Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Friday, November 04, 2011

The case for Hillary

I'm no great fan of Hillary Clinton these days. But our friend Brent Budowsky makes a good case. The words below the asterisks are his...

* * *

The true political state of the union is best revealed in a recent poll in Time magazine that found that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would win an epic and possibly realigning landslide in a presidential election against any Republican candidate.

First, the numbers. Then, the reasons.

In the Time poll, Clinton would defeat Mitt Romney by a whopping 55 percent to 38 percent. She would defeat Rick Perry by an even more devastating 58 percent to 32 percent.

These are realigning numbers. In this hypothetical match-up, the Clinton landslide would be so huge, and the Republican defeat so catastrophic, that Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the House and maintain control of the Senate.

In the Time poll, President Obama also defeats any candidate in the Republican field, though by far smaller margins than Clinton. Anyone who suggests that “Obama is toast” should not be taken seriously.

I believe the president, whom I support, would be a slight favorite in a close election against Romney, and could win a landslide against other Republicans, who have not come close to crossing the threshold of being serious contenders for commander in chief.

The lesson of the Time poll, which I believe would be replicated in other polls, though possibly not as dramatically, is this:

The next great realignment in American politics is very likely to be a Democratic realignment. It cannot be a Republican realignment, because the GOP has moved so far to the extreme right that it is now far outside the mainstream of American opinion.

While it is true that Hillary Clinton’s huge popularity is partly due to her being removed from partisan politics as secretary of State, there are other powerful messages for both parties in her soaring popularity.

Hillary Clinton represents the brand of the Democratic Party embodied by traditional Democratic presidents in hard economic times. She is identified with the great prosperity of the Bill Clinton presidency. But there are other powerful forces at work:

Hillary Clinton is part of what I once called “The Female Century.” Throughout the nation and around the world there is an epochal movement toward true equality for women.

By contrast, some Republicans slander Planned Parenthood. Many Republicans aggressively oppose pay equity for women. Congressional Republicans launch hostile attacks on countless programs that benefit women.

I have written before, and will write again, that a tidal wave of support from female voters will be a powerful factor helping the president and Democrats in 2012.

This “woman power” that benefits Hillary Clinton with women now benefits her with many men as well. In an economy where many view the 1 percent as unfairly gaining at the expense of the other 99 percent, Hillary Clinton is seen as a fighter. She never gives up. She is a voice for those who feel disempowered, including white male blue-collar workers, blacks who feel trapped in joblessness and injustice, Hispanics who are told their dreams can no longer come true and seniors who trust Hillary Clinton as their protector.

Hillary Clinton will not run for president in 2012. She will be one of the greatest assets of President Obama, who had the good judgment to name her secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton disproves the notion that America is a rightist nation. If the 2016 election were held today, America would not turn to the right, it would turn to Clinton.

In the eyes of voters, Hillary Clinton is the North Star of an America where Democrats act like Democrats and where every woman deserves equal pay, every worker deserves a job and nobody should be left behind.

The great source of Clinton’s strength is that the dreams of women are the dreams for all. Dorothy Rodham was one great mom who raised one great daughter. If Democrats remember why, they will do just fine in 2012.

* * *

Cannon here: A few posts down, we described how a reader of this blog contacted the Obama campaign in order to find out his stance on further cuts to Medicare. The staffers replied that he doesn't have a stance. Not yet.

I still can't get my mind around that response. A Democratic president who doesn't have a position on such a clearly Democratic issue: Is such a thing possible?

Say what you will about Hillary: She would have had an answer to that question.

I don't dislike Obama as thoroughly as I used to, if only because he has been doing a few of the right things lately. But his is still -- and always will be -- a failed presidency. The best thing that Obama can do for his country right now is quit.
Comments:
I have always been a great admirer of Hillary. She's a fighter, politically savvy, and can think on her feet. I voted for her in the primary, but did not vote for Obama. I always thought he was a fraud from the beginning -just everything about him was phony and narcissistic, and my view of him hasn't changed. He's like Bush - on steroids.

I realize that Hillary has to carry out the policies of the White House, but the thing that troubles me is that she's too hawkish. I'm just not sure if that's who she really is or would she continue to build the American empire and engage the country in more wars. I would love to see a woman president in the next decade, but I am so tired of fighting stupid wars.
 
You can say I'm not serious. But, between his own bad performance, the enthusiasm gap, and Republican electoral chicanery, I say Obama is toast. Look for another great shellacking in 2012. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.
 
