« Things That Don't Surprise Me | Main | On Obama Love »
October 31, 2007
Hillary Hate, Barack Love
To add onto Matt's comments on Hillary hatred, I was at a political dinner last night and ended up chatting with an older woman who's very big in Republican circles, was high-up in the Bush 2000 campaign, etc. She's furious at the GOP for abandoning everything she ever believed in and making a mockery of her life's work. The only way she'd vote for a Republican, she said, is if the Democrats nominate Hillary. "Anything to keep that woman out!" Somewhat predictably, she was supporting Obama.
This is, I gather, the Andrew Sullivan approach, too. But I don't really get it. I realize I'm a bit overly wonkish, and not everything can be boiled to policy proposals, but Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart in ideology. Their likely administrations probably wouldn't be that different. If you're a serious dove on foreign policy, I can see a stronger preference of Obama. If you're interested in a transformative presidency that inaugurates a new progressive era, I can also see placing that bet on Obama. If you're really worried about executive competence, I can imagine going with Clinton. But it's really not clear to me what is drawing disaffected, elite Republicans to Barack. His rhetoric is, I guess, pretty non-threatening, but so was Bill Clinton's when he was breaking the Democratic Party of its 80s orthodoxies, and these very same people went to war against him.
October 31, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
> She's furious at the GOP for abandoning
> everything she ever believed in and making
> a mockery of her life's work. The only way
> she'd vote for a Republican, she said, is if the
> Democrats nominate Hillary. "Anything to keep that
> woman out!" Somewhat predictably, she was supporting
> Obama.
What's even stranger about this is that Hillary said last week that she wants to return the nation to the politics of her youth. Hillary was a /country club Republican/ in her youth (until her sophomore year of college). She is promising to be a /country club Republican President/ which one would think would be exactly what traditional Republicans would want.
So what exact _do_ those who still call themselves "traditional Republicans" want?
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 31, 2007 10:38:05 AM
What's drawing disaffected, elite Republicans to Barack Obama is the fact that he's not John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, who by nature of the Clinton presidency and the Kerry '04 campaign are solidified in their minds as TEH EVALS! Clinton is already the hateful, power-hungry bitch (also, a murderer. Really.) and Edwards is the effeminate gay-boy trial lawyer.
The reality, of course, is that this is all just for them to SAY Obama is the candidate the support. They're all just going to suck it up and vote for the GOP nominee anyway, whoever it is.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Oct 31, 2007 10:39:54 AM
Yeah, that woman would vote for a Democrat just after the Family Research Council endorses the Constitutional Party candidate.
Posted by: verplanck colvin | Oct 31, 2007 10:43:49 AM
From your description, she shounds too old to believe about a candidate is the set of policies announced during the primary season. She might, instead, believe the Republican critique that says that the Clintons are corrupt. In that case, she might not want to let their cronies get more well-rooted in government. Or she might think that while announced policy proposals tell you little, age cohort does, and Obama's cohort (she believes) is more moderate than HRC's. Who knows? But there are relatively reasonable explanations out there.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 31, 2007 10:47:54 AM
I'm not overly fond of either Hillary or Obama at the moment, what with the relentless pandering to red necks, hawks and homobigots and the tired old triangulation approach to bloody well everything from Iraq to that damn lapel flag pin. But this is a Democracy, so it's not like I get a choice.
A solid strategy would be for the DEMs to put Hillary up front for the primaries so she can draw fire, then nominate someone like Edwards (or dare to dream, Kucinich) which would throw the GOP attack dogs off as they'd have to switch gears during the main campaign.
But yeah, I feel for the Republicans. They've been betrayed by eight years of Bush and the normal solution would be a one-time protest conversion vote for the Dem candidate but that will likely be the hated Hillary. Sucks to be them.
Posted by: Keith | Oct 31, 2007 10:48:47 AM
"If you're interested in a transformative presidency that inaugurates a new progressive era, I can also see placing that bet on Obama."
Not really. Obama just p***ed of the gay community, and at the same time managed to get the good guys at Open Left on the barricades because of his idiotic ad making social security look bad. And if you look at his past, his university times, his work as president of Harvard (?) Review, you see a pure centrist, someone who wants to be liked by everyone, but is very hesitating in adopting decisive positions. This really isn't what progressives want to have as a President!
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 10:49:38 AM
If you're really worried about executive competence, I can imagine going with Clinton.
Why? What evidence is there that Clinton is such a good executive? OTOH, we know that Obama, as a "community organizer", at least knows how to, um, organize people ... which is a good start.
I actually think that executive competence should be a critical aspect of choosing a President. We've become too focused on the President as an electing King/Queen. The President is just some shlub whom we, the voters, hire to run our government on our behalf. We should treat a Pres. campaign like any job interview: i.e. we want to hire the best person for the job.
This is not to say that we should only consider the ability of the President to be an efficient executive. Otherwise, I'd be a Romney supporter. The President's job responsibilities include more than being an executive -- they include setting an agenda for the ship of state, and I want a President who'll set a good agenda (Romney won't).
But still, executive ability is important. But how is it that we "know" Clinton wins on this matter?
Posted by: DAS | Oct 31, 2007 10:50:30 AM
Actually, Bill Clinton's rhetoric circa 1992 was quite populist, much more so than that of Obama, who goes out of his way to assure people that he won't rock the capitalist boat. Hence his support for the Peru free trade deal. There's a reason that Wall Street and K-Street fell very comfy with Obama. I've heard Obama call himself a conservative, and that's the image he projects, conservative, as in cautious. That's one of his problems: his rhetoric promises transformative change, yet everything else about him--his policy proposals, his vibe--suggest caution. Plus there are Republicans elite who, like Democratic elites, lap up Obama's post-partisan rhetoric.
