Hillary for President, The Default Choice
Posted on January 20, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!
Today, January 20, two years to the day before her anticipated inauguration, NY Senator Hillary Clinton announced the formation of her exploratory committee, the current way candidates announce official candidacy for POTUS, that is, President of the United States.
It is a momentous announcement and entirely expected.
If elected, she will become the first woman president, a cliché whose time is past due. She will be attacked from the right for all the standard right-wing things, but also for all the standard snarky things, always couched some way to deny that her being a woman has anything to do with it. But be warned the clichés will all be pulled out, starting with “the weaker sex.” Charges of bitchiness will be leveled, though not often using the word. A man would be called tough, strong, firm. If in one sentence she’s credited with neutral-sounding attributes of good leadership, in the next sentence she’ll be called mannish and likened to a dyke (no offense intended toward my lesbian friends).
There are other candidates I like. Dennis Kucinich for his wonderful, unabashed liberalism (there should be more like him), Bill Richardson may throw in, forget Tom V-something from Iowa, John Edwards has a compelling message. Edwards and Barack Obama seem the likeliest challengers to Clinton at this point.
The thing is, I’m not ready to vote for any of Hillary’s challengers today. I don’t know them well enough, to start with. I feel like I know John Edwards second best after Hillary, but not in the same way. I do know Hillary well enough to vote for her today.
She suits certain aspects of my idealism, including what must be clear: she is a woman who could do the job. The first woman to inhabit the office of President will have to excel in it. Not Geena Davis batting-her-eyes-while-squashing-opponents-like-bugs-excellence. The First Woman President will have to achieve garden-variety excellence, albeit rose-garden-variety.
There is a huge difference among centrists. There’s the Chuck Hagel centrist and there’s the John Edwards centrist. Both might occupy near points on a political continuum, but one is informed from the right, and the other from the left. The people who move in their orbits and whom they listen to make all the difference. As in Nancy Reagan’s astrology, you might have one of twelve signs, but there are the motions of other planets and nearby bodies that must be understood to do a complete reading.
Hillary’s husband Bill, The Best President Of A Generation, disappointed me — not for his naughty proclivities and inability to hide or control them, and not for anything he tried to do. Bill Clinton disappointed me for the things that he believed in that he could not get done. It will be the same with Hillary. There will be things that I hope she will accomplish, that she would choose to accomplish, but will have to make judgements about priorities and where she can make the most substantial change. I expect to disagree about those priorities from time to time as well.
The distance progressives (myself included) want to cover in a single presidential term is massive, as things have moved in the wrong direction for far too long. A leader who would be able to cover that distance in all things would have to command god-like followership. Frankly, I find such notions dangerous. I want a leader who will do the right thing and do the things that can be done, reelection be damned, and hopefully the goodness and integrity expressed in those actions will allow them to continue to lead and accomplish more.
I was surprised by the positive assessment of Ms. Clinton on the Daily Kos last night.
Kos says:
By all measures she’s been a great Senator. She’s got a great “story”, and has taken more shit from the Right than any other Democrat in existence (besting husband Bill by a longshot). She’s a tough one. And really, while Republicans may talk about swiftboating her, is there anything left for them to hurl at her? Unlike what some naysayers say, she can absolutely win the general election.
I tend expect to find the “netroots crowd,” the youngish internet activists, a bit coolish on Hillary. Kos’s biggest criticism of her is that he expects she will have little “coattails” draw, which is likely true of any but the most charismatic of candidates.
And speaking of charisma, I watched Hillary’s announcement video this morning. She surprises in the charisma category. Give her a look.
It’s very early. There’s lots of time for this field of candidates to make their individual cases. I’ll be watching them all with great anticipation for each. Is Hillary the default choice? Clearly yes. Does that mean she’s the choice until somone better emerges? Yes on that, too. Does that rule out her turning out to be the emergent candidate herself? Absolutely not.
Sphere ItComments
One Response to “Hillary for President, The Default Choice”
Leave a Reply
Edwards is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, plain and simple.
Stop for a minute, and consider what he’s actually done, and not his talk.
While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disastrous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.
Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.
Edwards voted for normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can’t.
Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who can’t afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.
But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.
Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable - while doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians leave their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians - could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?
One simple question - 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, do you think he would he advocate that you get a big promotion?
Or do you think he would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?