diluted Democrat. Her shifting farther and farther to the center didn't have something to do with that? :dubious: Sure, she's able, competent, and hard-working. All are improvements over W. But they're useless qualities if facing hard & fast resistance. "She'll get things done" is no less pie-in-the-sky, from where I'm sitting, than anything her campaign accuses Obama of.• OK she can be nasty. You think Giuliani can't be nasty? McCain? Heck, Carter could be downright nasty. Willful + not charismatic tends to come across like that. Fuckit. Not good enough. This is what the "change" Obama represents really means, and that this nastiness might manifest itself runs completely counter to many of the "she'll get things done" arguments you've already laid forth. The rancor and squabbling is all viscious and circular and just because I agree with her more than any of the Republicans doesn't mean I like it anymore when it's coming from her.An occasionally ill-tempered, very competent, policy-loving, intellectual back-room deal-making end-result-getting kinda sensible person who wants to be at the helm. Got a problem with that?Given that some of these assertions are rather dubious (or overly optimistic), yeah, I do. Will I vote for her if she wins the party nomination? Yes. Will I hope she succeeds? Of course. Will I secretly believe that the Democrats have once again snatched a long-term defeat out of a short-sighted "victory"? Absolutely.

[mswas]

We do not regard her as an ineffective Senator. Lots of folks said "carpetbagger" when she first showed up. But she's made good.

Speak for yourself. She's pretty much toed the Republican party line up until 06. She went with the wind. That's her main problem.

I think she's plenty Charismatic. I don't get where people get this lack of charisma thing from.

[newcrasher]

do not want

[Hippy Hollow]

I think it's unreasonable to judge Obama negatively just because Oprah endorses him. Now if he went to her and begged for her televised support, then yeah, judge away. But if it happened the other way, what was he supposed to really do? "No, Oprah, keep your endorsement. I don't want that kind of attention." That's a high expectation to have for a politician.
Oprah's enthusiasm could have been cultivated and contained. Pols often have celebrity fans that they keep at bay. Here's the problem: by making Oprah's endorsement such a big part of his campaign, it only underlines the idea among many voters that he's more style than substance. Hillary wisely avoids going on the stump with Barbra Streisand and 50 Cent. There's no such thing as a universally loved celebrity, and just as the celebrity endorses the candidate, the candidate gives validity to the celebrity. If I was directing BO's campaign, I would have politely thanked Oprah and asked her to stay in Harpo Studios. (She's probably be a great asset in Illinois.)

The main reason why I don't think Hillary should be elected is because the amount of venom that her mere presence generates will inevitably lead to nonstop political warfare. You can count on the Republicans doing their level best to oppose any legislation that has HRC's fingerprints on it, just to appease their anti-Hillary constitutuents. The Dems currently are in the majority, but that might change in 2010. I don't think Hillary can generate the bipartisan backing to make the kind of changes her supporters envision. There will be more strife than progress with her in the White House.
How impressive is it that Hillary forged a working relationship with Newt Gingrich?
Gingrich has been talking up Clinton's presidential prospects in 2008, to the chagrin of conservative loyalists who once regarded him as an iconic figure. Last month, he even suggested she might capture the presidency, saying "any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons."

What gives? For Clinton, standing side-by-side with her husband's onetime nemesis gives her the chance to burnish her credentials among the moderates she has been courting during her time in the Senate. But in recent comments, she portrayed the rapprochement as one born of shared policy interests, not calculated politics.

"I know it's a bit of an odd-fellow, or odd-woman, mix," she said. "But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem."

For his part, Gingrich, who helped lead the impeachment fight against the former president, called the senator "very practical" and "very smart and very hard-working," adding, "I have been very struck working with her."
She's also received positive remarks from Lindsey Graham, Bill Frist, and James Inhofe. If those guys find common ground working with Hillary, where exactly is the resistance on Capitol Hill?

