I'm not a big Hillary fan, and I think Dems should avoid this dynastic tendency to run someone with a recognizable name. But it's becoming more and more difficult to deny that she's trying to position herself to run for President in 2008.
That interview seems to prove the point. Woodruff presents her with a quote from Zell Miller, yes that Zell Miller, in which he says that she may win the Presidency in '08 because she will position herself towards the middle better than other candidates. Does Sen. Clinton say she isn't running? Does she deny a desire to be President?
Nope. She "appreciates" the compliment. Then she goes ahead and tells us how she's been a centrist and non-partisan while in the Senate. True as that may be, isn't she just taking the opportunity to position herself towards the middle? It is very difficult, given her answer to that question, to say with a straight face that she is not running for President. Skip Ahead to 4:40 in the interview to see this.
Next up in the interview: Abortion. . . and absolute lunacy.
Sen. Clinton made headlines a few months back when she said that abortion should be rare. What to you and me may sound like political positioning with an eye to a distant election is apparently a deeply held belief not just by Clinton, but by all Democrats. Woodruff states that in discussing abortion most Democrats are primarily concerned with maintaining legal abortion.
Clinton responds that she doesn't know which Democrats are talking about abortion rights, because she's not talking about it. Gee, when did Hillary Clinton become the entire Democratic Party? The conceit is harder to pass than a gall stone.
Does anyone really believe that Sen. Clinton is so disconnected from the rest of her party that she doesn't know the Democrats generally support legalized abortion? No, certainly not this wife of A FORMER PRESIDENT and ELECTED SENATOR FROM A LIBERAL STATE. People, this is the reason we keep getting screwed: Dems are trying to 'position' themselves 'in the middle' and find stances that are appealing to lots of people.
NEWSFLASH: People who disagree with Bush's stances and positions vote for him anyway because they think he genuinely believes what he says. Let's state our principles and stand behind them. Voters see Democrats as wishy-washy precisely because Democrats appear to lack strong principles. And even if you are the most competent person, a lot of people will prefer someone who has firm beliefs over a candidate who has similar beliefs because they think they can trust the person with strong principles.
Anyway, here's a moment for Clinton to talk about the important balance between the state's interest, individual freedom, etc, etc. And she seizes the opportunity to attack . . . judicial activists! Let me speak just to Sen. Clinton for a moment: Hillary, WTF.
Apparently, judicial activism "isn't talked about enough." Clinton then goes on to tell us that this Court has invalidated more democratically enacted legislation than any other court. Her position here is so disingenuous as to be sickening. It's perfectly crafted.
Listen to what she's saying: to the right she's saying, "Yes, judicial activism is a problem. All those concerns you have about social issues--I share them. Yes, we should be able to criminalize abortion and gay sex if that's what the legislature actually votes for."
To the left she's saying, "This court made of Republicans and has been turning back the advances of the Great Society and the New Deal."
The Right--the base of the right--doesn't know that the Supreme Court is 7/9 Republican appointees. The Right doesn't care. It just doesn't. This is an issue the right wingers control. They've won the public debate on judicial activism. So, Clinton's statement against judicial activism won't sound to the Right like she is in favor of progessive or liberal politics. It'll sound like she's in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Ugh. Just what I needed. A nice gut punch.
Woodruff tries to bring it back around to reality in a short cut away. So, what's Clinton's program for dealing with abortion?
- To reduce unwanted pregnancies. Sounds good. To the social conservatives it means Abstinence Only Sex Ed in public schools. To the left it means real sex ed and condoms.
- To make sure that adoption is available for women who carry to term. Hey, Hillary, um, is adoption going somewhere? Or am I to take this as code for ensuring that homosexuals get to adopt? Everything else she says in this interview is code for something. I just want to know what the code is here.
- To "talk sensibly" about providing emergency contraception when a woman is raped. Safe position? Looks like she's trying. To the Left this sounds like emergency contraception pills for everyone. For the Right this sounds like emergency contraception only when a woman has been the victim of what the Right thinks should be a hanging offense. "Talk sensibly"? What the hell does that mean?
Oh, by the way, during her husband's presidency fewer abortions than under this Bush administration. Whoopee! I'm sure the Southern Baptists will endorse you, Hillary Clinton.
What other conservative positions do you hold, Sen. Clinton? Did someone say gay marriage? Oh you don't support same-sex marriage, but you're ok with same-sex civil unions?
Alright, time out. I have to say that I think the Senator has it right on this one. In my dream world the government wouldn't have anything to do with marriage, but civil unions would create property rights between people. The state in one area, namely property and other secular concerns, and non-governmental institutions like religion in the other aspects, namely morality and the association of hearts and minds. But forget all that. By this time in the interview, Clinton has so frustrated me by not genuinely believing in anything that I can't trust that she actually believes this. It falls off her tongue. Just another attempt to position herself in the center.
This is what I was talking about above. I agree with her stated position, but I can't vote for her because I don't think she has a sound reason for believing it. I don't trust her.
Now, Woodruff lobs one at Clinton and asks her in very clear terms to tell us what principles Democrats stand for. What 'narrative' do the Democrats have?
And she muffs it. It's an answer, but it's not particularly good. Essentially, everything good in the 20th Century was done by Democrats, and Republicans really want to get rid of all that. Ok, but you haven't told us what Democrats stand for today. In fact, she's stated precisely the problem: Democrats are in favor of the status quo. They want to protect everything they did in the last century. It's her use of the past tense in this section that really turns me off.
"It is the Democratic Party that fought and stood for democracy and freedom. It is the Democratic Party that created the ladders of opportunity that enabled millions of people to lift themselves into the middle class and fulfill their god-given potential. And it is the Democratic Party that battered-down the obstacles that stood in the way of women and minorities and others having the opportunity to fully participate in American life."
uggh. Don't we stand for those things now? Won't we fight for democracy now? Don't we now want to create opportunities for people to raise themselves out of poverty? Don't we now want to batter down barriers of exclusion?
And finally the last two questions of the interview:
1. In running for reelection to the Senate in 2006, if she were asked to pledge to serve out that six-year term (i.e. pledge not to run for President in 2008 in case you didn't catch that subtext), what would she say?
Well, she would say that she is focussed on winning re-election, and that she has worked hard for New York. And for no reason she mentions 9/11. Wait, did she say she would definitely serve the entire six year term? Hint: No.
2. Is she considering running in 2008?
Not even remotely, says Senator Lying Face. Apparently, her life has never been 'planned.' She just goes with the flow. And that's that.
Watch the video yourself. Feel the pain.
No comments:
Post a Comment