Seriously, Why Not Hillary?
OK, all you Mullentown regulars and vagrants who only happen to squat here every few days, tell me — again, and with your best descriptive power — why not Hillary Clinton for president?
It isn’t a loaded or rhetorical question. I want a good answer. I wrote here a couple of weeks back that I was about an inch away from supporting Clinton. I’m getting closer.
Well sure, who wouldn’t love to see Al Gore jump in? But as of today, candidates have three weeks in which to register for the New Hampshire primary. I just can’t see Gore doing this. And I’m thinking the more that people float around and sign petitions to convince him he should run, well, the more ridiculous and divided Democrats look at a pivotal point in their taking back this country and helping to mold its precarious future.
Clinton has a plan to offer a “baby bond” to help finance a college education for every child born in the U.S. She’s back on the health care for all proposal, though she’s backed off from her original, doomed blueprint from 1993-94. I’m sensing hope in this woman’s campaign, and she has chutzpah. We’ve had so little of both for so many years.
And did I mention Clinton has money? A lot of liberals sniff at the notion that she’s awash in campaign money — as if that quality on its own is some kind of moral flaw. But just what does it take to win right now in this country, darlings?
Money. More money than God. Mitt Romney has it, and don’t think that he or Rudy won’t use up every cent of what they’ve raised in trying to beat Clinton if she gets the nomination. The more cash she stockpiles the better.
And finally, I’d be disingenuous if not straight-out remiss, by not claiming it’s way past time we had a female president. The fact that she’s eminently qualified, bright, articulate, ambitious and can throw it right back at the stodgy white male power structure that fuels this country is a terrific bonus. I’ll tell you what: I saw so much sexism — subtle and not even at all subtle sexism — in my stepdaughter’s run for Salt Lake City mayor that I’ve become all about supporting women in politics. Call it my new religion. Women, more women in politics. Everywhere, more women please.
I’d almost say after the negativity I saw directed at Jenny Wilson from the public, the media and her opponents’ camps that gender alone is reason enough to support Hillary. But then you would all paint me as shallow.
This isn’t just any woman. This is Hillary Clinton. Find me any other Democrat parading on the campaign runway right now who can match her for experience and real-world politik. Betcha can’t.
Let me know, bloggers. I only have one caveat: You cannot respond to my challenge by writing “I like Hillary, too. But she’s unelectable.” That won’t fly here. Tell me why she isn’t, and then defend it. Or, you can always look at the world a bit optimistically, and tell us why she SHOULD be elected president, and how you’ll help see that it happens.
The phones are open, friends. Ready, get set, POST!
October 15th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I’m certainly not saying that her being a woman is a reason not to vote for her but it certainly is not reason enough. Not any more than one should vote for or against Mitt simply because of his faith or for Obama because of his race. Making gender a non-issue in American politics means exactly that, it’s a non-issue.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
It’s some other ridiculously powerful family’s turn.
Also, can you imagine the depth of down-ballot damage a Clinton vs. Romney race is going to cause in Utah?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
What is that adage…”all politics are local”?
Here in California we have two distaff,Jewish,U.S. Senators.Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and locally in Sonoma Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (”the first former welfare mother to serve in Congress”). None of the primitive sexism of Zion.
In previous comments I`ve listed ad nauseam Clinton`s problems but maybe add one more….the repubs are in disarray. Many will most likely sit out 2008, unless a Bill/Hill restoration galvanizes them to vote. I`ve got good liberal friends who will not cast a ballot for Hillary under any circumstances..nothing to do with her sex.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The only thing I currently like about Hillary IS her gender and believe me, I would completely embrace a woman running! I don’t deny her intelligence, money making machine and connections from those Clinton years in office.
But I think there are far better candidates (unfortunately not running but also in congress) I would glady vote for.
Given what I know about Jenny Wilson and the Salt Lake race, if I still lived in Salt Lake, I would absolutely have voted for her!
But the issue of Hillary, like the 3 good comments before me have pointed to, is more than just about gender. It’s specifically about how Hillary is perceived and however unfair, that is what makes her a dangerous candidate for the dems if they want to win in ‘08.
For Hillary to have the most money and votes to get the nomination scares me because I fear there’s a large group of dems who feel like I do, that she’s way too hawkish on the war, illusive in her views, shifting strategically in ways that look ingenuine and calculated to appease both sides. Then the problem with repubs is they know too much about the Clinton years and would rally to oppose her as much as support a republican.
