RSSWhy are we having such a bad reaction to Hillary?
Apr 28
I used the term “we” in the headline very loosely. It does seem, though, that a (vast) majority of the “liberal” community is hoping for Obama rather than Clinton. It’s gotten to the point that I’ve had to stop watching and reading too much political commentary, mostly because of primary-fatigue but I also have started getting agitated any time I see Hillary. I’ve started trying to figure out where this reaction to her comes from.
I guess the first and most obvious reason is that she’s at least holding up, or at worst stopping, the person I’d really like to see win the nomination. But, this is countered by the fact that I think she would be at least a decent president. Given that, you would think it’s a win-win, but to some extent the prospect of President McCain bothers me less than President Hillary. WTF?
When I really get into it, my thought that she would be a decent president is within the scope of recent presidents. Obviously she would be much better than Bush. Yet, what a lot of people are hoping for is a break from the past. Maybe what I meant above is that she would be at least a decent “executive to hold the office of president”. I don’t think she would screw anything up, she would focus on some important issues, have some wins and some losses, etc. She isn’t a game-changer or a visionary.
The other interesting thing is Bills involvement. I, as I believe most liberal people do too, look back on him as at least a good president. He was definitely more of a centrist than a liberal, which was probably appropriate for the time, but progressives are looking for more right now and I think that’s another huge component of my attitude towards Hillary. Bill and Hillary are proven to not be shy of sending troops to war and have not ever gone to bat for any big climate-change related issues.
Barak, on the other hand, could be a game-changer or visionary. True, we don’t know that for sure, but there’s a hope of it. The US political system is so corrupt, divisive and poisonous right now that I think it’s worth taking a gamble for anyone who might try to fix it.
Lastly, to clarify my comments on McCain above, all I can say is that I’m confused. I had respect for McCain of 2000 but am unsure if todays McCain is a result of knowing he has to pander to the right to get into office or because he’s going senile in old age. While I don’t agree with his aggressive foreign policy stance I also don’t agree with the far left that the US should immediately and fully withdraw from Iraq after destroying the country.
May 01, 2008 @ 10:38:54
“Barak, on the other hand, could be a game-changer”
He had a chance to be with the ‘Reverend Wright’ pseudo-contraversy. It was obviously just some random clip drudged up by his opponents to embarass him. He should have more firmly defended his pastor and refused to distance himself, on sheer principle.
Career candidates like Clinton and McCain know the game well. They quickly respond to such stories by issuing cookie-cutter statements distancing themselves. We see how well both of them play the game and we wonder how much of it is real and how much is a facade they put on because they think it’ll get them elected. Most people respect both politicians political savvy, but after 2 terms of Bush we’ve learned to distrust it.
I think people were hoping Barak would refuse to play that game and stand up for his beliefs. But instead, the airtime he could have used to talk about the dirty politics of 24-hour-news, went to Reverend Wright for more embarassing sound bites. In the end, some white voters will drift away because Barak isn’t being the bridge=builder they hope for, and some black voters will drift away because he doesn’t represent them the way they hoped for.
Hillary plays to win. She’s a fighter. People want a president who’s a fighter and a leader, not a wishy-washy bureaucrat (see Bush v Kerry). That, above all else, inspires people to vote for you.