As usual, Molly Ivins says it better than I can. (Thanks to the broads at Salon for the original link).
This is a fairly serious issue. Please weigh in with your sense, too.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Molly on Hill'y
TC and I have been going back and forth about the idea of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008. We both agree that she seems to be so poll-driven as to be apparently lacking in any convictions of her own. We have other problems with her, as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Molly's got it right. I had been feeling squirmy about Hillary running anyway -- something about her being too devisive. When I was a Democratic poll watcher in a heavily Republican district in 2004, the voters there were rubbing their hands in gleeful anticipation of Hillary's candidacy. No one is more likely to bring out the opposition than she. On the other hand, she can command a lot of almost blind support. But she counts on people like me for blind support (middle aged, upper middle class, educated, suburban women). And Hillary's alienating me for all the reasons Ivans says: Hillary's waffling on issues that should be no brainers. Come on. Where's the moral leadership? Where's indignation?
Clare said, "Hillary's waffling on issues that should be no brainers."
That's it exactly.
I don't care about a candidate being divisive, but I'd like her or him to be divisive for the right reasons; e.g., stances on issues, speaking out on matters of concern, calling the current administration out on the carpet. In fact, I'd welcome this kind of "divisive" candidate -- I'm ready to fight with the radical wrong, I mean, the radical right, on the merits, any day of the week.
Hillary, unfortunately, seems to have recognized that she will be seen as divisive for being a tough, smart woman who used to speak her mind, and has hit upon this cockamamie strategy of creating no divisiveness on the issues. The outcome of this strategy: it will gain her nothing from people who are afraid of independent-minded women; it will merely cost her the support of people she takes for granted.
In my case, her strategy seems to work, on the surface. I mean, I'll likely vote for her compared with anyone the Reps will put up in 2008, but it will be, yet again, a vote against the Reps, rather than a vote for the Dems. The problem with taking my vote for granted, though, means that all she will get is my vote. I won't give money or time to her campaign. The same thing happened when the Dems picked John Kerry in 2004. I could not bring myself to put any effort into electing the evil of two lessors.
Hillary used to strike me as a smart person who wasn't afraid to speak her mind. I started losing respect for her when she knuckled under on the whole cookie-baking thing. And I'm really smelling too much warm and sweet stuff now.
"Broads," eh? I needed to click on the link to make sure you weren't being as Bobby Riggs-like as it seemed. Very funny.
Post a Comment