Posted by: david mizner | Oct 31, 2007 10:52:37 AM
For that woman to vote for Clinton would be to repudiate everything she believed since 1992-- that the Clintons were evil, that they needed to be opposed at every turn, and that George W Bush was going to be the white knight to roll back the clock on the depredations of the Clinton era. She's not going to admit that the obsessions that consumed her for the past 15 years have been completely wrong-headed. Thus, she won't even consider a vote for Clinton. Enough members of the 60% of the country that still likes Bill will probably turn out for Hillary to give her a victory, though, should she be nominated.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 31, 2007 10:55:31 AM
Dunno... I'm not one who really places much value on Republicans' claims that they could vote for a Dem this time, because loathing of liberals is so ingrained in most that they just can't do it in the voting booth IME. And I certainly don't think that even those Repubs who will cross party lines next year will stay on our side; they'd just be sending a message to their own party and will go back once we can be the enemy again. But there are plenty of reasons to not want Hillary as president, and they may not be that different for both disaffected Republicans and progressive Democrats-- a distaste for machine politics, suspicion of nineties nostalgia, the 'dynasty' question, a real desire for leadership & a substantive change in direction, and so on. As I've said before, the only thing I'd like back from the nineties is a size-four body; the prospect of facing an all-out holy war for as little policy reward as I'd expect from HRC makes me ill.
Having said that, my position is that Clinton's the least-bad Dem for the GOP overall, because she's not really going to rock the boat by attacking their philosophy or political operations outright, she probably won't do much policy-wise that they can't destroy in the future, and hatred of her will bring their apostates (like the lady you mentioned) back into the fold.
Posted by: latts | Oct 31, 2007 10:58:56 AM
Imho Harry Jaffe at Salon has at least part of the answer (via Atrios):
"According to society sources, Sally invited Hillary to a luncheon when the Clintons came to town in 1993. Sally stocked her guest list with her best buddies and prepared to usher the first lady into the capital's social whirl. Apparently, Hillary didn't accept. Miffed, Sally wrote a catty piece in the Post about Mrs. Clinton. Hillary made sure that Quinn rarely made it into the White House dinners or social events.
In return, Sally started talking trash about Hillary to her buddies, and her animus became a staple of the social scene. "There's just something about her that pisses people off," Quinn is quoted as saying in a New Yorker article about Hillary."
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/03/09media2.html
So, Hillary alienated Washington Society (an elitist circle that is strongly conservative, since the times of Tricky Dick). And of course, this is something that those clowns can never forget nor forgive.
:-|
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 11:11:29 AM
I think that the fact that many Americans hate Hillary is a good reason to not nominate her. Many Americans hated Bill Clinton and it was a liability. Many Americans hated GW Bush and it is a liability. Guys like Obama and McCain with low negatives make more sense as nominees to me but Hillary’s name recognition should carry her though just as with GW Bush. The American voters are not very deep.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 31, 2007 11:18:27 AM
I think you had it when you conceded that not everything can be boiled to policy proposals. You're right: Hillary and Obama aren't so far apart on ideology. For good or bad, though, elections are about more than policies and ideology. To try to explain voting based only on those two (admittedly far-reaching) factors is to ignore the emotional component - to steal the cliche - the question of with whom voters would rather have a beer. Your dinner companion knows policy. She seems to have some grasp of the candidates' respective ideologies. And she has already spent more time thinking about this election than many voters will spend thinking about all the elections they will ever vote in... but even her decision is not entirely rational. (This is how a pro-choice, pro-gay, left-leaning candidate like Bob Kerrey can win in an a state like Nebraska.) Many people - especially dyed-in-the-wool Republicans - HATE the Clintons. It's not about admitting wrongheadedness. It's about how polarizing the insider-oriented, nakedly-ambitious, loyalty-over-almost-all-else Clintons have been, and why some Democrats are deeply concerned with the prospect of her nomination. Depressingly, we haven't come so far from the popularity contest.
Posted by: Vermonstrous | Oct 31, 2007 11:26:28 AM
I'm not one who really places much value on Republicans' claims that they could vote for a Dem this time, because loathing of liberals is so ingrained in most that they just can't do it in the voting booth IME. - latts
That's why I don't trust those "in the generic ballot, Dems. win over GOPers" polls: the same person who says "I'll vote for a Dem" may very well find a reason to vote against any Dem who actually has a name and is not "generic".
And if the Dem. is still "generic" come Nov. 2008, well -- who's gonna go out to the polls and vote for someone generic?
Posted by: DAS | Oct 31, 2007 11:32:43 AM
They've been betrayed by eight years of Bush
No they haven't. Bush has been a conservative dream from the moment he took office and still is. There's a bunch of "no true conservative" rhetoric just because most of the country, once they saw the mask of conservative governance ripped away, decided that being governed by conservatives really sucks.
Have the Republicans in Congress actually defied Bush on anything? Did the SCHIP veto stand - why yes, yes it did. Bush's veto stood up because such a veto is entirely in line with conservative principles.
Fiscal responsibility and limited government have always been rhetorical tools to placate the simpleminded within the conservative movement. No Republican has ever really governed according to them - at least not more than one term, and GOP politicians know it.
