« Whoa | Main | Just A Thought »
December 07, 2005
Hillary Doubts
Check out my shotgun blast at Hillary over on Tapped. I've gone from fairly pro to fairly anti on her -- what seemed a couple instances of smart positioning have become an endless series of unnecessary straddles that undercut progressive arguments and aren't coupled with liberal legislation. Hillary needs to get something done on the Democratic side of things, the simple force of her association with a D-associated president is not enough to convince progressives that she'll help the cause.
December 7, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83463fcb653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Doubts:
Comments
I just read that, and it's a solid piece. Our New York Senators should be exploring new territory on the left rather than making half-assed attempts to appease the middle.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Dec 7, 2005 1:10:46 PM
I just don't get it. How does she possibly think this will work? Is there a single right-wing voter who she thinks will like her because of these various small and small-minded measures? Does she think a single Fox-News pundit will turn around and endorse her? She's a smart woman dammit, and part of that I imagine would be that knowing some people hate her for good.
Posted by: Tony Vila | Dec 7, 2005 1:29:41 PM
I agree. As I said yesterday, the more she worries about burning the flag, the more Hillary burns bridges with those she'll need most in 2008.
Posted by: Joseph | Dec 7, 2005 1:33:17 PM
I like it. That's because I have always been anti-. I don't fogrive big screwups, and the Clinton healthcare failure was a big, big screwup. I don't care whose fault it really was -- the President had her run the thing, so she takes the fall along with him.
See, this kind of idiotic posturing undercuts her solitary asset: incredibly strong name-recognition and knee-jerk support from primary voters. The more she does that, the more likely she remains in the most useful place possible for her: her lifetime-appointment Senate seat. Maybe in another half-decade or so, she could turn into Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: wcw | Dec 7, 2005 1:53:11 PM
I think you may be missing the point. I don't think she expects to gain Red trust because of the proposed legislation; I think she expects Reds will trust her more after they see her attacked by "the America-hating left" (Democrats). This was roughly Dick Morris's strategy for the '96 election, as per Stephanopolous's book.
She knows she has '06 sowed up, and that a lot of people can be brought around in three years. Cf. Our nomination of J. Kerry, who no one much liked as a candidate. I don't much like the move, but let's not pretend she (or Bill) is stupid.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 7, 2005 1:55:22 PM
SCMT: Ygeslias pointed this argument out a while ago. To which the only response is - yelling "she's evil!!!!!" as loudly as possible. Anyway, it seems pretty complex to actually work.
WCW: And what's wrong with that? Being the most powerful/respected liberal in the Senate for the rest of your life. I think a lot of pundits need to stop acting like you're a failure unless you've served two terms in the white house, and Democrats would do well to encourage her to be a leading light in the Senate for the next generation.
Posted by: Tony Vila | Dec 7, 2005 2:07:20 PM
i refuse to vote for hillary unless she's running against jeb. the main reason here is I refuse to have 2 different families competing for power in a supposedly democratic nation.
Posted by: TheDeadlyShoe | Dec 7, 2005 2:11:56 PM
the simple force of her association with a D-associated president is not enough to convince progressives that she'll help the cause.
I don't really know how true that rings. I have to admit, I say this because of simple interactions with liberals. But who really gives a shit about a flag burning amendment? I can huff and puff all I want, but to be honest, its just not any sort of priority because I'll never be in a situation where this affects me. I suspect many people are the same as I. I don't particularily care for Hillary for other reason, but this move seems to trivial to me. Maybe it would hurt her in the primaries, but when faced with her or the Republican choice, are you really going to vote the other way because of this? Of course not, which is probably why she's not worried.
Posted by: Adrock | Dec 7, 2005 2:38:02 PM
I'm for her mindless re-positioning, because I think her being nominated would be a catastrophe for the Dems and the country: the best way to ensure another 4-8 years of Republican rule. The more annoying positions she takes, the less likely she'll be nominated, esp since the leftish base is overrepresented among primary voters. Edwards/Obama in 2008!!
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD | Dec 7, 2005 2:52:46 PM
She may be going of Red voters but she is Hillary Clinton she can track right of everyone in the GOP and they still won't vote for her.
Posted by: ET | Dec 7, 2005 3:10:21 PM
Yeah, HRC's latest strikes me as bizarre. The legislation itself is... nothing. It's legislation that legislates nothing, a response to an issue that isn't even in the news right now and that nobody is upset about anyway (maybe I'm wrong but I sense basically massive public apathy to the flag-burning amendments that get floated all the time. It's one of those issues that a few people feel strongly about and the rest tepidly support before they think about it a little.) It's not even good politics; it just stinks like a machine stunt.
The worst thing a pol can do is become his or her stereotype. When Dean "screamed" the press shouted "ah hah! We were right about this guy!" HRC is doing the same -- she's confirming all those negative, ambitious triangulator stereotypes that might actually have been unfair at some point. Why would she want to do that?
