Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Obama for VP | Overheard in the Office »

Monday, February 4, 2008

The Hillary Haters

posted by on February 4 at 17:17 PM

Stanley Fish, writing on the NYTimes web site, points to a great piece in last month’s GQ about the baffling beliefs of the “Hillary Haters”—Clinton opponents for whom Hillary is “an empty vessel into which they can pour anything they detest about politicians, ambitious women, and an American culture they fear is being wrested from their control.” A sample:

By now, Clinton’s flaws as a candidate are well-known—the problems giving a straight answer, the warmth and authenticity issues—but they’re also fairly typical for a politician. Here in Dallas, though, and in the rest of anti-Hillary land, the hostility toward Clinton tends to be expressed in bafflingly vague and emotional terms. Discussions with self-declared enemies of Hillary Clinton, prominent and not, across the country yield a head-spinning barrage of motivations for their ill will, but one thing is immediately clear: Few if any have anything to do with the mandated insurance coverage of Clinton’s health care plan (or HillaryCare, in hater parlance), her carefully triangulated position on Iran, or her incremental shift against the war in Iraq.

Instead, they say she is an extremist left-wing flower child masquerading as a moderate, or a warmongering hawk disguised as a liberal. She’s a liar and a lesbian (short hair! pantsuits!), a cold fish and an adulteress. She has no maternal instincts and is hobbled by a debilitating case of insecurity, for which she compensates by acting like a thug. She is the spineless wife of a habitual cheat, and the willful enabler of her husband’s affairs. She’s in politics to keep Bill around, and she ran for the Senate, and then the presidency, to exact revenge for his philandering. She has no God, or her devoutness is frighteningly fundamentalist. She’s a condescending elitist who sees people—even her friends—as steps on a stairway to the presidency. She is a partisan, a panderer, the personification of everything that is wrong with America.

Obama fans will point to this stuff as an argument for their candidate—he’s a uniter, she’s a divider, etc.—but I think it’s evidence that we need (divisive, controversial) Hillary more than ever. The Republican Party has become a party where anti-progressive conspiracy theorist whack jobs feel right at home; what the Democrats need is a President who’ll isolate those people and fight hard against them, not one who wants to bring them into the fold.

As Hillary put it herself in last week’s New Yorker:

If elected President, Clinton acknowledged, she would have to use unifying rhetoric and reach across partisan lines. But Clinton is less sanguine than Obama is about the possibilities of such efforts; she is readier to march ahead and let those who will follow do so. “It’s also important to say, ‘Look, there are certain things we have to do as a country. You may not agree, but let me explain why, and let me try to persuade you. But if I can’t persuade you, we have to go forward anyway.’

GQ article here; New Yorker here.

RSS icon Comments

1

Mark Penn is evil. Anyone who has a problem with Karl Rove should have a problem with Mark Penn. If he's part of a Clinton administration what will have changed?

And every Hillary Supporter should read the following:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/if-in-doubt-pla.html
Posted by ghostlawns | February 4, 2008 5:23 PM
2

her domestic economic policy is a joke.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:24 PM
3

Sigh.

Look, the reality is that both Obama and Clinton are very well qualified and capable of being President.

The decision really comes down to one thing - which one is ready to be President now, in the 21st Century, and which one is still stuck in the past in the 20th Century?

Forget the Red Bushie Party, they're stuck in - at best - the 18th Century (and some in the 8th Century).

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 5:26 PM
4

If elected President, Clinton acknowledged, she would have to use unifying rhetoric and reach across partisan lines. But Clinton is less sanguine than Obama is about the possibilities of such efforts; she is readier to march ahead and let those who will follow do so. “It’s also important to say, ‘Look, there are certain things we have to do as a country. You may not agree, but let me explain why, and let me try to persuade you. But if I can’t persuade you, we have to go forward anyway.’

this quote alone reminds me of bush enough to make me question pro hillary people. bush used this exact reasoning to push his idiotic policies. anyone that goes for this kind of statement is truly just the other side of the bush coin.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:27 PM
5

ECB's back! Excellent.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:29 PM
6

Yah ECB's back!

And still has no clue as to how her pro-HRC arguments actually work in Obama's favor.

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 5:33 PM
7

I spoke to my mother the other day about why she would never vote for Hilary, and I was surprised by her answer. My Mom won't vote for Hilary because voting for Hilary puts Bill back in the White House. She likened Bill to Billy Carter.