Our task is not to bemoan how Bush fooled us into thinking that he's a conservative when he really isn't, because that just plays into the GOP's hands. No, as progressives we need to make it perfectly clear to this country that the Bush Administration is exactly what they will get every single time they elect a Republican as President. It was a Republican that first gave us federal government debt, it's always been Republicans who have massively expanded the power of the federal government to interfere in Americans' lives.
Conservative governance is nothing but unlimited war, enrichment of the upperclasses at the expense of the poor, indoctrinating children with religious beliefs disguised as "science" and the real nanny state putting a chaperon in your bedroom to make sure you're not doing anything fun in there.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 31, 2007 11:33:34 AM
It's personality politics...the Right hates both Hillary and Bill as they view them to be unscrupulous, power mad and controlling (and they don't like the fact that the Clinton's aren't afraid to fight back). Edwards, I think, is viewed by many on the right as just another trial lawyer and failed V.P. candidate. Obama, though he might be on the cusp of losing it, has a lot of grassroots momentum and his record isn't quite long enough for some attacks to stick. He also, due to his lofty rhetoric, doesn't seem as combative as some of the other candidates, and I think that probably hurts him during the primaries, but would possibly be an asset in the general election.
Posted by: Mike P | Oct 31, 2007 11:35:52 AM
"No, as progressives we need to make it perfectly clear to this country that the Bush Administration is exactly what they will get every single time they elect a Republican as President."
Good point!
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 11:40:09 AM
Republicans, George Bush notwithstanding , aren't going to switch their party allegiance. They recognize Hillary as the tougher opponent in the general election and wish that she'd be taken down in the primaries. Democrats recognize her strengths and prefer her as their candidate (as the polls clearly show).
Posted by: Independent | Oct 31, 2007 11:40:48 AM
"This is, I gather, the Andrew Sullivan approach, too. But I don't really get it. I realize I'm a bit overly wonkish, and not everything can be boiled to policy proposals, but Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart in ideology. "
Why do you think Hillary hatred has anything to do with policy or ideology?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Oct 31, 2007 11:44:04 AM
Tyro has the right of it - voting for Clinton would mean swallowing down what is now running on 16 years of bile and venom to say "well, I guess that Clinton isn't THAT bad." It would mean admitting that at least some of your hatred for the woman is, in fact, irrational and that you might be (horror of horrors) WRONG about something. It's not easy to make that switch - it requires you to make a fairly brutal assessment about how you think and forces you to confront some of your own unpleasantness.
Edwards suffers this to a lesser form. Plus Edwards spouts actual left-leaning rhetoric. So he becomes unacceptable for TWO reasons (three if you count the fact that he earned his money practicing TRIAL LAW for personal injury, which is a profession second only to "dictators of countries we currently don't like" for drumming up Republican hatred).
Obama is a clean slate - like may progressives have been doing, disaffected Republicans can project whatever they think would make a "good Democratic President" onto him. What's more, his rhetoric is the accomodationist, Unity, "can't we all hold hands and sing kumbayah" crap that "moderate" Republicans like to swallow (much like "moderate" Democrats). So, unlike progressives projecting their hopes and dreams onto Obama, Republicans even get some verbal cues that maybe Obama will be "okay" if he gets in office.
Does that mean that if Obama gets the nomination those Republicans will vote for him? Maybe some of them. The rest will get swept up in the usual tribal politics of the campagin season and by Fall of '08 we'll be back to where we always have been in most Presidental elections in my lifetime - divided and with at least 40-some percent of the country bitter about whoever ended up in office. Unless GWB really HAS had a transformative presidency that has broken some of those tribal identification leanings for GOP voters (the way Carter seemed to be responsible for breaking a number of Dem tribal leanings). Frankly, I'll believe THAT when I see it.
Posted by: NonyNony | Oct 31, 2007 11:56:09 AM
"But I don't really get it. "
What you aren't getting is that despite her complaints that woman is going to vote GOP regardless of who the GOP or Democratic candidate is. Clinton hatred is just the convenient excuse she'll use if Clinton is the Democratic nominee but there would be some other excuse if it were Edwards, Obama, Gore, or anybody else.
Posted by: Ron | Oct 31, 2007 11:57:33 AM
"Why do you think Hillary hatred has anything to do with policy or ideology?"
Indeed, this isn't about ratio at all, this is pure emotion. And it isn't solely against Hillary, it's against the Clintons as Dem icons. Don't forget, Bill defeated an incumbent republican president, Reagan's VPO and heir, who had just won the Gulf war. Then Bill was a successful president, broadly seen as superior to Bush I., and he became as popular as the Great Communicator himself. And he even managed to come along with republican lawmakers, all of which must have tremendously embittered the right wing hardcore base. And nowadays, republican leaders deliberately put oil into the flames because so they can use the Clintons as a catalyst to heat up and unite their base for their causes. Really, no surprise that this hotpot of emotions resulted in real hatred against Hillary.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:01:51 PM
Ezra and Matt are really starting to buy the MSM's two horse race. They could at least acknowledge that there's a third viable candidate running.
Posted by: eriks | Oct 31, 2007 12:04:03 PM
"What you aren't getting is that despite her complaints that woman is going to vote GOP regardless of who the GOP or Democratic candidate is."
A lady I know voted 2004 for Bush, again. As her reason she said, she doesn't want that Dems raise her taxes. Well, she was totally middle class, no Dem tax proposal would really have hurt her, but that's all what was important for her. Didn't care about the war, about healthcare, nothing. Didn't even like Bush, and Kerry was quite ok for her. However, boohohoo, it's the money, stoopid...
