The name on everyone's list for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president is Hillary Clinton. It's a combination of Republicans who want someone they think is a demon and will bring in fundraising checks like crazy. She would. The Democrats toss her name around because they are wistful about the glory days of 1993-2001 when they ruled at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Let's get one thing clear: Though she may have been branded a left-wing liberal by the media, her politics and voting record show that Hillary Clinton is a confirmed moderate of the most mainstream type. The lazy news media, talk radio hosts and conservative activists play a few clips and gloss over the sophisticated and complicated issued she has been involved with and shove her into a preconceived slot labeled with a big "L." They did the same to Howard Dean, whose anti-war stance was his most liberal position despite earning a favorable review from the National Rifle Association.
In 2000 and 2004, Democrats nominated men who tried to have it both ways -- liberal and moderate, and in so doing they confused and turned off voters. So, in 2008, will the Democrats look to a centrist standard-bearer such as Evan Bayh or Tim Vilsack, or will they re-nominate true liberal John Kerry? Or, perhaps they'll turn again to the chameleonic Clintons for a return to glory.
To see how, read the kickass piece in Slate magazine today about how Hillary Clinton could win, why she should and why she won't. It is a fascinating read, full of logical argument. Of course, the American voting public is anything but logical. The truth is one of two things will happen: Hillary will be so polarizing that she will all but assure the election of whatever Republican can lay claim to the mantle of George W. Bush. Or, she will masterfully grab the moderate swing voters while convincing the liberal left she really is one of them.
Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton of New York had a hallway exchange with Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania about the title of his new book, "It Takes a Family," a clear rebuttal to Sen. Clinton's book "It Takes a Village."
It's all pure speculation since Sen. Clinton has to get re-elected to the Senate first (she will) and then a bunch of other Democrats have to line up to get picked off. Heck, that is what the intervening years are fun for!
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So is Hillary Clinton really a moderate? What's her stance on the war? Did she support Bill's tax hikes? Did she support the brady bill? Does she support radical unions? Is she still in favor of nationalized health care? Is cracking down on illegal immigration on her agenda? Did she support Bill's cuts on our military?
I'm intrigued... :-/
I cannot wait to vote for her. Even when President Clinton was in the White House I wished Hillary was my president.
Check the Slate article. It explains how the health care proposal really was not as socialistic as some people claim.
And she is very much a hawk on war issues as well as other traditional moderate issues, such as avoiding defecit spending. Those positions place her in line with the last two moderate presidents: Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. By the way, the trickle-down economic policies of Ronald Reagan and now George W. Bush were once labeled "voodoo economics" by none other than George H. W. Bush in 1980. Then he became the vice presidential candidate and had to shut his mouth.
I'm nost sure what a "radical union" is -- I think either a union supports workers' rights or it doesn't. I think one has to have entered the world of full-time work and perhaps even join a union to understand their benefit.
President Clinton cut the military? He supported recommendations for base closures and a plan for a leaner fighting force that were suggested by Congress -- a Congress controlled by Republicans for six of his eight years in office. Oh yeah, the secretary of defense in Clinton's second term? William Cohen, a Republican. The plan was called the two-conflict plan, meaning that the United States shoudl be able to engage in military conflicts in two world hot spots simultaneously. A few years later, when the neoconservatives had grander military plans, the forces were stretched thin. We're in more than two places right now. Having a war that is unpopular also doesn't help with recruiting.
-- L.
Loganite, how did you feel about George H.W. compared to George W? It sounds like you favor H.W.; what are the biggest differences between father and son?
George Herbert Walker Bush ("Poppy") was one of the last of a dying breed: the New England Republican. While there certainly other New England Republicans today, even some with power, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine or Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, that kind of Republican -- socially moderate, fiscally conservative -- is not the future of their party.
George H. W. Bush also is one of a generation who understood noblesse oblige -- that the wealthy have a responsibility to serve their country through public and military service and philanthropy. Poppy's father, Prescott, was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. He instilled in the children a need for service. By the way, the Bush family is America's most prominent political family after the Kennedys.
When George H. W. Bush was in office, I was not a fan of him, either. At the time, I recall he spent far too much time on foreign policy matters and ignored domestic issues that ultimately proved his downfall. He had a 91 percent approval rating after the Persian Gulf War. He lost re-election a year later.
The differences between father and son are notable. The father knew diplomacy. He had been ambassador to China and later the United Nations. He served as director of central intelligence. He knew Washington and he knew the power circles in order to get things done. Generally, he was a moderate who put the nation's future first and only bowed to political pressure from the right to gain political favor. As exmples: The Willie Horton ads in the 1988 campaign run by Lee Atwater (Karl Rove's mentor) and the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
The right and the religious right never were in love with Poppy. They thought he would continue the Reagan policies, and he did for the most part. But he broke his pledge promising no new taxes, and they never forgave him for it. Their support was lukewarm at best. He tried to get a handle on defecit spending, and he sought a coalition before moving American troops into Kuwait to put back the invasion of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, while I disagreed with many of the policies of George H. W. Bush, I don't think he ruined the country. He was kind of a status quo president. Moreover, he is a decent man who I can respect even though I disagree. Given the choice today between father and son, I would choose the father hands down.
-- L.
Loganite, thanks for the insight. Being relatively young, I have almost no political knowledge pre-1996. I appreciate your ability to respect "Poppy" even if you didn't agree with many of his policies and ideas.
Him and Clinton both continued the Reagan policies since it seemed to all start working and could be used for political favor.
John Stewart '08.
Post a Comment