Today on Blogcritics
Home » Poor Hillary

Poor Hillary

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It ain’t easy being Hillary. As far as the general public is concerned, she’s the single most divisive major political figure in the Democrat party; while the various liberal constituencies that constitute the Democrat’s party base worry that she’s not liberal enough. Some who consider her too far to the right on the war issue even took to heckling her at a recent speech to the Democrat National Committee.

Poor Hillary. It’s not as though she’s brought any of these problems on herself. First, there was her clumsy entrance onto the national political stage in 1992 with that famous reference to “not staying home and baking cookies” or “standing by her man like Tammy Wynette” in vague reference to Bubba’s past indiscretions.

Then there was the attempted nationalized health-care debacle, questionable profits in cattle futures, missing law firm billing records that suddenly materialize in plain sight, suspicious suicides on the part of close friends, Whitewater, and then of course those continued “indiscretions” on the part of her husband.

But after enduring all that she finally got the payoff and made it to the big game in her own right – even if she had to move to another state to do it. All the while, she’s been biding her time, waiting for the right moment to taker her shot at what she thought should have been hers all along – the White House.

The ground was prepared. Her U.S. Senate campaigns in New York were used as vehicles to build the national fundraising base she would need, as well as to hire the staffers and consultants that would be needed in preparation of a White House bid once re-election was secured in 2006. All the boxes were checked. Nomination seemed like a fait accompli. She could take her time and make a fashionably late grand entrance when ready.

But some funny things happened on the way to the coronation. The radical base of the Democrat party grew more empowered, and the more empowered they became, the more they demanded of the woman who would have their support – so much so that many of them see her as their last choice for a presidential nominee.

Her primary strength among Democrats at large had been her perceived electability, but a January Gallup poll shows that doubts about her ability to win that have been taking their toll. When asked if they were voting for presidential nominees today whom they would vote for, thirty-four percent said they would definitely vote for her. Fifty-two percent said they “might consider” her, while fourteen percent said “definitely not”. Among the two-thirds that weren’t “definitely” for her, the number one reason given was that they didn’t think she could win.

Then there was John Edwards, free from the constraints of the Senate and even freer to be a bomb thrower. He’s constantly creating situations that needed or even demanded her response, uncomfortably causing her to put herself on the record when she would rather not do so. In short, Edwards has kept giving the far left of the party more reasons to be unhappy with her.

Then, to make matters worse, along came the new media darling Barak Obama. Like the kid who transfers from another school and becomes instantly popular, Obama began to steal much of the oxygen she was used to having all to herself. Even the young generation is getting in on the act, turning his “Million for Obama” Facebook campaign into a political Internet phenomenon. To add insult to injury, the new kid is barely two years removed from being a mere state senator, the national political equivalent of grade school.

Even Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg – previously reliable Clinton financiers – have jumped on the Obama bandwagon, recently hosting a $2,300 per plate fundraiser for him. George Soros sent Obama a check as soon as he formed his exploratory committee. And worst of all, Barbara Streisand herself is no longer in the bag. Babs recently announced that she would be hedging her bets, so to speak, by contributing to Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

And in the aftermath of the Democrat’s takeover of Congress, in walked Nancy Pelosi to steal the role of the lead woman in the Democratic orbit, removing some of the novelty associated with having a woman in such a major role on the national stage. So what’s left for Hillary?

Suddenly, two things she could normally count on, being the primary subject of the media’s adulation and the primary beneficiary of big campaign bucks from the Hollywood elite, are no longer sure things.

And now, here she is, forced to play a game of political hopscotch with John Edwards and Barak Obama. Forced to actually campaign for support that should have been hers by right.

Poor, poor Hillary.

Powered by

About Drew McKissick

Drew McKissick is a political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience specializing in political strategy, planning and organization as well as the development of grassroots related political action programs. He has worked as a political activist at the local, state and national levels, and has served in elected and appointed positions at all levels of the Republican Party, including serving as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also writes a regular column providing analysis and commentary on current events.
  • Caroline

    Hillary is going to be just fine. Don’t you worry about her.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Why Drew, you made me shed a little tear…

    Dave

  • Nancy

    To paraphrase a quote from ‘My Fellow American’, Hil doesn’t need Bill’s balls: she has a set of her own. It will be interesting to see what she does with/to the other Dem candidate wannabes. Any bets?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I see some vicious smearing in their future.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    If she thought she could get away with having one or two of them killed she’d do it.

    It’s not like the Clintons have murdered for political expediency in the past.

    In reality the Clintonistas will probably leak all kinds of nasty stories about Obama, Edwards, Richardson etc…..and then blame it on the “vast right wing conspiracy.”

    In any event as long as that bitch is kept out of the white house I don’t give a damn what she does.

  • Nancy

    And you think Bush, Cheney, & Karl Rove wouldn’t? In fact, I’m pretty sure they already have, & if you count sending 3,000+ Americans to their deaths for a fake war trumped up for oil & ego, then they also qualify as mass murderers.

  • Emry

    “It’s not like the Clintons have murdered for political expediency in the past.”

    Arch, what does that crap mean?

  • Arch Conservative

    What the fuck do you think it means dumbass?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Emry, Emry. Are you not up on your extreme right wing conspiracy theories about the Clintons?

    There’s a whole paranoid fantasy body count of people the Clintons have had wacked over the years, starting in Arkansas and continuing in the White House. I believe the suspected body count currently stands at 34, culminating with Vince Foster, of course.

    You can find all the details on this urban legends site.

    What it basically comes down to is that anyone who is even vaguely associated with the Clintons and died under anything but natural circumstances is then researched to find some motive for the Clintons to have them killed. No real evidence is ever provided, just some goofy motive. But the legend goes on and on.

    dave

  • Emry

    Arch, it means you’re full of shit.

  • STM

    Get your hand off it Emma-ry, you wanker