For my mother, at least, Bill's behavior is the reason not to vote for Hilary.

Posted by Phelix | February 4, 2008 5:33 PM
8

my mother is the same way phelix. she cant take any more of the clinton way of doing things. she supports mccain over hillary and obama over all.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:35 PM
9

Bellevue@4, anyone who believes that Obama or anyone else is going to magically cut through the partisanship in Washington in this election cycle is living in such a fucking fairytale land. Republicans:

* Want to stay in Iraq forever.
* Want to teach creationism.
* Want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
* Want to cut taxes for the rich.
* Want to cut all social services.

These are the facts. They won't change on November 5th. The only way we can reduce partisanship is the thoroughly defeat the Republicans so badly that both the war hawks and evangelical agenda are fatally discredited. Then we can slowly start rebuilding.

Hills should have the heavy lifting just about done in time for Obama's first election in 2016.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:36 PM
10

Nice strawwoman, Erica.

We already saw what the Clintons do when their backs are up against the wall: progressives get thrown overboard. I don't think we have to doubt their ability to work woth Republicans; we do have to doubt if anything good is going to come of it.

And the odds of that situation occuring increase with Clinton's downticket toxicity. Obama won't win any southern states but he will make it a lot easier for local Dems to get elected to Congress. Clinton is electoral poison. That's why practically no Red state Dem wanted her anywhere near their campaign.

When the going gets tough, the Clintons look out for themselves and no one else.

Anyone who believes otherwise? I think there's a phrase for that:
"Naïve and irresponsible".

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 5:36 PM
11

@1:
WoW! Thanx for the link. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 5:37 PM
12
Posted by Mike of Renton | February 4, 2008 5:41 PM
13

Bellevue Ave@4--I totally got the Bush vibe from that New Yorker quote, too. "But if I can’t persuade you, we have to go forward anyway." Shudder.

Posted by PZ | February 4, 2008 5:42 PM
14

Heh... My mother supports Obama over Hilary, but McCain over all. We have mirrored mothers, BA.

Posted by Phelix | February 4, 2008 5:44 PM
15

Wow, Erica. You like divisiveness, eh? Why don't we arm every citizen and let everything work itself out.

Posted by McCain FTW! | February 4, 2008 5:47 PM
16

ECB did it here and someone I had dinner with over the weekend did the same thing. When asked why they are Clinton supporters they don't say "She will accomplish xyz" they always say "she will fight for xyz." Not exactly the same thing.

Do I want to have a noble fight for Universal Health Care that will certainly work out as well as it did 15 years ago the last time she did it? No, I'd rather have an incremental improvement that will let people who want it get health insurance now.

Posted by mikeblanco | February 4, 2008 5:47 PM
17

thanks for finally posting this erica. it's lame that you have to be the only one who can present the other side.

Posted by um | February 4, 2008 5:48 PM
18

@13: I guess I don't find it all that scary ("shudder"?) when a Democrat says she'll fight hard against REPUBLICAN policies instead of agreeing to a consensus Republicans will support. Obama's talk of compromise and consensus is what I find truly scary.

Posted by ECB | February 4, 2008 5:50 PM
19

My parents in AZ had already mailed in their ballots for Edwards. Since he's out, they're planning on voting Republican in Nov.

Posted by Mike of Renton | February 4, 2008 5:51 PM
20

McCain@15 is right, Erica. How dare you support someone other than Obama?!?

Don't you realize that he's different? And cuddly? And sincere? He's got an excellent speaking voice. Have you seen his nice ads? Don't you want America to be happy?

Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:53 PM
21

@6 has it best.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 5:53 PM
22

wait, you're saying her divisiveness is her strength, but hillary is saying she would resort to "unifying rhetoric" and "reach across partisan lines" if elected. sounds kinda like she's living in a fairy tale, doesn't it?

Posted by brandon | February 4, 2008 5:53 PM
23

Seriously Erica,

You really need to get laid. Why don't you go down to pioneer square and get some young frat boy really drunk so that he will do it with you.

Then you will stop the silly attempt at making a republican (hillary) look good to democrats (fake liberals).

Or at least rub one out. Just think of Justin Timberlake while you touch your naughty bits.

