Ambivalence
I have a working hypothesis about 2008: Democratic voters will support Hillary if she’s the nominee. But, the party’s base just doesn’t really care for her, they aren’t excited about her and they want someone - Edwards, Obama, Richardson - to take her down.Â
She has many virtues. Thinking back to election night 2006, she was on a high from winning re-election, she delivered a great off the cuff speech. She’s extremely disciplined. The wingnuts have thrown the worst they had at her and she’s not only still standing, she’s thriving. She’s smart - very possibly smarter than Bill and that’s saying something. In terms of policy, she looks like a model technocrat - someone who will do with absolute competence what needs done. Those are good things.Â
But, it sometimes seems she’s out of step. Since 2000 she’s done some really disappointing things.  She’s sided with Bush and his team more often than she should have. She’s tried to split the difference between “stay in Iraq forever” and “Get the holy hanna out of that sandy pit of death” - and there’s no middle ground on that one. Her “Liberal Hawk” routine is just too damn close to Lieberman’s “The party left me” jig to be really trustworthy. The 1990s were the era of competent technocrats. George W. Bush, Karl Rove and the congressional gang of thieves have spent years playing a scorched earth brand of politics. What’s needed is not just competence, but vision - it’s time for a new FDR and right now it doesn’t look like Hillary fills those shoes.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I certainly fit that demographic, Glenden. I really, really, would rather vote for Senator Obama or former Senator Edwards. However, if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her. Especially when I see the alternatives (I find the prospect of a Giuliani presidency terrifying, and a Romney or McCain presidency would further exacerbate the global issues we face, and ignore many of the domestic issues that the Bush administration has ignored.
Given the alternatives, a Clinton presidency would be a god-send.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I’m 100% behind Obama, but I really like the rest of the candidates, with the exception of Hillary. I’m scared to death of having to choose the lesser of two evils, instead of being able to cast a vote I believe in.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Just to let you know, I know some monied republicans, investors, businessmen, and the like. In the absence of a viable republican they will vote for hillary they say, as a vote for o’bomber is a vote for more social spending and taxes.
They are most secure in the notion that hillary is bought and paid for by corporate America, and will not turn on the insurance industry vis a vis the health care system. She learned her lesson, and wants to make it through her term.
That’s right folks, the thinking republicans will be voting for hillary, because once again, she is bought and paid for. The christian right, they are so dumb, they still don’t believe bush has sold them down the river, on the war, immigration, secure borders, government spending, etc., so honestly, who cares? They aren’t factor this time round.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:27 am
Andrew Sullivan offered a good suggestion Hillary’s competition: attack Giuliani. In last night’s debate, only Joe Biden took the advice. At this point, it looks like the best Dem to nominate will be someone who can ridicule Rudy’s “every day is 9/11″ campaign. Hillary pushes the fear agenda herself, so she’s not the right candidate.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:35 am
In 2006, voters were mainly voting against Republicans. In 2008, we need a nominee who can convince voters why they should vote for Democrats. I see Edwards and Obama making that case, but Hillary’s message is why people should vote for Hillary.