Writer’s block is a terrible thing. I’ll spare you the half-baked musings I couldn’t bring myself to finish this week.
Instead, let us meditate upon Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. For one thing, we are apparently supposed to call her Hillary now. And then there’s the vital question: Is she a snappy dresser?
hey- we are allowed to publish posts like this?!?
shouldn’t this go under the slacking off category?
jeremy, what are you doing up already? it’s not noon there yet.
i think dave has been hanging out with the unfogged crowd a little too much. he’s selling out our distinctive format!
Honestly, I don’t know enough about Senator Clinton. Have you read her book? What do you know about her views people?
2: You have no idea how many hours it took me to come up with this post. Definitely not slacking off.
you’re dodging the unfogged bullet, dave. and now look at us. if we were posting these comments every two seconds instead of every two hours we’d be falling into your trap.
5: um, you mean “hillary,” right? we’re not supposed to use titles or last names. she’s like madonna, apparently.
Speaking of the junior senator from New York and Unfogged, here’s a take I basically agree with about the current presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Oh great, I’m posting tomorrow and now the pressure’s really on to produce! Let me think . . .
…and, Tim, don’t forget to consider your outfit.
No, he’s a man, so we don’t have to judge him by his clothes.
Dave, I read the link you put in and it speaks to some of the same reservations I have about Senator Clinton.
That “Hillary” thing gets to me as much as (Queen) Oprah does, but I get it and it works so “friendly neighborhood Hillary who just wants to chat” it is
I feel that so many of her strengths become weaknesses but then I question how much of it is her fault.
She is so managed and on message that it grates but considering her political/personal history thus far I understand (and admire?) her desire to triangulate her way to the White House.
Sure, she should rise above it and have the courage of her convictions and all but she knows from experience what it takes to win and I want that White House so badly that I will accept much more moderate general election voter coddling that I might otherwise like.
And she is smart enough to know this and act accordingly.
Is her head and heart in the right place? Yeah, I think so. Would I vote for her? Early and often, though I wonder how much of Bill’s aura factors into that equation for me.
I do worry about liberals having their own litmus test(s) of purity and savaging our own while the right wingers swallow their reservations and play a more brutal and expedient game of (heartbreakingly successful) electoral politics.
Conservatives weren’t sold on Bush Jr. but they bought into the idea of electability at any costs. I may not have been “excited” by our last two general election candidates but I saw An Inconvenient Truth last night and was devastated (again, just like in Fahrenheit) to think about how so many things would be different if not for the outrage of 2000.
I also wanted to know why Gore couldn’t come off then like he does now then-he would have won…but that is a different matter.
How about this? Do you think she can win?
And those troubling votes and equivocating regarding core issues that I hold near and dear are likely going to be her margin of victory.
As much as I would die to have lunch with her, and in light of Rachel’s post, would probably babble sweet nothings to her and hubby, I’m sorry Ruben, I think she is unelectable. We are playing into conservative hands by even considering her.
And Dave and Tim, Lisa is sage, it is always about the outfit.
Since we’ve all been thinking quite a bit lately about the direction of the site, and since Dave “punted” today (a suprisingly rare occurrence, given his every-week posting responsibilties), I thought I’d call attention to Mr. Barber’s original essay on his conception of TGW, “Hat in the Ring.” For those of us who’ve been around since the beginning, it’s worth a re-read; I also realized that some of our more-recent additions perhaps haven’t ever read it, in which case, of course, it’s worth a first-time read, however belated.
All this time I thought we were named after one of the characters in “A Wrinkle in Time.” This changes everything.
the SOTU is on in my house against my will.
good lord, when will it end?
It will end in 727 days. (Should we add the countdown timer to our site?)
I went to the movies and then Fresh Salt instead of watching the speech. I don’t want to hear anything the man says unless he (a) apologizes and resigns or (b) does something an order of magnitude worse than the last six years of fuckups, which would be hard, although I don’t put it past him. Is to be believed at all? Could anything he says convince you of anything? At best it’s Kremlinology, parsing Brezhnev’s address to the Party Congress to figure out whether the tractor factory will get enough steel shipments this year.
Ruben — I know, lots to admire about Senator Clinton. But there are people who could win (Obama, Edwards) whose politics are at least not heinous. And I actually think some bold, broad-based liberal policies, like a real plan to bring health coverage to all Americans (not to mention opposition to prolonged involvement in Iraq, a position held by a healthy majority of voters), would be a plus, not a minus, especially after eight years of Republican malaise.
