A Shallow, Completely Frivolous Anecdotal Report
This week I learned that a family member---a (former, apparently) foaming at the mouth Clinton-hating, Limbaugh-loving dittohead---said that he "would vote for Hillary if she ran for president."
Utterly unthinkable heresy, until now.
Utterly unthinkable heresy, until now.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Friday, July 07, 2006
15 Comments:
Please elaborate. Why would a "Clinton-hating, Limbaugh-loving dittohead---'vote for Hillary' if she ran for president?"
From the perspective of a lot of people in my circle Hillary is an electoral trainwreck preparing to leave the station.
Recall the scene from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' where the Trojan rabbit is rolled up to the castle gate, only to be catapulted back onto the brave knights of the Round Table.
This bunny has the head of Hillary.
Wow.
I was a Clinton-neutral, Limbaugh hating non-dittohead (I think; what's a dittohead?) all through the 90's and early 00's. And I'm from NY.
But I'd never consider voting for Hill. If she faces a typical GOPer in '08, I vote Libertarian or Green or something third party.
That a Republican you know would vote for Hill is unsurprising. To the extent she has a platform beyond "Hillary," it's pretty right leaning as far as I can see.
I have had the same response in my family, and to be honest have been stunned by it.
I don't think the "vote for Hillary" thing really is a vote for Hillary as much as it is along the lines of "I would vote for the Devil" against the Republicans.
It is a shocking change in my extended family's political life. I have never seen it before nor have I seen such a reversal on support of a Republican President as I have seen with Mr. Bush.
I think it would be too many Clintons and Bushes. Time for a change, but given a choice between a Republican and Hillary, I'll vote for Hillary along the monk-in-training reasoning above.
Royal families have their functions: in the best of cases, they smooth moods, they promote arts and education, they have diplomatic functions, but they're never good at exercising real power.
Should we then believe hell has frozen over and pigs are flying?
For what it's worth, I think Hillary will run, of course, but the Dems will have serious reservations about handing the party flag to a Clinton and will deny her the nomination. Like the above poster, too many Clintons and Bushes is a bad thing. Too dynastic.
It's time for fresh blood. If he runs again and has learned a thing or two about campaigning since his last go round, I'm keeping my eyes on Wesley Clark. Color me idealistic, but I'm a great admirer of the thinking soldier and, from where I'm standing, this guy has a very sharp mind and serious legs once the disenchantment with Bush’s ineptitude becomes all but ingrained with Dems and frustrated Republicans alike.
Clark has what the Dems need: an exemplary military record, moderation in all things political, and the benefit of being an outsider.
It seems hardly a ringing endorsement to note that an unthinking and unreasoning reactionary (how else to paraphrase TCR's description?)... is a Clinton supporter.
My problem with Clinton is that she runs from the real issues Democrats should and usually do care about; such as the foolishness of the administration's war policy, the fiscal insanity of tax cuts, (ironically) the need for universal health care, and global warming. On none of these issues, to my knowledge, has she taken a solid, progressive stance, as has, e.g., Gore. Her stance on the war, of course, is hardly distinguishable from the phony Democrat, Lieberman's.
Clark has what the Dems need: an exemplary military record, moderation in all things political, and the benefit of being an outsider.
Two big problems, there:
1) Dems glom on to a guy like Clark because they're hoping his military resume' will paper over the party's longstanding habit of delegating foreign policy to second tier status, an afterthought. As long as they keep doing this, they'll never come up with a coherent alternative to the military-centric policies that we have now, and which Republicans love to embrace.
2) The 2004 campaign showed pretty conclusively that no matter how many decorations a veteran might have, he's still a fat target for the right-wing slime machine. We're in an age when chickenhawk gasbags can actually get away with innuendoes like, "Sure he's got a few Purple Hearts -- but was he really wounded enough to deserve them?" Clark's career will not be as much of an asset as his partisans like to think.
Just so you know, I'm a card-carrying Dem, and one who seems to be moving farther left every month.
-- sglover
I like Clark, and Gore for that matter. I actually like Hillary, and think she would make a fine president.. but I don't want her to run. Call it Bush/Clinton fatigue or whatever... let Hillary stay in the Senate and do good work there.
As for my Republican relatives, they would die before they voted for Hillary. Another reason for her not to run.
Like other commenters, I do not think "voting for Hillary" serves as a litmus test for where one stands on the political spectrum.
The real question is, would this Clinton-hating family member vote for Gore, the candidate s/he despised in 2000, if he were to run again? Would s/he vote against McCain?
How very sad that this country has only two families -- the Bushes and the Clintons -- to choose from for president. You know, even in Great Britain they are moving away from an aristocracy. The aristocrats increasingly have less power. Over here, its the other way around. George. Bill. George W. Hillary. Jeb. Where does it stop? I say its time for another American Revolution to remind the political class and families we can look elsewhere for our leaders. And find much better ones.
I'm glad to see that so many people are tired of the whole Bush-Clinton family dynasties calling the shots in American politics. We need new blood from both parties. Unfortunately, I don't think the people calling the shots in either of the two major parties have a clue about that. I hope I'm wrong.
I still think Hillary is poised to be the boomer-generation Teddy Kennedy (and, yes, I have voted for Teddy and will do so again). She won't run for President for the same reason Teddy made such a hash of his run in 1980: because if she DOES run, every nut with a gun & a grievance will be stalking her. And as Dick Cheney's hunting partner might tell us, there aren't enough Secret Service agents to stop EVERY nut. -- Anne Laurie
I always said in 2004 that given a choice between voting for Bush or a monkey, I'd vote for the monkey. And I pretty much did that, kind of held my nose and voted for Kerry even though I thought he was a real bland candidate. But, a monkey is better than stupid, incompetent Dubya.
I'm hoping Hillary doesn't get the nomination because the Democrats don't need a lightning rod for the thuggish Republicans to go nuts on. I think Russ Feingold is a very likeable candidate with a lot of thoughtful ideas and a guy like this could really play well to the independent 10% of the electorate. It's a crying shame that John McCain seems to have sold his soul to the devil, i.e. Christian Wingnuts of the GOP. He seemed like a guy with such integrity but that's all out the window now with his sucking up to Jerry Falwell. Can anyone explain that other than the same old idiotic politics as usual?
John McCain seems to have sold his soul to the devil, i.e. Christian Wingnuts of the GOP. He seemed like a guy with such integrity but that's all out the window now with his sucking up to Jerry Falwell. Can anyone explain that other than the same old idiotic politics as usual?
I'm hoping that other Republicans pick up on the reality of McCain's carefully cultivated "maverick" reputation, but given the general cluelessness that seems to come with being a Republican, I kinda doubt it.
Otherwise, all this worry about Hillary is misplaced. She's never gonna get the nomination. It's a long way to November '08, but I think Mark Warner's got the best shot at the Democratic nominee. I'm rather torn about which side to cheer for. The Dems offer (though they don't choose to talk it up as often as they should) generally sound management -- at a minimum, they don't go around gratuitously breaking things. On the other hand, I expect the shit to really come down after President Fuckwit leaves, and I want a Republican in office to take the blame. The earlier poster who railed against the two-party system expressed disappointments that all voters share, but he neglects to mention that the GOP has become the vehicle of an extremely toxic and dangerous ideology. That ideology needs to be discredited for a generation.
-- sglover
Post a Comment
<< Home