I don't see that happening with Obama. The haters have had a loooong time to foment their hate for Hillary. But Obama is new.
He's not so new that he hasn't played the game, and it's only a matter of time until they find those cracks in his armor. Hillary, on the other hand, has been demonized by the GOP for 15 years and there's nothing new there. Barring some unforeseen huge scandal, we know all there is to know about Hillary, for better or for worse.

Nobody stays "new" in Washington for long. Not if they want to be effective. Jimmy Carter and GWB were new in Washington - one was stymied in his attempts to get anything done, and the other went super partisan. Not a great tradition to follow.

[DSeid]

Of course NOT choosing someone because of who endorses them is just as mindless as choosing someone because they have been endorsed by X Y or Z.

And refusing support from someone who many people admire (and in particular those in a demographic you need to target) would be stupid not noble.

[John Mace]

Oprah's enthusiasm could have been cultivated and contained. Pols often have celebrity fans that they keep at bay. Here's the problem: by making Oprah's endorsement such a big part of his campaign, it only underlines the idea among many voters that he's more style than substance.
I follow politics pretty closely, and I've only seen Oprah pup up a few times. I don't think she's such a "big" part of his campaign.


How impressive is it that Hillary forged a working relationship with Newt Gingrich?

She's also received positive remarks from Lindsey Graham, Bill Frist, and James Inhofe. If those guys find common ground working with Hillary, where exactly is the resistance on Capitol Hill?
I don't know about Inhofe, but Frist and Graham aren't partisan a-holes like a lot of the Pubbies, especially in the House. The Senate is a much more collegial place than the House.

And why is the spell checker telling me I misspelled "collegial"?

If you want to reform healthcare, Hillary is probably not your gal. I sense that any plan she puts forth will be DOA because of what happened last time-- fair or unfair, that's politics.

[NightRabbit]

I dislike Hillary even more after how she acted after her upset in Iowa. Getting shrill and angry during debates and then crying in diners about how emotionally draining a campaign is is unprofessional to the extreme. She needs to grow up. A PRESIDENT should be able to take a few hits without throwing a hissy fit. Sometimes you need to work hard for what you want, not just tantrum when it's not immediately handed to you. What happens when her bills get shot down by congress? Is she going to go cry in a diner about how emotionally draining it is to not get your immediate way the first time around?

Despite her attitudes, in a more theoretical way, I'm sick of dynasties. I'm sick of a bush dynasty and a kennedy dynasty and a clinton dynasty. I'm sick of sons of former presidents and wives of former presidents deciding that they're politicians, too. Let's get some fresh air!

[mswas]

Most people vote for stupid and superficial reasons. To not vote for someone because you are afraid some brainless housewife is going to vote for him on Oprah's command is just as shallow and brainless as the housewife's reasoning.

[Malodorous]

Despite her attitudes, in a more theoretical way, I'm sick of dynasties. I'm sick of a bush dynasty and a kennedy dynasty and a clinton dynasty. I'm sick of sons of former presidents and wives of former presidents deciding that they're politicians, too. Let's get some fresh air!

Do two related people of the same generation really count as a "dynasty"? Not really how I think of the word anyways. The Bushs and the Kennedys had multiple generations with multiple members of each becoming successful politicians, but the so far as I know the Clintons are the only members of their families to hold national political offices, and I don't think Chelsea has shown any interest.

Also Hillary was pursuing a political career when she married Bill. My folks are both doctors who met in med school. No other member of their family are doctors. It hardly seems right to say I'm from a "dynasty" of doctors.

[you with the face]

Oprah's enthusiasm could have been cultivated and contained. Pols often have celebrity fans that they keep at bay. Here's the problem: by making Oprah's endorsement such a big part of his campaign, it only underlines the idea among many voters that he's more style than substance. Hillary wisely avoids going on the stump with Barbra Streisand and 50 Cent. There's no such thing as a universally loved celebrity, and just as the celebrity endorses the candidate, the candidate gives validity to the celebrity. If I was directing BO's campaign, I would have politely thanked Oprah and asked her to stay in Harpo Studios. (She's probably be a great asset in Illinois.)