Posted by ecce homo | February 4, 2008 5:54 PM
24

Mike of Renton@19:

My parents in AZ had already mailed in their ballots for Edwards. Since he's out, they're planning on voting Republican in Nov.

How unfortunate. Have you considered electroshock / durable power of attorney?

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 5:55 PM
25

@ 12 Thanks for that link Mike

Hillary supporters really don't want to hear that argument though.. as they can do nothing to refute, discredit or deny the reality of that fact.

I've continually pounded this storyline for weeks, and hopefully those who are wavering on voting for Hillary will realize their candidate will doom the Democratic party, irrespective of how much they really super truly do wish that she will be a swell girl in office.

And you know what the kicker is? In the swing states that are the ones that will decide this election... THEY HATE HILLARY THE MOST! Well... except for the state's of Michigan and Florida where she cheated to get delegate's in the first place. But come the general election, there will be so many rabid haters that will energize and mobilize to campaign and vote just to make SURE she never sees the Oval Office.

As I've said before, all the people here reading SLOG have no real idea how deep the hatred runs for her in the rest of the country where the swing votes are... all of you really need a stronger dose of reality.

Just sayin...

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | February 4, 2008 5:57 PM
26

My parents in New Mexico said they'll vote for McCain or Obama. I asked them "what if its McCain vs. Obama" and then they said "depends on how the War is going".

Listen, I know the Hillary hatred is irrational. I know its unfair. I know its sexist. It's terrible. But independents who vote on those mushy, "trust", "who is more presidential" issues don't like Hillary. I wish they did. But they don't. The Republican Party is fractured and we really need to take advantage of it, not pour more salt in the wounds.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 5:57 PM
27

is that the new line that hillary is throwing all of you? hillary for 8, obama for 8? ha! this is a fucking hillary political piece? this sounds like desperation from hillary.

ECB, be fucking pragmatic. you'd rather lose an election by having hillary run as the nom, than have a fucking democrat be elected into the whitehouse. thats absurd for a progressive.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 5:59 PM
28

ECB - re: "instead of agreeing to a consensus Republicans will support. Obama's talk of compromise and consensus is what I find truly scary."

There is a world of difference between 1) selecting and working on issues that cross party boundaries and 2) compromising on issues that divide us. Obama's approach is the former.

Posted by LH | February 4, 2008 6:01 PM
29

@10: As a luke warm McCain supporter, I am an enthusiastic Billary supporter (maxxed out doaner here!) I know that she is the best hope for Conservatives everywhere.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | February 4, 2008 6:02 PM
30

...yeah, divisiveness has worked so well over the last eight years of Bush.

What is with that lately? Instead of demanding that the next (Democrat) president moves the country forward, you and so many other Dems just want to sit in the same rut of extreme partisanship, so you can have a turn to bully the Republicans after they've bullied you for the last eight years.

Posted by Hernandez | February 4, 2008 6:03 PM
31

Holy cow everyone, my mom says the same things 1) McCain over Clinton 2) doesn't want Bill in the office 3) not sure in regards to McCain vs. Obama.

Is it just me who finds that strange?

Posted by Marty | February 4, 2008 6:05 PM
32

I agree with Hillary that her prospects for creating a working majority are slim. She will use her veto; the Republicans will use their filibuster. Hooray?

I don't agree with Stanley Fish that a centrist politician being attacked from both the left and the right is anything unusual, or that it proves her critics are mad. Stanley Fish has discovered nothing more than Hillary is a centrist, and that's not news.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 6:06 PM
33

@18

Yeah! She'll fight against Republican policies like the Defense of Marriage act... Errr. The flag burning ammendment! Well, I mean, the Iraq War, uhm.. Welfare reform? No wait, how about media consolidation? Erm, well..

Seriously, Erica, it's like your political memory didn't start until Clinton announced she was running. Some of us actually remember the 90s and notice how her current rhetoric is drastically at odds with what actually happened when she and her husband were in the White House.

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 6:06 PM
34

Dear The Stranger Editors,

Why hasn't eccee's ip been banned yet? For fucking serious.

love,
a Slog Commenter

Posted by a Slog commenter | February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
35

and speaking of doing the bidding of the far right, I got sent this last night, written by another, I hope the author doesn't mind me posting it here:

Here is what Barack said at the time of the invasion of Iraq:

“I know that Saddam poses no imminent or direct threat to the United States… I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that…invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale… without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab World, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.”