Should Hillary decide to run the print and broadcast media will savage her mercilessly and her numbers will fall. There is a boat load of "journalists" who put their reputations on the line by supporting Obama and more who are jealous of Hillary's accomplishments waiting for the chance to strike.

Mary, you are not going to get 100% of what you want from any politician but with a Hillary Clinton you might get 80% verses 10% from Obama. When you say too hawkish, compared to whom?

Oh, and any Democrat that weasels on Social Security is spitting on FDR's head stone. It's that simple.
 
Should Hillary decide to run the print and broadcast media will savage her mercilessly and her numbers will fall. There is a boat load of "journalists" who put their reputations on the line by supporting Obama and more who are jealous of Hillary's accomplishments waiting for the chance to strike.

Mary, you are not going to get 100% of what you want from any politician but with a Hillary Clinton you might get 80% verses 10% from Obama. When you say too hawkish, compared to whom?

Oh, and any Democrat that weasels on Social Security is spitting on FDR's head stone. It's that simple.
 
I'm with Mary except I don't think of SOS or Sen. Clinton's positions as being particularly hawkish-- I'd call them realistic-- there is a significant number of people in the world who wants us (U.S.) all dead.
 
I wish you had titled this with your last line: "the best thing Obama could do for the country is QUIT." That is absolute gospel.

All those pretty words of praise the doddering Brent Budowsky (GAWD I remember puking every time Buzzflash posted his...work...) add up to...what? People should vote Dem because Hillary exists even if she's not running? He's basically trying to sweet-talk women into voting for the fraud in the White House...who defrauded Hillary, accepting votes for her gifted to him. Nice try. No dice, from this woman.

Also, please specify exactly what Obama is doing "right" now....except blathering platitudes exactly as he did the last campaign season.
 
Oh, wow....but thanks for linking to "our friend" Brent.... happily, the second comment there was obviously written by Riverdaughter (RD) and I'm still lmao:
-clip-
Jeez, is Karl Rove writing the campaign narratives for the Democrats this year? Because that sounds incredibly lame. "yay! Obama can get to victory by hanging onto tge coattails of his Secretary of State who everyone likes better but won't be serving after 2012! See? I am a good and loyal Democrat for supporting Obama no matter what!".

Yeah, that would motivate me to vote for him.
{{rolling eyes}}
-clip-

I will be grinning the rest of the day.
 
Joe Cannon said:

"The best thing that Obama can do for his country right now is quit."

Too true. I've been saying this all along. But the realist in me knows that Obama and most pols these days are not acting in the interest of their country. Obama is acting out of self-interest and perhaps, even self-preservation. When you've sold your soul, you do what the Master tells you to do.

I am and continue to be a huge Hillary admirer. I don't agree with her 'hawkish' stands but I'm willing to admit that she knows a hell of a lot more than I do about the issues. But domestically, I think we'd be far better off under a Clinton Administration than the current 'O' mode we're in. Obama not having a stance on Medicare or on any controversial issue should not come as a surprise. This is the same man who voted 'present' to important issues while serving as an Illinois Senator. When you have little vision and fewer principles, it's easy to be 'stanceless.' Obama is no FDR Democrat. He's Republican-lite and he will do whatever he thinks will get him reelected. I don't trust his sudden flirtation with a populist agenda--the dance is too little, too late. I can't say I hate the man [in fact, hating on Obama is a distraction] but he will not get my vote in 2012.

Btw, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. A vote for an empty suit is an empty vote.

Peggy Sue
 
What a joke. Voted for the Iraq War, hoping for a quick victory. Gave no help to Kucinich in desire to cut off war funds. Shows women can also be vicious imperialists.

Hispanics drive down worker's wages,in tandem with Big Biz GOP Rethugs.

Women's lib Hillary style reduces needed ample birthrate of the founding core. Ditto "pay equity" in those terms--but it is favorable to subsidize time off from work for pregnancy (and increased birthrates ala Putin's efforts.)

Yeah I know, liberals but certainly not national communists believe founding ethnic cores are replaceable with the original national identity and national stability of course continuing.
But Stalin defeated Trotsky and since then only national communism prevailed. Be careful what you call "progressive."
 
"I don't dislike Obama as thoroughly as I used to, if only because he has been doing a few of the right things lately"

Can't think of anything he'd done for the 99%

"He's Republican-lite"

In fact, everything he's done is for the 1%.

So, what's he done right, and how can you possibly think he's lite?
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind