The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
Hillary Clinton made it official today and joined the fray. Click here to listen to Clinton’s official announcement from her website and here to the actual text.
Frankly, reading and listening to Hillary’s announcement is like drinking soda without carbonation. It’s focus grouped for the political fifty-yard line. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Hillary will campaign from weakness. Too fearful to offend the “middle class” or appear weak on national security will result in a mealy mouthed posture. Strength stems from authenticity but does Clinton even know who she really is anymore?
Clinton is very closed and insular and listens to a tight circle of advisors like Bush. As we’ve seen, such an insular governing style is dangerous. Her husband was far more open, hungry even for a diversity of information as president. Hopefully, he will serve as an information conduit for her as Eleanor Roosevelt did for FDR. My suspicion however is Hillary would be obsessed with leaks as president and drown inside her bubble. Also, she has the imagination of a grapefruit.
Edwards interests me because on domestic issues he’s offering specifics about valuing “work over wealth” whereas Hillary’s a corporatist. I remain troubled about Edwards’ record on Iraq and therefore I’m not quite sold on him yet. Obama to this point is a platitude machine but his candidacy does intrigue me. How will he handle the fishbowl? Is there more to him than “something new”? I’m curious to find out.
An Al Gore candidacy would intrigue me because he’s grown as a person since 2000. I suspect he would campaign on candor instead of being afraid to lose. I’d sign up for his campaign in a heartbeat. Alas, it doesn’t appear he will run.
I used to believe Hillary was authentic with a core but unlike Gore, the former first lady has regressed. I hoped Hillary would emerge as a Robert Kennedy sort of figure in the senate but she has not put her prestige on the line for the working poor or the cause of peace.
Hillary is so afraid of appearing weak that she appears weak. Her pandering on an amendment for flag burning last year has me wondering what else she would surrender to project an image of values and toughness. We don’t need that sort of weakness undermining the progressive cause. Hillary has proven she can take a punch. She also deserves credit for providing effective constituent service as a senator. As a senator, Hillary has been a workhorse more than a show-horse unlike Obama or Edwards when he served. As a New Yorker I respect that.
But her original support of the Iraq war was a callous and cowardly act of political expediency. Her tepid “if I knew now what I knew then” explanation regarding Iraq is neither believable nor acceptable. War and peace requires a different standard of leadership. Not calculating cynicism resulting in needless bloodshed.
I don’t underestimate Hillary. She’s disciplined, smart and tough. And I’d love to support a woman for the White House. We could certainly do worse and this country has. But her candidacy for president does not inspire me and I expect to support somebody else.
Dude so far this is best post I’ve read today about Hillary’s accouncement. You kick ass! Hillary does have the imagination of a grapefruit. Listening to her is like drinking soda without carbonation. Fucking awesome dude!
one of these days I’d like to read a diary from you. All you do is lurk!
I’m the Lurker ‘N Chief!
While I agree with your points (and strong praise for this diary – which was very well thought-out) I have to admit to one thing about Hillary.
Whether she was running in 2004 or not, I really, really wanted to see some type of debate between HRC and W. In that regard, I think she would kick ass, and I’d like to see it for the pure entertainment value.
As far as a presidential candidate? meh….having a female POTUS is not my top priority in the upcoming election and I too have strong feelings about her support of the war in Iraq. (Aren’t we paying those people to read the fine print??? Feingold did, and Wellstone would have….of that I’m sure.)
And no…just for the record…I don’t mean that I’m not ready for a female in that position…I mean that I’m going to vote for the best candidate – even if the candidate is a (gasp!) white guy.
Slim to nothing as the chances are, I’d still like to see Gore run, and I’d work for his campaign in a NY minute.
Thanks for writing this, ILJ!
Excellent post.
TPMcafe’s Greg Sargent finds the war for donors between Obama and Clinton in full throttle.
The inside story from a top Donor on who has the finesse.
Hmmm, telling.
And the polls in N.H. may have pushed Hillary to announce before she was ready to do so. Obama leads Clinton. Some bell-weather, given Hillary’s front-runner status.
Hillary and McCain are in trouble.
ABC/Wapo national poll has her at 47, Obama 17.
I’m still holding to my observation, we’re in a time where front-runners have collapsed, dark horses and long shots win. Hillary’s campaign, big money and all will collapse.
Here’s the way I see it: the success of candidates that run against their party is parasitic upon their party, whereas the success of candidates that run firmly on the values of their party means growth for the party itself.
“Centrist” candidates like, say, Joe Lieberman, profit from their party’s brand at the same time that they tarnish it, by embracing values of the opposite party.
Hillary Clinton could win, to the detriment of the democratic party.
and any other potential anti-Hillary candidates:
Shit or get off the pot. Announce or get behind Edwards.
The sooner the democratic wing of the democratic party consolidates around a single candidate, the sooner
the sooner, the better.
I’m all for Gore and respect Clark. But if they’re going to go the time is now. Otherwise progressives need to rally around a horse and the best of the lot running is probably Edwards. I’m not quite ready to embrace him yet. If there is no hope for a Clark or Gore candidacy then setttling on Edwards is easier. I’m certainly not going to support Joe Biden for example.
Ditto for Gore. But it may be a smart move for him to stay away. Why should he clean up the mess left over from the guy who robbed him?
Anyhow, NYT via Rawstory is reporting George Soros backs Obama.
In 2008. It’ll be a Edwards-Obama ticket. Clinton will collapse.
I suspect at least one member of the ticket will need to have some heft in their pedigree though. Obama/Clark or Edwards/Clark perhaps. Richardson has a great resume but there is something about him I find disquieting. Just a suspicion lurking skeletons would emerge to doom his candidacy.
Yep, nothing to get excited about and totally expected. Hence the low key rollout.
I can’t get excited about Obama either. Quite frankly, he’s done little, to date, to earn support. I’d have to go with Edwards.
is, “Where’s the Beef?” Edwards appears to be positioning himself as the Bobby Kennedy candidate. Bobby was for the Vietnam War initially. He was transformed into the antiwar candidate and tribune of the underclass. I can’t help but feel Edwards apology for supporting the war was an excercise in political expediency just as his original support for it was. But unless Gore jumps in I will probably support Edwards. But my decision making is fluid right now. I want to hear more from Wesley Clark and others.
I found her video announcement much more exciting than that of Obama. And you have to credit her for her sarcasm and her desire to establish intimacy with potential supporters. After viewing her video and comparing it with that of Obama, my friend and I both thought Hillary did an excellent job. I am an Edwards supporter, and I am very intersted in Richardson, but I do believe Hillary will surprise all of us. Why not give her a chance?
I think you may misunderstand me. As I’ve written, I don’t underestimate her as a candidate. My problem is her record.
I feel the same way about Obama, although I think Obama is a terrible candidate. Why so many people claim his video is inspiring bemuses me, or perhaps they are duped by the hype. No one has a legislative record to my satisfaction except Kucinich, which makes this all the more difficult for me. I guess this is why I will have an open mind.
and had a post on my blog the other day, entitled, “Where’s the Beef?” His candidacy makes me think of the old Wendy’s commercial. Walter Mondale asked it of Gary Hart in 1984. Perhaps Obama will change my mind but I doubt it. I guess we’re looking for the candidate that combines principle and judgment with electability. Hard to do, and whatever horse you pick they’re going to be flaws. For me Hillary has too many to accept. I might be able to digest Edwards. I respect Kucinich’s committment to peace but don’t believe he can win. I wanted Feingold and wish Gore would run. But to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go with the candidates you have.