And I really do feel awful about punting today, and hope it doesn’t set a bad example.
Christ, Dave, cut yourself a little slack already.
From what I’ve heard when Hillary speaks, I agree with Rueben. She seems to talk without really saying anything. Although this might get a candidate far, it doesn’t sit fare well with me.
I’ve heard Obama speak a couple of times, and though I have doubts about his electability, says what he believes, with candor and an openness that we don’t often hear from politicians.
Like others, I wonder if Gore will give it another go. In An Inconvenient Truth he sure came across as a both wise and puissant.
What are your doubts about Obama’s electability? I can see some worry about him being black, latent racism being what it is, but polling seems to indicate that’s less of an issue than being Mormon. Anything else?
Having lived in South Carolina, albeit 20 years ago, I found the racism far from latent. I live in a fairly small town in Washington state, and I find racism still very prevelent, but directed to the Latino population ( we don’t have many african-american’s here). And although I’m very proud that America has come so far, especially in the media and large cities, I’m still reserved, and wonder if we have come far-enough to elect a black president. But, if I were to vote today, based on my limited knowledge of the democratic candidates, I’d vote for Barack.
Hillary knows politics and she has played her cards very well so far this round (ehem, her hair looks so much better and the internet chats? the blog? it works!). She’s using everything she’s got to her advantage, and I think it’s very possible (at least at this point) that she could win. I don’t think that Oboma has enough experience to be taken seriously–why can’t he become her vice-and they try to take on America together? Okay, that’s probably not realistic. But, I think she could handle the job, and our country doesn’t seem ready to revolt, and radically shift the climate of the country. My hunch is that she safeguards her liberal tendancies, and then, with more power, she would strategically make the shifts she’s been fighting for all along (the backlash again universal healthcare that she took the beating on).
I think it’s so inspiring to think about a woman becoming president. I want to vote for her, just to make that happen. Even if she was a little more wishy-washy, or a little more conservative, she’s a strong, smart, capable leader, and her husband kicks ass too. uh, my two cents.
I tend to think that both Hillary and Obama are unelectable, but it’s a long road to the primaries and the election. The coverage in the Washington Post on Sunday was on how well Hillary polls with all women…see “Far From a Hindrance, Gender Could Be Key for Clinton” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012001612.html?sub=AR
I know I have to learn to link in the comments…but anyway the article says that if polled today 49% of Democratic and D-leaning women would vote Hillary vs. 18% for Obama and that one of her strongest groups is women aged 18-34, which is so great and fascinating and of course these college-aged babies don’t remember the early 90s and the healthcare controversy etc etc.
At this stage, shouldn’t we be supporting the people who have a reasonable chance of winning and who have views close to ours, not just the single most “electable” as we see it nearly two years out from the election? Isn’t “electable” what got us in trouble with Kerry? Its such a weird concept — electable is just the candidate we will elect. Let’s make him or her a good one.
25: it’s fine to talk like that now, dave, but let’s not forget that moral indignation among American lefties (who will not, unfortunately, be able to get one of their own elected in this country for a good long while) that put our good friend GWB in the white house in the first place. (thanks again, ralph!)
hillary’s pragmatism is much more evident than bill’s was, because she doesn’t have an aw shucks grin 100% of the time to make you forget she’s pulling the party toward the middle. i would expect her presidency to drift a little leftward, which is what bill initially tried to do. his drift left, though — and it was a very slight drift — resulted in the gingrich revolution. i don’t think either clinton ever recovered from that shock — which may be precisely why she could wind up getting elected.
There’s electability as a horse-race concern and electability as a criterion for supporting a candidate or not. We can talk about whether Clinton or Obama are more or less electable compared to Edwards or whomever, but that’s just horse-race talk unless we think they’re actually unelectable like Kucinich or Nader. You don’t want to support somebody who could never ever win, but it’s likewise a mistake to support (before the nomination is locked up) the candidate you think is most likely to appeal to the imaginary American median voter just because you imagine he/she is most likely to appeal. That’s a recipe for ending up with candidates nobody is excited about, whose best attribute is their inoffensiveness. And then they still end up losing.
I think at this point Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Gore are all more or less electable, and the question is which one would you most like to see in the White House. They all have their weaknesses and their strengths — a campaign should let us judge how they play the cards they’ve been dealt.
I’ve got to add, Hillary scored some big points with me a couple of days ago with the joke about her having experience dealing with knuckle-headed men. I didn’t expect that from her, but loved it!