Posted by: Laura | Dec 7, 2005 3:13:58 PM
I'm with Rebecca Allen. If Hillary wants to hammer nails into her own political coffin, all I can say is, "Pound harder!" Her nomination is just about the only way that the GOP can hope for a presidential win in '08. (Though I have very mixed feelings about that, since I yearn for a Republican White House when all the shit from the Bush years really hits the fan, round about 2010 or so.)
Posted by: sglover | Dec 7, 2005 4:42:28 PM
I must say I was unimpressed with your critique of Hillary Clinton. I don't have strong feelings about her, one way or the other, but overheated, unwarranted attacks like this instinctively make me want to defend her.
'Cultural issues' may not be your cup-of-tea (neither are they mine), but one thing we should have learned from the politics of the last decade is that they are very important to a lot of others - including many Democrats and independents whose votes may mean the difference between a lifetime of Bush/Delay/etc-controlled government and a better alternative.
Posted by: P.M.Bryant | Dec 7, 2005 5:07:18 PM
Supposedly her proposed anti-flag-burning LAW, is to head off a possible Constitutional amendment, and defuse the issue. Heh.
This seems sort of harmless 3 years from a Presidential election run, but her other recent policy staddles are far more serious.
I've come to the position that she is smart, but not brilliant, and somewhat tone-deaf politically. I used to hold her in high regard for a serious dedication to liberal causes earlier in her life, like child rearing in a good family setting.
Now, I'm with Ezra. She will split the left, unite the right, and what we get as a country? Oatmeal politics. With Hilary as a candidate we would be replaying the early-mid 90's again and remove the spotlight from Bush's repeated disasters buoyed by a Republican-power-hungry Congress.
I'm looking elsewhere for 08. Mark Warner, Derek Obama, and John Edwards (weakly in Edwards case) are my current favorities.
And yeah, we don't need no more political dynasties. Period. I'd make THAT a Constitutional amendment, if I could.
Posted by: JimPortandOR | Dec 7, 2005 6:07:05 PM
I liked this bit from your other HRC piece:
Senator is not a pretend position intended to keep politicans crisp and visible for future campaigns.
Of course, that's what my guy's job running the UNC center on poverty is.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Cricket | Dec 7, 2005 8:31:20 PM
BTW, Neil, I doubt whats his face will see your newly jumpy appellation.
Posted by: TJ | Dec 7, 2005 8:53:34 PM
If appearances are everything to everyman ( not politically interested people ) then getting spin right to appear generally "part of the gang" is just going for brand recognition. Can you guys see the forest for the trees ?
Posted by: opit | Dec 7, 2005 11:55:12 PM
'Cultural issues' may not be your cup-of-tea (neither are they mine), but one thing we should have learned from the politics of the last decade is that they are very important to a lot of others - including many Democrats and independents whose votes may mean the difference between a lifetime of Bush/Delay/etc-controlled government and a better alternative.
Oh, bullshit. This isn't a "cultural issue" -- this isn't even an issue. It's a posture, and a blindingly phony one at that. If the usual gang of GOP shills is ginning up a flag-burning amendment to manufacture more bogus outrage, the Dems would do a helluva lot better to call them on it, and point out that there's no shortage of grave problems facing the Republic, and that the Republican ploy is only intended as a distraction. Hillary's stab at pre-emptively out-distracting the party of Atwater is a certain loser, on many levels. And it's just one more example of Dems reacting, instead of genuinely standing for something. The Dems seem to have a bit of an image problem that way, doncha think?
Posted by: sglover | Dec 8, 2005 10:48:20 AM
HRC is a no-go for Prez in 2008. There are a lot of Dems who will not vote for her in the primaries and she would get crushed by the repug slime machine in a general election. And it's not just that she is a woman - she is THAT woman!
Stop wasting crediblity and money, be the best NY Senator you can be.
Posted by: CParis | Dec 8, 2005 6:11:14 PM
If the usual gang of GOP shills is ginning up a flag-burning amendment to manufacture more bogus outrage, the Dems would do a helluva lot better to call them on it, and point out that there's no shortage of grave problems facing the Republic, and that the Republican ploy is only intended as a distraction.
The problem with this as a campaign strategy, if that's what you are advocating, is that it assumes people are stupid and can't figure out on their own what are real issues and what are mere distractions.
It's a posture, and a blindingly phony one at that.
Find a successful politician of any ideology that doesn't 'posture' and such a criticism may be meaningful.
Posted by: P.M.Bryant | Dec 8, 2005 6:31:36 PM
... the Dems would do a helluva lot better to call them on it, and point out that there's no shortage of grave problems facing the Republic, and that the Republican ploy is only intended as a distraction.
Also, how did we get from Hillary Clinton to "Dems" in general?
Posted by: P.M.Bryant | Dec 8, 2005 6:33:55 PM
Also, how did we get from Hillary Clinton to "Dems" in general?
We were talking about wannabe presidential candidates for the Democratic Party, were we not?
Posted by: sglover | Dec 8, 2005 10:43:32 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
