The Hillary Illusion By Anthony Wade

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__070210_the_hillary_illusion.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10, 2007

The Hillary Illusion



February 10, 2007

I have sat on this story for a couple of years now; waiting until it was close enough to the 2008 elections to have the relevance necessary for progressives to truly take notice. For some this may come as a shock but it is a necessary dialogue that must be had, before it is too late. The country has come too far in the 2006 elections to watch another four years be flushed away in the White House. Everybody needs to take a deep breath, sit down and realize right now that Hillary Clinton cannot win in 2008.

I started to think about this immediately following the 2004 elections. Fox News was in full celebratory mode, ignoring the blatant voter fraud, when I noticed that they had a segment to actually discuss the viability of a 2008 Hillary run. What ensued made me very curious. They proceeded to talk Hillary up. Newt Gingrich was brought in as an expert and he proceeded to fawn over Hillary and how credible a candidate she is; and remember, this is four years before 2008. I thought to myself, why would Fox News go to such great lengths to gush over a woman I knew they hated? The answer was simple, they knew she could not possibly win a general election, thus she made the perfect candidate for the GOP, and thus for Fox News.

I could talk about the fact that she has a horrible position on the number one topic for the 2008 election, the war in Iraq. It is becoming evident that she is trying to undo her votes and her previous positions. The more she tries to the more she simply sounds like she is not being forthcoming. I can hear the chants of flip flop already. But the cold hard truth is that the actual campaign topics are not really relevant in this case because most have made their minds up about Hillary already.

The truth is that there are portions of this country that are not ready to vote for a woman, let alone this woman. I say that despite the fact that I personally do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I think she has done a very credible job as my Senator and often catches too much grief she does not deserve. That aside, she is also the most polarizing woman in politics. Most people either love her or they hate her. But love her or hate her nearly everyone has already made their mind up about her. A candidate like Obama or Edwards, people still will give a chance to get to know. Not so with Hillary. Make no mistake, she can win the primaries, but in a general election, she would start the GOP with 200-230 electoral votes. Then the Republican Party can concentrate their vast efforts and fortunes on those small handful of swing states and overwhelm her.

Too much doom and gloom you think? Ask yourself in all seriousness what states will not elect a woman, and then move into those that have a natural anti-Hillary slant. What are you left with? Not too many my friends. More importantly, start paying close attention to what the corporate media says about her. Listen not only to Fox News pump life into her candidacy, but your typical shills like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough. Ask yourself why people you know full well can't stand her are being so supportive of her candidacy? Start paying close attention to who is fueling the "Hillary is the front-runner" talk. Who is downplaying her competition? Obama gets "accidentally" called Osama, but Hillary is afforded the attention and credibility usually reserved for the other party. You watch as the primaries unfold. If there is someone stepping up to challenge Hillary, do not be surprised to see that person get the Howard Dean treatment from the corporate media. The machine is speaking very loudly about what they want and it is more important then ever to ask why, when the machine speaks so loudly and forcefully. There are reasons America; and there is too much at stake.


In their pursuit of continuing their American nightmare, the GOP has had a two-pronged attack since as far back as the moment George W. Bush stole another election in 2004. One, they needed to sort out their own candidate issues, and they have plenty. McCain continues to shoot himself in the foot over this war and Rudy's stance on social wedge issues would fracture the party's base. The second angle though has been to try and assist the Democratic Party with picking their candidate. They wisely decided early on to push Hillary. They have offered no resistance to her candidacy through the primary process and if anything have tried to assist her. Why America? Because they know that she cannot win. It gives me no joy to say it but it is better now to recognize the game before we get to November 2008 and hear about how the democrats elected an unelectable candidate. To hear about how Hillary is so polarizing and how there are parts of the country that are just not ready to elect a woman, let alone that woman. To hear about how the country is going to look after another four years of republican rule.



Authors Bio: Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 39-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess. Anthony Wade?s Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com

pushing Hillary on the Democrats because they know she can't win conspiracy theory.

Rather weak bombshell.

She can beat McCain.

She was on track to be Giuliani in 2000 .

HRC gets more votes than polling points. That's the voting pattern for her.

She's not my 1st , 2nd or 3rd choice, but she IS electable.

At this point I just want to preserve congressional majorities and she will do the most harm to down ballot candidates. They will be running from her in droves.

It's the opposite of what black candidates experience.

re third party candidate help. I'm also not sure Murdoch et al wouldn't mind Hillary, or Bill3, as they open to deals. Helping media is what their coverage is all about. I think Bill3 could justify and maneuver anything, with people thinking he's a great politician. Maybe he's too good.

to vote (open primary in VA) for Hillary. The Republican Party LOVES her as far as snagging the nomination because THEY KNOW that Hillary can NOT win the general election.

