Hillary's hawkish moves is smart political calculation

She is a regular on the most admired list, even topping Laura Bush, the first lady, which is very unusual in a historical sense. And despite what Duers say or think, she is the number one choice of just about every poll of Democrats at this moment.

Her recent hawkish moves may well be the cement that will allow her to move into the Oval Office, and then she will move in the other direction I believe. Once she got into the presidency, then she would go to the left in my opinion.

You have to understand the mood of the country, and with all this war talk coming from the media 24/7. No one who sounds like a Dove will have a shot at it, unless things change dramatically in the next four years. (Iraq falls apart into civil war, US troops start having much higher casualty rates, etc)

No. Not with my vote at least.

You are absolutely correct. There is no way on god's green earth that she would be elected president. I greatly admire her, but I'm focused enough to see that this is never going to happen. She is far too polarizing, even in her own party, to ever make it to the Oval Office.

Sorry.

I think that will be a big turning point for our party and our country. Immoral, illegal, and dangerous it was.

Her hawkishness is not very acceptable to my husband and me right now.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are two of the most loved and hated Presidents of the modern political era. People love to say that Hillary is the Republicans' best fundraiser--well, Bush is the Democrats' best fundraiser and we couldn't beat him. Kerry was the most well-financed challenger in U.S. history (thanks to Bush haters) and Bush still won. The American people have no qualms about electing someone considered "polarizing." I'm not saying Hillary will win, but if she loses, it won't be because she is too polarizing.

chance of a snowball in Hell's chance of the Presidency OR Vice Presidency. Presently it's a cottage industry to "Hate Hillary" if not be openly misogynistic (see Harvard's Chair and pending Anti-Choice legislation)

rather than trying to be a 'hawk'.

You know, live up to the (D) next to her name and stuff.

I admire her greatly, but any idea of her winning the 2008 nomination is a pipe dream.

of the DLC.

Her appeal to the international economic neoliberal leaning democrats and republicans is entirely consistent with the idea that democrats can succeed by converting moderate to left positioned republicans.

We will need primary candidates across a broad spectrum of political reality. Most of them will fail in their attempt for the party nomination.

She's entitled to take her stance and try to build support for it.

she is handicapped by many other things including... not many people mention this...speaking style.

She is, IMHO, one of the five worst public speakers I've seen. Merely taking hundreds of EH-LOW-CU-SHION lessons will transform no one into an interesting speaker who is able to connect to the audience.

on the damn polls.

Regardless, Hillery doesn't stand a chance for President unless the opposition totally splinters between two candidates.

That's how Bill could win with less than 50% of the popular vote, and I believe there are a lot of women out there (and some men) who won't vote for a woman for president, even if she were to personally order another 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths herself.

The DLC wing hasn't ever been able to gain even 50% of the popular vote in presidential elections, yet they still say they know what's best for the party and what the "average voter" thinks.

It's all talk and no results as far as I can see. Am I missing something?

Her recent hawkish moves may well be the cement that will allow her to move into the Oval Office, and then she will move in the other direction I believe. Once she got into the presidency, then she would go to the left in my opinion.

And you're basing your opinion of this on what, exactly? Her record as a US Senator? Nah, it couldn't be -- because she's never shown any such propensity as my Senator.

Or maybe it's just wishful thinking. It never ceases to amaze me how many people here expect this "run to the middle, return to the left" from politicians who have NEVER BEEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE FUCKING LEFT TO BEGIN WITH!

Albert Einstein once described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. Case in point, see above.

in the 90's. After all, she proposed a health care plan that some said was close to socialism type.

So you think she is an arch conservative?? Come on.

So you think she is an arch conservative?? Come on.

No. I think she's a corporatist centrist, and an opportunist. Like I said above, she's my Senator, and in following her record she's given me very little reason to think otherwise.

As for her health care plan, the only people saying it "was close to socialism" were the right wing. Her plan failed because it tried to do cartwheels to give the big insurance companies a significant cut of the action, and therefore became so complex it was incomprehensible to the average citizen. Perhaps if she had championed a plan that was along the lines of, "You get a health care ID card, you get sick, you go to the doctor/hospital, your bills are paid by your health care taxes, end of story," it might have actually gained public support.

