For the most part, I never hated Hillary Clinton.
Mind you, she has annoyed me. The main thing that annoyed me, when she was First Lady, was that she wanted both to be an overt power player, but also wanted the ability to wilt back into the traditions of First Ladyhood whenever somebody criticized her. You don't get a husband who advertises your couplehood as "two for the price of one," get put in charge of major commissions that are normally reserved for political professionals, and then expect not to be treated like a normal politician. The whole, "I'm just a giiiiirlll, leave me alone!" mentality has never played well with me, and it's doubly odious when a woman wants both all the traditional protections and deferences, and all the perks of playing in the big leagues. It would be like my wife demanding to be allowed to play in the National Football League, but also demanding to be allowed to file assault charges if anyone actually tackled her.
The inherent sexism of people who let her get away with this, who came to her defense by saying she was First Lady, just made it all the more caustic. Even now, I'm still astounded by people who act as if this woman deserves to be treated more gently than any other member of the Senate. It's stunning what lows that "feminism" has sunk to if the Senator from New York must be treated nicely simply because she's a giiiiiirrrlll!!. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would have been appalled.
Anyway, since she became a Senator, I have rarely had major complaints with Mrs. Clinton. There was one truly inexcusable moment in late 2001 for which, to this day, I still think she owes an apology. In the weeks after 9/11, a tabloid ran a picture of the planes ramming into the WTC, with the screaming words, "BUSH KNEW!" She actually had the balls to wave that piece of trash around on the Senate floor and say her constituents had a "right to know the truth." Her words were moderate enough, but the timing was attrocious, the headline appalling. At a moment when we most badly needed national unity, I could not have imagined a worse action she could have taken. I nearly threw up, and for the first time in my life I (briefly) hated her.
In the years since, I've elected to think of it as her "Dan Burton moment," and come to the conclusion that every politician deserves to be forgiven one or two such brain farts now and then. Ever since that incident, she has avoided such behavior. She has, in most ways, been what I would consider an exemplary Democratic Senator: When she agrees with her opponents, she says so quite forthrightly, without hesitation, without defensiveness, and without a lot of sarcasm or cheap shots. When she disagrees, she is very straightforward and logical, and lays out not just criticisms, but exactly what she would like to see done differently.
In other words, she's (mostly) acted like a member of the loyal opposition, and not a petty, grasping, pettifogging partisan like so many of her colleagues. Honestly, if she and Joe Biden and a few of the other sane moderates exemplified the Democrats running for President today, I'd be much less worried about the future of the Democratic Party, or the country. These are people I can find common ground with.
(Although, as a former Democrat, here's a free piece of advice: the charge that Republicans have a secret plot to destroy Medicare and Social Security is tinfoil hat stuff, Senator Clinton. It was getting old even when I was a teenager. You guys have been crying wolf long enough. Look at the polls: the vast majority of voters now want Social Security Choice, and your own Bill Bradley wanted to bring choice into the Medicare program. Get over yourselves and get a genuinely progressive agenda, why don't you? They times, they are a'changin'!)
Anyway, it's pretty clear that Senator Clinton has turned into a fairly savvy politician since joining the Senate. Indeed, she seems much more sure-footed than she ever was as First Lady. Her credentials as a sensible moderate are pretty good too. She's managed to learn how to criticize without being a hack, and how to compromise without looking weak.
Andrew Sullivan thinks she is likely to run for President in 2008. I think his reasoning is very astute, and that you should read the whole thing. It'll make you think. And for all the kneejerk hatred she evokes in some people, it may just make you think she wouldn't be all that bad a Presidential candidate at that.
Dean:
I never hated Hillary Clinton.
Well then, between you and me, that makes one of us.
Dean, another paranoid right-wing fever-swamp thought from yours truly on this Tuesday morning: Joe Lieberman may look like Senator Palpatine. But Hillary Rodham Clinton is Senator Palpatine.
She'd be a better candidate for 2004 than any of the people now running. (No, I don't think she'll jump in at the last minute, she's too savvy to run against an incumbent.)