Here is what Lincoln Chafee, former Senator from Rhode Island and the only Republican to vote against the war resolution, writes in his upcoming book:

“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president. Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill. They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”

I remember when the war started. I wasn’t duped for a moment. Why is that? Because Bush’s chief foreign policy advisors—Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle—were members of a neo-con group called the Project for a New American Century. In 1998, three years before 9/11, they wrote a letter to President Clinton urging military action against Iraq, and suddenly history had provided them with a “Reichstag Fire” moment to mobilize popular support for what they already wanted to do.

Did Hillary, as self-described policy partner with Bill, not know this background (asleep at the wheel) or did she not factor it in (utter naiveté)? Either way, it should cast doubt on the value of her foreign policy experience. She voted on the war resolution without having read the NIE intelligence report. She opposed the Levin Amendment which would have forced the president to seek a UN Resolution and return to Congress if he failed. She explained her vote in these words: “The Levin Amendment, in my view, gave the security council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe this is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is the president.” That is a Republican talking point, right out of the mouth of John Bolten, who worked so tirelessly to destroy the institution. We founded the UN and must always champion the idea of International Law.

Chafee thinks the explanation for her votes is simpler. The Democrats allowed themselves to be bullied by a then-popular President because they thought the war would be as short as Gulf War One and they didn’t want to go on record as having opposed it. “The top Democrats,” writes Chafee, “were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were. They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11th world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped the President send thousands of Americans and uncounted Iraqis to their doom.”

Kerry did the same thing. That’s why his explanation was so convoluted. He couldn’t state the truth and people sensed that he wasn’t doing it. It killed him in the debates. Hillary is in exactly the same position and Wolf Blitzer will not stop nailing her on it.

Barack’s judgment, prophetic and dead-on, trumps Hillary’s. Ask yourself: why would you trust her to make a better call the next time?


Posted by LH | February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
36

Is it just me, or are there two diametrically opposed opinions in this piece?

1) Opponents of Hilary are largely irrational and driven by vague hatred rather than disagreements about policy, and

2) Hilary is not interested in convincing those who oppose her that her policy is sound and is plans to just tell them to f*ck off if they don't agree.

Which is it? Are her opponents policy driven or personality driven? It seems to be that the answer is probably "some of both", but this post asserts both positions emphatically, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Posted by also | February 4, 2008 6:10 PM
37

You can't ban ecco's IP number, because he will just start posting ten times more often from all of the thousands of open proxies out there.

What you need to do is break his fingers.

Posted by Fnarf | February 4, 2008 6:11 PM
38

WTF.... ARE WE NOT ALL DEMOCRATS?
When it comes to the general election, I sincerely hope that who ever the nominee is, we all get behind him or her....

If you want 4 more years of war, costing TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS... go right ahead and vote for JOHN "I BE IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS" MCCAIN.


NEXT SATURDAY
I am voting on the records.

OBAMA = present (that his main voting record in making any type of decision)

CLINTON = doing something for the country like pledging to UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

GO Hillary 08


Posted by Kyle | February 4, 2008 6:16 PM
39

kyle, no, we arent all democrats. sorry. obama has my vote, hillary does not. how can you reconcile that?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 6:18 PM
40

I find it funny that while both authors (rightly) denounce unhinged and irrational Hillary haters, they both also oh-so-casually mention many of the valid reasons not to vote for her!

Posted by banjoboy | February 4, 2008 6:19 PM
41

@37 once again fnarf is the only reasonable one here. i nominate him for Slog-sainthood

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 4, 2008 6:20 PM
42

Fun fact about "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE" to ponder while Hillary is garnishing your wages - individual mandates were first pushed by Newt Gingrich.

Looks like Hillary agrees that the GOP was the "party of ideas" during the 90s judging by how many of them she's supported.

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 6:22 PM
43

No, Kyle, we are not all Democrats. Next question...

Posted by Sheesh | February 4, 2008 6:23 PM
44

While we're saying what our moms feel about the election ...

My mom likes Hillary best of all the candidates. She says Obama scares her. But she never votes in primaries and votes straight D in every general election.

Posted by Jocelyn | February 4, 2008 6:23 PM
45

The problem is that Hillary has never shown ANY aptitude at isolating Republicans. She has, however, plenty of experience in energizing people to oppose her vehemently.