Perhaps your reason for expecting a different result lies not in blind faith, but historical revisionism.

than any republican. I don't know if you are in the both parties are the same camp, but I would strongly disagree with that if so.

I don't know if you are in the both parties are the same camp, but I would strongly disagree with that if so.

Did I say that she was a radical RW Republican, or the same as one? No. At least Radical RWers seem to have convictions they stand by. I'm still looking to see what Hillary's are.

She's an opportunist, first and foremost. As such, she's a member of the centrist/corporatist wing of the party. Do I think that she'd be worse than or the same as a RW Republican in office? No. But I think that the difference would end up being more of degree, and I also think that she'd continue on the same destructive course, just at a slightly slower pace and with a more human and compassionate face.

Funny how you didn't address a single thing in my post but rather assigned an assertion to me that I never made....

I don't agree with your take on her potential at all.

Yes, I understand she is your senator and all, but she would be a great change from 8 years of Bush and in my opinion, it would be a 180 degree turn in the right direction!

... demonstrates to me that you're viewing Hillary through a lens showing her as you WANT her to be, as opposed to how she really is.

Living in the state she represents, I follow her record. I have found it quite discouraging. She voted for the IWR, for bankruptcy reform that will hurt working families and single mothers, she continues to speak about how we need to "win" in Iraq, she has done little to get NY (especially NYC) the security funding it so desperately needs, and now she's talking about the need to "soften" on reproductive rights in order to appeal to right-leaning people, not to mention her recent comments on faith-based initiatives.

All of this, and more, when put together paints her as an opportunist. Furthermore, I think you could expect about a 10 degree shift from her. But if you believe that the difference between the parties represents anything approaching a 180 degree shift, then there's not much I can tell you to dislodge an emotionally-based belief.

Molly Ivins said that if you want to know what a politician will do when elected to higher office, you do three things:
1. Look at the record.
2. Look at the record.
3. Look at the record.

So, I'm looking at Hillary's record. You're throwing tea leaves in a cup and trying to discern the future from that. I'll take the empirical approach, thank you.

After all, she proposed a health care plan that some said was close to socialism type

Not even close. And the people that said it was "socialism" were typically Republicans or executives of small- and mid-sized insurance companies.

What Ms. Clinton proposed was a mess of a plan that would have allowed the top five insurance companies in the nation to effectively take over the private medical/health insurance market. Far from being socialist, it was corporatist to the highest degree, enriching private insurance companies with taxpayer $$s for subsidized, substandard care.

Under Hillary's plan, you would NOT receive universal coverage. Instead, you would be given the choice of various "plans" you could buy into, based upon what you wanted to spend (or could afford, more likely). If you could not afford coverage, you would have to go without.

In other words, the Clinton "plan" was little different than what we have right now: many different insurance providers, layer upon layer of bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape, no guarantee of even the bare minimum of coverage, and a healthcare system split along class/economic lines, where those too poor to pay (but too rich for Medicaid) had to 'ration' their healthcare dollars, while those with private Cadillac coverage got whatever they wanted, when they wanted it.

Hillary had a "plan", alright. But it sure wasn't "socialist".

If people don't see it as an act to get into office, they'll sure see it if she gets in and governs from anywhere other than how she ran.

She *might* get in by fooling the electorate, but she sure won't stay if she does. And people don't GET that?

Plus, how left can a former Goldwater Girl go?

Do you not understand that MSM discourse is defined by the Beltway parameters of argument? The only way that views questioning the war make it into the news on a regular basis is if the Democrats begin raising them. Since the majority of Democrats still refuse to be anything other than feckless and ineffectual, then the MSM will not raise those issues.

It is all your opinion and speculation.

I can just as easily say Hillary is a lock in 2008.

Both views are pure speculation, no one knows.

No one knows what will happen in the future, and I tend to doubt those who claim psychic ability.

about the future is things change all the time. Even if someone that claims psychic powers have to remember and note this. People have freewill and things just happen. I, personally, think all the "Hillary in 2008" stuff is just talk. She hasn't been in the Senate very long nor has she done anything else (like governor or something). Only reason why she would get to be the canidate is her name and name only. Even though I do like Hillary you have to be realistic here. And I doubt the republicans would run Condi too. Why? I don't know but I just don't think it'll be her.