I never much liked her but neither do I hate her. She's one of the few Democrats who has been making sense on foreign policy lately (even though I don't agree with her, her positions are thoughtful). She deserves credit for that.
Paul, have you noticed that Gehphardt looks like Yoda? Heh.
Hmmm. Hillary as Empress; I wonder what she'd look like in black leather? Heh heh heh....
Casey, actually I myself would prefer to think of Uma Thurman in black leather. ;)
Dean,
I wonder if you are writing this because you caught her on Meet the Press...because that was a really good interview she did. I never liked her, and still don't, but I agree 100% that she puts to shame most of the tools currently running. I particularly agree with you on her (newfound) ability to criticize without being so shrill. I think a key piece of this is, unlike so many other dems, she actually has alternative plans rather than just criticisms. Also, as Andrew points out, she's a very shrewd tactician. If she can only get over the 'right wing conspiracy' crap and the 'when my husband was president' stuff, I might actually consider voting for her (for senate at least, if not for Prez).
All that said, I wonder if she isn't blowing it by not running now? I know the common-sense analysis says that even though she'd be immensely popular now, she can't beat bush because she's so hated by the right...but I think this may be her best chance:
1. If Dean somehow pulls off the upset, she's screwed until at least 2012.
2. If Bush wins, she has to bide her time for 4 more years...with a good possibility that things could go very well for Bush in a 2nd term (economy strengthening, things more in control in Iraq, a successful (and fairly liberal for a republican) legislative agenda).
I think she's running a big risk at squeezing herself out of the picture. Oh well...time will tell.
Dean, your comments remind me yet again of why I consider most politically-active democrats to be incredibly naive.. I don't mean to be condescending.. and I don't like to generalize about people.. I think on an individual basis, the average democrat is no different than I.. but I have to shake my head and wonder "what the hell are you thinking?"
from everything I see.. and I do mean everything.. Senator Clinton has never had a moment in the spotlight that has not been self-serving.. I'm trying to be objective as I reflect back on her illustrious career.. and the more I think of her history, the less impressed I am with the highlights.. let's list them, shall we?
-whitewater
-cattlegate
-travelgate
-filegate
-vince foster?
-pardongate connections to her senate run
-screaming in the White House the day 'she and her husband' were elected, claiming ownership of the VP office
-various incitements of "you f***ing jew bastard!"
-using secret service and military personnel as valets
-cleaning out the White House of silverware, etc
-questions remaining about political contributions that have gone unrecorded (approx. $2 million)
and of course the fact that any sort of criticism of her or her husband is a "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.. IGNORE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST US!"
I'd honestly like to know what you see in her that makes her a good Presidential candidate.. and please don't say her leadership potential.. excuse the obvious 'kneejerk' comparison, but Hitler had great leadership potential.. still, I think we can all agree that his use of the power he was granted was less than desirable for everyone involved
is there any logical reason or example you can cite that would suggest Hillary would do any better? her stained past suggests not.. she has yet to overcome (or even acknowledge) her past mistakes.. this is not the sign of someone who will work for OUR good.. only for hers
Brett forgot cookie-gate (where she critisized women who stayed home and baked cookies). Yeah, as one of those cookie-baking women that commment certainly got my attention. Still, Dean's right in that everyone deserves a crazy moment now and then. I was willing to give her a second chance, and a third chance, and a fourth chance. Eventually, I just got tired of finding reasons NOT to despise her.
It has nothing to do with her politics. She's arrogant, thinking she's better than others because she has a career. She's rude and demeaning to people that can't help her career. She lies a lot. She's self-serving in the extreme, sacrificing even a remotely normal relationship for a power-union to help her career. She's repeatedly proven to be unethical and unrepentant given the opportunity. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT IN A PRESIDENT?
