Centerfield

That's it. Hillary's gone Stepford on us. Thought it was just a matter of time....

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 24, 2005 11:20 PM

Not Stepford. Cagy. SMART. She was always the political brains in the Clinton family. Bill is intelligent--she is a genius. She can certainly spot a train, and follow the track. She worked tirelessly to work the "Middle Way" as First Lady, and has never stopped. Even before the election results came in last year, she was positioning herself to the middle, triangulating her approach for 2008.

I don't like Hillary at all. I think she's an abysmal human being. I pity her child. I witnessed first-hand the corruption the Clintons brought to Arkansas. But she is a MASTER politician, one of the savviest to ever walk this planet. She has NO weaknesses other than ego, and the lack of the natural charisma that her husband possesses. And make no mistake, she wants to be the first female President of the United States. She may well get it.

She has the training and experience from the ground up, from childhood up. She has rebounded from some of the most personal public humiliation that can be conceived. She has been a team player when it was obvious the team would lose. And now she is a free agent in her own right. Love her, hate her, but do not EVER EVER EVER underestimate her. She is the living model of the Iron Dragon Lady.

For all that, I suspect she'd be a helluva good President. Her ego would demand no less.

Posted by: Tully at May 25, 2005 12:17 AM

Interesting. Anna Quindlen did an article on her a few weeks ago, in which Hillary talked about this "thirst for something greater than ourselves" in life. I know it's all rhetoric and all of that, but it really resonated with.

Posted by: Bobby at May 25, 2005 08:07 AM

Wow, Tully! I agree almost 100% I can't stand Hillary, but think she is incredibly smart and talented, and I agree her endless quest to prove to her father that she belongs at the table pushes her to strive to do great things. If you would have asked me a few years ago if I would ever vote for Hillary for President, I would have answered "hell no;" however, if the Republicans nominate George Allen, or Bill Frist, or someone in that mold that will only mean more of the same pandering to the right wing, please everyone, defict exploding politics... I just may hold my nose and do the unthinkable. My only fear is that Hillary will talk a good center talk, only to govern from the farther left.

Posted by: Mathew at May 25, 2005 10:47 AM

I think Hillary Clinton is both a far smarter politician and a far better human being than most people give her credit for.

That being said, I'm quite sure she's not going to run for President -- she can't win and she knows it -- and I think she'd make a terrible President anyway.

Anybody the seen the McCain profile in the New Yorker? Very positive, even fawning at times. He's definitely positioning himself to run.

Posted by: Oberon at May 25, 2005 10:55 AM

I don't like Ms. Clinton either, but if she gets the Dem nomination she would get my vote. The only GOP candidate I would seriously consider voting for would be McCain, and I find it hard to envision him getting the nomination.

Posted by: tim at May 25, 2005 11:59 AM

Here's the problem: who's the real Hilary? Now, I grant that much of the way she was portrayed as a wild-eyed liberal was just propaganda spouted by the GOP. The Clintons were always essentially cautious, centrist politicians. Nevertheless, while I applaud much of what she is saying, I'm still skeptical that it can pass the sincerity test. It's one thing to tell a story that resonates with votes, it's another thing to believe it. I don't know how much Hilary actually believes and I don't think you can sell a story to the voters, in the long run, that you don't believe.

I'm not saying I would not vote for her but I am wondering if she is trying to play both ends against the middle and how well she can do that.

Posted by: MWS at May 25, 2005 12:15 PM

I'm less concerned about who the real Hillary Clinton is, than about which Hillary shows up. I'm less concerned with her sincerity than with her consistency and predictability.

And I don't have to like her or think she's a good person to acknowledge (even respect in ways) her talents and abilities. It is standard echo-chamber fodder to denigrate the opposition as incompetent and/or evil. They are rarely either.It is also rare that they omniscient and/or pure. We love dichotomous analysis, but it's simplistic and misleading, and will bite you in the ass if you take it for certainties.

Posted by: Tully at May 25, 2005 01:08 PM

OK, let me get this straight, we like it when Hillary morphs toward a more ?centrist candidate but we don't like it when Mitt Romney morphs for possibly similar political aspirational reasons.