Some voters simply are dumb. Waste of time to try to change them. Fuhgedaboutit.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:08:01 PM
"They could at least acknowledge that there's a third viable candidate running."
Uh, yeah, third candidate, sure, hmm, now what's his name, Jack, Jim, John..son, right, Ed, uh, Edward Johnson!
Now, where's my prize?
:D
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:12:11 PM
From Ezra: "If you're interested in a transformative presidency that inaugurates a new progressive era, I can also see placing that bet on Obama."
From NonyNony: "Obama is a clean slate...What's more, his rhetoric is the accomodationist, Unity, "can't we all hold hands and sing kumbayah" crap that "moderate" Republicans like to swallow (much like "moderate" Democrats)."
Disagree with Erza. Progressive political transformation is not going to happen with Obama, despite his rhetoric (right on, NonyNony!). Though he may have some fine ideas (and therefore, by association, so must HRC), his relatively brief CV means he lacks the coalitions/networks we'd need to push progressive policy through. We need to accept that progressive change is going to be incremental and slow-going. I severely doubt Obama entering office will do little to advance the progressive cause.
OTOH, if we put HRC in office, maybe we've taken a lateral step to the left that is the first move towards future progressive policymaking.
I wrote about this over at my space.
http://www.grahamad.com/blog/2007/10/31/so-over-obama/
Glad to see all this conversation happening here.
Posted by: Redstar | Oct 31, 2007 12:16:49 PM
I never understood the hatred for either Clinton. I can see disagreeing with them, for disapproving of Bill's sexual failings, and so forth. But the visceral loathing that some people--including some otherwise rational people--have for Bill and by extension Hillary simply mystifies me. I suppose these people wonder about the reactions to Bush, but the difference is that Bush is demostrably incompetent in ways that directly and indirectly affect us all. Clinton? Damn him for those years of peace and prosperity!
In any case, the lesson I took away from 2004 is that the Dem's should not nominate a candidate based on the hope of appealing to conservatives' stated priorities. Anyone who professes respect for military service as important in a leader should have voted for Kerry. But instead we got the talking point that some people were willing to speculate that perhaps some of Kerry's wounds were not as severe as we might be willing to imagine they ought to have been, so obviously Kerry was a fraud.
You can't win this game, so the answer is to refuse to play it. The Democrats need to nominate the candidate they want to be president, not the candidate that they hope some conservatives will vote for. Myself, any of the viable Democratic candidates are far superior to any of the Republican candidates, so don't worry about my vote.
Posted by: Richard Hershberger | Oct 31, 2007 12:17:43 PM
Do you people ever actually talk to Hillary haters? The Hillary haters I know detest her because they think she (a) is a bitch, (b) has stayed in a loveless marriage to a philandering husband only because it suited her unquenchable thirst for power, and (c) is far, far more liberal than she lets on.
FWIW, I believe all 3 views may (or may not) have some validity, but I only vaguely dislike the woman.
Posted by: ostap | Oct 31, 2007 12:24:25 PM
"You can't win this game, so the answer is to refuse to play it. The Democrats need to nominate the candidate they want to be president, not the candidate that they hope some conservatives will vote for."
Very strong point. Every Dem candidate will be smeared, so appeasement makes no sense!
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:26:08 PM
"(a) is a bitch, (b) has stayed in a loveless marriage to a philandering husband only because it suited her unquenchable thirst for power, and (c) is far, far more liberal than she lets on."
All three points pure bigotry. They voted for bitch Katherine Harris, they stomp for marriage monster Giuliani, and they love Lieberman, where's the big difference??? No, i'm sure they hate her because Bill was a popular president and they cant stand that. Period.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:30:29 PM
I'm curious how many of these "Hillary Haters" are ACTUALLY planning on voting for a Democrat in the first place. This woman who supports-Obama-unless-Hillary-is-elected-then-would-vote-Republican is obviously either lying or a total dumb ass, clueless about the policies of both parties. The press seems to love the phrase "Hillary Haters" but I have yet to see any numbers on who they are, how many there are and why they hate her (which is a moot point if they're all right wing Republicans in the first place).
Posted by: Fred | Oct 31, 2007 12:32:21 PM
"Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart in ideology. Their likely administrations probably wouldn't be that different."
This is why, in this bizarro world, voting for the rich white guy (John Edwards) is actually voting progressive.
Personally, I'll be voting progressive this primary.
Posted by: slag | Oct 31, 2007 12:49:20 PM
Remember how the GOP (and the Democrats)attacked Dean as unelectable? Remember how the conventional wisdom on Dean was that he was the candidate the GOP really wanted to run against, and therefore the Dems should NOT nominate him? Remember how we were told that we shouldn't nominate Dean because too many people already hated him?
Remember how we decided to nominate someone whose primary qualification was his "electability?" Someone who didn't arouse intense emotions one way or t'other?
How'd he do again?
If we had it all to do over again, maybe we'd've done better to go with Dean.
And now, today, we have a strong, articulate, unflappable, intelligent, tough, candidate.... and again we're being told that candidate is unelectable because "too many people hate her." Again, we're told we should nominate someone more "electable."
Huh.
I'm really beginning to think the Hillary Hatred on *our* side of the fence is being purveyed by agents provacateur.
Posted by: CaseyL | Oct 31, 2007 12:52:51 PM
"This is why, in this bizarro world, voting for the rich white guy (John Edwards) is actually voting progressive."
