Hillary Fatigue: Don't Drink the Kool-Aid!

[election_2004]

Before everyone groans: “Oh, not ANOTHER Hillary Clinton post!” . . . please hear what I have to say - - keep in mind that not everyone who opposes the idea of Senator Clinton becoming the Democratic Party’s new standard-bearer in 2008 has taken that position based on sexism, nor do we believe the right-wing smears about her (“She’s a lesbian,” “She’s a Feminazi”) have any ounce of credibility to them. There are many non-Republicans who are genuinely uncomfortable with the prospect of how she would govern.

The following editorial was written by me for an alternative, independent (but progressive-leaning) student-run publication at my college. I hope people who are “on the fence” about supporting Hillary will read my words and consider what I have to say. If anyone at Democratic Underground agrees with my sentiments, I encourage you to share this with other Democrats in your offline communities and in online activism groups. As per DU rules, I am only posting three paragraph-long excerpts from my article, with an accompanying URL to the original published article:

http://www.flipsidepress.com/issue/getpost.pl?messnumb=1127887493

As evidence of her electability, the Hillary-in-2008 crowd also insists that New York Republicans have warmed to Senator Clinton and become impressed with her job performance during the past five years. Unfortunately, New York Republicans are not representative of “swing voters” in all states. New York is a very blue state where running Hillary for president wouldn’t have the same statewide ramifications for other Democrats the way it would in red and purple states. “Swing voters” may accept Hillary in New York, but that doesn’t mean she will enhance the rest of the Democratic ticket in Missouri, Virginia, Minnesota, Tennessee, Louisiana, Colorado, and North Carolina.

<snip>

Is there any doubt that mainstream media lackeys are promoting this “inevitability” of Hillary’s nomination in order to secure themselves years worth of tabloid fodder, which they can pass off as “journalism”? Clearly, Hillary’s possible run for the presidency creates headlines, and if she took herself out of the running, the media would have to look elsewhere for its juicy sound bites. Without Hillary’s run for the presidency, the mainstream media will only have Paris Hilton or Brittany Spears to fall back on.

<snip>

The Hillary-in-2008 chorus answers any criticism of its candidate’s drawbacks with the mantra: “But she can win!” Again, they are missing the bigger picture. While it’s possible that Senator Clinton could squeak out an Electoral College victory, it is also likely that downticket GOTV efforts in conservative areas of the country would accompany any hypothetical election of Hillary Clinton to the White House. Her presidency would be constantly demonized and undercut by a newly-emboldened Republican majority in Congress. The main saving grace of Hillary’s administration would be her judicial nominees – that is, whichever candidates newly-minted Judiciary Chair Jon Kyl (or Mike DeWine or Jeff Sessions) and his cohorts would let out of committee for a floor vote.

<snip>

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

1. they love the clintons

but for all the wrong reasons

i've thought this for a long time. if hillary gets in, expect any effort by the left to influence her on policy to be lost as she, like her husband, spends all her efforts in a futile bid to placate the rw scandal merchants

[Hobarticus]

2. I don't think it matters WHO the Dems put up, they'll be demonized

by the GOP. Short of Jesus Christ himself, there's no one that'll get a free pass. the Big Red Attack Machine is oiled and ready.

[election_2004]

4. I agree

So why give them what they want? (the tabloid-esque "red meat" of having the Clintons back and center-stage)

[Skwmom]

6. The "it doesn't matter who we nominate" because anyone will be attacked

is such illogical b.s. The Republicans wouldn't work so hard at getting the Democrats to nominate certain individuals if they didn't think they would be easier to win against (attack).

[Hobarticus]

21. Sorry, but THAT's illogical b.s. ....

It doesn't matter anymore if the GOP thinks they can or can't win against a certain candidate. They attack hard, often, and all the damn time. Not paying attention to the last few election cycles? They managed to paint a decorated war vet as a snivelling coward who pulled strings to get medals for slivers.

Find me one candidate that will be completely flame-free from the GOP, and I'll show you the Second Coming.

