Politics is bloodsport. I love the game. I believe in picking sides and forcing detractors to reveal their paranoia, hysteria and weakness. The most successful politicians in the modern age are patient. They employ the trapdoor spider model of electioneering. Give a little, retreat a little. Let the enemy grow confident in their stride. Give ‘em a soft place to fall. Then eat their innards.
Enter New York's junior US Senator Hillary Clinton, mistress of the Democrats Trap Door Spider League. Her entire life story was simply pretext to this moment. Hillary picked a winning horse from Arkansas, then rode him all the way through his turn at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As US Senator, Hillary successfully played to her strengths while obfuscating her weaknesses. She's played hawk, dove and bow hunter on the Iraq War policy. She markets Bill as Husband-in-Chief and reminds her Democrat fans of the Two-Fer that was the first Clinton presidency.
She emerges in poll after poll as the front runner for the Democratic nomination in 2008. The conveyance of an inevitability is critical to securing the nomination. In 2000, then-Governor Bush's folks never thought for a second that he wouldn't be elected. They engineered the conditions on the ground during the entire primary season. They convinced the press it was a done deal, even though they all enjoyed the open bar on McCain's Straight Talk Express. And time after time, John McCain fell victim to the trap door spiders.
So it shall be with Hillary. Many Democrat insiders are already in her camp though not because of friendship. Many insiders owe Bill and Hillary Clinton for their professional success. Once you have been a presidential appointee, it's very difficult to give that up. If Hillary is elected President of the United States, expect that many loyalists still serving in Plum Book assignments will be promoted. Folks on the outside for the Bush administration will be assigned to positions with more prestige. Let the private parties at the Caucus Room begin.
Article comments
1 - Tim
Good article. I'm not going to support Hillary Clinton at all even if she ends up being our candidate for President. I'd much rather see Obama get the nomination.
2 - Dave Nalle
The problem with Hillary as the frontrunner is that poll after poll shows her losing to the top GOP candidates. And as for the other choices you throw out like Wes Clark and John Edwards, comparative polls show them as completely non-viable. Only Obama seems to have the potential to beat any of the top GOP candidates.
Dave
3 - Dave Nalle
To follow up, the latest poll from Gallup on potential candidates:
McCain 56% positive
Giuliani 55% positive
Obama 48% negative
Edwards 49% negative
Clinton 55% negative
Not one democratic candidate has a higher positive rating than negative rating. Only Obama and Edwards have over 50% if you combine positive and neutral.
This poll is only a week old, btw.
Dave
4 - Clavos
Doesn't look good for the dems so far, but 2008 is still a long way off...
5 - handyguy
Poll numbers this early can be subject to radical change, of course. No doubt if we went back to a similar time frame for the last few elections, we'd find some whoppers in terms of poor predictability and percentages that moved way up or down by the time of the actual campaign.
Anyway, although I know I'm going to regret asking this, what is it that people who dislike Hillary make them dislike her so intensely, viscerally, dare I say irrationally?
I'm not her biggest fan, but the things I dislike her for could apply to most prominent politicians, i.e., opportunism, shifting with the prevailing winds, questionable sincerity. (You could find considerable evidence of this sort about candidates like Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and even sainted John McCain.) These misgivings wouldn't keep me from voting for her, because applying them fairly to all candidates, I'd never vote for anybody. Voting is often a matter of holding one's nose and choosing the least objectionable.
Are HRC's high negatives the result of anything specific she's said or done, or are they the result of a drumbeat of negative rhetoric from the right and from some news outlets? Can anyone point to elements of policy or philosophy that make you oppose her? Or is it more a matter of "ew," "she's scary," "I just hate her" - in other words a non-rational response?
New York state outside of NYC and a couple of dozen precincts in other smaller cities, is a very conservative and often Republican place. Yet HRC has won much of the populace over during her time as a Senator. Part of her recent landslide reelection came from conservative upstate districts. She has made a conscious and constant effort to visit these areas, talk to citizens, address their concerns. In Washington, she has developed a reputation among colleagues as a non-showboater and a hard worker, praised surprisingly often by Republicans in the Senate.
It's possible that she can win over at least some of middle America the way she won over upstate New York. But it's understandable that we Democrats are skittish - after we thought we picked the "safest" and "most electable" candidate in 2004, we ended up with Kerry, another Big Fat Loser who ran a poor campaign that ought to have been winnable.
6 - Dave Nalle
I've got a couple of reasons for not liking Hillary.
The first is her attempt to create a national healthcare plan when her husband was in office. It was handled poorly and extra-constitutionally, and the plan which she came up with would have been a disaster, and even a lot of democrats agree on that.