Hmm, the real progressive candidate is Kucinich, I guess, but polls show he ain't got a real chance, so Edwards is a good alternative. He's pro middle class and poor, anti-corporations and lobbies. What's not to like?
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:41 PM
(c) is far, far more liberal than she lets on.
What I love about this element of ire towards both of the Clintons is that it's a charge borne of frustration-- it's anger that, despite the leftist liberalism that both Clintons supposedly harbor, they refuse to expose their true nature to the public, instead outwitting Republicans and the public at every turn by pushing through "centrist" policies. "If only Bill/Hillary would try to pass mthe marxist legislation we know they really want, then we'd have them nailed to the wall!" combined with "They're misleading the American people by trying to portray themselves as moderate by supporting centrist legislation!" seems to be the sentiment.
Also, how does Hillary's status as a "bitch" make her different than "petulant stubborn man" that is supposed to be Bush's most endearing leadership feature?
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 31, 2007 1:00:50 PM
I sort of agree with Mizner, but I'm not sure whether to regard Obama's caution as a good or bad thing. I think that Obama follows an independent compass and seems to be willing to let political tides influence his positions to a lesser (although certainly not insignificant) degree than many other politicians. In 2002, that meant opposing the war when supporting the war was popular. In 2007, that meant proposing comparatively cautious and incremental reforms to healthcare while the zeitgeist called for bolder action along the lines of what Clinton and Edwards have proposed. (These are two well-known instances, but many others have noted this pattern of Obama not always telling audiences (like AIPAC) what they want to hear (or at least what most believe they want to hear). There's the question, of course, of whether this is simply Obama following his own compass as honestly as he can, or it's "Sister Souljah" contrarianism intended to demonstrate his "courageous independence.")
Perhaps Obama's independent thought and caution, although in many ways admirable qualities, are better suited for a senator than for a president -- or at least the Democratic president of 2008. Even if you thought Daniel Patrick Moynihan made valuable contributions in his career, I don't think many thought that he would have been suitable as a president. I'm gradually coming to believe that, at this moment, seizing the initiative while the Republicans are off-balance will be better for the country in the long-run. (I used to worry that the degree of Republican weakness and Democratic ambition might lead to overreaching and trying to change too many things that Americans currently like at once, leading to a backlash which would undo our gains and leave us with less than a more incremental approach. Having seen the Democrats doing their thing as a majority in the House and Senate over the past year, I no longer have that fear, to put it politely.) I used to be more firmly in the Obama camp, but now I'm not sure between Obama and Edwards. Hillary... I'll vote for her in the general election if she's nominated, and I won't do it reluctantly, but I can't say there's much about her that inspires excitement in me.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 31, 2007 1:12:01 PM
"Hillary... I'll vote for her in the general election if she's nominated, and I won't do it reluctantly, but I can't say there's much about her that inspires excitement in me."
Exactly! She's clearly made of the right stuff (even though too close to corporate interests), but she really is the unexciting candidate. However, polls show, many seem to like that. Strange.
:-/
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 1:21:18 PM
They'll go to war against Obama if he wins, they just don't know it yet, or aren't willing to say so yet.
Posted by: matt | Oct 31, 2007 1:22:45 PM
(c) is far, far more liberal than she lets on.What I love about this element of ire towards both of the Clintons is that it's a charge borne of frustration-- it's anger that, despite the leftist liberalism that both Clintons supposedly harbor, they refuse to expose their true nature to the public, instead outwitting Republicans and the public at every turn by pushing through "centrist" policies.
My experience is a bit different, if I'm reading you right-- it seems to me that low-info voters of both parties are the ones who are convinced that Hillary's a militant socialist in Rockefeller-Republican clothing, either loving or fearing that according to party affiliation, while more politically aware types of both parties see her as overly cautious and ultimately a defender of the nationalist/rightist status quo. The upper-caste right insults her as a matter of form, but they don't seem that scared of her winning, while progressives are terrified that she'll waste what should be a huge opportunity to redefine both the right and left.
Posted by: latts | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:44 PM
This is easy. It's a diner party. She isn't gonna come out and say "I hate all Democrats with an ungodly passion and will eat their young if given half a chance ooogaa oogaa booga." She has to pick a Democrat she could (at least theoretically) support. To be "real" she has to pick one of the top 3. Clinton is Clinton. Edwards, as noted above, is connected to the Kerry campaign, and so is eeeeeeevil.
Obama has made his run basically about making nice noise about bipartianship. McCain from 2000, basically. So he is easy to "support" at a party. If you could actually see her donations, I'm fairly sure that Obama would be getting little or no love.
Posted by: Dan | Oct 31, 2007 1:36:38 PM
"Also, how does Hillary's status as a "bitch" make her different than "petulant stubborn man" that is supposed to be Bush's most endearing leadership feature?"
Um, because she's a woman? And a Democrat?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Oct 31, 2007 1:55:14 PM
There must exist some people who would vote for Romney if it were Clinton vs. Romney, and Obama if it were Obama vs. Romney, or vice versa (and the same applies to Clinton vs. Romney and Clinton vs. Giuliani, or Obama vs. Romney and Clinton vs. Giuliani, etc). These people are a minority of voters -- most people, including myself, will vote for the candidate of their favored party regardless -- but they must exist. I have no way of knowing whether the woman Ezra encountered was sincere about her claim that she would vote Obama over Republican, and Republican over Clinton, but I wouldn't immediately toss it off as a lie. Such people do exist. The fact that she's been a big Republican for a long time argues against it, but then again, the Republicans have alienated a lot of people lately -- including people who have been loyal to them for quite some time.