I can see where you are coming from. Still, this only appears to be a valid complaint if you are talking about the effectiveness of this particularly campaign stategy, but not if you are talking about his fitness as a candidate. Campaigning is about generating votes, and since he'll probably get more votes with Oprah's help than without, I don't think he's made a mistake by accepting her endorsement. If 50 Cent wanted to help Hillary by giving her his seal of approval, I'm sure she'd gladly let him...but only if it helped her chances. Everyone knows that 50 Cent's presence would do more harm than good (I don't know about Streisand's effect though).

How impressive is it that Hillary forged a working relationship with Newt Gingrich?

Newt hasn't been in political office since she's been in the Senate. That's an important detail, since my main concern is that Republicans, in trying to keep their jobs, will try to block everything Hillary does.

She's also received positive remarks from Lindsey Graham, Bill Frist, and James Inhofe. If those guys find common ground working with Hillary, where exactly is the resistance on Capitol Hill?

Can you point to anything specific and politically significant that she has accomplished that required bipartisan support? I would really like to think I'm overestimating the hatred of her opponents, but I don't think I am.

He's not so new that he hasn't played the game, and it's only a matter of time until they find those cracks in his armor. Hillary, on the other hand, has been demonized by the GOP for 15 years and there's nothing new there. Barring some unforeseen huge scandal, we know all there is to know about Hillary, for better or for worse.

Frankly, the GOP doesn't need to dig up any more dirt on Hillary because they have enough ill will there to last a lifetime. Whatever scandal they can scrape up on Obama couldn't possible compete with the deep-seated hostilities that people have been nursing towards HRC since the first time she uttered the evil words "universal healthcare".

[DMark]

I live in Nevada and have to choose between Obama and Hillary in a little over a week.

I actually like both of them, and will vote for whoever wins the Democratic Primary.

My only major concern with Hillary is her electability factor. Not that I think she can't win, but the bile she causes when her name is mentioned in Republican circles makes me believe Republicans would crawl over broken glass to vote against her...bringing out voters from ICU's who would carry their IV tubes to the election booth.

I don't see the same deep-seeded hatred for Obama...even my right-wing Republican brother can find no real cause to "hate" Obama, other than the fact that he is a Democrat. But mention Hillary to him and the froth forms at his mouth.

My main decision centers around who will be able to win the General Election, and right now I am leaning towards Obama. Still, for me it is a choice between two very good people.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm a little amused by how Democrats approach Hillary Clinton's ethical problems.

They seem to regard them as old news - nothing to get concerned over. But the fact of the matter is that there were so many incidents over so many years that it wasn't old news so much as a pattern of behavior. What is more, the Norman Hsu mess shows that a lot of it hasn't exactly gone away.

The last election had partisans on both sides arguing over what the candidates did thirty years ago or more, but Democrats seem to think Hillary's issues will be old news to voters. This is a self-imposed delusion, IMHO.

[Hippy Hollow]

I can see where you are coming from. Still, this only appears to be a valid complaint if you are talking about the effectiveness of this particularly campaign stategy, but not if you are talking about his fitness as a candidate. Campaigning is about generating votes, and since he'll probably get more votes with Oprah's help than without, I don't think he's made a mistake by accepting her endorsement. If 50 Cent wanted to help Hillary by giving her his seal of approval, I'm sure she'd gladly let him...but only if it helped her chances. Everyone knows that 50 Cent's presence would do more harm than good (I don't know about Streisand's effect though).
I think it's poor strategy because what Obama needs to do is to convince voters that he has enough experience to be an effective president and commander-in-chief. Nobody doubts his positivity, his enthusiasm... so I'd be making sure every policy wonk and grayhaired pol who thinks I'm all that and a bag of chips came out to my events. The Oprah campaign stops suggests that he's favoring selling starpower over substance. To me, anyway. But you know something? In this thread and to people I know, it's something that turned us off. Sell the message you have on specifics.

And to state that I and others see Oprah liking Obama and switching sides from him only because of it... that's ridiculous. It speaks to a greater issue with the candidate, not realizing that he needs to sell the electorate on his credentials rather than the sizzle. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Oprah leans Dem... won't affect my vote, regardless of what I think of her. A candidate who wanted to promote her endorsement by sharing the stump, I'm a little less impressed with.