A successful candidate needs a demeanor of honesty and trustworthiness. I get none of that from her appearances on TV. I guess I think other people would feel as I do and cringe at the thought of 4 years of Hillary in control of the country at this difficult time in our history. Maybe she would be better than other candidates, maybe worse, who knows? Certainly better than Bush. I just don’t like her. And again, it’s NOT because she’s a female.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I like Hillary Clinton, and think that she would be a great candidate…but I’d rather see Senator Obama get the nomination and eventually win the presidency for several reasons.
First, I believe that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton(-Jeb Bush, possibly) is awful for American democracy. True, American democracy has always been something of an oligarchy, but a Clinton election would only further damage our democratic-republic ideal.
Second, I can’t abide her position on the Iraq War. Despite her stump speeches castigating Bush, she doesn’t seem to feel that her vote to authorize the war was mistaken.
Third, her evolution from being an advocate for health-care reform to being one of the top recipients of medical industry lobbyist donations is really disturbing.
Finally, as a Utah Mormon Democrat, I agree completely with JM Bell’s point. I believe and Obama presidency would open many eyes in Utah to the fact that one can be (and support) a Democrat and still be a believing Mormon/Christian.
October 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The best candidate to unite the Republicans is Hillary Clinton. The anti Clinton feelings within the GOP is as strong and the anti Bush feelings with the Democrats.
This race will be between Hillary, Rudy, and a 3rd party unknown. Hillary will get 43%, Rudy will get 43% and the 3rd party will get 3%, with the rest spread between the other parties. I see this as a pure electoral race, and Rudy wins because he can carry Florida, and even NY
MT
October 15th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Sandy Berger. If Sen. Clinton is so wedded to old-boy networks and traditional power bases that she has to sign on a thief to her campaign, and ignore the national yearning for a NEW approach, then she just doesn’t get it.
I think Richardson has more leadership and freshness than all the others, but from the top three my vote would likely go for Obama. If you’re going to elect an alternative, make it a real one that doesn’t have the high negatives.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:36 am
At the most basic level, I’m just deeply depressed with the idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 24-28 years of my life. On substance, Hillary has yet to convince me that her policies would differ from the Bush administration. She’s a supporter of the Iraq occupation and she’s ready to bomb Iran. It’s unclear if she would continue with torture and warrantless domestic surveillance, or restore habeas corpus.
Oh, and I think the baby bond idea was dropped already.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I too would love to see a woman president, and this is the first real chance we have to get one, but I’m also not sure if I support her. That’s just because I’m so jaded by politics that I haven’t taken the time to really look into the candidates seriously. I have been taken by Obama’s speeches, but I don’t know enough about him to vote for him either.
On the gender/religious/racial thing: Anyone who pretends like these things are non-issues is kidding himself. We all have our biases and they really do influence our voting decisions. It’s not right, but it’s how it is.
On another note, I think the reason we haven’t had a woman president yet has to do with the corruption that comes from living a political life. It’s my personal belief that, no matter how idealistic you are in the beginning, if you are in the political world long enough, you will become corrupt. And I think women are slightly less corruptible than men.
Flame on.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Man, I love you guys. People who visit this blog are the brightest and most genuine posters around. I always learn something from your posts.
You know, I’ve never had the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton problem with Hillary C.’s candidacy. Now, if it were another Bush? Well, that’s something else. I’m one of those who benefited immensely from the Bill Clinton era: I was a young, working parent who truly appreciated his efforts at getting the Family Leave Act in place. That one thing made my life immeasurably better. Also, the economy worked. People were working. And because people were working, crime rates dropped.
I could throttle the guy for getting so badly sidetracked with Monica, and for all the trouble that caused him, his family and the rest of the country.I’m thoroughly pissed that Bill Clinton’s place in history will forever be tainted by his philandering. And he has no one to blame but himself.
But if Hillary could be half the leader he was and is (and no less than Al Greenspan, in his new memoir, goes on about her intelligence and her powerful personality) then I’m good with another Clinton in the White House.
