Hillary in 2008? No way.
A political rant this evening (in all its unedited glory). Between writing an objective memo (turns out that despite the World Series and election, I'm still in law school) and spending time with friends and loved ones, I've neglected the blog since the immediate aftermath of the election. So I've been thinking a lot about 2006 and 2008 and what must be done to set things right in this country. I even looked at some old electoral college maps (1996, 1992, 1964) to remind myself that America hasn't always been run by zealots. And everything I've thought about and read has brought me to this one conclusion:
Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT the answer.
If there's anything that this election has shown us, it's that the Republican operatives have done an excellent job of dividing this country in such a way that they have achieved a majority. They've done it by usurping "moral values" as a way of recruiting people of every religion, rendering the Democrats seemingly godless. Through the politics of fear (both of terrorists and -- gasp -- homeosexuals), they've reached out to minority groups and people of low economic status in such a way that Hatian immigrants in Miami or poor farmers in Idaho don't even realize that the economic policies of this administration will actually hurt their chance of succeeding in American society.
What the Democrats need to do is to regain some of the moral authority that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson once had as they fought for civil rights and economic freedom. Both of these men advanced the greater good of society while simultaneously fighting a war that left our citizens fearful of imminent disaster. Yet, they were able to say to the people of our country, "The government is keeping you safe from the communists, but we recognize that you fear for your economic security and your civil liberties at the same time and we are striving to protect these, as well." This was a message that did not appeal only to one segment of society, but to all.
Which brings us back to present day. The Republicans in power have usurped national security and moral values as their own. Because Democrats attempt to protect civil liberties, they are branded as opponents of freedom. Because Democrats are willing to entertain the idea that homosexual relationships might be legitimate, they are labeled as valueless. So how do the Dems regain both the moral high ground and the mantle of "protectors" of the American way of life?
What it requires is a politician that absolutely radiates positivity with a clear and concise message; someone who can comfortably chat with the Mississippi preacher and can philosophize with the New York intellectuals; someone who can effectively argue that freedom and safety needn't be mutually exclusive; someone who can connect with every level of our society as "one of us." It must be someone who can speak to the core values that all Americans share, just as Kennedy did in 1960, Johnson in 1964, and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 before his tragic death. Although we may not know who this person might be today, I can assuredly say this:
Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT that person.
In order to recapture the message that has been overtaken by the party of the rich and powerful, the Democrats need a fresh start. Prominent Democrats in the past 6 years have simply not gotten the job done. The current crop of Democratic hopefuls are just too tied in with the failure that the Democratic party has been since 1998, and they each have strong unelectable characteristics. Kerry was too easily labeled a "Massachusetts Liberal," which is a code word for someone who is arrogant and out of touch with everyday citizens (and, I think we might agree, Kerry didn't do a great job eschewing that label). Even if the media hadn't labeled him crazy after the Iowa rally, Howard Dean almost certainly would have fallen to the same fate (for goodness sake, he was governor of Vermont when they allowed civil unions!). Gephardt, for all his good nature (and I truly believe he's a great person), has failed to lead the party for the last 16 years. Edwards, I'm afraid, may be too closely associated with Kerry to give him a viable future as a candidate. Lieberman is a Republican.
None of these candidates have the ability to make people of the other party stop and say, "Y'know, I just like the guy." (Edwards's personality might be engaging, but he's been labeled as a "trial lawyer." Apparently, at some point in the past 4 years, trial lawyers have gone from being the people who fight for the little guys to being the reason the little guy is paying high insurance premiums. Funny how people seem to be unaware that the "Litigation Explosion" is actually a huge myth that is most likely perpetuated to justify these insurance hikes... but I digress...) This is, policies aside, one of the more important aspects of a successful candidate. In 2000, Bush came off like your best friend while Gore seemed more like an arrogant college professor. Carter was extremely likeable (but equally ineffective). Apparently, everybody loved Reagan. And, say what you want about his personal predilections, Bill Clinton is one of the most captivating speakers I have ever heard. When he talks, you sit back and listen. Which brings me back to my point.
People hate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not everybody, and certainly not me. Actually, hate is a strong word. But many Americans do already have an opinion about Hillary, for better or for worse. She power-hungry, so much so that she sacrificed her personal dignity to remain First Lady after Lewinskygate. She's a carpetbagger for moving to New York just to run for the Senate. She's a liberal (gasp! that word again!).
It's not even the woman, herself. The image of Hillary Rodham Clinton is simply too polarizing. In a different year, I might wholeheartedly support her. But in November of 2004, this country is already extremely polarized, and guess what? Hillary Clinton is in the wrong 48%. What we've learned from this election is that the anti-Bush, anti-Republican vote simply isn't enough to get it done. The Democrats need a politician who can reach out, recapture and refocus the party's lost message, and bring Americans together.