Cement seems to be the operative word.

I, too, tend to doubt some folks' psychic ability.

The sword doth cut both ways in this argument.

MoreOfTheSame...ConventialWisdom is as MoreOfTheSame...ConventionalWisdom does.

especially if she wins a sweeping re-election in 2006. For many in the Democratic party the Clinton name is magic. I think women and minorities will support her strongly. She will be able to overwhelm nearly everybody else in fund raising.

Having said this doesn't mean that I favor her for '08.

And I'm getting more convinced she will run.

am just keeping my eyes and ears open but until I hear anything official it's just talk for now. :shrug:

What makes you think women will vote for her?

Rightwing women see her married to the immoral Bill, the Left sees her erode away the central planks of women's issues. In trying to please all, she pleases none.

And why would anyone see what the mainstream trumpets as the writing on the wall? You would think by now people would know they have not had the best interests of anyone other than their corporate neo-Con agenda to promote.

Americans are ready for a woman president. and like I said, she tops the most admired list. I think a lot of women admire her accomplishments and intelligence and independence and would vote for her.

Backing BushCo's war is ethical..isn't it? Making dumbass comments about the insurgency "failing" to further her political ambitions is ethical..isn't it?

I could understand her being a "moderate" repug senator in Kansas or Louisiana, but a Democrat in New York?

If the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate another opportunistic pol like Hillary, the only thing she'll be "cementing" is a lot of Green votes.

That's a surefired recipe for destruction if I ever heard one!

The Right Wing believes she's a wild-eyed liberal, so they'll pull out all the stops. The progressive left sees her (correctly, IMHO) as a corporatist centrist Democrat, and a shameless opportunist at that, so they'd stay home rather than actually do the heavy lifting for her election.

Why people cling to the idea that she'd be a good candidate is completely beyond me. You can cite all the polls you want as well, but the fact of the matter is that the only way the US will currently elect a woman president, in this age of fearmongering, is if she's a REPUBLICAN.

Is all of the sudden going to become a dove once she is President. Kinda like thinking Bill was going to be the great liberal hope once he took office, yet instead, he continued to be just another corporate tool.

Sorry friend, but we need real change in this country, not more of the two party/same corporate master system of government that we've been struggling under for decades now. And Hillary is certainly not the one to provide it.

I'm sick of people pretending they know other people's motives, especially since those imagined motives are almost always base and self-centered. :thumbsdown:

I'm not really a big fan of Hillary, but fair is fair - judge her on what she says and does, not on what you imagine to be her motives.

It's true she may really believe that Iraq is an important objective to continue, I am making an assumption in my post that may not be true.

God forbid, she would have any selfish motives of political ambition. Politicians are known only to act in the interests of the people...when not lunching with the lobbyists.

that description.

As for statements, how about the one saying the "insurgency is failing"?
How about her vote for Condaleeza? Her recent cuddling up to the pro-preggers?

Do you think that she's moving to the right without taking the political ramifications into consideration?

'Backing Bush' is a partisan position, not a policy position, and it simply is untrue to say that Clinton is backing Bush. But hey, facts and truth never stopped anyone from attacking Democrats before... don't let it stop you.

Just because she voted for Bush's war, voted for Condaleeza, travelled to Iraq to make statements backing the occupation, has pandered to the right with her abortion statements...all of which is sorta like like NOT backing Bush? Well, I'd hate to see what her votes and statements were if she was backing Bush.

Gosh, I've had Zell Miller all wrong.

Your response doesn't seem to me to indicate that you've understood the distinction, or even tried to.

Clearly this conversation is not worth pursuing.

While it is true that she is no liberal and she is imho wrong on a myriad of issues, it is not true to say she 'backs Bush'.


But again, I say, the truth has never stopped people from attacking Democrats before, don't let it stop you either.

If anything it has gotten worse.

Right, she is going to come out and say she "backs Bush"--her hawkish views--her positions, her record is what backs Bush.