I've heard it said that character is what you have if you do the right thing when no one is looking. Lets be honest, she doesn't have it and CHARACTER COUNTS. I have NO faith that she'd keep any of her "moderate" currently-convienent political positions if it were to her advantage to shift. We have no idea at all what she'd do, because we generally only have politicians word about their personal views/thoughts and HER WORD IS WORTH NOTHING.
Urk. Paul, much as Uma looked attractive in that role, the movie was just too horrid. It reminds me of "Entrapment", another movie with an attractive woman (coincidentally enough, it also had Mr Connery in a lead role), that was simply atrocious.
thanks for backing me up, Allison.. I think you summed up my thoughts a little better than I was able to
while I think Hillary would be a very EFFECTIVE President.. I don't think she would be a GOOD President by any stretch of the imagination.. she consistently cites invectives and slaps the hands of any GOP's who reach across the aisle in a bipartisan attempt at legislating.. I'm having a hard time finding examples of how she has ever worked in a bipartisan fashion, something which would clearly be necessary for a Democrat President, given that the House, and most likely the Senate, will remain Republican territory
but the overall image that is clear to the vast numbers of people who are not her blindly loyal fans is that Hillary simply can not be trusted.. she shows signs of this every time she appears before a camera.. when Russert interviewed her just the other day on Meet The Press and tried to corner her into saying "I will not accept the Democratic nomination", Hillary couldn't do it.. she twisted the words around, in the manner her husband used (and which got him impeached, lest we forget).. she said she "isn't accepting the nomination".. meaning, it hasn't been offered, thus there is no acceptance.. but if the timing is right, she can always change her mind
and that's the thing about Hillary.. she unleashed Wesley Clark on the campaign trail for the sole purpose of distracting the public from Dean's increasing popularity.. why? because Dean has made it clear that once he gains the nomination, he will fire Terry McCauliff.. and Terry McCauliff controls the DNC checkbook.. but who does he answer to? why, Hillary Clinton.. what a surprise
so, Hillary is willing to trash Dean for the sake of retaining control of the DNC coffers.. and you say you'd consider voting for this woman, who is intentionally sinking your Party by setting up an unelectable front man (Clark) for the sake of keeping her accountant in charge?
Hmmm. Hillary as Empress; I wonder what she'd look like in black leather?
Actually, Spy Magazine, in one of their most notorious Photoshopped covers, put Hillary's face on the body of a dominatrix, clad in a leather bikini and thigh-high boots, and holding a riding crop. The caption was, "What Hillary Problem?".
Riyadh delenda est!
Oh oh oh! I can't believe I forgot my favorite Hillary-lie. When NewYork had the big power outage and she pretended she didn't have power until some reporter asked what happened to her security details generator. Apparently she just turned the power off for the press-conference.
Oh, and how could we forget the one about her being names after Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Everest except that until he did that he was completely unknown and he didn't do that until she was six years old. I just loved her response: Well, I wished I was named after him. LIKE THAT MAKES THE LIE TRUE (or at least ok)?
Got to stop foaming at the mouth. (Its blue foam actually. I'm out of regular toothpaste, so I had to use the blue-sparkle-stuff the dentist gave the kids. I didn't think the foam would be blue too, so I got a real shock when I looked into the mirror over the sink. )
Character does count Allison. Now that is a description of YOU. I know anyone that has been reading Deans World would agree with me and say that about you. Your words are thought out and spoken from the heart of a very decent woman. I am sure a lot of men reading your words respect you for that.
You stand firm in your beliefs and your love for this country and your belief in God the way you see Him and are hoping to impart those values to your family. Your words of wisdom are genuine pearls that I wish sometimes I could scoop up and hand knot each one around my neck.
Then when I have something I want to say, I would reach up to my hand strung pearl of wisdom necklace and your wit, and so often charming answers would be there!
I am giggling...thinking of you foaming at the mouth with your blue-sparkle-stuff the dentist gave your kids. You are precious to say the least.
I have had a great time in Cosmos.com. Paul linked us to what Hillary would look like, and I took off from there typing in every politician and things of interest to me. What a FANTASTIC site. And the job openings here in the United States and around the world! Who is behind this? Bill Gates!