My more general complaint is her attempt to totally reinvent herself politically. To assume positions directly opposite of the ones you previously held for political opportunity isn''t uncommon, but it's usually a sign that the politician is up to no good, and I think thats certainly the case wiht Hillary. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Dave
7 - handyguy
Dave -
Maybe a few more specifics on the second part of your objection? I know that's something often said about her, but which policies?
For example, Mitt Romney is in the headlines today for his apparent two-faced opportunism regarding abortion and gay rights, among other issues [such as eco-friendly growth]. A moderate in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign, suddenly a very visible social conservative during the last two years.
8 - Bliffle
"Anyway, although I know I'm going to regret asking this, what is it that people who dislike Hillary make them dislike her so intensely, viscerally, dare I say irrationally?"
Because she's an uppity woman. For example, if any guy had attempted the National Health Service thing she attempted he wouldn't have been opposed with the same personal bitterness for attempting something so bold. Nor would he be repeatedly savaged for it in later years. If it was a guy we'd chuckle at his bungled attempt and even rationalize it (look at all the routine apologies for GWBs bungled decisions and bungled war).
Boldness and redemption are reserved for men, not women, in our cowboy society. Women are supposed to be motherly, in appearance at least, though they may (should) have an iron fist inside the velvet glove, like Golda Mier or Barbara Bush. We see the womans place in our frontier town as being the school m'arm, not the sheriff. A woman cannot redeem herself because she is expected to never sin in the first place. American mythology, especially in the religious sects, is filled with examples of men who have sinned greatly and redeemed themselves, usually with religious help. It is such a staple of American mythology that revealed politico/religio criminals like Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, etc., etc., (the list is long) IMMEDIATELY seize on the appearance of redemption to try to keep out of jail or being tarred and feathered and run out of town. But a woman! Not a chance.
We can't tolerate the idea of a (mere) woman strapping on a sixgun and strutting down Main Street to confront and kill the badguys. Nor can we tolerate the idea of a woman falling into great sin, drunkenness, drugs, bizarre sex, and whatever degradation, then redeeming herself. It is just too horrifying a picture. Redemption is not allowed for a woman because she ought not sin in the first place, and the stain of sin is not publicly eradicable. While for a man it is even considered a heroic journey.
9 - Media Lizzy
All:
The problem with Hillary's Healthcare program was not that it was proposed by a woman. She lacked the Constitutional authority to propose any legislation. As First Lady, her duty is to her husband and the holiday decorations. If she wanted to craft policy, she should have kept it to the bedroom with her President - then allowed him to propose and take credit for the effort.
"Cowboy" culture, nor gender bias have ever stood in Hillary Clinton's way.
While much weight is given to polls, I submit they mean nothing until we get much closer to the elections. What matters for the next several months is the fundraising operation. Nailing down a national finance committee is critical to success. During the B2K (Bush 2000) campaign, it wouldn't have mattered if McCain had a 100% approval rating. Bush had secured the top tier financiers of the GOP. The Pioneer/Ranger program was in place from Day One. (Freeman/Ueberroth/Reynolds/etc)
If Obama wishes to compete with Hillary, then he will need more than Dick Durbin passing out petitions. He will need to secure endorsements and deploy a funddraising team nationally. If he doesn't have Haim Saban, or someone with similar stature and capability, Obama will not become a successful candidate.
Obama's only real advantage comes on general election day. Though he is a decided liberal, he is affable enough to win over moderate female voters.
Hillary's high negatives among Republican women are unlikely to wane with time. It is not irrational. Beginning with her comments "I'm not some Tammy Wynette, standing by my man" and ending with her decision to remain at Bill Clinton's side after many, many adulterous affairs - Clinton is seen as a hypocrite. She did stand by her man. Because his presence would help raise the money for her US Senate & presidential ambitions. She stayed, by all appearances, for convenience & ambition. Hillary had always portrayed herself as the woman-who-didn't-need-a-man and yet, when it came down to it - she's still clinging to Bill, even though her negatives would drop if she left.
This view is held by many moderate GOP women who did NOT support the ridiculous impeachment proceedings.
Hillary is very entrenched, and extremely savvy. She will do only so much as it takes to win the nomination. As for the general election, any GOP nominee with a modicum of gravitas will clean her clock.
10 - Dave Nalle
Maybe a few more specifics on the second part of your objection? I know that's something often said about her, but which policies?
She's a socialist and has beens ince college. Years and years of history of being far more left-wing than her husband, culminating in her interest in the national healthcare issue. Then she gets elected to congress and while she remains a socialist on some issues, all of a sudden she's a warhawk and a social conservative and starts sounding a lot like a Neocon - socialists who've gone around the bend to fascism. It's pretty damned troubling.
For example, Mitt Romney is in the headlines today for his apparent two-faced opportunism regarding abortion and gay rights, among other issues [such as eco-friendly growth]. A moderate in his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 gubernatorial campaign, suddenly a very visible social conservative during the last two years.
