Per the article below there’s apparently lots of money and horsepower revving up to promote her candidacy. I’ve got to ask if the mover and shaker Democrats have lost all trace of rationality? She’s a very intelligent and capable woman, but her politics are as polarizing as a bar magnet, and in real world terms she’s about as popularly electable as a Mountain Gorilla.
Why waste resources on her? If Democrats are serious about the presidency why not get someone electable?
What if the movers and shakers are betting she will lose getting the nomination at the convention? If I were a Dem strategist, I’d be aiming to get a moderate Dem nominated. With Hillary in the primaries, I’d expect her to attract the votes of the most left-leaning Dems. The most left-leaning are a minority of the party. With Hillary in the mix, this would leave open a good opportunity for a candidate that appeals to the right-leaning Dems to grab the nomination. If that happened, all the Hillary supporters would vote for whoever got the nomination in the November election. They wouldn’t even consider voting Republican. Letting whoever gets the nomination to fight for the people in the center of the political spectrum. THAT is the group that decides who is president.
WTF?
Double WTF?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton:
What’s “polarizing” about any of that? HRC’s pet political issues are not particularly “left-wing” by Democratic standards or even – with the exception of “expanding health insurance coverage” – by Republican standards. It’s always mystified me why so many conservatives seem to hate her so bitterly. What is there to hate, even from their POV?
One of my closest friends is a conservative old Republican who says he would love to get the chance to vote for Hillary for president. (Oddly, he feels the same way about Condi Rice.)
I don’t find Hillary Clinton’s politics to be extremely liberal but I’ve read her books and because of these readings I would never consider her seriously as a candidate.
As it is the candidacy will get so much attention because so many people have said it’s coming for so long. It’s sort of like the Red Sox winning the World Series, someone has called it like for 5 years running and people have really wanted it for a long time.
Could you be more specific? (I haven’t read her books.)
Quotes like this just might have something to do with it:
We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
That was said in the context of reversing tax cuts made by Bush. The “common good” there could be balancing the budget, which has fairly broad appeal. It would also depend a lot on precisely whose taxes she would propose raising? Raising taxes on the just the wealthy tends to be politically popular. Certainly amongst those who would consider voting for a Dem president.
Hillary’s got a reputation as an East Coast liberal, which itself is enough to turn off a large chunk of the swing vote. (That kind of reputation certainly didn’t help John Kerry.) Plus, she’s a proponent of socialized health care, which would be a massive new expense that would ultimately get passed on to taxpayers. Plus, on a personal level, she tends to come across as stern and… well… bitchy.
I agree with the OP: she’s unelectable, and if the leaders of the Democratic party don’t realize this, then the Dems are in tough shape.
Altho’ I think that rfgdxm might be on the right track. The Democratic higher-ups might be well aware of her shortcomings, and could be planning to set her up against a likable moderate, who would be their preferred candidate for 2008. The old “One choice to approve; one choice to reject” strategy.
Hillary Clinton is “polarizing” only in the minds of the mouth-foaming zombies who believed every right-wing anti-Clinton conspiracy rumor from the '90s, and who secretly believe she killed Vince Foster to cover up her lesbian affair with Janet Reno or somesuch. For the rest of us, who can judge her simply by her policies and her positions, she’s simply Yet Another Politician, not much better or worse than the rest of 'em.
That said, I don’t think she’d run in 2008; she’s smart enough to know that the anti-Clinton zombies are still lurking in the rushes, and that to run in '08 would just give them an excuse to come out of the woodwork.
Hillary is polarizing in that her appeal is minimal to many people in the middle of the political spectrum. Hillary would be able to win only after most Americans favor universal health care for all Americans. I doubt this will happen soon. 
That’s called “taxation,” milroyj. Practically every government does it, regardless of ideology or political system.
But he came damed close, didn’t he? Never forget that.
Nevertheless, it is something we need.
Would you use that word of a male politician who acted exactly the same way and said exactly the same things?
Hillary not a “moderate”? She’s probably to the right even of Howard Dean, for pity’s sake! And he is by no means a leftist!
Depending on how it’s applied, it could also describe Communism and/or Socialism. One of the problems that many of us who don’t like Sen. Clinton have with her is that she comes across as being very much the socialist (and a particularly smug and condescending one, at that), thus these words of hers seem particularly telling.
Speaking as a (very moderate democratic) socialist, Starving, I can assure you that Hillary Clinton is not a socialist of any kind by even the broadest possible definition.
As a very moderate anarcho-syndicalist, from what I know of Hillary’s politics she is very far from a socialist. As seen by most Europeans, she is very far to the right. Over there, not having government financed health care would be seen as silly.
While I’m sure Diceman can speak for himself, it appeared to me he was speaking of how she is perceived by many people in this country and not necessarily of how he perceived her himself. I would agree with him that many people in this country perceive her as being a bitch. Whether this is fair or not (women tend to be labelled as bitches, men get labelled as liars, jerks and assholes), it’s the reality of the situation and one which she will have to contend with whenever she runs for office.
And on preview, I see you have assured me that Sen. Clinton is no socialist. I agree that this is technically so, but not for lack of desire on her part. I have no doubt that given free reign, she would be a socialist of the first magnitude.
Uh, huh, except that her definition of the common good is quite different than mine. I suppose she should get some credit for being honest about her intended theivery, though. Or not.
Hillary was a leading contender for 2008 right up until John Kerry lost and everyone realized that east coast liberals have a hard time getting elected. The Democrats are going to go looking for a southern governor next time, or a populist figure that can penetrate the red states. That’s simply the reality of electoral politics.
Hillary is also a polarizing figure because her popularity is high, but her negatives are even higher. People either love her or hate her, and the right hates her. That means if she runs in 2008 the Republican base will be mobilized again like it was this year. Again, that’s a strike against her.
That said, I wouldn’t count her out. By 2008, Bill will have been out of office for 8 years, and it will have been 16 years since he was first elected, and that was the time that she really set the right’s teeth on edge. She came flying out of the gate like a leftist with a world to change, and got in a lot of faces. Travelgate, Hillarycare, a lot of disparaging statements, “It takes a village”, etc. But that’s a long time ago, and Hillary has learned her lesson and moved to the right.
Here’s what to watch for, though: If Hillary becomes a serious hawk, she’ll run for President. And that’s exactly what I expect her to do. Four years of a hawkish senate record could do wonders for her reputation in the red states, especially if she crosses the aisle a few times to support defense bills Democrats oppose, or takes the President’s side a few times against the Democratic majority. Keep an eye out for moves like that.
Hillary’s smart, and has political skills up the wazoo. Never count out someone with those attributes. Look at Nixon’s resurrection from 1960 to 1968 for an example.
Damn, Sam, don’t scare me like this.
She wouldn’t have free reign. We do have in the US this thing called Congress. And, I really doubt that you understand what a socialist of the first magnitude is. You honestly think Hillary would try to totally dismantle free enterprise?