Posted by: c3 at May 25, 2005 03:22 PM

Frankly, I pity any child who's brought up in what Truman called "the big white jail". The teen years are harrowing enough without the Secret Service following you around, not to mention radio commentators and U.S. Senators (yes, I mean YOU, Sen. McCain) sneering at your looks. I think Hillary did a remarkable job in keeping Chelsea shielded from the media (of course, she took a lot of advice from Jackie, which helped considerably),

That said, I would love to see Hillary as President. She certainly has the intelligence, talent, will and ambition enough for the job, but let's face it, if there's anything that would make the fundies vote for McCain for President, it would be Hillary anywhere on the Democratic ticket. I'd rather she stayed as a powerbroker in the Senate than go down in flames in a national race. She's ready to be the country's President, but the country isn't ready for her.

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 25, 2005 03:36 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no chance that the country will elect a Northeasterner for President, and especially not a senator (senators tend to have embarrasingly nuanced votes to explain).

If the Dems have their convention first, and Hillary gets the nod, the Reps only have to nominate one of several Southern/Western governors to win.

What passes for a moderate Republican in the Northeast is a wild-eyed flag-burning potty-mouth to the rest of the country. A moderate Democrat (and Hillary has been, for the most part, moderate in the Ssnate, with a couple of verbal lapses here and there) is, to the rest of the country, unimaginable.

I don't want to discourage Hillary's supporters - it's just that the centerline of politics here in the Northeast is well to the left of the centerline in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, et al.

These remarks hold for Republicans, too. Thinking about Giuliani? He has no chance. Pataki? Romney? Forget it.

I think Hillary has talent, but I think that it will be decades before anyone changes from "Senator from New York" to "Mister/Madame President."

Posted by: Literally Retarded at May 25, 2005 04:41 PM

Personally, I think the first female president will be a Republican, so that rules out Hillary. I am very intrigued at the remote possiblity of a Condoleeza versus Hillary race. That would be an unprecedented and exciting political race to watch.

I'm in the "I don't like Hillary" camp but, as Tully says, it is a serious mistake to underestimate her. Good friends of mine who knew them back in Arkansas all say that she is the smarter of the two Clintons. He was at one time much more politically astute, but I think the way she has handled herself in the Senate shows that may not be true anymore; she's learned a whole lot about practical politics.

One of my biggest complaints about both of the Clintons was always their supreme arrogance, the palpable condescension that they knew the best way to fix everything. Her recent rhetorical movements toward the center show that she has either gained wisdom and modesty or has at least learned to mask her earlier arrogance. Much as I hate to admit it, my money would probably be on it being a real change; you can't go through as much as she has been through and not change in some significant ways.

I know many people believe that she is so polarizing that she will antagonize all the Republicans into voting against her, and thus would be the easiest candidate for the Republicans to beat. I don't think so. I know a lot of Republican women... a lot of soccer moms... who may not like her politics, but they like her. Women whose husbands have cheated on them ALL like her. She took the worst kinds of infidelity, the worst kinds of public humiliation, everything Bill could throw at her but she held her head high and kept her dignity.

"Women who have been screwed over by men" is a pretty large block in this country, sad to say. And Hillary will get a whole, whole lot of those votes, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 25, 2005 06:18 PM

Jean... If you're right, can I have her remote control?

Posted by: PatHMV at May 25, 2005 06:59 PM

"Women who have been screwed over by men" is a pretty large block in this country, sad to say.

Yes, I would agree but you might want to choose a different phrase ;-) Posted by: c3 at May 25, 2005 07:51 PM

I think Pat's right, in that Hillary does best when she's being victimized. The oddsmakers were giving her no better than even chances in her race against Rick Laszio, then the debates came.

Remember that moment when Rick stalked across the stage and tried to make her sign that pledge? He looked like he was mugging the poor woman. The second I saw it, I knew Hillary had it in the bag.

I agree with the others; I don't think she'll run. If she does, I doubt any of her opponents will be dumb enough to repeat Rick's mistake.

I don't know, Pat...if you had her remote control. what would you do with it? Keep in mind, please, that this is a family forum. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 25, 2005 10:27 PM

Very funny, Jean... No family-unfriendly fantasies about Hillary bouncing around in my head. The remote control would be used solely to assimilate her followers into the Republican collective.

My friends and I once bought Hillary and Bill a beer one upon a time in Arkansas. The night that it was announced that then-Governor Clinton would nominate Mike Dukakis, he, Hillary, Chelsea, and I think the Rodhams (her parents) went to celebrate at (I'm not making this up) the Little Rock El Chico.

