For the sake of full disclosure, I admit it--I oppose Hillary on substantive grounds. The war is the prime mover: Hillary does not seem to support full withdrawal, and her opposition (such as it is) appears very late in the game to me. I don't think Senators have much of excuse for not opposing the fiasco publicly (naturally, Edwards is arguably even more complicit in this regard). Perhaps some sympathy could be mustered if she had supported the overthrow of Saddam, but opposed the resulting occupation--but Hillary waited so long that her reversal draws suspicion of political calculation. Personally, I believe her reversal is sincere. This indicates not so much dishonesty as an error in judgment--her reversal took too long.
Perhaps I confess ignorance in this regard, but I am not aware of any major Senatorial accomplishment Hillary can claim except being a popular Senator and bringing home the bacon to her state. Nonetheless Hillary would have us believe that her experience in the Senate gives her the edge over her rivals.
Now returning to the war, I suppose Barack Obama never had to face the hard political choices a Senator from New York is faced with. But this freedom from compromise and complicity is an electoral asset! It may be true that the body of Americans who supported the war at first and now oppose it (like Hillary) now rivals the original anti-war contingent in size. Yes, Hillary appeals to some of the former. But Obama's advantage is he can claim consistency on the war AND he can show empathy and magnanimity by publicly acknowledging that virtuous people were wrong about the war, even if he wasn't. Admittedly, Obama will still have to face the question "Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power?" (to which the obvious answer is yes, though I doubt any 'major' candidate will have the balls to say so). However it is equally likely that Clinton, like Kerry, will face the same attacks regardless of her yes vote, and she, unlike Obama, will have to face the charge of being irresolute.
I'll admit that Clinton has some strong political skills, and that the other 'major' candidates aren't offering much more in terms of policy (though I'd contend that each one does offer progressives a few more concessions, here and there, policy-wise). Realizing this, my position on Hillary has softened a bit. But I still retain much of my original feeling that Clinton represents a suicidal tendency--not only do we nominate a candidate likely to rile up the GOP base and reinvigorate the 90s culture wars, we also nominate the candidate whose presidential prospects were partially kept afloat because of the Right's obsession with her. A baffled Timothy Noah looked at the fervent GOP conviction that Hillary would enter the race in 2004 and concluded that Hillary was useful to the GOP as a fundraising tool....
http://www.slate.com/id/2088758/http://www.slate.com/id/2088820/Now, one wonders if those GOPers weren't on to something after all. Because Hillary has, in line with the ambivalent desires of the GOP, entered the race after all.
What is it that makes Hillary more electable than Edwards, Obama, or Richardson? Hillary supporters call up her experience, her poise, her reasonableness, etc. If only the American people were so clear-headed.
Edwards and Obama both appeal electorally. Both are handsome men, which appeals to women (without necessarily turning off those women who resent Hillary's accomplishment and independence). Edwards offers a plain-spoken appeal to ordinary Americans that might win important parts of the South. Obama offers an inspiring new face to represent America and its aspirations, as well as the hope (to us and to the world) that the US is finally making progress towards racial reconciliation. Given their dose of religious righteousness, both of these men will play better than Hillary with the evangelicals who DO vote (as we discovered in 2004). Hillary, to be sure, might help turn out women and those non-voters who appreciated Clinton's sane presidency. Still, I don't see her electoral appeal as being larger than Edwards and Obama--and that doesn't factor in the GOP machine and how it's likely to react to Hillary. Or the possibility that the Republican candidate will be able to portray himself as the candidate of change when matched up against the familiar Hillary.
Finally I wonder which candidate will prove the most likable when the general election campaign really gets going--in those heady days of September and October. Our candidate will need formidable reserves of energy and a deep, passionate voice. Sure it's not impossible that Clinton could be this voice but I wonder what is possible if we choose another path.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(789 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