That politican is not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just like Dole in '96, Mondale in '84, Goldwater in '64, and Nader every year, a Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 would be destined to fail. And the Democrats simply cannot afford another failure.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT the answer.
If there's anything that this election has shown us, it's that the Republican operatives have done an excellent job of dividing this country in such a way that they have achieved a majority. They've done it by usurping "moral values" as a way of recruiting people of every religion, rendering the Democrats seemingly godless. Through the politics of fear (both of terrorists and -- gasp -- homeosexuals), they've reached out to minority groups and people of low economic status in such a way that Hatian immigrants in Miami or poor farmers in Idaho don't even realize that the economic policies of this administration will actually hurt their chance of succeeding in American society.
What the Democrats need to do is to regain some of the moral authority that John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson once had as they fought for civil rights and economic freedom. Both of these men advanced the greater good of society while simultaneously fighting a war that left our citizens fearful of imminent disaster. Yet, they were able to say to the people of our country, "The government is keeping you safe from the communists, but we recognize that you fear for your economic security and your civil liberties at the same time and we are striving to protect these, as well." This was a message that did not appeal only to one segment of society, but to all.
Which brings us back to present day. The Republicans in power have usurped national security and moral values as their own. Because Democrats attempt to protect civil liberties, they are branded as opponents of freedom. Because Democrats are willing to entertain the idea that homosexual relationships might be legitimate, they are labeled as valueless. So how do the Dems regain both the moral high ground and the mantle of "protectors" of the American way of life?
What it requires is a politician that absolutely radiates positivity with a clear and concise message; someone who can comfortably chat with the Mississippi preacher and can philosophize with the New York intellectuals; someone who can effectively argue that freedom and safety needn't be mutually exclusive; someone who can connect with every level of our society as "one of us." It must be someone who can speak to the core values that all Americans share, just as Kennedy did in 1960, Johnson in 1964, and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 before his tragic death. Although we may not know who this person might be today, I can assuredly say this:
Hillary Rodham Clinton is NOT that person.
In order to recapture the message that has been overtaken by the party of the rich and powerful, the Democrats need a fresh start. Prominent Democrats in the past 6 years have simply not gotten the job done. The current crop of Democratic hopefuls are just too tied in with the failure that the Democratic party has been since 1998, and they each have strong unelectable characteristics. Kerry was too easily labeled a "Massachusetts Liberal," which is a code word for someone who is arrogant and out of touch with everyday citizens (and, I think we might agree, Kerry didn't do a great job eschewing that label). Even if the media hadn't labeled him crazy after the Iowa rally, Howard Dean almost certainly would have fallen to the same fate (for goodness sake, he was governor of Vermont when they allowed civil unions!). Gephardt, for all his good nature (and I truly believe he's a great person), has failed to lead the party for the last 16 years. Edwards, I'm afraid, may be too closely associated with Kerry to give him a viable future as a candidate. Lieberman is a Republican.
None of these candidates have the ability to make people of the other party stop and say, "Y'know, I just like the guy." (Edwards's personality might be engaging, but he's been labeled as a "trial lawyer." Apparently, at some point in the past 4 years, trial lawyers have gone from being the people who fight for the little guys to being the reason the little guy is paying high insurance premiums. Funny how people seem to be unaware that the "Litigation Explosion" is actually a huge myth that is most likely perpetuated to justify these insurance hikes... but I digress...) This is, policies aside, one of the more important aspects of a successful candidate. In 2000, Bush came off like your best friend while Gore seemed more like an arrogant college professor. Carter was extremely likeable (but equally ineffective). Apparently, everybody loved Reagan. And, say what you want about his personal predilections, Bill Clinton is one of the most captivating speakers I have ever heard. When he talks, you sit back and listen. Which brings me back to my point.
People hate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not everybody, and certainly not me. Actually, hate is a strong word. But many Americans do already have an opinion about Hillary, for better or for worse. She power-hungry, so much so that she sacrificed her personal dignity to remain First Lady after Lewinskygate. She's a carpetbagger for moving to New York just to run for the Senate. She's a liberal (gasp! that word again!).
It's not even the woman, herself. The image of Hillary Rodham Clinton is simply too polarizing. In a different year, I might wholeheartedly support her. But in November of 2004, this country is already extremely polarized, and guess what? Hillary Clinton is in the wrong 48%. What we've learned from this election is that the anti-Bush, anti-Republican vote simply isn't enough to get it done. The Democrats need a politician who can reach out, recapture and refocus the party's lost message, and bring Americans together.
That politican is not Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just like Dole in '96, Mondale in '84, Goldwater in '64, and Nader every year, a Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 would be destined to fail. And the Democrats simply cannot afford another failure.
posted by mike at 11:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home