This isn't to claim that the Democratic party should dedicate itself to winning this disillusioned Republican woman's vote, obviously, but I don't know if we can assume that she's insincere in claiming to have (Democrat other than Clinton) > Republicans > Clinton preferences.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 31, 2007 1:55:18 PM
looking at hillary last night...
she is looking battle weary and has a beleaguered look now that comes through her alpha spirit.
....i think if hillary is elected, there will be hard years ahead, once again for the country.
she stirs deep controversy even in her democratic ranks.
she will not be a unifying force, which is something this country desperately needs, and she will disinspire that, as will her husband....two shakespearean characters.
her divisiveness and unappealingness seems to grow with each debate.
...with all of her political wisdom, she seems to frequently misstep and with no apology. her alpha spirit is so intense, it is wearing even to watch her.
the perceived nature of a person, right or wrong, holds much sway over people.
particularly, if you follow the adage of believing nothing that you hear and half of what you see.
policy and promises are made to be broken.
...if it is hillary against huckabee in the final election, i think all bets are off.
........
i also have to mention that it was a low and undignified blow against kucinich last night, to try and ridicule him with his statement about unidentified flying object.
whether one likes him or not, he has made a valiant and patriotic, honest effort to put forth his ideas.
the fact that several astronauts have also seen unidentified objects, notwithstanding.
...it was cruel to do that. whatever his spiritual beliefs may be, clearly, he is a gentle and uplifted person and whatever his epiphanies are, that question was asked to demean him.
i thought it was another cruel media joke.
....anyone watching a starscape on a moonless night, can have a number of unusual experiences, but we are so culturally and collectively out of touch with that aspect of ourselves, as could ever be the case.
it was a cruel coup de grace to a very kind and good hearted human being.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 31, 2007 2:38:08 PM
Edwards may well be the most progressive of the big three running on the Dem side, but unless the Dems can win enough seats in Congress to marginalize obstructionist Republicans, it won't matter who wins the White House very much. It's very true that most Republicans are not going to wake up one day and start voting like Democrats, but at least on some issues (SCHIP) some are willing to break with the party line. So the goal has to either be to present legislation that can consistently pull those Republicans to vote with the Dems or the Dems have to clean out a bunch of Republican congressmen and senators.
Someone over at Obsidan Wings kind of made this point last week...if we don't have the numbers to pass legislation, we don't have the numbers to pass legislation. Which means you can continue to be strident and try to sell your point of view aggressively enough to the public to get them to pressure a voting change in their reps or you have to present watered down, piecemeal legislation. I think the progressive inclination right now is to go with the former, but we can always act like that is going to work. Remember Tip O' Neil and Reagan were able to get some things done.
Posted by: Mike P | Oct 31, 2007 2:41:08 PM
Maybe it's just another Clinton derangement syndrome.
[I'm sure that's been said.]
But I agree with Joan Walsh...ALL of the above look and are SO-o much an improvement
on the creature -caged- willy-nilly in the Oval Office today.
Posted by: has_te | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:24 PM
latts, certainly while low-info voters on both sides think that both Clintons are more liberal than they actually are, I do think that engaged Republicans really do express frustration that the Clinton's are "hiding" their leftism under a cover of moderate legislative goals, which drives their anger all the more. Bill and Hillary are supposed to be defeated not because of any policies they advocate now but because they were pseudo-hippies in the 60s, in their view. Thus, their current legislative stances are only regarded as evasive maneuvers to prevent voters from exposing their hippieness which they believe makes them deserving of defeat.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:29 PM
when i try to imagine what a hillary presidency would be like, it is almost unimagineable.
the amount of vitriol and sheer hatred that will spew each day, on top of what we have already endured over the past few years ago, will make our house even more divided.
whatever policy she is able to affect, she will divide our house even further.
a halloween thought:
....if the clintons are "re-elected", at the final end of this cycle of bushes and clintons in the white house, they will have to bring an exorcist in there to clean the place out.
....after the bush and clinton dynasties, they will have to paint it another color, but not white.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 31, 2007 3:07:09 PM
Andrew Sullivan loves Obama for image alone. Sullivan is bright but a well-known sucker for surfaces, the perfect tool advertisers love because he responds to new and shiny and lack of depth. Go back and read his servicing of Bush for 4 years.
I was disturbed by Edwards stance on loosening the drug war -- he wants teens in jail with molesters and murderers for smoking reefer?
And that pathetic media controlled debate last nite is proof positive that we are fucked when idiots like Tm Russert and Brian Williams are our gatekeepers, along with Republicans like Kos who believe all qualified candidates should have an ATM attached to their backs for proof they're "serious."
Posted by: christian | Oct 31, 2007 3:31:48 PM
After 8 years of Bush, I do not see how the Republicans can win no matter who is the Democrat nominee. The Democratic primary is for all of this time.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 31, 2007 3:33:31 PM
"Republicans like Kos"
huh???
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:09 PM
"After 8 years of Bush, I do not see how the Republicans can win no matter who is the Democrat nominee."
