Hillary Clinton -- who will never win in the general election -- is the current Democratic favorite for the 2008 nomination. Apparently, a lot of people are loopy enough to think that she can beat McCain.I'm not a Hillary-hater. But I'm realistic enough to understand that the Hillary-haters outnumber the Hilary-lovers. Right-wingers despise her with an irrational passion, while most Dems probably feel lukewarm toward her -- as I do.
Be honest. Have you ever met a single really enthusiastic Hillary fan?
8 comments:
I think it's interesting that you didn't even touch the media angle here, Joseph. Even in the highly unlikely even that Dems would support her any further than the primaries, (and I have to say that even I, even if my candidates don't or can't run and it does not appear that we have other marginally viable options, would consider voting against her at that stage) the mainstream media would bury her in the general election. And the sheep would buy that, too.
And WHO pray tell was ever "enthusiastic" about Nixon in '68. Don't think it can't happen for she is the NWO's wet dream.
The "NWO," like the Illuminati and the Palladium, is non-existent. (And do NOT bring up those speeches Poppy gave way back when -- paranoid ideologues twisted his meaning 180 degrees.)
This blog is about REAL menaces. It's not about scarecrows erected by latter-day John Birchers in the cornfields of conspiranoia.
I don't really like Hillary, but neither do I dislike her. I am against her because she will never win. And even if she did win, how could she govern effectively? Imagine a Bill Clinton with twice the opposition and none of the charm...
I'm lukewarm about her policies and don't think she would win. Why? Partly because that "irrational" hatred is largely the result of small, insecure, latent
"girly-men" covering their own balls at the mere sight of an assertive woman - let alone one who would be a Commander-in-Chief.
- And partly because many progressives, myself included, simply cannot reconcile her continued support of Iraq.
That being said...Hillary makes a great decoy. The evangenitals are providing lots of misogynistic sound bites for later use, and lots of their money is already being spent to oppose her.
My guess is that she's cut a deal with the DNC. Should the dems win, she'll have support for the VP spot, or at least a top spot in the next Cabinet.
sofla said...
Complaining about who is leading preference polls at this time is nonsensical. Divining some party death wish from such early poll results is vacuous.
Except for an incumbant's or near-incumbant's (say, the sitting VP) re-running for the office he/she basically already holds, the early favorites are not normally the ones who get the nomination. (Ed Muskie, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Howard Dean, et al., never got the nomination, despite incredible media darlinghood and leads among Democrats responding to polls).
Heck, McCain didn't get the nomination, despite a media crush on him that was nearly unprecedented, and the strong momentum from crushing Bush (by double digits, iirc) in an early primary.
That said, she'd probably be a far stronger candidate than Kerry II, or even Gore II, because the media story line about her is now her fine performance as a senator who has been reaching across party lines (to... gasp... Orrin Hatch?), whereas the media character assassination of Kerry and Gore continues apace, or if on hold, awaits immediate resurrection.
Liberal Democrats have tended to like Hillary because they thought she was the more authentic liberal of the two Clintons. Bill was always triangulating, supporting death penalties and the right to work (against union closed shops), supporting the Defense of Marriage act, signing the unConstitutional Cable Decency Act, etc. To a significant degree, liberals imputed a like mind to theirs to Bill because of what they thought Hillary believed.
These days, HRC has been out to prove she is actually a moderate, rather than further on the left as has long been thought by both admirers and detractors. This may disappoint the party fanatics who make up the voters in the Democratic primary, just as her claimed more liberal tendencies could equally disappoint the general electorate.
As of now, she has to satisfy the anti-war faction of the Democrats while keeping open the wallets of the major Democratic contributors, who are Zionists and who favor this war and the next one as well. Unless she shows better triangulation talents than so far are in evidence, this fundamental contradiction in what she must do will likely doom her chances at the nomination.
It seems to me that it is primarily the Republicans and right-leaning pundits and media people promoting Hillary Clinton for the presidency. I can't think of a single fellow Dem who is actively supporting her, or Hillary explicitly promoting herself if even in the coy way politicians do, citing forming an "exploratory committee." However, maybe I missed something.
I have read rumors that Hillary Clinton is cozy with the head of the mysterious Fellowship Foundation in the DC area which organizes the national prayer breakfasts and has a fascist, pro-Nazi origin dating back to the 1930's.
If she is going to run for President, let's try and spell her name correctly on a regular basis. One "L" or two, you decide, and then stick to it.
Hillary: Go 2 L.
You shame me, anon. Truth is, I stopped using Blogger's spell check because it would screw up my formatting in weird ways.
Post a Comment