Newt hasn't been in political office since she's been in the Senate. That's an important detail, since my main concern is that Republicans, in trying to keep their jobs, will try to block everything Hillary does.
So who are these Republicans that you suspect will block all that Hillary does? It's not as if Newt is off in the retirement home. He still commands a great deal of respect from the GOP and was even hailed as a potential nominee in 2008. The symbolism here is great: the ideological foe of the centrist Democratic platform actually finds common ground with the person at the very epicenter of that platform. The GOP was sent a very strong message about the partisan hacks in their party in 2006.

Can you point to anything specific and politically significant that she has accomplished that required bipartisan support? I would really like to think I'm overestimating the hatred of her opponents, but I don't think I am.
How about working with Graham and others to provide insurance coverage for National Guard members when they're not serving?

Frankly, the GOP doesn't need to dig up any more dirt on Hillary because they have enough ill will there to last a lifetime. Whatever scandal they can scrape up on Obama couldn't possible compete with the deep-seated hostilities that people have been nursing towards HRC since the first time she uttered the evil words "universal healthcare".
Which has all been heard before. Simply vilifying HRC because she is who she is will be off-putting to most of the electorate, who ostensibly want "change." Maybe it's the red meat that the "base" wants, but I think most Americans' eyes glaze over when there's a rehash of Whitewater, etc. And it's difficult for HRC, because she can't say too much about the Clinton years in Washington without provoking that same response. Obama's got some challenges in explaining the participation of lobbyists and the use of PAC money in his campaign; it's part of the political process, but by seizing claim to the mantle of doing things differently, he's going to have to explain why he looks so much like the other pols out there in this regard.

And I say this as someone who thinks he will be a fine candidate for president eight years from now.

[you with the face]

I And to state that I and others see Oprah liking Obama and switching sides from him only because of it... that's ridiculous. It speaks to a greater issue with the candidate, not realizing that he needs to sell the electorate on his credentials rather than the sizzle.

I think he should be doing that, too. But Oprah's presence won't keep him from doing so. Her presence will pick up the voters who don't care about issues. So he'll have to do some more work to pick up the others. But this is not an either/or dealie.

So who are these Republicans that you suspect will block all that Hillary does? It's not as if Newt is off in the retirement home. He still commands a great deal of respect from the GOP and was even hailed as a potential nominee in 2008.

It's easy to work with unpopular people if you don't have to worry about being elected. It costs Newt nothing to work with Hillary because his job doesn't depend on making Joe Six Pack Who Hates Hillary's Guts happy. So mentioning him and his non-adversarial relationship with HRC doesn't really allay my fears about Hillary trying to work with a combative Congress.

How about working with Graham and others to provide insurance coverage for National Guard members when they're not serving?

Okay. I can give you that. But can we say that's really a politically significant accomplishment? I can't imagine any Republican wanting their name associated with a fight against this kind of thing, so I'm not sure how weight this has in terms of evidence that HRC can harness the bipartisan support she will need to get UHC rolling.

Which has all been heard before. Simply vilifying HRC because she is who she is will be off-putting to most of the electorate, who ostensibly want "change." Maybe it's the red meat that the "base" wants, but I think most Americans' eyes glaze over when there's a rehash of Whitewater, etc.

I don't get the same sense you to do about the electorate. But regardless, it's clear to me that those who dislike her will continue to do so. Those who are just "eh, she's okay when compared with the competition" may vote for her, but I suspect their turnout will be just like their attitude...iffy. If the GOP hits on some key attacks points (Whitewater being one of them), this might make their turnout even iffier.

Those who are really excited about her will definitely vote for her...I just haven't seen that many people are who really excited about her. Maybe I have been looking at the wrong people, though.

[AHunter3]

Newt hasn't been in political office since she's been in the Senate. That's an important detail, since my main concern is that Republicans, in trying to keep their jobs, will try to block everything Hillary does.