[sendero]

10. Yes....

.... but with Hillary they get a 13-year head start.

[Mich Otter]

18. The Republicans would attack Jesus as being too Liberal

You can bet your ass the Republicans would attack Jesus. They would not want him spending money on the poor when the Republicans want that money for their rich supporters.

[merci_me]

3. Hillary is being used as

a rallying point to scare some on the right, as a cheap story for media hacks and for the Republicans as an attempt to orchestrate the Democratic party to deliver to the Republicans the candidate they want to run against.

I'm a Democrat by birth, a Yankee and a 60's feminist, transplanted to Texas and I can damn well guarantee you, Hillary would NOT carry a single state that Kerry didn't and she'd lose a lot of the precious little vote he was able to get in the south.

I'm NOT a Hillary hater by any means, neither am I a huge supporter. I most assuredly do not want her to even make a run for the nomination and the sooner we could put that whole thing to rest, the better this party will be able to move forward.

I would love to see the US Senate become a Democratic majority and I would LOVE to see Hillary as majority leader. I think she'd be superb.

[skipos]

5. I agree with you nt

[Clarkie1]

12. Hillary would be an O.K. senate majority leader

Although I'd prefer Boxer in that role.

Have we ever had a woman senate majority leader before? I think it's high time we did!

[Texas_Kat]

16. Thank you merci.....

You are exactly correct, I'm afraid. Not a single new blue state.

[lastknowngood]

7. Her politics and how she would govern does not matter this is

America and NO woman can be elected Pres. Get a clue people no repugs will vote for her and many dems male and female will vote against her because she is a woman. That's the facts folks you can spout all the BS you want but that is where we are.

[leetrisck]

8. I am very comfortable with Hillary Clinton

as a possible President. I'm not about to be swayed by the media because they like a good story or the republicans who swear they want to run against her - they're scared to death of her because they know she can win.

[JDPriestly]

9. I'm not a Hillary for 2008 fan.

She's much too conservative for me, and I have to warn you that I'm middle of the road for California. And let me also warn you that voters out here in California are likely to defect in droves if the Democratic Party puts up another conservative wolf in a "liberal" sheep's clothing even if her name is Clinton.

Those of us who live in solidly blue states are the backbone of the party. And, we know one thing: The conservative movement has failed. Lead by vultures who are, as I write, feeding at the carrion of what used to be the American economy, it has dissipated into total corruption. More and more Americans are becoming aware that conservatives are pecking away at the bare bones of the American tax base. Once conservatives have chewed the Social Security funds to the marrow, they will start cutting the already minimal payments to retirees. When that happens, senior citizens and their children will revolt big time. Those of us who cherish the progressive ideals and the rational philosophy on which our country was founded will finally be heard.

I am a progressive. We progressives are proud of our progressive platform. We want a candidate in 2008 who stands up tall for progressive ideals. No ifs, ands or buts. We are tired of catering to the prejudices and ignorance of conservative voters in red states. Trying to please them hasn't worked in the past. It won't work in the future. We need a candidate who offers real solutions -- progressive solutions, not apologies.

Mind you, the progressive agenda is not written in stone. Its basis is compromise and discussion in a free marketplace of ideas. But, we do not waiver in our dedication to the right to privacy and the need to protect human and civil rights. We believe in a foreign policy that seeks to build a peaceful world not an empire, guaranteed basic health care for all, fair treatment for all employees, fair trade, free speech, civilian control of the military, minimal secrecy in government and vigilance with regard to corruption, a clean environment, and, to the extent possible, freedom from our addiction to imports, whether of foreign oil or of products produced by cheap, foreign labor.

The problem with running a conservative Democrat for president is that, even if the candidate won, he or she would not be able to govern successfully. That is because only a progressive can offer real solutions. After all the hot air of nearly 50 years of conservative governments, the American people want results. Only a progressive can bring results. Only a progressive can lead the country in a direction that will improve the lives of Americans.