Imho that's exact the same attitude that was responsible for the general lazyness among Dems after 4 years of Bush. Sry, but I think that's a dangerous stance.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 4:59:21 PM
"Republicans like Kos"
You don't know your Kos history do you? He voted for Reagan and Bush 1 and his sliming of actual progressives like Kucinich along with his pimping of Chevron speaks volumes. Plus he pimped Arnold and I suspect he voted for him both times. The fact he wants these already lame debates sealed off to those without the big bucks should tell you even more. He's a phony.
Posted by: christian | Oct 31, 2007 5:20:32 PM
Hillary and Obama aren't that far apart in ideology.
Ideology is important but temperament can be more important than ideology.
Posted by: r4d20 | Oct 31, 2007 5:27:10 PM
"He voted for Reagan and Bush 1"
Reagan's 2nd election was, when, 1984? And Bush I., 1988? Kos was born 1971! Sry, but I really think you should stop taking drugs.
|-(
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 6:02:26 PM
I'm not taking the drugs that make you think Kos is a liberal. He did in fact vote for Bush Sr. in 1992. But I stand corrected: Kos only supported Reagan:
"The family fled back to Chicago when Moulitsas was nine, and he became a fanatical supporter of Ronald Reagan (who backed El Salvador’s government as part of his anti-Communist strategy), even working as a Republican party precinct captain in high school."
http://www.guernicamag.com/features/172/firmly_forward/
Posted by: christian | Oct 31, 2007 6:23:42 PM
"You can't call me racist; I was going to vote for that nice colored man, but the racist Democrats wouldn't nominate him."
Posted by: calling all toasters | Oct 31, 2007 6:33:18 PM
OK, I hadn't read the post above when I commented....
Posted by: calling all toasters | Oct 31, 2007 6:47:41 PM
"He did in fact vote for Bush Sr. in 1992."
Oops, I forgot this one, sry. However, Kos changed his party affiliation 3 months later, when he was 21. Since then, he has actively supported countless Dem candidates and being outspoken against republican politics. So, Kos a republican? In your dreams, christian.
:-/
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 6:54:46 PM
Lieberman is a Democrat but does that make him a Democrat? Not according to Kos. And Kos believes in moneymoneymoney. Progressives don't pimp death-dealing corps like Chevron then whine about CNN and Glenn Beck and JetBlue. Practice what ya peach.
And Kos repeatedly insulting Kucinich, the only Democrat with the cajones to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. doesn't fit into your fantasy scenario.
Do you get the irony of a so-calld democrat demanding the loudest progressive voices be cut from a Democratic debate because they don't have the cash?
If you don't, then you aren't much of a democrat either.
Posted by: christian | Oct 31, 2007 7:09:05 PM
I agree that Kos is sometimes a bit too interested in winning, even if it comes with painful poilitical obsessions. However, there are much worse guys on the left side than him. Kos has already done so much in real support for real liberal candidates, he shouls be excused when he overshoots the target sometimes. He still superior to some candidates, for instance Obama. And you shouldn't waste your time and energy stomping against Kos, imho. There sure is a progressive candidate somewhere whose campaign could use some help...
Oh, and btw, as a German, I'm a social democrat, of course.
Posted by: Gray | Oct 31, 2007 7:23:10 PM
I didn't even bring up all the much documented mass bannings of actual liberals from his site with his smirking consent. Nor his Republican-style jab at the "sanctimonious women's study set."
Now that's how ya build a movement!
Posted by: christian | Oct 31, 2007 7:43:22 PM
"the much documented mass bannings of actual liberals"
Even liberals should follow the rules of engagement when posting comments. DailyKos is already too chaotic for my taste, but it shouldn't really become like lgf, atlas shrugs or Protein Wisdom. Not to speak of that there's still a difference imho between liberals and communists. Ok, I have to admit, I don't like left wing extremism any more than the right wing variety.
Well, sry that you have been banned at Kos, christian, but are you sure you did nothing wrong? Your obsessive hatred against Markos seems to suggest otherwise...
:-/
Posted by: Gray | Nov 1, 2007 4:25:21 AM
"I agree that Kos is sometimes a bit too interested in winning, even if it comes with painful poilitical obsessions."
Oops, I just see I got totally lost in translation in this sentence. Of course, it should read "painful political concessions". Sry!
Posted by: Gray | Nov 1, 2007 4:29:51 AM
Prepare to spend the next few months talking about the secret records of the Clinton administration.
Posted by: bob h | Nov 1, 2007 7:30:05 AM
> Lieberman is a Democrat but does that make
> him a Democrat?
By "Lieberman is a Democrat" I assume that you mean Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Party? Because he ceased being such when he refused to accept the results of a Democratic primary and declared himself an independent against the party's chosen candidate. His membership in the CT Democratic Party was formally revoked. He recently attempted to register as an "independent Democrat" but he is certainly not a member of the Democratic Party nor in the eyes of anyone but himself a "Democrat".
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 1, 2007 10:32:54 AM
"Well, sry that you have been banned at Kos, christian, but are you sure you did nothing wrong? Your obsessive hatred against Markos seems to suggest otherwise..."
No, that's not why. Altho it didn't help. I witnessed the mob mentality of the site one too many times all done under Kos sports-fantasy-rules that change with the wind.
And witness how the site turned on Cindy Sheehan, devolving into many solid DK members calling her an "attention whore." That's the infantile groupthink the site promotes.
But you sound like one of those that believe that stifling speech on a democratic blog is a good thing because "it's too chaotic" -- or too liberal in your case, which explains your attitude. Just google "Banned by Daily Kos" and you'll find plenty of evidence. The best writers on the site are gone now.