If you think the Republicans in Congress (such as they remain after the elections) would do something different from that if some other Democrat were in the Oval Office, I think you missed 1992-2000. Or do you think they harbor a specific animosity to anyone named "Clinton" and would embrace the gospel of bipartisanship otherwise?


Can you point to anything specific and politically significant that she has accomplished that required bipartisan support? I would really like to think I'm overestimating the hatred of her opponents, but I don't think I am.

Google "Senator Clinton" "Senator Pothole" and you'll get lots of links to stories like this (http://www.aznews.us/for_clinton,_presidential_politics_is_local,_mccain_is_national.htm)

They will overlap with what you get when you Google "Senator Clinton" "Republicans in the Senate" "bipartisanship", stories like this one (http://shrunklink.com/aiae).

Huge high-profile accomplishments requiring bipartisan support? Not so much. But a lot of little ones during her years as a Senator, which means many of those Republicans have in fact worked with her and that she has an everyday working relationship with them. Many of them have actually commented that they were expecting her to be, you know, ego city and impossible to work wtih, and that she's totally the opposite. Yeah, her Republican colleagues have had pretty good things to say about her as a Senator. Seriously.

Will the Republicans in Congress be less cooperative when she has to spearhead high-profile initiatives, things where the scuttling of them can help weaken the Democratic party? One would assume that doing so would be part of the Republican's natural opposition-party strategy. But I'm saying she knows these folks, has done deals with them before, and is a skilled & savvy backroom negotiator. I predict that she will have the Republican votes (as need be; they will most likely be a smaller minority party in both houses than they are at present) already lined up, due to deals made and horses traded, before she goes all high-profile and trots out an initiative and says to the American people "OK, we are going to do this".

[you with the face]

If you think the Republicans in Congress (such as they remain after the elections) would do something different from that if some other Democrat were in the Oval Office, I think you missed 1992-2000. Or do you think they harbor a specific animosity to anyone named "Clinton" and would embrace the gospel of bipartisanship otherwise?

Yes, I do think they harbor a specific animosity towards Clinton, that goes above and beyond their general anti-Dem bias. Some of its due to sexism, some of its due to anti-Bill bias, some of its due to their memory of her as a go-getting First Lady, some of due to whatever. But I do believe that animosity is there.

[BlinkingDuck]

I usually vote Republican. Since the Republicans are not out this year (just 2 Democratic parties as far as I can tell) I have to say that Clinton looks good to me.

The OP nailed my thinking well. She strikes me as someone who can get things done. I also don't think of her as left-wing. She strikes me as right in the middle.

She strikes me as cold and calculating and she also strikes me as someone who wants America to do better. Maybe that is what we NEED right now. Cold & calculating is not necessarily a bad thing...

The feeling a get from her is that she wants talk/negotiations...that she is pacifistic at heart. However, I also feel that knows the world and will not take shit from anyone if it is heaped on us by whomever (like Iran).

I would be comfortable with her in the White House.

[SpartanDC]

I feel the same way too. I like Obama...he's very likeable. But, I hear too much vague happy, hope talk from him and not enough numbers, dates, plans and statistics.

As Hillary herself said, you campaign in poetry but govern in prose. Plus, even with the loss in New Hampshire, the whole candidate-as-movement thing seems to be working OK for him. Heck, the reasons he lost in NH appear to have nothing to do with any actual policies, but more with Clinton showing some humanity in the closing days of the campaign.

Excellent OP, by the way. As an Obama fan, I was none too happy on NH primary night, but the more I thought about it the more I was OK with it. I want both of them to earn this nomination, and I think both of them now realize they need to work their asses off. I think Hillary presumed the nomination was hers for awhile (which I found annoying), and I think Obama assumed the same thing for, well, 5 days (I guess I wasn't the only one who sensed some cockiness in his NH speeches).

Still, my main concern is ending the horribly poisonous atmosphere that exists in Washington and is the biggest obstacle to getting anything done. Not only do I think Obama can do that, I also think Clinton can't. Sadly, that's not entirely her fault. But them's the breaks.

[BrainGlutton]

do not want

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.