Why are you pretending to have a dialogue instead of having a dialogue?

from the same questionable centrist-leaning crowd due to the fact that they are left without any firm ground on which to stand.

not running for nomination in the Republican party. I don't intend to vote for her and neither does my husband. Our reason is that every decision or vote she makes appears to be a calculated political one. She's a fine Senator for NY.

But considering the likely alternatives (i.e. another Al D'Amato clone like Lazio), she's the lesser of two evils.

Only make * look reasonable. I'll vote Green or sit it out before voting for a sellout like her.

69% approval rating in NY
49% - 40% approval vs disapproval among Republicans

a lot of that support is coming from upstate, which more closely resembles the rest of the country than NYC does. She has three more years to invent herself in the public eye.

And after 8 years of BushCo, another Clinton in the White House might look damn good to a lot of people. It will be her and Bill - two for the price of one.

The two groups that hate her the most are the freeper right and the liberal left - which is probably to her advantage.


She's a much stronger candidate than many realize.

they really want her to run. I don't trust polls at all these days because they are gamed by both sides.

Name recognition helps, especially just a few short months after another centrist disaster disappears and there is no one else on the radar. Look how high Lieberman was last round.
The Republicans squeal with glee--they will build up her inevitability only to pull out the stops. The Dean assassination will be a distant memory compared to what they are licking their lips and rubbing their hands together in anticipation.

Not only does Hillary polarize the Right vs Left divide, she polarizes the Left. Ain't no how, no way, the progressive activist base gonna rally to her fat centrist ass side, especially after biting down on that last ABB bitter pill.

So you will have the radical Right gunning and the progressives shrugging, so you centrists can dig your own damn hole without our help this time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She's a lightning rod for conservatives. We have absolutely no shot vs. generic Republican in 2008 if we nominate Hillary. I frankly don't care what she does, I will not support her run in '08 and will convince as many as I can not to vote for her in the primaries.

So I agree with you. The original poster said that she is moving to the right to get elected, then once in office she will move left again.

Well excuse me but I want someone who will stand up for his/her convictions and doesn't have a finger up to the wind trying to decide what stand on what particular issue will get the best polling numbers.

I will support an unabashed liberal who won't shift positions for political expediency like Hillary seems to be doing.

I'd just settle for a Democrat who will stand up for his or her convictions, and not put their finger in the wind each time they need to make a decision!

"The Right Wing believes she's a wild-eyed liberal, so they'll pull out all the stops. The progressive left sees her (correctly, IMHO) as a corporatist centrist Democrat, and a shameless opportunist at that, so they'd stay home rather than actually do the heavy lifting for her election."

100% correct. I believe that at the very least that 55% of Americans are ignorant &/or dumb. This is why superficialty and perception become reality.

Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton among the most popular women in Amerika.

Why that this does not reflect anything logical but mere propaganda brainwashing, like Tide is the best detergent.

But with a lot of people who voted for Kerry (against their better instincts) having been burned so badly they will never again be AB(X) and vote for a centrist corporatist.

It would be a rout.

isn't fooled by the "patriot act".

And folks who would normally vote for her are getting peeved at her blatant politicking.

What was the mood in Germany before they invaded Poland?

She's not going to get the vote of Iraq war hawks anyway, quinnox-- they'll vote for the Republican candidate anyway, not for Hillary. And Dems and independents, who are especially dismayed at the Iraq war and the disastrous debt it's running up for the US treasury, will now ardently refuse to support her. Her hawkishness is not only ethically suspect-- it's politically bumbling. She won't gain any votes with it, and she's guaranteed to lose an enormous amount of her base.

In fact, look at your own last statement in parentheses: This is already taking place. You're failing to notice that a strong association with the Iraq war cannot help Hillary, and in the midst of the increasingly brewing disaster in Iraq will hurt her severely. If Iraq is seen as a blunder (which it already is to a big extent) she will be closely tied in with her support for it, and suffer heavily corresponding political damage.

