:eek:
You ARE currently alive, right? With Bush in the White House and people like Frist and Santorum and DeLay in Congress (or recently in Congress, anyway)?
Because if you’re looking at the current DC scene and still think Hillary is the most divisive politician of your lifetime, I’d suggest a quick trip to the optometrist. You must need new glasses because you’re not seeing what’s there.
Well, I’m considered a conservative on this board so I’ll chime in with my two cents worth, though I wouldn’t vote for Hillary unless someone REALLY bad was running against her (say if Bush somehow got a 3rd term…even then I might close my eyes, flip a coin and let fate decide), and only then if all the other third parties were somehow wiped out.
That said I can see how some conservatives COULD support Hillary…especially those who are more toned down on the rhetoric. Hillary has her good and bad points after all…some one her own, some brought to her from her dear hubby (again, both good and bad). Some of her stances on economics, while I wouldn’t rate them as conservative by any stretch, come off as quite centrist and reasonable. It will be a good contrast to Bush’s handling of the economy I think. I’m not going to get into the bad things that would turn off conservative (there are several) but focus on why I think she could grab some waverying conservatives and bring them over to the dark side.
Her record on the war has been a good one. Its going to be pretty hard to seriously attack her stances there except by her own party. Once she wins the nomination though it will be a serious asset.
Return to memory lane. A lot of folks of our generation (you kids back there…go outside and play ball or something!) have fond memories of making boatloads of money in the 90’s, of all that hope and energy happening, when it seemed for a brief time that the US would rise up above the other nations of the world and assert itself, striding back up the hill to reclaim what was ours and pushing that damned Asian kid at the top right off (and trampling on the back of the France as we stride to the top). All joking aside it was a time of both peace and prosperity. The old Soviet Union had finally packed it in and folded up shop, and the other communist governments out there were either taking steps to not LOOK like communists anymore or were keeping a low profile. To make a long post short, I think there is a lot of political capital to be had for Hillary by fiscal conservatives who long for those days of freewheeling capitalism.
She’s a woman. I’m hearing a lot of ’ :smack: ’ and ‘Well Duh!’ out there. Bear with me (his name is smokey). She is a woman and I think that it appeals to certain types of concervatives…especially the young ones who I hang out with. Why? Well, it doesn’t matter so much that she is a woman, per se, it sthat she is different. Something that breaks the standard mold of ‘Rich White guy number 1’ running against ‘Rich White guy number 2’. Many of my conservative friends (many of who, like me, aren’t republicans’ would LOVE to see a shake up where we get a minority president of some kind: Hispanic, Black, Oriental, religious (Islamic, Catholic, Hindu, Shinto, The Hair Shirt Brothers who Follow the Sacred Shoe, etc), Native American…and a Woman (preferable a black/hispanic/oriental woman who has tried out all the various religions but is currently in THSBwFtSS,e.
I think there is a big difference between wanting Hillary to run because you think that whoever the Republicans put up will crush her like an empty beer can, and genuine republicans who are dissatisfied with where the party is going (I have been in this boad since Bush I’s re-election…and the boat is gettnig a might crowded these days). Putting aside political claptrap and partisan screeching, HC actually does have appeal with certain republicans. She has Bills ability to decide on a course to take not based on political ideology or who amoung your supporters you will be screwing over, but on what will work…or at least what will SEEM to work the best. Conservatives seeing some of the thing Bill did and wistfully looking back on the 90’s could certainly be swayed to support a Hillary presidency. I’ll just have to hope the Libertarian party’s candidate is someone I can vote fore. Course, if I could vote Badnarik I can probably vote just about anyone. 
-XT
I resent the ad hominem attacks.
I suggested that your eyesight may be lacking. That’s not ad hominem. If I were to call you a foul name and question your intelligence for not being able to see that the current crop of Republicans are much more divisive than Hillary ever was or could be, then it would be ad hominem. I did not.
Free market? What the…? Are you talking about the woman who announced in San Francisco that, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”?
Except that I don’t see any such thing happening. There doesn’t seem to be any less enmity that I’ve noticed, and HRC’s star doesn’t seem to be on any ascendancy among the conservatives that I know and talk to.
Yeah. Sexually abused. This is why I don’t see any conservatives voting for her. Built in idelogical illogicality.