A bunch of us were up in Little Rock visiting a friend of ours who was home for the summer and working as a hostess at that restaurant. When the buzz went through that "the Governor is here!", we said, what the heck, and sent him a beer, then went over and said hello. The next day, the front page had a picture of him wearing the shirt we had seen him wearing the night before, catapaulting him into national fame.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 25, 2005 11:17 PM

Hmmm....sounds like the Clintons were the ones assimulating you into THEIR collective. "You will buy us beer, Pat...you will buy us lots of beer. And wish us well. And smile for the cameras when you say it, Pat!"

I must be wrong. If they can convert you, even temporarily, then maybe Hillary has a chance at the WH after all. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 25, 2005 11:50 PM

News Flash: Most politicians, regardless of party or position, are very personable people. It's a tool of the trade. And with many of them, it's for real--they actually like people.

Posted by: Tully at May 26, 2005 09:40 AM

To those who think Hillary has no chance to ever be elected President, I would remind you waht someone once said after losing a gubernatorial election:

"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more." --Richard M. Nixon, November 7, 1962

Posted by: Tully at May 26, 2005 09:58 AM

A person I worked on a project with a few years back used to live in Little Rock. He and his wifer were out one night playing miniature golf. While putting, he felt a hand on his shoulder and heard a voice say, "mind if we play with you?". It was Governor and Mrs. Clinton. They played the entire 18 holes together.

He didn't say if they accompanied him to the 19th.

Posted by: tim at May 26, 2005 03:23 PM

FWIW, I can't help but notice that most of the people who think HC has no chance are people who have a visceral negative response to her. Here's the thing: if you negative response is visceral (gut level, instinctual, prior to reason), you pretty much HAVE TO think she has no chance.

Now I like Hillary OK but I don't have a visceral + response to her. I just think she has positioned herself well. As a woman, a DLC dem, a senator, well-spoken, and with the ability to appeal to her unique previous experience with the Presidency, I think she has a much better shot than, say, Gore, Edwards, or Kerry.

I grant that she has high negatives. However, it seems to me that most of this is centered among that group of people that would never vote for a democrat. I'm not saying all, I'm just saying that her chances among people who MIGHT vote for a democrat are pretty good. I don't think it hurts her that much that she's especially disliked by partisan republicans and the very socially conserative. And I'm not necessarily including anyone here in that group. My sense is that many of us here who are open-minded enought to chat in a centrist web site might be the electoral exception.

She should get almost all the democrats and further left, and she should be able to get a solid 60-70% of women across the board unless she runs against another woman or a very moderate republican. That's a built-in foot up few other viable democratic candidates have.

I wonder when they'll start polling on HC. I am curious as to who among the public views her first ladyship as a positive or a negative. I know what I think, which is that every time she says "when Bill was President , we ..." the blood of the Clinton haters will boil, but she'll be raising some nostalgia among others who might vote for a return to the rosy 90s.

Posted by: bk at May 26, 2005 03:26 PM

---News Flash: Most politicians, regardless of party or position, are very personable people.---

Well, DUH. I remember when Reagan spoke at my high school in Missouri. Now, let's be clear here, I was against about 98 % of what Reagan stood for, and still am, probably always will be. In fact, when his limo drove by, I was standing in the middle of a group of protesters, between one girl costumed as Lady Liberty who was blowing bubbles, and another girl all in red, white and blue who had her hands chained together as a form of protest.

But still...when his car drove by, most of the protesters put down their signs and waved. Even the girl with the chained hands waved. And he waved back. Even now, the memory of his smile gets me all verclempt.

So, yes, politicans never sport dripping fangs and bloody claws, no matter what the opposition says (at least, not in public ;-)
The problem is, most politicians can't meet all 250 million voters face to face. To overcome inherent prejudices, whether against actors, Catholics, or women, or well, being Richard Nixon, it isn't enough to have talent, tenacity, and/or political genius. you;ve got to have charisma, lots of luck and lots of money. JFK, Reagan, and Nixon (at least in '68) had all those things. I'm not sure if Hillary does.

Posted by: Blue Jean at May 26, 2005 03:28 PM

Yep, but it still comes as a BIG surprise to many people who don't actually know any politicians, when they meet some of the "opposition" politicians in non-political settings.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 11:12 AM