Sometimes I laugh to think that there was a time in this country when a president was elected to FOUR straight terms. The. Same. Guy. Four. Terms. We didn’t have such a short attention span back then, folks. If someone worked, we seemed to know it. I don’t think the current slate of Demos comes close to FDR for greatness. But I also believe that someone with a long record of experience and intelligence shouldn’t be written off because we don’t want “another Clinton.”
October 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Ok, can an old man who voted for Harry Truman in 1848 chime in? I voted by absentee ballot for Misawa, Japan. Since then I have voted for a few winners but more loseres. NOw I reserve my serious consideration until after the primaries. I will vote in the primaries and it will be for Hillary. In my 20 year career in the AF I had two female superiors who wrote yy performance evaluations. In my 15 year career in the Federal Civil Service my evaluations were again written by three female superiors. In most respects I found them superior to male supervisors. Not many older voters have had that in their background. I hope Hillary is nominated and then I’ll go from there.
October 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Sorry! I did proof read my submission but not very well. My first vote was 1948. I told you I was an old man. Joe
October 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Love ya, baldyjoe!
October 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Well Baldyjoe, this is what I found to be true during my service years and having served under female officers…they were FAIR. Their evaluations were clear and concise. So, if Hillary can give us that, she can have my vote.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Hillary definitely has her good points, but I don’t think she’s the best candidate in the Democratic race.
One of your points in her favor is experience. I’ll grant you she’s got more of that than, say, Sen. Obama, but there’s nobody in the race from either party that has as much as Bill Richardson. Richardson’s foreign policy experience and his background as a negotiator is particularly valuable, given the foreign policy debacle we’re in right now. Then there’s his energy and environmental record, a strong track record as governor, and a long laundry list of other qualifications.
My single biggest concern with Hillary as a candidate is that she’s a very polarizing figure. While she’ll definitely have the support of the left side of the Democratic party, there’s probably not one single thing that either party could do that would boost the Republican get-out-the-vote effort more than for the Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton. Viewed in contrast with the consensus-building skills of a Barack Obama or a Bill Richardson, Hillary has a definite disadvantage as a candidate.
I can’t really buy the idea of supporting Hillary because of her gender, either, if only because that begs the question: why not support Obama as the first black president, or Richardson as the first Hispanic? Come to that, if we’re looking for firsts, what about Romney as the first Mormon president? There will be people who support all of those candidates for those reasons, but they really don’t seem like very good reasons, and even less so when there are four different ones that are mutually exclusive.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I think many of you are missing the salient points.
*
First,people, including republicans, do not go out to vote against someone, they go to vote FOR someone. The two likely repub winners, Rudy and Mitt, will NOT galvanize the Clinton haters to vote for them. Instead the evangelical crowd (and others) will stay at home and sit on their hands (unless manna from heaven brings up a religious right kook third party candidate which further siphons on repub support: remember the elder Bush would had two terms if not for that fire plug from Texas muddying the waters).
*
Second, Hillary has the most experience of what the office requires than any of the others. I LOVE Obama but it ain’t prime time for him yet. He needs to season in the Senate, cast some hard votes that will come back and haunt him like Hillary’s have done, and figure out what works and what doesn’t. Hillary knows that in spades.
*
Third, this is a great opportunity for us to break the sex barrier and let a woman take the reins. Anybody who says that they would vote for a woman (any woman) but NOT Hillary is sexist, plain and simple. What other woman who is a viable candidate would they vote for? Ask them that and no names come to mind, do they? Sexist.
*
Finally, “liberals” who claim they would vote for anybody BUT Hillary are not “liberals’ or democrats: they are belly button watchers, gazing into their own looking for lint and body lice. None of these politicians are perfect (what the hell was that flag burning crap about anyway?)(and your husband, Holly, excepted, of course), none of them are even close. They have ego’s as big a blimp, they kneel to the gods of money and vice, and the men certainly like a bit of fine new flesh on their arm to escort around (except Larry Craig who likes his new flesh in the dark). We can look for blemishes on all of them, and frankly, the ones who have done the most have the most blemishes, hence Obama’s appeal. So it is time for us to frigging grow up, support a person who legitimately wears a dress and maybe we can chat with Bill on the side of the stage about how 15,000 people die of AIDS in Africa every day.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:19 am
TwoWheel - tell us what you REALLY think though… :)
frankly, I think Hillary’s sheen has worn thin, as has been stated here eloquently. While she can dish it out with the big boys, there’s a cost to acquiring that skill, and it is a certain amount of time spent with dirty hands, or the appearance thereof.
