Hillary as POTUS, round two
Des, my buddy over at GreatScat!, posted a comment asking what my reservations about a Hillary Clinton presidency would be. In the interests of fairness, here's both the plusses and minuses.
What Hillary does have going for her is that she is smart, she is tough, she is far more disciplined than her husband, and she's familiar with the terrain, so to say. She definitely could go into a room with a foreign leader and leave no doubt who's in charge. Those are all good things. She's sort of the left-wing Margaret Thatcher with her will.
Now, here are the negatives. She's divisive. As several books have shown, she was far more secretive and scorched-earth about handling the various investigations into herself and Bill. Bill wanted to have Ken Starr shown around the White House in 1995, and Hillary vetoed it right afterwards. She always stonewalled instead of cooperating. Yes, I know, there's lots of arguments for not cooperating, but there were things she could've done to make the process easier, and the same goes for Bill.
Furthermore, she doesn't have a lot of actual experience in office. She could run in 2012, with two Senate terms behind her, and she'd probably be better off for it. She'd end up being another John Edwards, in a sense. Going into 2008, the nation is going to need someone who can truly unite them, after eight years of the George "I will unite the parties but not through bipartisanship" Bush administration.
Hillary has too many enemies to do that. Kerry is equally as unlikely for it. Then again, had he run a halfway decent campaign, this wouldn't be an issue.
In 2008, I'd go for Mark Warner, for Edwards, for Wesley Clark (who seems to have found his running shoes) for Brian Schweitzer, even. I have nothing against a woman president, but if Hillary is going to do it, she should wait until 2012 for more experience.
Then again, in fairness, by 2012, many probably will have forgotten the Bill Clinton peace and prosperity record. This is going to be interesting what she does.
What Hillary does have going for her is that she is smart, she is tough, she is far more disciplined than her husband, and she's familiar with the terrain, so to say. She definitely could go into a room with a foreign leader and leave no doubt who's in charge. Those are all good things. She's sort of the left-wing Margaret Thatcher with her will.
Now, here are the negatives. She's divisive. As several books have shown, she was far more secretive and scorched-earth about handling the various investigations into herself and Bill. Bill wanted to have Ken Starr shown around the White House in 1995, and Hillary vetoed it right afterwards. She always stonewalled instead of cooperating. Yes, I know, there's lots of arguments for not cooperating, but there were things she could've done to make the process easier, and the same goes for Bill.
Furthermore, she doesn't have a lot of actual experience in office. She could run in 2012, with two Senate terms behind her, and she'd probably be better off for it. She'd end up being another John Edwards, in a sense. Going into 2008, the nation is going to need someone who can truly unite them, after eight years of the George "I will unite the parties but not through bipartisanship" Bush administration.
Hillary has too many enemies to do that. Kerry is equally as unlikely for it. Then again, had he run a halfway decent campaign, this wouldn't be an issue.
In 2008, I'd go for Mark Warner, for Edwards, for Wesley Clark (who seems to have found his running shoes) for Brian Schweitzer, even. I have nothing against a woman president, but if Hillary is going to do it, she should wait until 2012 for more experience.
Then again, in fairness, by 2012, many probably will have forgotten the Bill Clinton peace and prosperity record. This is going to be interesting what she does.
posted by Thad at 2:16 AM
2 Comments:
No. No. Nononononono. GOD NO!
Hillary's only chance is in 2008--when the Republicans will not have a strong candidate (no incumbent, and Cheney will not run). And, if she were to run, its likely that she will win--Democratic vote, female vote, moderate vote (though, that's debatable, since the moderate votes she casts are often on bills that will lose anyway)if the Republicans choose to run a socially and fiscally conservative candidate
If the Republicans choose a socially moderate candidate--someone more libertarian than the current administration, then her chances decline markedly. The only way that will happen is if the Republicans have victories on the social front in the next three years, win the mid-years, and get at least two Supreme Court nominees up for approval. Then, the religious right will refrain from voting (as they usually do, aside from the last election), which means that the Republicans would have to select someone like McCain, Giuliani, or even Mitt Romney, who is a Blue State Conservative governor.
I hate Hillary with a passion. Don't get me wrong, she is incredibly intelligent, but she is shrewd, arrogant, and conniving. I had a lot of respect for Clinton, however, his wife is a whole new bucket of worms.
Post a Comment
<< Home