I’m not a Democrat; I’m an actual liberal/radical that scores left of both Christ and Gandhi on Political Affiliation Tests. I just want to put that out there so that nobody thinks this is some anti-Dem rant by a Red Stater. I think that the Democrats are only one shade better than their Republican counterparts in general.
I’ve just sort of assumed all along that this whole “Hillary running for president” thing was just bluster and hullaballoo by and on behalf of someone that has absolutely no chance of winning the election, kind of like when Alan Keyes runs. Sure, a small but vocal segment of the party (not to mention the populace at large) gets behind them, but once we get to the primaries, the party at large always goes with the far more middle-of-the-road (or “electable,” as they call it) candidate that has a chance of carrying a mainstream vote.
Hillary’s just another one of those, right? They’re not actually going to run her, right?
More “middle-of-the-road”?! Hillary Clinton is the most centrist of the Dem front-runners; that is why I find her unacceptable. As for “electable” – well, she’s widely hated by the right, but she managed to raise more money than anyone else somehow, didn’t she? IOW, she’s got significant support from the corporate sector, which counts for a lot. See here for details.
Say what you will about the Clintons, they pretty much define “middle of the road”. The real question regarding Hillary’s electability isn’t if she’s too radical, it’s if she’ll be able to overcome the largely fallacious perception that she’s radical, and the right’s often irrational hatred of her.
Between that, and the fact that the left doesn’t exactly love her, I have severe doubts about her ability to win, but obviously somebody like her, or she wouldnt be doing as well as she is.
Alan Keyes is an extreme right wing Republican. Hillary is a middle-of-the-road Democrat. I don’t get the comparison. I think you need to flesh out your thesis more. At the national level, Hillary has been the Democratic front-runner in all the polls from the get-go. And she’s moving even more into the front as time goes on. I’ll be absolutely shocked if she doesn’t win the Democratic nomination.
One of Hillary’s problems is that she comes across as too much of an opportunist-- someone whose political beliefs shift with the wind. She appears to have gone from conservative young adult, to liberal 30-something, to centrist Democrat in her 50s. Of course shes’ not the only candidate who has moved around on the political map, and maybe she gets unfairly chastised for that, but who ever said politics was “fair”?
I’ve always gotten the impression that the Clintons were all about power, and were willing to take pretty much any political stance that they thought would get them that power.
The key is to be pragmatic without looking like you’re doing that. Bill was very good at that. Hillary, not so much, but she’s still better than many of them out there.
I saw a recent poll (which I can’t find now, but it was in the past week) that showed people slightly preferred her to Giuliani and by larger margins to the other Republican candidates. If those numbers were accurate and hold up and are better than the other Democrats’ numbers, the Democrats would be fools not to run her. So even money says they won’t.
I don’t much like Hillary, and admit without blush that my reasons are entirely a matter of personal response, I don’t like her. Therefore, I’d prefer not to have to support her. Had my druther of druthers, I would prefer Bill Richardson, who is qualified up the butt.
But she is only a bit rightward of my preference, so that isn’t it. Her stance on Iraq is/was troubling, but then, so was Kerry’s. For pragmatic political reasons, I’m tempted to extrapolate my reaction as being more common, that many people feel as I do, which would make her a liability. But in all honesty, that’s hogwash, I’m quite a bit removed from the mainstream.
If I were a Democrat, I’d be terrified of a Hillary nomination. She’s a politician who is liked more when she’s not talking. Her negatives are high across both Republicans and Democrats. She’s got a temper, and speaks at times in a shrill, condescending tone.
A few things you can count on from a Hillary candidacy, through - a thoroughly professional organization behind her, lots of money, good instincts for ‘triangulating’ her positions for maximum benefit in a general election, and the backstage advice of Bill Clinton, one of the most naturally talented politicians of our generation.
But I try to imagine her coming off well in a national debate against someone like Fred Thompson or Rudy Guliani, and I’m not seeing it.
One of Hillary’s problems is that she comes across as too much of an opportunist-- someone whose political beliefs shift with the wind. She appears to have gone from conservative young adult, to liberal 30-something, to centrist Democrat in her 50s. Of course shes’ not the only candidate who has moved around on the political map, and maybe she gets unfairly chastised for that, but who ever said politics was “fair”?
A conservative young adult back in her feminist days in the 60s?
elucidator Richardson is my favorite too. He is definitely the most qualified. I am hoping Hillary takes him as her Sec State with Obama as her Veep, she’d be unstoppable and Richardson’s abilities would be suited very well to the task of Secretary of State.
I think the general election will be Hillary, Giuliani and Bloomberg.
So I’ve heard. You have any specific examples? Of course, everybody on the left is, to some degree or another, shrill, thats why they never win any elections.
She would dine upon Giuliani’s lunch, and stick him with the tab. Giuliani is a fraud, in case you haven’t caught on yet.
Well, she was a Goldwater Republican and started out at Wellesley as president of the Young Republicans. She may have graduated as a liberal, but she didn’t matriculate as one. So, say late teens/early 20s if you wish.
But I think that is much less important than her shift to the right in recent years. Many people don’t trust that to be her “true” political position.
Since the comparison was to Hillary, I have to ask: As opposed to the authentic Hillary Clinton? Surely you jest.
People misunderestimate H. Clinton as badly as they misunderestimated GW. She ran a brilliant senate campaign in NY which many people thought she couldn’t pull off either. She’s well prepared for the nastiness of a modern presidential campaign. She has an excellent staff, including her husband, one of the best campaigners in American history. She knows her weaknesses and will deal with them.
Her biggest weakness, depressingly enough, is her gender. All the common complaints about her–she’s arrogant, abrasive, poll-driven , ambitious(!)–apply in full measure to all the other candidates. Running for president is pretty much arrogant and ambitious by definition. She has to be tough and feminine at the same time. But she managed this in NY. And she is the front runner in the democratic party.
I’m not even a huge fan. I’d rather see Richardson or Biden president. But I wouldn’t discount Clinton’s ability to run a successful campaign against whoever the Republicans nominate.
I’m not much of a fan, either, but I think she’d make a reasonably good president. I’d rather see Obama in the WH than her, but I’d rather see her than Edwards. She’ll do just fine.
