I Don't Like Hillary Clinton
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Here at APW, we've already gone out on a limb and endorsed Senator Joe Biden for president in 2008. We like Barak Obama OK, and are prepared to consider an endorsement for him, say, circa 2016. But we have a problem with Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday she introduced a senate bill to cap the number of troops the US is legally allowed to deploy in Iraq. This strikes us as quintessential HIllary-- exquisitely crafted boneheadedness. Politically savvy (she'll be able to point to it as a stake-in-the-ground definition of her position on Iraq, in the hope that it will somehow overshadow her previous hawkishness.) But totally empty calories, no substance (it is a "symbolic" gesture, a bill no one thinks will pass; and what if it DID pass, become law, and then a week later Iran invades Iraq and everyone agrees we need another 100,000 troops in Iraq pronto, but now it is illegal to send them?)
Kerry was positioned by Bush as a flip flopper. I suspect Hillary won't have that problem, because you have to actually HAVE a position on something in order to change positions. She's my senator, I voted for her twice, and I'll be damned if I can tell you anything she's done for us in New York as senator, or any significant positon she has on any issue. I DO know she put on a Yankee hat and played Billy Joel's "Captain Jack" when she got into the senate race the first time around, both transparent, calculated, clumsily executed "symbolic" gestures. ("Captain Jack," a song about a drug dealer, was probably the first time you heard the word "masturbate" sung on the radio.)
All my pundit pals (and yes, it is sad that I have pundit pals) think that HIllary is going to waltz to the Democratic nomination. I tend to disagree. I think that on a podium next to Biden, Obama, Richardson, even John "Cubby" Edwards, she's going to play very poorly, and suddenly half of America is going to remember why they hate her, and the other half is going to remember why they don't want her representing their side in a year their side ought to be able to win.
*****
By the way, if you're wondering why I voted for her for senator, consider the alternatives. It isn't as if I would have voted for this guy, or this one.
Labels: The politics
Posted by: --josh-- @ 8:05 AM
Do you and your pundit pals have a clubhouse together? Are no girl pundits allowed?
Despite everything you say, with most of which I agree, I think Hilary has a good chance in '08 because she's a known brand. People are too lazy to learn about new people. If you like the words liberal, woman, pushy or want any of them to apply to your president, she's got a chance with you.
Personally, I think of health care reform, and, unless anyone else can convince me that they're going to make this a priority, I don't care very much about any other issue, even including the war. I'm not a global thinker, just a woman who doesn't understand how it could suddenly become likely that she'll die from too little medical attention, or the wrong kind.
Also, I can't think of anything that Hillary has done for me in New York either, but she carried Dem-liberal Rhinebeck and Rep-conservative Kingston practically unopposed. that's got to mean something.
From Henry in NYC:
Annie is very right when she observes that Hillary Clinton is a known brand. I will state the obvious that the familiarity helps and hurts her '08 chances.
For me, it helps. She is not a great public speaker and her voice and speech patterns can be annoying. I still think she will be outstanding at the debate podium. She is intelligent, knowledgeable, focused, hard working and - not a negative - politically savvy.
Let me suggest a reason for not knowing what she has done for the NY individual as a senator. The position doesn't lend itself to local issue headlines. When senators are interviewed it is typically about national or international issues. Hillary stands out in that role. She represents us on the Armed Services Committee and I think may be the first senator from NY to do so.
She has worked hard to ensure that NY City got a large amount of money for redevelopment following the devastation at the WTC. She has continued to support the people that worked at the site and have developed health problems as a result.
I don't think she can be blamed for the state's loss of population and jobs. That has been happening for decades. During her first senate campaign she went all over upstate NY to learn about financial conditions and has since participated in efforts to generate jobs in the region. This includes encouraging the introduction of business focused on new technologies. As Annie said, they voted for her second term and not just against her opponent.
The health care issue will be paramount in '08 and she knows what needs to get done. Because of her previous failure she is better prepared to do it right the next time.
As for the position on troop limits, I think you may be misreading her. We should not send more troops but we sure as hell cannot just leave now as others demand. Clinton's position is nuanced and calculating but it is also right. Read her interview with Gwen Ifill on The Newshour from last week and tell me that it is not an appropriate approach to the situation we face.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/clinton_01-18.html
Who has a better idea? Joe Biden wants us to start negotiating to create a federalized, tri-partite Iraq. Is that our job? Why would we be good at that? Biden would be a good choice for Clinton's Secretary of State.
And you are so much a pundit! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I just don't know anyone else who has "already gone out on a limb and endorsed Senator Joe Biden for president in 2008."
Post a Comment
<< Home