When you have right wing republicans fawning over Hillary, wake up and face REALITY before it's too late. :shrug:

including FOX. This after a book containing ALL Lies from the swifts received MONTHS of broadcast airtime and promotion from these exact same news outlets.

When did the newsmedia EVER dismiss a book of lies against any Democrat?

that if the Hillary book came out ONCE she was the Dem nominee that it would have received much more attention and pored over every detail on many a cable show and radio talk show. In the same way the swiftlies were discussed ad nauseum.

The point was the timing.

are doing their best to set up the stage so Hilary is
the Democratic Candidate. I would have to say , it
certainly seems that way. We should all know that
rightly or wrongly, they see Hillary as the Candidate
on Democratic Side they can beat. It should not
be surprising they will go to any means to win.

Do I think this is right?? No, it is not fair.
It means that our party gear up to figure out how
to take our Guilliani or McCain. If Hillary becomes
our Candidate==one of these will be her opposition.

Forewarned is Forearmed.

Money that might otherwise go to a viable candidate.

The first divorced president was a Republic - Ronnie RayGun. If a divorced Democrat had run, the Republics would have made that THE Campaign Issue and the Democrat would have lost. Liberals think it's stupid to make a big deal of whether someone is divorced, the corporate media didn't hype the issue so most people probably didn't remember that he was divorced, and the right wingers pretended not to notice that he was divorced.

Same way, the first alcoholic cokehead president is a Republic. If an alcoholic cokehead Democrat had run for President, that would have been THE Campaign Issue and he would have lost. Liberals think it's stupid to make a big deal out of drug use, the corporate media didn't hype the issue so most people probably didn't know he was an alcoholic cokehead and the right wingers pretended not to notice that he was an alcohic cokehead.

You can probably see the pattern. The first female president will be a Republic.

I find your reasoning pretty specious. Do you call our party the "Democrat" party? People were making a lot of comments about that a few weeks ago.

It should be the Democratic and Republican parties.

I refer the members of what I call the Republic Party as Republics. All in good fun. I'm sure they don't mind. If they stop calling my party the "Democrat Party" I might stop calling them Republics. I'm not holding my breath.

Specious? You mean my prediction about the first female president? Time will tell if I'm right, of course. But I think my reasoning makes sense. Do you disagree with my prediction?

But who can really tell? We're all just speculating months in advance of an actual selection. So much time has to fill and so many things have to be resolved before we can even predict this with any accuracy.

Thanks for your comments.

PS. I disagree with your handling of the nomenclature error that some Republican politicians have made. I like to think I'm the adult with the education and the intellect to call things correctly. It serves no purpose to choose to descend to their level.

However, I respect your right to deal with it any way you wish.

In peace,

Radio Lady in Oregon (looking out of a house that has a beautiful view of Mt. Hood. Except today, because it's too cloudy.)

I'm inclined to agree with you - I think that most liberals are. But the childish crap that the Republics continually spout makes a difference; it was enough to make the 2000 race for president close enough to be stolen. I've begun to think that we have to call them on it - every time. I suggest you check out The Daily Howler website. Bob Somerby, who writes it, has been on a tear lately about why we should refuse to let the Republics and their corporate press supporters run unhindered, even when it feels childish to confront them. And he says it so much better than I can.

But your comment supports my prediction, in fact. We liberals tend to be reasonable and think that calling people Republics is childish, beneath us. We evaluate pesidential nominees on their merits, without regard to superfluous crap such as their race or gender or whatever. The conservatives are not reasonable.
Picture a sports contest in which one player or team thinks that the most important thing is to play well and the other believes fanatically that all that matters is winning. I'd predict that the fanatics will win far more often than their relative skill and talant would lead you to believe.

I find it tough to call whether an African-American man will be president before a woman. But I feel quite confident that the first black president will be a Republic.

Peace to you as well.

- stil

I've got a bad case of it.
A lot of people do.
I dread a general campaign
where EVERY old news story (true and made up)
having anything to do with Bill or Hillary
will be used (in Rovian fashion) against her.
I can just imagine ads asking if you can
trust a woman whose husband was fornicating
in the WH. Will Bill have orgies in the Lincoln
Bedroom while Hillary is off Presidentiating?
Fox Viewers want to know!!
Whitewater, Vince Foster, Monica, etc etc.

I want the election to be about the future,
NOT a rehash of the first 8 Clinton Years.

Bill Clinton wins every poll he's in:

Mayor of NYC.
Pres of US vs. GWB. Always has.

His fatigue is better than most other's numbers.

Don't fall for it. Too bad Gore did.

I'm not so sure people won't vote for a woman, but I'm pretty sure the right won't vote for Hillary. As I've said over and over, the right thinks of Hillary EXACTLY the way we think of shrub. The difference is that Hillary really has done nothing to deserve it. It's unfair, but it's fact IMO.

