I've said before that I suspect at least some Democrats want Hillary as their candidate in part because they view her as the most partisan. They think their moment in history has come, they are tired of compromise and they want her in part because the Republicans hate her so much, because she will be their warrior. (I'm not sure why they think this; Edwards seems more incendiary and confrontational. But it feels as if they do.) Glenn Loury's impassioned defense of her on Bloggingheads.tv exudes that kind of sentiment.
This is, dare I say it, not a good sign for the Democrats in the election. The things they like about her are the things Republicans hate about her, and that don't go over particularly well with independents. Republicans are demoralized now, but run Hillary and the Republicans won't even need a ground operation; the turnout problems will take care of themselves.
Democrats don't think Hillary is the most partisan of the big three candidates. Republicans think that. Democrats are generally troubled by her centrism. People on the Democratic side who are arguing that she's a genuine progressive are doing so to counter the (accurate) general impression that she's a centrist.
Republicans think Hillary is a radical leftist because they fooled themselves with their own insane anti-Clinton propaganda throughout the '90s. It's never been true, it was shown to be particularly absurd in her tenure in the Senate, and it's certainly not true now.
What many Democrats do like about Hillary is the sense that she is indefatigable and detail-oriented, and will take care of the business of governing in a more meticulous and aggressive fashion than Obama (allegedly) would. (Though I've come to believe that Obama is actually much more hard-headed and politically adept than he's sometimes given credit for.)
Very true. And I also believe that the country would be much more forgiving of Obama after 4 years than Clinton.
If this is true then the Democrats are delusional. Hillay is not much of a partisan fighter. She's a centrist who's willing to sell-out many progressive ideals in order to get elected (same with Obama). She herself, just in her existance, however, is very devisive, because half the country dislikes her a great deal, and is outspoken about it.
The Democrats need a fighter. Not someone who will simply be disliked by the vast right wing conspiracy.
Commenters above seem to be confusing "liberal" with "partisan." Hillary might not be as liberal as Barak Obama, but she's clearly more partisan. Barak Obama would never claim that there's a "vast right-wing conspricay" against him and his wife. Nor, as far as I can tell, does he denounce "the politics of personal destruction" while at the same time being one of its ablest practitioners.
Actually, I thought the film "Primary Colors" did a good job of showing what's wrong with the Clintons. And it was not exactly a right-wing production.
"Republicans think Hillary is a radical leftist because they fooled themselves with their own insane anti-Clinton propaganda throughout the '90s."-brooksfoe
No. Hillary clearly was a radical in her Wellesley days--hence her fascination with Saul Alinsky. So the question then becomes, how much has she changed since then?
And the truth is that it's difficult to tell. Liberal Democrats have been understantably disappointed in the Clintons--for welfare reform, free trade, etc... Even Bill once complained "We've become Eisenhower Republicans." But conservatives and libertarians tend to view Hillary's move to the center with suspicion.
She has not exactly impressed us with her honesty in the past, so perhaps we may be excused for being suspicious of her now. I myself believe that while she still has a vague sense that government programs are the solution to every problem, she is no longer the radical Wellesley girl who railed against the patriarchy and hoped for a revolution that would offer a "more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living."
Now there seems to be little left besides a drive for power. A political career that began as an ideological and moral struggle is ending in an amoral drive for control. Many on the right and the left have sensed this, and that explains the hostility toward her on both sides.
rwe, what you've written in the above two posts simply is an example of how Republicans have convinced themselves with their own insane anti-Clinton propaganda.
Everyone was fascinated with Saul Alinsky in the '60s. It was the '60s. Saul Alinsky was a fascinating guy. You're saying Hillary is a radical mole who can't be trusted because of the ideas she found interesting when she was a college student. Who's the paranoiac here?
Brooksfoe: Or maybe it's because Hillary still keeps saying things like, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Ironically, the best list of such statements I've found is the Snopes post trying to debunk the claim that Hillary is a Marxist. After reading through the full context of those statements, "Marxist" is arguable, but it's quite clear to me that her thinking is profoundly collectivist.
Is she any more collectivist than Edwards, Obama, or for that matter Huckabee? Maybe not, but no one was paying attention to them 10 years ago, and so they haven't built up this public history that convinces conservatives that any movement by Hillary towards the center is just political posturing.
As a conservative, what I don’t like about Hillary is that I think she’s likely to get things done; things I don’t like. A farther-left but less-effective Democrat (Edwards comes to mind) would suit me better.
As a conservative, what I don’t like about Hillary is that I think she’s likely to get things done; things I don’t like. A farther-left but less-effective Democrat (Edwards comes to mind) would suit me better.
Everyone was fascinated with Saul Alinsky in the '60s.
I think we need to poll the locust hordes to find out what Ron Pault thought about Alinsky in the '60s.
Maybe this speaks to my sporadic attention to these posts, but it seems all I hear are Megan's negative views of the candidates. While negative would be an existential assessment of my feelings toward them, we must always eventually choose, as Trey and Matt aptly dubbed, between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. While I certainly lean Libertarian, the Republicans this race are not the conservatives I know, and as Sullivan says, maybe better to start with a clean slate.
The question then remains, who does Megan like? I think Obama seems, if not ideologically inclined to be market-friendly, at least pragmatically so. I recall a favorable George Will column regarding his economic adviser. I don't think Obama's rhetoric about change and bringing the parties together is simply rhetorical, rather I believe he means it as a way of communicating a willingness to consider conservative stances on economic matters seriously and without the moral condescension that so many other liberals' thought is laced with.
If this is true then the Democrats are delusional. Hillay is not much of a partisan fighter. She's a centrist who's willing to sell-out many progressive ideals in order to get elected (same with Obama).
I can guarantee that an ankle-biting partisan won't improve the odds. Remember HowwwyyyyeEEEAARRRGGGGHHHH! Dean? Burned the partisan roman candle at both ends, made an enormous boom, and then had nothing left on which to move forward. There are only two ways to obtain power in the US system: appeal to the magical fifty-first percent, or hope like mad that a Perot shows up to split the other party's fifty.
brooksfoe: Everyone was fascinated with Saul Alinsky in the '60s. It was the '60s. Saul Alinsky was a fascinating guy.
Total bull. Perhaps people of a specific social group were fascinated by him then, but likely a smaller group than were fascinated with white supremacism during the 60's.
I don't forgive white supremacists, so why should I forgive people fascinated with Saul Alinsky?