Yay for experience!

Posted by Andrew | February 4, 2008 6:26 PM
46

Hillary is definitely waaaay over-hated, but it comes to two things, both of which are obvious, and one of which is really sad:

* Most men and women in the U.S. hate women
* Hillary comes off so much like Nixonian mother wagging her finger at you

Hillary is a smart candidate, but she's bringing out that inner rage most people have toward their nagging mothers. "You BETTER vote for me if you know what's good for you *scowl*" is the inner dialog bubble people are putting hovering over Hillary, no matter what actual good or bad comes from her mouth.

McCain is your fun although kinda-scary grandfather that you run to when you've had enough of Mom, so he can spoil you.

Obama is your sage hip cousin.

Posted by mackro mackro | February 4, 2008 6:31 PM
47

I should add "hate women in position of power"

Posted by mackro mackro | February 4, 2008 6:32 PM
48

One of the few upsides to being the subject of a lot of irrational hatred is that it makes it easier to dismiss the rational criticism as well.

ECB has figured this out herself.

Posted by tsm | February 4, 2008 6:37 PM
49

@48:

Ding ding ding ding

We have a winner!

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 6:44 PM
50

Yes ECB. I'll watch her leave us fags behind like her husband did as she "marches ahead" and lets those who follow do so.

Will I vote for her if she's the candidate in November? Most likely because while she's not a big supporter of us gays except under the premise that we remain second class citizens she's not there with the republican attack dogs wanting us to go back into the closet.

Obama has also said that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I also believe that he may be able to be shifted on that issue given the civil rights component.

Reminds me of Germany, 1933.

Posted by Dave Coffman | February 4, 2008 7:03 PM
51

Bellevue Ave@2 her domestic economic policy is a joke.
Really? Which parts? And Obama's domestic policy is...?

Bellevue Ave@4 If elected President, Clinton acknowledged, she would have to use unifying rhetoric and reach across partisan lines.
And Obama wouldn't? He's going to create some magical consensus. Wow!

Hal@6 ...And still has no clue as to how her pro-HRC arguments actually work in Obama's favor.
This doesn't even make any sense.

ru shur @10 We already saw what the Clintons do when their backs are up against the wall: progressives get thrown overboard.
I don't see that this is true, but if you think so, maybe that's because "progressives" don't represent the majority of the American public, let alone the majority of Democrats.

When the going gets tough, the Clintons look out for themselves and no one else.
Really? An easy accustation to throw out there but what exactly do you mean? A perfect example of the type of person profiled in the article.

LH@28 There is a world of difference between 1) selecting and working on issues that cross party boundaries and 2) compromising on issues that divide us. Obama's approach is the former.
What a bunch of garbage. As if Obama is going to (again) magically create consensus by "selecting and working on issues that cross party boundaries".
So Obama isn't going to tackle any of the tough issues? How naive!!!

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 4, 2008 7:10 PM
52

My Mother strongly supports Hillary. My Mother also pretty much hates men as a gender. So, uh, there you go...

ECB?

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 7:13 PM
53

OK, I'll try putting out a serious argument here, even though no one will probably read at this point.

What ECB, and Clinton supporters who laud her "toughness", seem to be asking for here is a Democratic version of the Rove machine, reproducing the paranoid style of politics on the left. Not only is this probably not good for our democracy in the long term, it simply will not work. A polarized environment will favor the right. That's just the current political climate.

And here's the point about Obama's bipartisanship rhetoric: It's not a capitulation, and it's not geared towards those who want to stay in Iraq forever, teach Creationism, overturn Roe v. Wade, cut taxes for the rich, and cut all social services, as Big Sven put it. Rather, it's an invitation to the other 60% of Republican-leaning voters, and independents. I know it may seem inconceivable to some of you that these people may exist in such large numbers. If you actually went out and spoke to the portion of Americans who don't follow politics as religiously as you (and I), though, you might find how completely alien this red-blue view of politics is to most people. Most of America just isn't fighting the culture war that you all seem to think it is. It's punditry and politicians that have gotten polarized; Obama's rhetoric isn't capitulation, but a rational strategy in which he's trying to talk over it.

I'll close with this quote from Grover Norquist:

"We are trying to change the tones in th state capitals ... and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship."