You don't think I support Romney in any way, do you?
Dave
11 - Arch Conservative
It is all the rage of those who support her to cast all those who can't stand her as having issues but with powerful women but this is just not the case
Those of us who hate Hillary (and we are legion) do not hate her because she's a woman. We hate her because she is so corrupt, opportunistic, self centered, quasi-socialist, dishonest, shell of a human being. It has nothing to do with her plumbing.
The majority of the modern feminist movement does not truly seek to empower ALL woman but rather seeks to advance a left wing agenda, Case in point where were NOW, the Feminist majority, and the rest of the usual suspects when woman after woman came forward to accuse Bill Clinton of sexual harassment during his years in office? They were no where to be seen or heard in support of these women. And god forbid any woman dare to vote GOP or express pro life views.
It really is quite sickening that NOW and other such organizations taken seriously in our society when they claim to be for the empowerment of ALL woman when they are clearly nothing more than a tool of the radical left. Anyone who can't see this quite frankly is a fucking moron.
And as for Hillary botched attempt at socialized health care....Since when does the first lady make policy? That's not her job....The first lady is a figurehead who at times may make public appeareances regarding social issues but nowhere in the constitution or any other American legal document does it say the first lady has the right to propose legislation.
That is the problem with Hillary in a nutshell though. It's painfully transparent how superior she views herself in every way to those who disagree with her.
Knowing that the AMerican military culture is a man's man world I don't see how the military brass and those who can get things done would stand for Hillary as president. In fact if she eve did get elected I don't see her making it past a year before they decide to take her out in a shroud of mystery and contreversy ala JFK.
And one last thing. Can someone please explain all the hoopla over Barack Obama? He's a first term Senator with no accomplishments and government executive managerial experience? He's a nobody.....who's done nothing and the left has the world's biggest hardon for him.
12 - Arch Conservative
Something's been troubling me about Barack Obama. When he first came on the national political scene he already very looked very familiar as if I had seen him before so I did some investigating and here's what I found
Dec 09, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Here's
Barack Obama today:
NOw take a look at the 13 - Arch Conservative
now check out the guy in the tan coat in this picture
[Arch, you're not entering correct code. I've cleaned it up the best I can. Please follow this link to learn how to format an active link correctly. Thank you. Comments Editor]
14 - Bliffle
"She lacked the Constitutional authority to propose any legislation. "
I suppose it would surprise you to learn that even the president has NO constitutional authority to propose any legislation. Nor does Grover Norquist. Nor Carl Rove, nor Newt Gingrich, etc. Nor the CEO of Enron or Exxon or Haliburton, etc.
Only congresscritters can propose legislation. So, when the pres wants legislation introduced he gives marching orders to a compliant congresscritter, as does Grover, Carl, etc. And so would Hillary have.
15 - Bliffle
Eeeww, charges of hypocrisy! As if hypocrisy were not the common coin of politics but first seen in Hillary Clinton! Scandal!
I suppose it's a suitable instance of hypocrisy to point out that Archie has not been known previously to point out that GWB also has no constitutional authority to propose legislation. Only congressfolk can propose legislation. Since Archie seems to propose himself as a constitutional authority (for surely he has read the document), so we must conclude that Archie is a hypocrite for drawing this powerful sword solely to vanquish Hillary, who, we all know, is an uppity woman and deserves it.
16 - handyguy
Dave, I was not trying to associate you with Mitt Romney. He is just an example of another politician who has changed stripes. It's Arch's role to promote him here. Would be interested in his reaction to the old Mitt/new Mitt stories running recently. Well, not all that interested, considering his quite crude and ludicrous take on HRC.
By the way, Arch, Barack's appeal is due in large part to his skill and eloquence as a speaker and as a writer. (You could take a lesson or two from him in the latter category.) It's true he doesn't have a long resume; neither, of course, did the current Pretender-in-Chief in 1998, two years before the election.
17 - handyguy
Re: that health care thang...
HRC didn't act alone...she was part of an advisory panel, not entirely unlike the Iraq committee in the headlines recently (yes, appointed by her husband, not by Congress...but that wasn't illegal...there have been many 'civilians' on many blue ribbon panels over the years). I'd be willing to bet that hardly anyone ever actually looked at the program proposals themselves. Many people were reacting to an abstract bogeyman: Socialized Medicine, woooo....scary. And to those effective but dishonest commercials put together by the insurance industry. That industry and its Congressional supporters were the real destroyers of the plan, along with the smiling and odious neocon William Kristol.
(For an excellent timeline of the Clinton health plan follies, see this page and this one on PBS's Macneil-Lehrer News Hour site. Remember "Harry and Louise?")
