[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
I agree that she has a public image of being a consummate politician with absolutely no real convictions. But:
(a) how much of that is what we believe just because we’ve heard that so often from so many different sources? Isn’t that exactly what her enemies want us to believe?
[/quote]
I don’t think Hillary’s without convictions; what I have observed is that she’s not willing to stick her neck out very far for very much.
She has said in interviews that the failure of Hillarycare in 1994 left an impact on her. And it shows. She wants Bush to end the Iraq war during his Administration, but we’d all like a pony, and she’s doing little to take the lead in forcing Bush to do so, which is the only way that’ll happen. “If he doesn’t end it, then I will” when she’s President, doesn’t amount to very much. Most Americans would like us to be out of combat in Iraq by next year, not 2010. She and Obama are both in the Senate, but Obama’s the one using that position to get out in front on this issue.
Similarly on universal health care. Edwards has put forth a reasonably detailed plan that he’ll try to get through Congress early in his Presidency if elected. Hillary says she wants universal health care by the end of her second term - ten years away - but of course no specifics.
But we know where she stands on violent video games. Profiles in courage, huh?
Yes and no. He was an excellent executive, in terms of getting the Federal government to do very well the things it was already supposed to be doing.
But after 1994, he pretty much gave up taking the country in any positive direction, instead fighting a rearguard battle to limit the damage the Gingrich-DeLay Congress was doing. And he also abdicated his role in setting a direction for the Democratic Party, leaving it without a positive message for partisans to rally around and offer as an alternative to the GOP message which, if misleading (IMHO) was certainly clear.
I remember a thread I started here after the 2002 midterms, along the lines of “Memo to Democrats: You Can’t Beat Something With Nothing.” Clinton had plenty of opportunity during his second term (other than during 1998, of course) to articulate a message for his party, so that Dems would have ‘something’ to stack up against the GOP message. He didn’t, and that’s a good part of the reason why the Dems were still in such disarray in 2002 and beyond.
I think Hillary’s more of the same. Meanwhile, the Dems did pretty well in 2006, partly because they started taking some stands. The political map has changed, and the country’s ready for Dems who will take stands on Iraq, global warming, universal health care, and other major issues. But for Hillary, it’s still 1996, and she’s still trying to win by playing smallball.