On whitewater & cattlegate: My #1 complaint about this was the stonewalling the Clinton administration did on it. Then again, during the Iran/Contra witch hunts, the Reagan administration refused to stonewall, cooperated 100%, held back nothing, and in the end was guilty of very little that a sensible person would consider seriously bad, and all done for selfless causes. They were still crucified.
In other words, apparently, whether you stonewall or cooperate, in Washington, it doesn't help either way. So maybe it was the right strategy. After all, a decade of investigation on these to matters turned up "smoke but no fire," according to Ken Starr.
Regarding travelgate: A minor embarassment, a bit of hubris.
Filegate: A possible crime, or possible stonewalling and convenient misremembering. See above.
Vince Foster: After five separate investigations, including a lengthy one by Ken Starr, no one could find anything. There was nothing here. The man killed himself, period.
Pardons: This was the sleaziest thing Clinton did in his whole 8 years. And yes, it was worse than the pardons that George H.W. Bush offered. But not much worse.
Screaming in the White House the day 'she and her husband' were elected, claiming ownership of the VP office: Unverified. Shows bad temperament.
"You f***ing jew bastard!": Probably true, not very nice.
Using secret service and military personnel as valets: Actually, this is common. It's bad if she had an attitude about it, was haughty about it, but it's normally part of the job, at least as far as Secret Service is concerned.
Cleaning out the White House of silverware, etc: Yeah, that's pretty nasty, although I need to see more about it.
Questions remaining about political contributions that have gone unrecorded (approx. $2 million): Feh. Campaign finance laws--mostly created by idiotic Democrats and fools like John McCain, have created such disasters. Who the hell knows what goes on there? We need to scrap all our campaign finance laws to get real transparency. However, we won't do it, in part because of the Left's insane fear of "the rich," and in part because the status quo serves many politicians' interests better than real transparency would.
So, on the whole, I look at the above, and see some things that turn out to be nothing, some that make the woman look occasionally arrogant (oh, no politican is ever arrogant!), some of which is bad but not horrendous, and some of which is hearsay no better than the Cheney/Halliburton alligations, the "we invaded Iraq to make Bush's oil cronies rich" stuff that I can't stand.
Overall, as I say, since becoming a Senator I believe she has acquitted herself quite well. She has been far more responsible, honest, and fair-minded than the shrieking and irrational set within the Democratic Party, and has voted along fairly centrist lines.
I don't know that I'd vote for this woman for President, but I do know that, at least since the beginning of 2002, she has acquitted herself well.
ok, you make a fairly good point-by-point argument, Dean.. but that's taking her actions and explaining them one by one.. we could do that with most repeat offenders in prison.. "but your honor.. he was merely defending his girlfriend's virtue by stabbing the other crack dealer in the eye with that screwdriver.. and who really cares about a crack dealer, right?"
my point being that we're looking at a pattern of behavior, not individual incidents.. you're saying that her behavior isn't quite as bad as it has been.. that might be true.. she's only complained about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on tv one time in the past couple months.. that's an improvement over her past record, true.. and that crack dealer in prison has probably only put one person in the prison hospital in the last month.. what the hell is he still doing in prison?
on that note, I think Hillary would be a great President! look at all she's accomplished.. um.. I'm thinking.. she almost attended one of the WTC victims' funerals, until she found out the media wasn't going to be at that one.. and she did fly to Afghanistan and forced a squadron of soldiers to wait an hour for her to arrive before they could eat.. oh yeah, and then wait for her and all her entourage to eat first
all Bush did was fly to the most dangerous airport in the world after a 17 hour flight.. meet with a roomful of soldiers.. pick up a fake turkey (ok, it wasn't really fake, it was real, but it wasn't intended to be eaten and he's gotta be stupid for picking that up, right?) and then thank each person in the room individually.. then get back on his plane for another 17 hour flight.. and he's so dumb he forgot to even eat.. man, Hillary is looking smarter with every story
but I do find your last statement to be very apropo (sp?) regarding Hillary.. "she has acquitted herself well".. the key word being 'acquitted' ;)
Well Brett, how is that any difference between the people who pile up all the unsubstantiated allegations, nit-picky criticisms, missteps, legitimate and lapses, and nasty insinuations about George W. Bush, lump it all together, and use it as proof that, "well, even if any one of these is bad, doesn't the whole package add up to an evil, wicked, incompetent president?"