Forget about conservative Democrats. They cannot differentiate themselves clearly enough from the Republicans to build a meaningful movement or wage a winning campaign. It is axiomatic that conservative Democrats do not have charisma. That is because charisma is the manifestation of clear purpose and integrity in pursuing that purpose. Conservative Democrats have neither of those qualities. They know that the conservatism of the far right doesn't make sense, but they don't have the courage and integrity to stand up for the progressive ideas that do make sense. We need a true progressive candidate who believes in finding new, positive solutions for America.

Say no to conservative Democrats. Let's choose the real thing, a real, in-your-face progressive who has the integrity to say what he believes.

[leetrisck]

11. Hillary (nor Bill) ever claimed to be liberal

The republicans called them liberal trying to defeat them. I don't think either of them have been dishonest about their beliefs. Can you name me a "real in-your-face progressive" that could win an election?

[zbdent]

13. What makes you think that it will be any easier with ANY fill-in-the-blank

candidate who runs against the Repukes?

If Hillary becomes the 08 candidate, what we should do is keep pointing out that they can't do anything but revisit all the old charges that she would have been put in jail for if there were anything to them . . .

Whomever we put up is going to face a hostile media controlled by Scaife and Murdoch with Drudge as the distributor of the talking points.

We have to fight . . . and Hillary, polarizer as she might be, has gone through that hell and scares the Righties because she has proven she will survive their shit . . .

[election_2004]

17. That rationalization is flawed

We have to fight . . . and Hillary, polarizer as she might be, has gone through that hell and scares the Righties because she has proven she will survive their shit . . .

The difference is that, in the past, Senator Clinton has never had to run as THE actual presidential candidate before. She has never been the party's de facto standard-bearer who'd be expected to provide stability for Democrats in moderate-to-conservative "swing" districts.

Hillary might be a lot of things, but she is certainly not stable.

But the point I'm trying to make isn't "What should be done if she's the nominee..."

The point is: people need to quit resigning themselves to some perceived "inevitability" that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee...because that's what the media WANTS to happen. With Hillary in the presidential hot-seat, the pundits can afford to be lazy and simply revisit "exciting" controversies rather than focusing on the real issues.

[CrackpotAmerica]

14. I just can't bring myself to like Hillary.

She is too much of a pleaser, swaying right when she needs to.

Also, when she moved to NY to run for Senate, I kind of got a bit perturbed.

We don't need any more pure polititions right now, me thinks...

Sorry if this made anyone mad... just thinking aloud!

[mzteris]

15. if you wrote it

I wouldn't think the length restrictions apply. . .

After all - you should have the author's PERMISSION to "reprint" as you ARE the author.

[Mich Otter]

19. Not my first choice.

Hillary Clinton would not be my first choice for the presidency. I'll be supporting a left leaning candidate till the decision is made as to who the Democratic candidate will be. Then, whoever the choice of the Democrats is, I'll be working to support that candidate. I might wind up supporting Hillary or some other Republican-light candidate who I know is still better than whoever the Republicans run with.
We are going to have to do a lot of work and compromising to move this country to the left every tiny increment at a time that we can manage to gain. Even Hillary Clinton helps get us a tiny step closer to being the kind of country we "Otter" be, compared to where we have been heading.

[election_2004]

20. My editorial was addressing the Dem primaries...

...regarding when people decide who they support.

People should not base their decisions on a superficial equation of name recognition and partisanship.

[JNelson6563]

22. She lost me the day she

sold us out to vote for the IWR. I watched her speech and it made me sick. I've never had even the slightest inclination to support her since and it has nothing to do with Kool-aid.

Julie

[mtnsnake]

23. Congratulations, you've just outdone the right wing Hillary haters

It's one thing to bash our own people privately among ourselves, but when it's done on an "independent" outside venue, it takes on a whole new meaning.

:puke:

[election_2004]

24. She is not one of "my people"

I only support candidates whom I believe can be trusted. I'm not giving a rubber stamp to someone just because they have a "D" after their name.