And please, can it with this "she's only acting hawkish now, she'd be a liberal in the Oval Office." That has to be the most useless, stupid line of support imaginable. She is already in a position of enormous power as a well-known Senator with a lot of name recognition, and her decisions affect the lives of millions of Americans. And her support of the war in Iraq, and that bankruptcy bill, have been disastrous for those millions of Americans-- especially Democrats. Do you think that in any other job you could just screw around in preparation for it and then have people trust you to do it right once you're in? Of course not. She has a professional responsibility to make the right decisions in office and she hasn't been doing that.

Oh and BTW, please don't cite those insipid "most admired" lists or any of that crap. All of that is merely a function of name recognition and press coverage (and Laura Bush, in case you haven't noticed, takes a much lower profile). Those numbers are in no way unusual in a historical sense, as you seem to believe. And you also mislead yourself by citing those Dem polls. Do you remember who the top choice among Dems was for most of 2003 and a good chunk of 2004 in those same polls? Joe Lieberman. Why? Same reason as Hillary-- name recognition, plain and simple. And we all know how well he did in the 2004 primaries (and note that he's almost a carbon copy of Hillary in his Senate votes and public statements, especially with regard to Iraq.) In fact, these pre-campaign polls for both parties are almost always wrong-- it's almost inevitably somebody else, with initially less name recognition, who gets the nomination. So the short answer is that as far as a "frontrunner" or Dem favorite goes, it's basically impossible to say much of anything at this point. We won't be able to say much at all until campaign season commences. And by then, of course, all of the euphoria about Iraq will have long subsided, and we'll be confronted by the grim reality-- in terms of casualties and horrific financial costs-- which that war will exact.

Lieberman comparisons are WAY off. Joe Lieberman was a vice presidential nominee on a losing ticket. He wasn't very well-known before 2000, and never really generated any excitement within the Democratic base. His popularity isn't even on the same planet as Hillary's. DU is the left of the left of the Democratic party. This is a small sample of the party. So to say that Dems "will ardently refuse to support her" is off base. We don't a national election in America--we have 50 individual state elections. Do you think that the most "liberal" states (NY, MA, CA, etc..) are going to vote for Bill Frist (or whatever monkey the RW chooses)? Nope. It will once again come down to states like Ohio, Florida, West Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin--all the usual swing states. Will she do better in those states than John Kerry did? That is way too early to tell. But say what you want about the Clintons, but you have to give them one thing: they are extremely politically savvy. She will frame the hot button issues in a manner that, even people who vehemently disagree with her will understand her position. (see her recent abortion speech) Her campaign will be run by people who have been in the trenches for two victorious national campaigns. If there is a "swift boat" type attack on Hillary (which there probably will be), her campaign will not let three weeks go by before responding.

Hillary has been very critical of the post war planning by the Bush administration. She has castigated Bush for not providing adequate armor to the troops, and railed against the administration for cutting veteran's benefits in the recent budget. Yes, she believes (as even a lot of Democrats do) that the recent Iraqi elections were a historic acheivement for a nation that has lived under oppresive rule. Does that mean that she is happy with everything about the war? No.

Democrats have a credibility problem right now when it comes to national security and military matters. It was huge factor that contributed to Kerry's loss. There is a lingering perception out there that Democrats will hesitate to use force. Having a democrat who has somewhat hawkish tendencies is not the worst thing. It's not called "republican-lite"--it's called responding to the world that we live in. I will take a democrat who acts hawkish over a republican any day of the week. You are right about one thing--its way too early to tell what will happen. But if Hillary decides to run, she will be the frontrunner.

that Democrats have to follow the Republican model to win, what is the point of being a Democrat? Just run two Republicans and dispense with the illusion of two parties.

when she's standing there on January 20, 2009 being inaugurated as our nation's 44th President.

Hillary '08

is either a smart political calculation, which means she doesn't believe what she is saying or if she does believe what she is saying, she is a closet conservative. Either way, I don't trust her.

She "thinks" rather than allowing her emotions to rule her actions. Anyone who has read life stories - written by friend and foe - will see the constant thread of consciousness. We need Hillary!

The less familiarity with the Hillary on the issues, the greater the likelihood of support.

to start early and strongly advocate for Hillary on Progressive websites. Like banging that war drum all over again.