While she’s aggressive, she’s not going to CHANGE anything. She’s a vote for a certain amount of status quo. In my opinion.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Notice I didn’t mention anything about gender, etc. Because it DOESN’T MATTER.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Folks, I could make this go on forever if I keep responding, but man, it’s fun to have this conversation!
To ThatOneGuy: I understand that all us want gender NOT to matter. And notice, Hillary C. rarely raises the matter unless she’s attacked on that basis (I think she and Bill have both learned through hard experience that when attacked with distortions or straight-out lies, you fight back — hard)or unless someone asks her about her gender specifically.
The truth is, though, it does matter and we’re still very polarized about gender and politics. I’m not kidding when I wrote in the initial blog about the sexist bull—t my stepdaughter Jenny Wilson had to put up with in the primary race for Salt Lake mayor. Her age and looks (especially her petite stature) and gender and parental status came up in numerous stories in the mainstream press — even in headlines. And gender was often the subtext at debates with the male candidates, too.Everyone was cordial and tactful, but her gender was often the elephant in the room, as far as I could tell. Typically, the issue came up framed as her “lack of experience.” Which no one ever asked of Jon Huntsman Jr. or Jim Matheson or any number of men who ran for even much “bigger positions” who didn’t have even an inkling of Jenny’s political, management and policy experience.
That said…
I’ve never suggested that a woman simply be elected because of her gender. But again, just getting more women and minorities in office, hammering away at it continually, will go a long way in changing the landscape of politics and who holds power in this country.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Fact is Hillary is continually diminished as Letterman rails on her laugh and columnists comment on her clothes and hair. She is small, blonde, and agressive and therefore portrayed in a kind-of-Deedee Corradini way: “wishes she were a man so she acts like one.” It is sexism at its basic and scurolous worst and I will vote for her hell or high water because if the Repubs are out in force to scuttle her it will reveal the kind of ugliness that starts revolutions and hell, when it comes to women in public life, we need it. In the words of our Ner-do-well, “Bring it on.”
October 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Holly… perhaps a better sentence from me: IT SHOULDN’T MATTER…
But certainly, many make it matter. I wonder if they do that out of a sense of searching for SOMETHING easy to toss the poop at.
Unfortunate that it happens, and I know Jenny ran a good race. What Rocky did was deplorable. Interesting, not many years ago, I was a great fan of his. He just kept giving us all nails, then the hammer to be used in locking him in his own tiny, chauvinistic room, didn’t he?
And some blind members of the general public bought it.
It SHOULDN’T matter. But alas, in the end apparently and in some circles, it does indeed.
Love this blog, Holly. Really.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I don’t have any problems with Hillary taking lobby money since I’m a member of a teacher’s union. Lobbying is the way my voice is heard, although I would applaud Reform.
My dislike for Hillary has to do with 1) Iraq and 2) her backing off on universal health care.
I was impressed with Obama until he, too, started showing his politician’s colors, changing like leaves in autumn.
I’m still saving my $$$ for Gore but I agree that it’s now probably too late so will vote for Dennis Kucinich in our primary. Then, assuming Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, I will vote for her (but not send her any $$$).
October 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I am at work on another rainy, snowy saturday: good thing I got a run in earlier.
*
In looking over the NY Times I read over the controversy about the senate vote going along with the administration’s request that the Senate declare the Iran National guard a terrorist organization. Hillary voted for the bill which has gotten her a lot of flak especially from the more liberal wing: but the claim is that she is positioning herself for the main election against Rudy, not worrying about the other demo rivals. The wisdom of that approach is open to question but,
*
and THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF THIS POST,
*
is that Obama did not bother to vote. Biden did and voted against, Chris Dodd also voted against it, but Obama did not bother to vote. Why not? Not worth the hassle to fly back for seemingly such an important vote? Or did he not want to be on record with a specific vote. It is easy to say “I would have voted against it” and then recant such a statement, but you can’t claim a re-do on a cast vote.
*
Just another example, to me, of why Obama is NOT ready for prime time.
*
Now it is time to head out in the snow to Kings English and buy some Doris Lessing.