He thanks you all for trying to keep it going, no doubt (at the federal level, at least).

Posted by tsm | February 4, 2008 7:13 PM
54

nice cherry picks mike in pioneer square. why didnt you quote hillary at @4 in whole or my response in whole. are you a sophist?

she would go forward like george w. bush did with her own agenda, congress be damned. yeah, great.

also i am referring specifically to her real estate savior plans. i could explain to you why saving people who cant afford homes even after the freeze and eliminating any incentive to originate new mortgages in the face of such an idea is stupid, but if i have to explain it so thoroughly to you, you probably are beyond understanding. keeping the pain prolonged doesnt eliminate the pain.

no bailout for homeowners.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 7:17 PM
55

@51

Do you remember the 90s? Welfare reform? CDA? DOMA? Does any of that ring a bell? Or do you suffer from a tragically short political memory too?

Sure, after 8 years of Bush, they look like a Golden Age. But objectively, it was 2 decent years with some missed opportunities followed by 6 years of outright squandered ones as the Clintons moved right-ward to save their asses.

Now, you argue that Barack Obama *might* do the same, but in Hillary's case, we *know* she *will* do it again.

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 7:23 PM
56

God I love hating ECB's posts.

I really want her to post more often. I don't know why bu I'm attracted to the awfulness and she has become my favorite slog writer by far.

Posted by cbc | February 4, 2008 7:29 PM
57

Yes, what clinched it for me is that it seems like every Red State or Swing State independant I know dislikes Hillary but is willing to (or at least claims they are willing to) give Obama a try. I still have a lot of relatives in rural Wisconsin, Minnesota and New Mexico. This is where the election is decided: not SF, NYC, Vermont, etc. Hillary deserves the presidency, but I'm not willing to risk putting a divisive, GOP-uniting candidate on the ballot in Nov. The stakes are too high. I am convinced the rural swing state vote would overwhelmingly go McCain and that Hillary herself would be the wedge issue that made McCain-skeptical Evangelicals go to the polls.

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 7:31 PM
58

@56: ECB is kind of the Reno 911 of political commentary. It's entertaining, though kind of one-note.

Posted by also | February 4, 2008 7:43 PM
59

I just hope all the tough talkin' Obama supporters show if Clinton gets the nomination. Except Reality Check, who we know will be voting for the Republican.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 7:56 PM
60

sven, dont you get it yet? the people that support obama are a fan of the man, not the democratic party exclusively. people that like hillary are mostly democratic to begin with and would vote for obama if push came to shove. i swear, if you make it out tonight i will draw a diagram to show you this.

are democrats in the business of winning elections or in the business of trying to push the status quo of the democratic party.

also, do you honestly believe all those young voters are going to turn out of hillary wins? at least obama has shown they will come out for him.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:04 PM
61

tomorrow night i mean

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 8:06 PM
62

it's about bragging rights. it's like the super bowl, only when your team wins it lasts for 4 years instead of just 1.

Posted by brandon | February 4, 2008 8:16 PM
63

@59: I'm no "tough talkin'" Obama supporter, but I would definitely vote for Hilary. I'd be disappointed that the party decided to live in the 1990's, bought into the dynasty thing, and perpetuated a lot of what's been wrong in American politics for 35 years... but that's better than perpetuating a lot of what's been wrong in American policy in the past 8 years.

Posted by also | February 4, 2008 8:20 PM
64

The comments she made in the New Yorker ring true. I am voting for her at the caucuses on feb 9.

Posted by Mamas Girl | February 4, 2008 8:21 PM
65

I just hope all the tough talkin' Obama supporters show if Clinton gets the nomination. Except Reality Check, who we know will be voting for the Republican.

Third party all the way with me.

Posted by bma | February 4, 2008 8:23 PM
66

"I think it’s evidence that we need (divisive, controversial) Hillary more than ever."

Three things:
1) Hillary's not just hated by the far-right, as you imply. She's also hated by the large, squishy middle you need to get elected. This is why she can't win. I don't care what any electability poll says now, come November (especially if she's against McCain), the independents will flee from her in droves.

2) Obama doesn't want to "incorporate" the far-right fringe as you imply. He wants to incorporate the independents. Maybe the middle is too right-wing for you, but you need those people to get elected. Policy-wise, Obama's just as progressive as Clinton.

