Posted on 12/02/2007 11:10:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The problem for Hillary Clinton that arises from the incident in which a disturbed man invaded her Rochester, New Hampshire, campaign headquarters is not any kind of physical threat. Clinton is the most carefully-managed and thoroughly-secured presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan, who when he began to show the first signs of the dementia was placed in a sort of protective custody during the 1984 campaign. Clinton is is no greater danger now than she has been in since the start of her campaign; and neither, thankfully, were her New Hampshire supporters, who exited the headquarters without injury.
The problem for Clinton is a political one.
The incident in Rochester reminds prospective Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers that the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination is a celebrity candidate who attracts controversy, who is legitimately seen as divisive and who-- barring a major shift in tone and style -- will always campaign at a distance from the American people.
This is not entirely fair to Clinton. She has indeed been the victim of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that she named after millionaire conservatives and their paid minions defining her as a cruel and conniving egomaniac who would stop at nothing to obtain power and position.
But there is nothing fair about American politics. And, while Clinton has made some progress when it comes to softening her image, she has not begun to transform herself so successfully as did the "ruthless" Bobby Kennedy in 1967 and 1968 -- or even the "boring" Al Gore in the period since he ceded the presidency to George Bush.
Hillary Clinton remains a charged figure who excites great passions. She is a highest-profile politician whose fame is both blessing and curse. The blessing is that, without offering much more than platitudes, she has been able to wink and nod her way to the top of most Democratic polls. The curse is that, if an desperate man in Rochester, New Hampshire, is looking for a campaign headquarters to invade, it's going to be Clinton's.
If a few other desperate men target the Clinton campaign in coming weeks -- or even a desperate woman as hyped up as the one who called the Democratic senator a "bitch" at a recent John McCain event -- the contender who so recently seemed inevitable will be in trouble.
It's won't be Clinton's fault, at least not wholly. But incidents of this kind will make Democrats, who think they have a good chance of winning the presidency in 2008, start asking: Why invite the volatility that goes with Hillary Clinton? Why not nominate someone -- a John Edwards, a Barack Obama, even a Bill Richardson -- who provokes a little less passion?
To deny that such thinking will go on in the heads not just of pundits but of grassroots Democrats would be absurd as the calculus that said John Kerry was the most electable Democrat of 2004.
The challenge for Clinton, then, is not to avoid the issue. She must confront it. She must turn her volatility to her advantage. She should take a risk that puts her outside the comfort zone of her own campaign -- and of contemporary politics. She should speak bluntly about the bitter partisanships, the crude tactics, the open hatreds that now characterize campaigning and that so undermine the ability of elected leaders to govern in a functional, let alone inspiring, manner.
The incident in Rochester was not a big deal. It was overplayed by the media. Clinton and her aides are safe, as safe as any serious presidential contenders and their hangers on. But the Friday's headquarters invasion got the attention it did for a reason. Everyone recognizes the emotions -- both positive and negative -- that Hillary Clinton inspires. And everyone suspects that they could boil over again, either physically or politically.
Clinton needs to address her perception and her reality as a remarkable political figure who has already made a great deal of history and could make a great deal more. She cannot do it with spin. The reliance on spin, on managed messages and manipulated moments, is a big part of what Americans -- even some of her supporters -- distrust about her.
Hillary Clinton needs to open up. She needs to speak frankly. She needs to acknowledge that, for better or worse, she inspires intense reactions. She needs to start talking about that intensity. And she needs to explain to the American people -- if she can -- how that intensity, as opposed to silly spin about "bringing us all together, is what this country needs after George Bush's sleepwalk across the minefield.
If Clinton does this, it will not matter what passions play out during the course of the coming campaign. She will be on her way to the Oval Office. If she fails to do so, Clinton will remain vulnerable to the incidents that are all but certain to unfold, and that vulnerability will beg questions that could well cost her the presidency.
What the hell??? The extra level of security placed around Reagan might...just might...I'm just guessing here...might have had something to do with the attempt on his life in 1981 you hateful, demented, goofball, RAT-kisser.
Wasn’t he also already president. Minor detail, I suppose.
LOL. I’m sure it is nothing more than a minor detail to The Nation.
It’s just another genius writer from “The Nation”. The only people who will fall for this BS are the kool-aid addicts.
Just wow.
Being PRESIDENT at the time might have had a little something to do with the level of security, too. Call me crazy! I'm just one of those silly conservatives......
Yes, but hasn't she been coronated the first queen of The U.S.?
What the incident in Rochester really shows is that the Democrat party is the party of liberalism.
And it is well established that Liberalism is equated to Mental Illness.
To be perfectly honest, I expected the media to be blasting this 24/7 to cover up the Clinton/CNN/DNC hijacking of the Republican Debate.
I haven't seen this occur, although I'm sure some FReepers have been saturated one way or another.
My first reaction to this was skepticism and the thought: "It's Clinton. Yeah, right...."
I have to wonder if the "powers that be" in the Clinton machine have been smacked in the face with this response. I just don't see it being foisted on us to the extent I imagined. Still, most people I've only briefly discussed this with have responded with eye-rolls to changing the subject altogether, as if it was embarrassing for some of my "potential" democrat supporting friends.
“Hillary Clinton needs to open up. She needs to speak frankly. “
Good advice.
Let the Stalinist be Stalin. Allow her to command, at every whistle stop and beer hall, that things will be taken from you for the Marxist common good.
We all laugh at the VWRC charge but as usual the Clinton definition and the dictionary definition are two different things.
To them (and the left) conspiracy is defined as ‘like-minded people exercising their rights to free speech, free association and capitalism that happen to dislike the Clintons and/or oppose their policies.’
In other words, it’s in the same boat as swiftboating.
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.