Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
and I would nominate Edwards if it were up to me, BUT it should be kept in mind that while the polls say AT THIS TIME that her negatives are higher, that is hardly the ultimate, complete and final word on the subject and it isn't unreasonable for people to speculate on/discuss the broader issues that are raised.
Hillary has higher numbers in most categories because she is better known.
From 43 oppose to 32 oppose is not a huge difference, particularly when comparing a famous name to two not so famous names.
Once either Obama or Edwards becomes better known, or the actual candidate, their numbers will probably become similar to Hillary's, particularly after the Republican smear machine goes after them. Their numbers may even become worse. There is a segment of the public that is just not going to vote for a Democrat.
The media and the Republicans have crafted a powerful narrative that portrays Hillary as a calculating, inauthentic panderer and you guys have completely fallen for it. Mr. Shapiro reasonably says that Hillary is not phony, but a moderate. Instead of engaging that point, everyone piles on calling her a panderer without pointing to specific instances of pandering.
Instead, speaking of phoniness, we hear about her unwillingness to call her vote a mistake. We hear about her lack of an apology. That whole issue is a ginned up non-story. Hillary has repeated that she would not have voted to authorize force knowing what she knows now. Why isn't that good enough? Liberal bloodlust over the travesty of a war has made people irrational about what we expect from our candidates.
That bloodlust is indicative of the effectiveness of the divide and conquer strategy that worked so well in 2000. Thanks to a couple years of deception by the media, Gore was viewed by many moderates and even some Democrats as a big phony. Some didn't feel he was all that different from Bush. As a result, while some people held their noses and voted for him anyway, others went to Nader. But the truth is, Gore wasn't a phony; he wouldn't have made a terrible president. Just as with Gore, the desire for the perfect candidate has blinded some to the admirable traits of Hillary.
If I had to build my ideal candidate, none of the current lot would be it. The only traits I'd consider taking from the current group is the oratory and writing of Obama. Though seeing Hillary interact with the crowd on C-Span, I might take her ability to connect with people one on one. Of course, the sad truth is, even if my ideal candidate were elected, he or she wouldn't be able to get many of the liberal/progressive measures I'd like to see through Congress. The perfect is the enemy of the good; I'd prefer to see the country take a step in the right direction rather than continue down its current path.
The point is, don't let the conception of Hillary as a phony be the determining factor in judging her. If her policies are a step in the wrong direction, then don't vote for her. Certainly don't vote for her in the primaries if her policies don't measure up to those of Obama or Edwards. But how about this time around we focus on the issues and we don't let the media get away with calling a Democratic candidate a opinion poll tested phony?
Sen. Clinton was also willing to sponsor a bill to outlaw flag burning. This has been portrayed as an attempt to stave off a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Great. So what. Not exactly a stirring defense of the First Amendment.
HC is a junior senator with nothing much to show for it other than her own celebrity. She is one of those people celebrated for being well known.
Put Hillary up against Bill Richardson. Who? Right. Richardson has far more experience and smarts than HC but doesn't get celebrity treatment. This nation has to grow up and elect competent administrators rather than celebrities. I think it was Malcolm X who warned against letting the newspapers chose your leaders. Right again Malcolm.
If you want specific evidence of pandering, look at her vote on the Iraq war, and her response since then. Your characterization tells the story. "Hillary has repeated that she would not have voted to authorize force knowing what she knows now. Why isn't that good enough?"
It isn't good enough because it doesn't answer the question. What exactly is it that she knows now that she didn't know then? As far as I can see the only possible answers either paint her competence in a bad light, or they reveal her to be pandering.
Senator Clinton knew, or she ought to have known, that Saddam and Iraq were not active threats to the United States. She knew, or she ought to have known, that there was no relationship between al Queda and Iraq. She knew, or she ought to have known, that there was no basis in international law for a preemptive strike on Iraq. So either Senator Clinton has no ability to judge facts and evidence and is thereby not qualified to be president, or there was really something that she didn't know then.
What could it have been that she didn't know? She has asserted her prerogative not to answer this question so we are left to speculate. The only answer I can come up with was that she didn't know that the war was going to be such a colossal cock up. (As a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, she ought to have known that as well.) She thought that the war would come off like Desert Storm and would be over in a month. There would be no fallout and there would be no negative repercussions of her vote. Her calculation was that the negative fallout would be on those who acted with some honesty and integrity and voted not to authorize force.
She was willing to play fast and loose with the truth about the danger to the US and go along with a scheme that permitted the US to play fast and loose with international law because she was pandering to those who needed a strong response to 9/11 and those who would not vote for a presidential candidate who hadn't voted for the war. Given the stakes, I'd say that this is a particularly nasty and repellent form of pandering.
So there's your choice, fool or panderer without a conscience. Either way, I'm not likely to be supporting her.
This narrative has jack all to do with the polls, the news media or with what Republican's say about her.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