I think there are a lot of republicans who WILL cross the aisle to try to undo the damage * and his administration have done. They'll do it if there is a candidate they can somehow identify with, or like at least a little bit. Hillary is not that candidate.

I don't think McCain is unbeatable at all. I don't think any of their potential candidates are unbeatable. But in order to beat them, we have to have a candidate that will get at least some disgusted republicans to cross the aisle.

Republicans ARE trying to choose our candidate for us. We can't let it happen.

who can get republicans to cross over, who is likeable, not polarizing, who republicans disgusted with their party will vote for. It's a big field, and it's possible Clark and Gore will enter, as well (I'm kind of hoping).

So far to me, Obama looks like a guy who could do it, but it's still REALLY early. Anything can happen, but Hillary cannot undo the hate that the right has had for her ever since she was first lady. They are STILL blaming Clinton for everything, and he's likeable, warm and charismatic. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't have those gifts.

...for everything...and the LAST thing they want to see is Bill moving back into the White House. That's why I think Hillary is unelectable.

The GOP wants Hillary to be our nominee. Maybe someday we'll have a woman president, but not now, and not this woman.

The Repukes want Hillary because she can not win against Pataki --- even in New York, and during a War -- a woman will never get elected. If Jeb happens to beat Pataki --- Jeb against Clinton is still a sure win for the Repukes, but the Repukes are betting on Pataki being president in 2008.

The Repukes main worry is a Gore or Clark running, thats why they infused a billion into the DLC
to pay off the Dems to run Clinton.

Either -- Gore or Clark -- would easily win against Pataki or Jeb Bush.

I don't think Jeb Bush will ever run for President. Hopefully, the Bush dynasty is at an end. It is severely corroded right now, more than a year before the 2008 election.

We'll have to wait to see if Wes Clark even gets involved in the primaries. Polls I've seen haven't shown him getting much of a public boost. Don't get me wrong. I think Clark is a fine person. Maybe if the war is still going on -- a military man would be appropriate. But as of now, I only know that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have announced. Has Clark even tipped his hand? Will the country tap a man who has never held an elective office in his life -- for one of the most important jobs in the world?

I think Gore could win, if he is "drafted" or chooses to run. But I have a real problem with your comment that "they (the Republicans) have infused a billion dollars into the DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee) to pay off the Dems to run Clinton."

What was that again? Where do you get your facts? No kidding!

Thanks for listening!

From Greenpeace, the ACLU, Environmental groups, etc., ---no. I think ---- more then likely she is getting it from lobby groups for large companies, DLC groups,etc., that all work for the same Repuke companies.

I could be wrong, I think I last read in the media, she has a half billion $$$, if she is such a great antiwar liberal, most of that half billion must be from people or groups that are anti-war.

Does anyone know who gave her that much $$$?

Hillary should be the next Senate majority leader.

Put Clark, Edwards and Richardson in the Cabinet.


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)

Make a date with Al Gore on the David Letterman Show -- February 14th!

Read Rolling Stone magazine: WHY GORE SHOULD RUN -- AND HOW HE CAN WIN
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win

Get ready for Al Gore's next book - The Assault on Reason - out in May!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

Visit the following pro-Gore websites:
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition! :)
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

:kick:

According to the latest rumor - it might be tomorrow (Tuesday 13th).

But Al Gore is not listed among this week's guests on the CBS website.

The climate has changed so much since then. The Democrats are going to win this one.

First, I've never read a poll where it doesn't state by an overwhelming majority that Americans would elect a woman. I imagine if polls were done of actual voters, it would even be higher.

Second, some voters would chose to not vote for her NOT because of her sex, but because she is a Democrat. There are going to be some red states that aren't going to vote Democratic, no matter who we have. However, even in red states, the fact that she is female will generate a lot of interest.

Third, the author is provincial in his thinking. It's so easy for a New Yorker to explain to us how backward and ignorant some are. Again... it's the party, not the person. I can tell you that in my red state, there is not one single Democratic voter who voted for Kerry, who would not vote Hillary. She will probably do much better than Kerry here as she would draw in more voters ( note: there are more registered Democrats in Oklahoma than Republicans.) I don't expect her to win here, but she could perhaps do as well as Gore did or better.

The author does not take into account the strength of her campaign. She has Bill, money, and history on her side.

Finally the media is not telling voters who to pick. I'm getting pretty sick of this particular meme.
The media covers who has the interest and who sells. Hillary takes one trip to Iowa and jumps in the polls. That wasn't done by the media. They reported it. The Republican FEAR her. They would rather run against anyone except Hillary.

I'm afraid some here are just going to have to settle in and accept the fact that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination, and she is also going to be the next President.

( disclaimer I have to put on posts like this: I have not decided who my candidate is. I like Clark the best. )