Posted on 01/23/2006 2:59:43 PM PST by mathprof
IF there's a certain schizophrenia in the rhetoric of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton these days, it's intentional. There she was last week, at a predominantly black congregation, lambasting Republicans. She lamented that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been "run like a plantation ... And you know what I am talking about". Republicans as slave holders? Now that's inflammatory.
Then only days later we saw the other side of Clinton's split political personality, a neo-conservative one: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it and standing on the sidelines.
"Let's be clear about the threat we face. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbours and beyond. We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."
Running to the Left of President George W. Bush and to the Right of him as well is not a feat most politicians are able to pull off. But Clinton has no alternative. And in that lies her dilemma. She has too liberal a past (and reputation) to be the Democratic Right's favoured candidate; and she's become far too conservative in the Senate to win over the Democratic Left.
Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.
And so they have to do two things at once: oppose the President's conduct of the war, while explaining how they'd do better. So far, not so good. But at least Clinton is trying. It's complicated. Saying that you're in favour of wiretaps to spy on al-Qa'ida but want to have court warrants to monitor them is very sane. But it's not a soundbite. Compared with the Bush-Cheney big daddy act, it's not terribly convincing.
Clinton's strategy, in response, has been not just to deploy hawkish words but to back them with a hawkish voting record. She's evaluated as one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress. She has visited the troops and she says she won't revoke her vote in favour of the war to depose Saddam Hussein.
She's following her husband's old gamble: triangulate, triangulate. But Bill triangulated once he'd become president. Hillary is triangulating while trying to win over her party's left-wing base and more moderate voters. That is proving the tough part.
The Left loathes the war in Iraq, believes it was started in bad faith, and that it is counterproductive in the war on terror. It has gained traction from the internet as left-wing collective websites such as the Daily Kos ramp up the anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric. Their favourite candidate is senator Russ Feingold, an independent liberal who is unrepentant in his anti-war stance and a big campaigner against Washington sleaze. If Feingold falters, there's even Al Gore, now well to the Left of Hillary and incensed by what he argues is systematic abuse of executive power.
Hillary's response has not been to co-opt the Left's rhetoric. She knows it would kill her in a presidential race with a centrist Republican in 2008. So she has tried to win over the base by raising oodles of money for local candidates, travelling the country to win points and curry favours.
Her celebrity can guarantee a big crowd at any fundraising event. So she just had a big shindig for the New Hampshire Governor. She raised a cool half a million bucks for senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan last month, raked in another $US600,000 ($803,000) for the Dems in Kentucky and is scheduled to do the same in Washington state.
In all of this she has been lucky to have lacklustre Republican opposition in New York state, where she faces re-election as senator this November.
Secure at home, she's pursuing Bush's 2000 strategy of amassing so much campaign money and so many favours that she becomes the "inevitable" nominee for 2008, regardless of her ideological blur.
Two men, however, stand in her way. The first is Mark Warner, a telegenic, youthful retiring Governor of Virginia, who turned one of the redder Republican states blue with smart governance and fiscal responsibility. Governors almost always have the advantage over senators in presidential contests because they have had to make decisions rather than simply debate them in Congress.
Warner is also -- how to put this nicely? -- fresher than Clinton. Yes, there's nostalgia for the 1990s, but not that much.
Which brings us to Hillary's other problem male: her husband. It's impossible to imagine him in the White House as a "first lady" figure, arranging state dinners and redecorating the Lincoln bedroom. Electing Hillary means re-re-electing Bill.
When Bush Jr was elected no one believed his dad would actually be running the show (although a few chastened conservatives might have appreciated some old-school moderation at the helm these past few years). Electing Hillary will be the same two-for-one deal it was in 1992 and 1996. Americans like moving forward, not backwards.
At some point, Hillary's positioning will also hit a wall of opposition. That wall will either be the Democratic left-wing base of activists, a base that rallied to her in the White House largely because of her rabid right-wing opponents, not because of her centrist policies.
Or it will be centrist independents who'd pick John McCain over another Clinton.
My own hope is that she doesn't run. She doesn't have the instinctive connection with people to be an effective national politician: she's too cold, too calculating, too distant.
Her speeches have been getting better but still make Gore seem like a good performer. And a repeat of the acrimonious culture wars of the '90s is about the last thing the US needs.
Besides, there is a perfect position for her in American public life, and it's not in the Senate, despite her eminently respectable record there. She belongs on the Supreme Court. She's a lawyer who wants to change the world. That's almost a job description for a liberal justice. But she'll need a Democratic president to put her there. Maybe some of the cash she has been raising will help bring that about.
It could fund far worse causes: Hillary's own presidential ambition, for one.
Sully, Sully, Sully.
Hillary is a fraud and a fake and shrill to boot. . .but no one not even 'Hitlery'. . .IMHO. . .can make algore look good.
Nope. . .neither of these ducks fly; period.
Just wait till it's evident that her lifelong goal of being POTUS has slipped away (circa 2007). She'll really get unhinged and go berserk.
And all of us here will get to watch the meltdown ("I'm melting") and throw big celebrations.
Stop! This is the book on Andrew S.
He just doesn't get it. Never has.
Yeah, with that ACU rating of 9, they must be screaming "Facist! Facist!" at her.
I actually read DU last night and Hillary has a LOT of people at DU who dislike her.
I wonder if she really thinks she can pull it off.
...instead of a bum, which is what she is.
(I'm surprised nobody else put that up already.)
No, seriously, would anybody seriously be talking about her as Presidential or Supreme Court timber if she weren't Bill's wife? (For that matter, would she have been able to parachute into New York and win that Senate race if she hadn't been President Bubba's wife?)
For starters, I think we should all take a cue from Rush today and begin referring to the Hildabeast only and solely as MRS. BILL CLINTON.
The nasty two-fer Andy speaks of here should be constantly reminded to the public at large.
MRS. BILL CLINTON is making Al Gore look more and more attractive. And you know what I'm talking about.
Example --
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563512/posts
What ever she chooses, the Presidency and the Supreme Court are waaaaay out of her limited reach. Besides, there is a real good chance that she could lose her senate seat before any chance that she could obtain any of the positions above. Unlike most Republicans, I'm not afraid of this woman. She is easy to beat, and beat badly. She would bring out 100% of the republican vote against her and she would alienate the far left to stay home. In a 50/50 country (I don't believe that MSM crap, but let's use it for numbers sake) that would mean a sound defeat, you do the math.
A Sullivan piece with no mention of gay sex or gay marriage! Such self-restraint!
I hope Hillary runs and gets the nomination. Mark Warner might actually win the presidency.
But then again, so is Andrew Sullivan.
Of course if she was a bum, Sullivan would love her.
'Rat pimary voters are 65% female.
They want a female "Geena Davis" type candidate now, not later.
Hillary's only viable opponent is Boxer.
Not if you do it with a wink and a nod it's not.....
You're wrong on two counts. The Clintons are NEVER going away.....NEVER! 2. Weak pro-choice, anti Christian Republiccan women will vote for Shrillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.