As has been pointed out, you need to observe the world around you just a little more closely.
Waste
Well, Newt Gingrich makes an attempt to explain why he supports her candidacy in a recent article from the Herald Tribune. Link
It seems that she has been seeking common ground with the conservatives on some issues. I would hardly characterize that as divisive.
Regarding the famous San Francisco quote. The full quote is:
In other words, she preached fiscal responsibility. Hardly a threat to the free market. Her words to the wealthy were that we weren’t going to keep throwing money at them, we would revoke the tax cuts that Bush foolishly gave them. This has been twisted by the tightie righties into some sort of Robin Hood scheme, but she merely wanted to correct Bush’s mistake.
I dislike her supporting the mega-highway bill as a “jobs” bill, and I find her personally dislikable, but she’d be all right. I support Bredeson first. I’m not sure about Obama; I don’t think he has the experience to match his charisma yet.
I think her strong support for the war has a lot to do with it. She’s a hawk, and they are becoming more and more rare in the Democratic party. Also, her husband governed as a moderate, so maybe they are thinking that a moderate Democrat who’s strong on defense isn’t that bad an idea.
Depends on who she runs against.
I can think of plenty of Republicans that, were they running for President, I’d vote for Mrs. Clinton over them.
So in a sense, I suppose I “support” her. I wouldn’t describe her as my ideal candidate, by any means.
If only I could believe her.
Is she really a hawk? Is she really behind the War on Terror? Does she really intend to cut spending and balance the budget if she ever becomes POTUS?
If she really means these things - if - she may be the only hope the Dems have for the White House. In 2008, it won’t be possible to run as “I’m not Bush”, and it may actually be an election between a choice of visions for the country. If the Democratic primaries pull her over to the left, or abandons HRC in favor of some squishy-soft liberal, there will be big trouble for the country.
The problems ahead - Social Security reform, Medicare reform, government spending in general - are not addressable by a big tax increase and/or a big increase in the scope of the federal government. There is no “big government” solution to the problem of Big Government.
What we need is a President - actually a Speaker of the House - who will say No to new spending, especially on health care. We cannot afford to spend more. Therefore, we need to spend less. Less.
Is this something Hilary can bring about? I don’t know. Will she even try? I don’t know that either. She didn’t seem to push that when she was co-President. Maybe she has changed her mind.
So far, most of her appeal nationally seems to be name recognition and not much else. If she can convince me she is a genuine centrist, not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I would support her.
Providing she keeps Bill out of the government and away from the interns.
Regards,
Shodan
Being a cast-iron bitch isn’t an attractive characteristic in a first lady. But it looks a lot better in someone running for president.
Possibly, shrewd game theory?
Suppose conservatives wish Hillary to be nominated for president, for the reason that they think she’d be easy to win against.
And further, that conservatives also believe that Democrat powers-that-be agree with this likely outcome of her nomination. In which case, she probably won’t be nominated.
It would then be in the interest of conservatives to understate their opposition to a Hillary presidency, to convince the Democratic party that she could win. Resulting in her nomination in 2008.
This could influence a conservative’s response to a pollster’s question, “Do you support Hillary for president?”
I’m just throwing this out as a blue-sky theory though – I think there might be a few people doing this, but 1 in 3 is awfully high.
Can anyone cite the Gallup question that the OP referred to? It occurs to me that if a bunch of conservatives were asked “Which Democrat do you think would be the most acceptable President - Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, or Al Sharpton?” it wouldn’t be as surprising to see Clinton getting 33% support.
What she preached was taking responsibility on our behalf for programs she considered important. Stammer all you want about “tighty righties” and whatnot, but involuntary wealth distributions schemes are definitively incompatible with a free market.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe those 1 in 3 are part of the “vast, right wing conspiracy”. It is vast, afterall.
I can appreciate that view, but to me a rollback of a tax cut is not equivalent to a redistribution scheme. The conservatives love to talk about cutting spending, but I haven’t seen too many programs they want to actually take the axe to. So we either pay for the programs that we can’t part with or we don’t.
Further, to claim that Hillary supports “redistribution of wealth” has no meaning, in the context of American politics. Almost all politicians in both parties support some form of wealth redistribution. So it comes down to, does she support it more than other politicians, particularly Democrats, and I don’t see any evidence that she does.