You an make anybody look like scum by piling stuff up this way.
yes.. if the allegations have any truth behind them.. so far the insinuations about Bush have added up to what? I've seen dozens of cases where he was misquoted by Michele Malkin or other media sources.. or assumptions that were taken as fact when stated, and were supported by the previous Administration, are suddenly questioned when a lack of evidence (so far) supports them
if I'm turning a blind eye toward Bush, I can face up to contrary facts if you can provide them.. but so far we've seen Hillary argue that the current Administration is sending our country into a social and financial time warp back into the dark ages.. on the other hand, most conservatives are upset that Bush is pushing the country even farther to the left than Clinton did.. he's setting records for government spending, signing socialized medicine into law, and various other acts that would be applauded wildly if Clinton had done it.. but since a Republican is in charge, it's all bad evil stuff
but returning to your statement, Dean... "You [c]an make anybody look like scum by piling stuff up this way." And some people make themselves look like [s]cum by providing us with so much to pile up against them.. I haven't made up any of the allegations against Hillary.. she really WAS caught with FBI files in her possession.. and the Rose Law Office billing records in the White House library.. after denying it, of course.. honestly, I'd have a shred of respect for her if she had the integrity to say "yep, I did that.. so what?".. but I see her as a woman who is willing to do or say anything to accomplish her goal.. notice that I didn't say the Democrat's goal, or the country's goal.. that makes her a very dangerous politician
I don't hate Hillary, but I do despise her. I'm an old time conservative who has never voted for a Democrat. She can't lose my vote, she never had it. All that being said, I think Senator Clinton would be a disaster as President. The only prominent person I can imagine as worse is Teddy Kennedy. The hero of Chappaquiddick isn't going to run, so Hillary gets to go to the bottom of the list.
Maybe it's irrational, but I do not trust Senator Clinton. Her activities so far have convinced me she'd sell out the country for a campaign contribution. The Chinese already have our missle technology thanks to her husband. I hesitate to guess what she'd give them.
Filegate is the sort of nightmare that leads to real oppression. Using the FBI for political purposes is beyond a crime, it is the shadow of tyrany. I do not doubt she would try to use police and intellegence agencies to gather dirt on her opponents and if that was not enough, a more direct intimidation would not be beyond her. She would not have to use these agencies against you and me, but anyone she felt was in her way had better watch out.
I'm pretty lazy and haven't done much besides talk and write to my friends and associates. A Clinton nomination would be enough to get me down to headquarters and working. Even a Republican like Bush begins to look very good in those circumstances.
Hillary Clinton has betrayed our trust too often to ever trust her again. She could adopt my every political position and declare herself an admirer of Goldwater and Reagan. She could Join the Bush cabinet and write for NRO. She could register Republican and divorce Bill. I would still never vote for her. I don't trust her and anyone who does is asking to be taken advantage of.
I don't want this to sound shrill and mean. She may be a wonderful lady in person, though I doubt it. I freely admit I'm to the right of the center of the Republican Party. If Senator Clinton is ever nominated for the Presidency, I'll get off my dead ass and work to defeat her in any way I can. There are a lot of others like me. Not angry, not hateful. Just coldly determined that we will not risk our basic rights by another Clinton Presidency.
I would join Ken and I agree with what Allison said, Her Word is Worth Nothing and I agree with Brett. This is and will always be MY FINAL ANSWER..... HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT,ABSOLUETLY NOT!
I'd like to vote for that Allison chick, she's pretty smart.