3) I think you're playing a propaganda game with these posts. The truth is, you want a female President and Clinton's a viable candidate to become one. I can respect that. But pretending your case for Hillary over Obama is based on something else-- or at least not tinged by gender-- is not credible. Everyone sees through it. I, too, would be happy to have a female president, and while Clinton wouldn't be my first choice, I'm sure she'd be very competent. But I don't believe she can be elected, not because she's a woman, per se (although I can't deny that plays a role), but because she's so divisive. So it becomes a question of whether it is more important to win the election or have a viable female candidate and four years of John McCain. I'm not convinced.

Posted by Mr Me | February 4, 2008 8:24 PM
67

Mike in Pioneer Square @ 52...I didn't write he won't take on "tough issues." The tough issues are the ones that affect us all the most and they are the same issues for which our divisions are exploited by the few who don't have the common interest at heart to protect - just so that we can't tackle them. The "common issues," are not soft balls; they're the issues that are the most critical to the largest number of people in their day to day lives.

Posted by LH | February 4, 2008 8:34 PM
68

Mr. Me @66: Yes, it's tinged by gender. No, it's not because of gender. I've been very straightforward about wanting a woman president, but being female alone isn't enough. I would never support Elizabeth Dole or Condolleezza Rice, for example. I actually do believe Clinton is the better, more qualified candidate for the job.

But I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

Posted by ECB | February 4, 2008 9:15 PM
69

Bellevue@60-

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it. But tomorrow night you can explain it to me again over a beer.

Posted by Big Sven | February 4, 2008 9:25 PM
70

Bellevue Ave@60...don't you get it? the people that support obama are a fan of the man, not the democratic party exclusively. people that like hillary are mostly democratic to begin with and would vote for obama if push came to shove.

No way. There is absolutely no way that I'm voting for that fake Obama no matter what. I don't even want him for vice-president.

Dear god! What makes you think the rest of America - "Walmart nation" and all - are going to vote for Obama. Based on what? His record? PURE FLUFF.

Posted by Mike in Pioneer Square | February 4, 2008 9:47 PM
71

@70,

You think the rest of America cares about a candidate's record?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 4, 2008 10:55 PM
72

Like HRC (& Prof. Gingrich) I supported Barry Goldwater's candidacy... and I'm their age... and perhaps that gives me a look into the machinations that have brought us to this place. It was my mistrust of Johnson that prompted me (& a naive conviction that congress would never go along with a war in VietNam... so I was wrong about congress & about Johnson's willingness to do the right thing about civil rights- even knowing as well as anyone what that meant. I don't know where HRC's politics took her... except that I have a sinking feeling that the triangulation strategies of Dave Gergen & Dick Morris mean far too much to her view of 'reality politics'. I had a "Ferraro/Mondale" sticker in '84, and would have supported a Pat Schroeder candidacy, if one had materialized. HRC's vote on the Iraq War was a shrewdly thought out 'policy' vote, to allay suspicions of her "softness" with regard to those 'hardball' "National Security" issues. I don't think that she considered it beyond that... it was a stepping stone test, to see if she could "play the Game" of serious national contender for higher office. Maybe it was also a 'pander' to the Israeli lobby (& the money there) in her own state... which some will consider a sign of "political maturity."
But for a black junior Senator to get up & speak his mind, openly & honestly, and let the chips fall where they may, was a display of character... and also clear & compassionate thinking. If he got that one thing right, with that kind of style, he's likely to get other things right, as well- and be less inclined to bow to pressures around "future sources of campaign funds" or "appearances of iron pants", in order to preserve a position based upon political considerations. ^..^

Posted by herbert browne | February 5, 2008 12:20 AM
73

“It’s also important to say, ‘Look, there are certain things we have to do as a country. You may not agree, but let me explain why, and let me try to persuade you. But if I can’t persuade you, we have to go forward anyway.’

Shorter Hillary Clinton: "It's gonna be MY WAY or THE HIGHWAY." If elected, she will have to try to use her position power to accomplish things, because she has little persuasive skill. Example: Who bought into her health care plan? Anybody? Bueller? As far as I can recall even Bill was lukewarm.

Hint: Leaders are in the front, not behind the people, jabbing them with a cattle prod.

Posted by obama fo' yo' mama | February 5, 2008 10:32 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).