But I assume you're one of the Kos Kops that scans every post hoping to accuse somebody of being a purity or concern troll so you can email others to hide comments and ban people who post things you don't agree with. Democracy!
Posted by: christian | Nov 1, 2007 1:34:17 PM
Ezra Klein writes: "Their likely administrations probably wouldn't be that different. If you're a serious dove on foreign policy, I can see a stronger preference of Obama. If you're interested in a transformative presidency that inaugurates a new progressive era, I can also see placing that bet on Obama. If you're really worried about executive competence, I can imagine going with Clinton."
say what? the only thing where hillary is better than Barack is the ability to make something simple very complicated. when she answers a question she makes sure that nobody knows what her position is (have you ever seen her take it one topic at the time?). Maybe her hope is that all opposing sides will walk away feeling that she speaks in their favor. But this "serve everybody at the same time approach by being vague" gets nowhere and very soon everybody is unhappy.
Barack, much better than Hillary and also Ezra Klein, knows how to approach Reps without claims that all of them hate poor children, etc. That is why appeals to independents (who care more about issues than color).
The way that Barack has brought Reps and Dems together in the past was how it should be done. By being honest and presenting positions truthfully. I can only start a real debate when I understand what the other party stands for and vice versa (I don't like you because of your color or age is not enough). Barack is also giving the impression that he cares about the issue at hand - but compared to Hillary that is not difficult. She would attack opponents (Republicans and independents) on issues which she seems (who really knows where she stands) to agree with (Iraq, Iran, torture, immigration) based on her voting... She would attack policies without having communicated clear alternatives herself, etc.
Maybe fighting for the sake of fighting gives her some kind of kick but there are real sports for this sort of testosterone therapy - no need to involve innocents?
Barack is used to not being able to hide his color and knows that there are real challenges in this world and that we do not have to create extra drama on top to make it exiting. He has learned to turn this into an advantage whereas Hillary thinks she has to be all colors at the same time and ends up being blind or blinding. When she voted in favor of Bush moving troops in Iraq to the Iranian border - she did what? You cannot support Bush based on popularism and then also fight him based on popularism..
When it comes to America - we want a leader who is willing to lose the good fight rather than win the bad one. This is the stuff that champions are made off and which leads to long term success and avoids short-term cheating. Hillary is not that person.
Ie - it is not only what you stand for but how. Not what you fight for - but how. Despite other candidates being older than Barack Obama - he is simply the most presidential candidate IMO out there. He is passionate but without the nervous delirium that makes listening so difficult for Hillary. This is why Barack appeals to certain Republicans.
The oldish woman who is a cheerleader girl at heart is sweet. It is sweet how she cares (more) about the local team than sport itself and also socially invigorating. But Barack does both - he cares about the local team and the sport at the same time. He is trying to win over enemies but also tries to make friends at the same time. He therefore does not get nervous when confronted with questions about the sport in general. It comes naturally to him - not to Hillary Clinton.
She has no goods campaign wise and certainly not character wise compared to Barack (and maybe even compared to other Democratic candidates who have more experience than both Barack and Hillary. She is just more.. flash. But flash is not necessarily presidential? Old is not necessarily presidential). You want to know Hillary's ideology and policies - check her web site daily - they change hourly.
When it comes to standing up to the Bush Administration - there are enough records to compare between Barack and Hillary. Hillary has supported more or less everything Bush has put in front of Congress regarding Iraq and Iran? Environmental policy of Hillary? Stand on immigration. At least some references of her work in the past? Was she clear on torture?
The question is not: What do people see in Barack? If anything - what does Ezra not see in Barack?
A bigger question is: If Ezra sees something in Clinton - what is it (other than that she is part of the "team")? Maybe journalists like her because it is good business when the candidate is not clear on anything which leads to longish speculations. The Hillary Weather channel.. what will the weather look like over the next... 5 minutes?
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 1, 2007 9:46:59 PM
Perhaps there is Clinton hate because they believe in executive power to a level second to none. Check out his record on that and her votes enabling GWB with his expansion...check out Bill's signing statement record. The Reps know they've strengthened her ability to go even further than *they* went before.
Obama love...to sum up Hugh, he appears to be what he is. He appears honest. Refreshing traits after lo these many years.
Just a thought.
Posted by: G Davis | Nov 2, 2007 12:04:04 AM
"And witness how the site turned on Cindy Sheehan, devolving into many solid DK members calling her an "attention whore." That's the infantile groupthink the site promotes."
Hmm, I like to call a stick a stick, and sheehan is an attention whore. That's not 'groupthink', that's common sense.
"But I assume you're one of the Kos Kops that scans every post hoping to accuse somebody of being a purity or concern troll so you can email others to hide comments and ban people who post things you don't agree with. Democracy!"
HELLO? EARTH TO CHRISTIAN, DO YOU COPY?
I said Kos is too chaotic for my taste. I don't have an account there. I couldn't care less for what's going on in the diaries.
Posted by: Gray | Nov 2, 2007 1:13:26 PM
"like to call a stick a stick, and sheehan is an attention whore. That's not 'groupthink', that's common sense."
Calling the outraged mother of somebody who lost her son to Bush's insanity is now an "attention whore?"
She sure wasn't when she was gong after Bush, but when she dared to attack the sacred Democrats, the DK rabble stood up in shock! Of course, listen to them whine now about Pelosi...
But really you should register at DK -- you'd fit in perfect with the libertarian bullies in charge there.
Posted by: christian | Nov 2, 2007 2:16:47 PM