But we still haven't solved the problem of rising healthcare costs and the percentage of uninsured Americans. We're still basically the only large industrialized rich country that doesn't offer healthcare to its citizens as a basic right. Expecting employers to be the main issuers of health insurance has never made much sense, really. A single-payer system was the only model that addressed all these issues.
But whoever planned the PR for that committee sucked badly. Lordy, what a debacle. Still, it's too bad, because it basically took the issue off the table for a long time. And it continues to fester.
And don't overreact to my "supporting socialized medicine." I'm just saying the situation, both in 1993 and now, is a mess and a threat, and something will eventually have to be done. I don't claim to know exactly what.
18 - sr
She"ll be coming round the mountain when she comes. Somehow Im seeing 6 white horses if she is to come.
19 - Arch Conservative
Handy guy.........
Bush had been the Governor of one of the largest states in the nation and most people consider being governor better experience as a qualifier for being president than being a senator. And there are many people in this nation who are very eloquent articulate speakers but are grossly underqualified for the presidency.
Obama's a nobody and it's a joke that anyone could take him seriously as a candidate for the oval office.
As for Romeny......yes he has waivered some in his stances as every politician does but his resume compared to Obama's is laughable. Romney has a long history of success in both the private and public sectors from what he did with the 2002 Olympic committee to his multi billion dollar budget surpluses as governor of a state with one of the most leftist spend happy legislatures in the country.
20 - Hank Sloan
America is not ready for Hillary!! She can always move to China!
21 - handyguy
I just saw this on Newsvine (the source is HumanEvents.com)
At first I thought it was a joke, but anyway, here 'tis:
"Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would be elected president in 2008 and would probably tap Senate colleague Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) as her running mate.
DeLay met with conservative bloggers at a weekly lunch meeting hosted by HUMAN EVENTS and the Heritage Foundation. He is making the rounds in Washington to promote his new blog and activism website, TomDeLay.com."
22 - nancy
Have to agree with Bliffle on this one: Arch is absolutely right: she's corrupt, opportunistic, self-centered ... in fact, everything a successful male politician is, but being a woman, it somehow is unforgivable in her where it can be shrugged off as being "typical" of a male pol. The facts are, she's had to be twice as good & 50 times as tough, hard, cynical, & ruthless to make it as far as she has in the still-99% male, still 96% WHITE male, good-ol'-boys back-smoke-filled-room network. Despite Arch's protests, her plumbing has a great deal to do with it, namely that far too many men (& conservative women) can't handle or deal with an aggressive, successful woman. Denial? Well then check out the negative images & humor directed at ANY successful, aggressive woman in ANY male-dominated arena, including business. They're all portrayed as bitches, conniving, greedy, hard, nasty, etc. etc. Certainly no coincidence, in my book. Meanwhile, those women who cloak their ruthlessness & success in more "acceptable" social terms & images - Babs Bush, for instance, or Nancy Reagan, the Good Little Submissive Helpmates - are positively portrayed. Hilary's negative press & public image in almost entirely a product of social engineering & bias, not fact or anything she herself has done, except to commit the mortal sin of daring to beat men at their own game. And they can neither handle nor tolerate that, then, now, or in the future.
I am ambivalent myself about Clinton, mainly on the grounds that, while I admire her ability to tough it out & beat all comers to date on their own turf, I don't want the Dems to field a candidate who's gonna lose - and if she runs, she WILL lose, most likely due to a coalescence of the usual misogynistic idiots, plus the normally hatemongering GOP types who would naturally go after any non-GOP candidate not of their choosing or manipulation, plus all the odds & ends who won't vote for her for various other reasons. Even running w/Barak Obama won't help. She's a woman, and that's enough to deny her the WH. The Senate is bad enough, but at least there are 102 seats in the senate & she's just one of a handful that can be controlled (or at least dominated) by the male majority, and considering women make up 53% of the US population, there really do have to be SOME token women in the group, after all. But president...? Chief of the whole shebang? Not bloody likely, and mainly for the reason that most men just don't like to 'obey', serve, or follow orders from a woman - at least in this culture.
How odd that we are supposedly the most forward nation in the world, yet in some respects we're one of the most backwards, and other nations have gone well before us in having non-white or female leaders. IMO it's the influence of America's screwy archaic obsession with religion, especially the evangelistic & fundamentalist christian groups which are so widespread in this country, and which few other countries outside of the muslim-saturated nations either have or tolerate.
23 - Death Valley Scotty
My vote goes to Hillary the big ankles for president. This country needs a big enama. For vice president we enter Death Valley Borax Alabama. Secretary of State goes to the big guy, Michael Moore. Rosey our Sec of defence. Will vote for Hillary to watch the great demise. What fun it will be. Old Lang Zine America.