Sure, because she’s a qualified candidate, unlike some other folks who’ve gone for the job. But the same can be said for a number of other prominent Dems as well.
Meanwhile, the right-wing pundit-machine keeps spinning every political movement in the Democratic Party as part of some vast tapestry of manipulation to get Hillary into the White House (Am I the only one who remembers the “The Dems won’t be able to settle on a candidate, and Hillary will get the nomination by default!” stories from a few months ago?).
Some of this conserva-porn is outright ludicrous, as if Armageddeon will erupt the moment she sits down behind the desk in the Oval Office – I noted in the bookstore the other day that Dick Morris’ Rewriting History includes the backc-ver blurb, “Learn the truth about Hillary Clinton… because once she becomes President, it’ll be too late.” :dubious: :wally
Nope, the “Hillary is gonna run” line is simply yet another creation of the RW commentariat’s fantasy-mongering, not of any Democratic groundswell, as Tim Noah explains - just like the one about “The Democrats need to dump Kerry” that was in vogue a short while ago.
Not quite. It’s equalled by 49 other Senators and a gazillion other politicians.
Why do people persist in demonizing Hillary for ‘lusting after power’? She’s a politician. ALL of them lust after power. Sheesh.
If you want to criticize her, fine. Point to some policies of hers that you disagree with. But this quasi-conspiratorial Hillary-is-the-antichrist stuff really, really belongs in the last century.
Like it or not, Hillary is a good politician. From most accounts, she’s done a good job for her state. She’s been reasonable in tone most of the time, and she’s got a gift for staying out of losing battles and knowing what to kiss, and when.
Give her her due. Since she was elected, she’s pretty much knuckled down and done the job the voters elected her to do. She’s been quietly positioning herself as a power player, and working her ass off.
I don’t agree with much of what Hillary stands for. But I can say the same thing for most politicians. However, she’s a better politician than most, she’s a harder worker than most, and she’s smarter than most. She’s earned the right to a little respect, in my opinion.
I’m a lot more conservative than Mrs. Clinton and I think she’s done a marvelous job given that I disagree with her so much. In particular, she seems to “get it” as regards the war on terror. Also, as Sam notes, she’s done a good job on constituent service, both directly and in terms of reflecting the priorities of New Yorkers (including, even especially, those who live upstate). If the Republicans run another empty suit like Lazio against her I’d give voting for her serious consideration.
I agree with Sam and Manny on this one. I don’t agree with everything she espouses either, though probably more than Sam and Manny. But for the life of me I never understood the absolute hatred and suspicion of her either. She’s a hell of a lot smarter, hardworking and forthright than some of the folks representing me.
The woman made mistakes but she learned from ‘em, and she didn’t remotely deserve the every-way-she-loses clobbering she took. She’s not a saint but she’s far from the Anti-Christ.
If she came across as a reasonable lawmaker, willing to treat ideological differences respectfully, she was effective, not to mention responsible. Lord knows the political climate is poisonous enough right now. She’s been a power insider long enough to know exactly how actual change gets done by posing vs. behind-doors cooperation. Politics have more layers than onions–and the stench is more acrid–but just conducting oneself with something approaching measured reason is worth respect.
On a slightly less elevated note, I’m sure she was perfectly aware of the scripted, combustible setting, not to mention the rumblings of discontent within the Republican party against the neocons. Only a damned fool would have risen to that bait. I find her conduct far less interesting than the fact that this whole script was played out on televison at all. Neither party approaches that kind of air time without a carefully considered, deliberate message. The "political interest’ media uses them; they use back.
A research team from Caltech concluded that Hillary’s lust for power & control has no equal. The paper was presented at 2003 Public Policy Symposium in Washington D.C.[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] [sub]Or maybe I’m just being facetious. Was this not obvious? Perhaps I should preface all my post with “IMHO” from now on, for the slow learners…[/sub]
Eminently qualified? She was First Lady for eight years and has served half a term in the Senate. Color me unimpressed. (I’m from NY and I didn’t vote for her in 2000.)
There IS an obsession among hard-core Republicans about Hillary. Well before the primaries (but after she’d said she wasn’t running this year) they said ‘the Democrats will decide all the candidates suck and nominate her.’ When they got closer, that became ‘there will be no clear primary winner’ and that she’d get the nomination even though she wasn’t even campaigning and conventions don’t really select the nominee. Now, I guess they’ve finally, reluctantly given up on 2004. But they’re already prepping for 2008. :rolleyes:
Kudos to both of you. It’s nice to see honest respect for an “opponent’s” abilities. The two of you and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum so it’s a bit unusual for me to agree with your opinions, but regarding Hillary’s capabilities I fully agree.
Like TVeblen, while I don’t think she’s perfect (who is?), I cannot for the life of me understand why she seems to cause people to spout such hateful vitriol. (is that redundant?)
I think you’re right. The message in this instance, given the core audience, was simply that she is a good person. In retrospect, I find it incredibly brilliant. She waited to appear just long enough that Fox News promos made a huge deal out of her appearance. And when the show began, Chris Wallace fairly swooned over the hype of having her on. She had calculated that Graham would be chivalrous, and in fact he was. She praised his work early on in the interview profusely and sincerely without so much as a hint of disrespect. By the time Wallace began to hit her with his scripted hard questions, Graham was assisting her, coming to her defense, and knocking down Wallace’s criticisms. Wallace, a skilled anchor sensing that if he weren’t careful, he would come off as a villain, made one last attempt to trap her. He asked her about her “vast right wing conspiracy” comment, and her response was to point to all the logos, coffee cups, and Republicans and declare with a beaming smile, “Well, here I am right in the middle of it!” Everyone laughed, and the whole issue was dismissed summarily. I haven’t seen that sort of tactical rhetorical skill since Reagan. (Remember his comment about his opponent’s “youth and inexperience”?) Anyway, I’m glad I ranted if for no other reason than to see that I was wrong. She made a big impression in a risky situation, and it was decidedly positive.
And again, what do you base your opinion on? I can’t see ANY examples of Hillary being a crazed, power-mad control freak.
The only thing I can figure is that the right will never get over the fact that the Clintons were popular. AND that the only thing they could find to nail him on was a freaking blowjob.
Y’all also gotta remember how fuckin’ charismatic Clinton was. While he wasn’t quite as good as the Teflon Man, he was still pretty slick, and not just in the shower.
