Ditto that. Hillary wouldn’t be a bad President (especially after the bar that’s been set by the current administration), but she also probably wouldn’t be an inspirational, boldly-going-forward one either. At best, she’d be quietly competent, such as Bill Clinton’s presidency was (ignoring the attempts by some folks to rewrite history against him).
On the other hand, given how totally effed up the nation is today (and will be by the time January 2009 comes about), I’m not sure I wouldn’t appreciate four or eight years of quiet competence, if only to clean up the mess we’ve got now.
Sure, but it simply puts to lie the idea that Hillary is some sort of wild-haired leftist radical. IMO, the Clintons are about the most centrist high-profile politicians in the US today – if they’re not 50%-50% liberal/conservative, they’re darn close.
Much of my problem with Hillary Clinton is the conservative issues she does embrace are the dumbass ones. Flag burning, Iraq, violent video games–these are not positions I can have any respect for.
Bill only ran to the middle when the Republicans were swept into Congress in 1994, and he was forced to. We’ll never know how he would have governed if the Dems had been in control of at least one House in Congress.
She’s my senator (I voted for her twice against the nobodies that ran against her), and I think rjung has captured part of why I don’t think she would be the best Democratic candidate.
Her most salient political feature is that there are large masses of people that ABSOLUTELY HATE her. Although she might be able to get elected despite this handicap, this makes it virtually impossible for her to be a conciliator or to reach across party lines. This means that from the start she will be utterly unable to reduce the bitter partisanship that infects Washington these days (though whether anyone else would is a matter to be seen).
Several times since she’s been in office, it seems that she’s done and said things that appear to be all-too-blatantly based on perceived popular political expediency. Her shifting stance on the Iraq war is a good example of this. I can buy the “thought it a good idea at the time” idea, but her moves seem a little too closely timed to the varying winds of polling opinions.
From this, I don’t think that she is likely to inspire the nation or lead public opinion in an effective manner. She might be able to govern, particularly if Congress retains its Democratic majority, but I don’t think she’ll be able to make a fundamental difference.
I think that there are several other candidates that have a better shot at winning, and more important, winning without bitter divisiveness (I’m an optimist, ain’t I). Although there a view that none of the other Democratic candidates would get any votes from the Hillary-haters anyway, I’m pretty sure that isn’t true. Somebody like Obama, Richardson or Edwards – who seem to blow less in the polical wind – can pitch a broadly inclusive message that will appeal to fence-sitters and potentially be able to reach Americans more effectively if elected.
But, but, she’s a woman. What if she faints when faced with difficulties? Or shrieks and cries if we get attacked by terrorists? Or it’s her “time of the month” and she attacks a country while in “one of her moods”?
James Howard Kunstler, not known for conservatism, thinks ill of her (click on the “Clusterfuck Nation” link on the left side and go to the 1/22/07 entry):
I read an interesting opinion piece in the Hartford Courant yesterday entitled Dynasty’s Downside.
The article notes that neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor George W. Bush would be a senator and a president today, respectively, were it not for the Clinton and Bush name.
The article also notes: “Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40 percent, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances - so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency - weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping - would mirror George W. Bush’s presidency.”
I think Hillary Clinton has been a fine senator. She would probably make a good President. But I think I agree with the author of the article that it would not be good for our democracy for another Clinton (or Bush, for that matter–Jeb, I’m looking at you) to serve as President.
There is something to be said about that, and that’s probably why Obama is trying to portray himself as not of that baby boomer generation. It’s time, to paraphrase him, to move beyond the '60s fighting between the jocks and the freaks on campus.
I couldn’t disagree more with Kunstler. There’s no way Hillary will mirror the most basic feature of Dubya’s presidency - governing as if he had an overwhelming mandate to govern from the far right.
If elected, she will govern from a point roughly three microns to the left of center. That’s who she is.
Sorry RTFirefly, but I militantly disagree with you. I’ve seen the calculations, and she is in fact FOUR microns left of center. And she wears red underwear too boot. I’m sorry I had to bring these things up…
Electing her is right because by doing so, you will in essence be electing two Presidents- her and Bill. In the aftermath of GWB’s reign, who would you rather have as the President’s spouse when it becomes necessary to deal with foreign leaders to make amends, Bill Clinton, or Mrs. Obama or Mrs. Edwards?
Brain Glutton: that James Kunstler piece sounds like he really has an anti-femme Mommy problem. Yeccchh.
Hillary isn’t my favorite candidate; I’m pulling for Obama at this stage, thinking that he has more of a capability to unite the country after this awful rule of late.
Yet, Hillary would make a fine candidate; as said here, she knows the ropes, intricately, and would jump into the position fully aware of what it takes to do the job effectively, with a two-fer ace advisor in Bill right at the ready.
It would be interesting to see the Old Boy network of Father-Son presidency turned out a bit by the first Husband-Wife Presidency. What is also interesting, and heartening, is that Hillary, from what I’ve seen, is really running, so far, without Bill as a looming presence of endorsement. Perhaps it’s to avoid the memory of that sham of Monica-gate. But, doesn’t everyone see through that pitiful vengeful crap of a waste of time that was by now?
Edwards, well, he’s my hometown candidate here in Chapel Hill, but I’d rather see him as an effective VP, perhaps increasing to President in the future.
That’s precisely why I’m not voting for her in primaries, and might even go Green if she gets the nomination. I don’t want anyone in office who’s willing to sell off bits of the first ammendment for a little political capital.
I really don’t think she’s been all that effective as the junior Senator from NY. Granted, part of that is filtering her representation through the lens of local issues. But, even ignoring things like her failure to bring the jobs she promised back in 2000, I still have several specific issues with her tenure as a Senator.
First off, her continued push for guarding the entirety of the US-Canada border strikes me as quixotic, at best, and at worst based on the worst kind of patronage politics. Given the natural obstacles at the US-Mexico border it is educational to consider that even with a great deal of effort, man-power, and money being thrown at the problem, crossings are still being made in great numbers. The US-Canada border lacks, in most places, any natural boundary - making any effort to patrol the length of it seem uneconomic, and likely doomed to failure. It is possible my own analysis here is flawed, but I used to take great pride in the fact that the US-Canada border had been the longest unprotected border in the world.
Her votes for the Patriot Act still bothers me.
I also mistrust her views on the proper role of government. I remain a firm proponent of the less is more school of government. (Which is one reason I’m so disgusted with Shrub, and the Republicans in general.) I have seen nothing to change my belief that she believes it’s the government’s job to tell people how to live. It has moderated in the past several years, but I do fear it’s still there.
Having said all that against the woman, I voted for her re-election. And unless the Republicans find some sense and find a candidate who isn’t crap on toast, I’ll probably vote for her for President if she gets the nomination. Just don’t ask me to be enthusiastic about her.
