Rich Lowry, writing about Hillary’s announced candidacy, has some really nicely phrased thoughts:
Thus, the great battle is joined between the ruthless, highly effective inauthenticity of Hillary Clinton and the vapid, feel-good authenticity of Barack Obama.
***
But no one likes naked calculation, and Clinton worries Democrats traumatized by the experience of their last few presidential candidates. Because liberalism typically doesn’t sell in American presidential politics, liberal candidates tend to run as culturally conservative centrists — i.e., phonies. It sank both John Kerry, who couldn’t even order a Philly cheesesteak properly, and Al Gore, who adopted three such utterly different personas in three national presidential debates that his performances could be a case study in abnormal-psychology classes.
***
If Bill was all id, Hillary is all superego. Comedians still make fun of Bill’s out-of-control appetites, but with Hillary, the mockery is about how she lets nothing be out of control (except perhaps her husband). Last weekend, Saturday Night Live portrayed her explaining her position on the war thusly: “I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere. Of course, knowing what we know now, that you could vote against the war and still be elected president, I would never have pretended to support it.”
By the way, if you haven’t already, you can see the very funny SNL sketch here.
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Hillary Clinton
Loved the SNL sketch–maybe I should start to watch SNL again (after about a 15-year hiatus.)
Hillary claiming to be half-black isn’t too far off the mark though since liberals have already accepted self-identification as an acceptable method of determining one’s race (e.g., Ward Churchill.)
Laer at Cheat Seeking has a Clintonian photo guaranteed to turn your stomach. See below.
http://cheatseekingmissiles.blogspot.com/2007/01/anyone-but-bush-or-clinton.ht
The day I become first lady and/or senator is the day I criticize Hilary Clinton.Ain’t going to happen folks !
Swampacerage,
The only reason Hillary ever became a Senator was because Bill was President. Look at her resume and it appears that all of her jobs were obtained by riding Bill’s coattails–it’s easy to get the position when your husband is either a Governor or former President.
or if your father is the former President, right Kevin?
Yeah, I’ll buy that. I’m of the anyone but Clinton or Bush clique.
I got the following from jg, whose attempt to post the comment himself ran afoul of a computer glitch:
Lisa Schiffren at Contentions (a new website for me) has a blunt assessment of Hillary’s candidacy I find most worthwhile.
I’ve copied some of her important points, including the grim warning which she proffers about Hillary.
“Despite her iron discipline about refusing to indulge in self-revelation, her conviction that she is meant to wield power, and to edify the rest of us, nonetheless shines through.
..skip..
Hillary has behaved ruthlessly toward anyone who stood in her way, and in her campaigns she has trimmed endlessly on policy matters to hide her leftist views. Still, one might ask what those views mean given her willingness to trade them for power.
..skip..
Like many students of Hillary, I veer between thinking that this is as far as she can go politically and fearing that she will be our next President almost by default. The weak field of candidates for 2008, Democrat and Republican alike, offers little reassurance that she won’t be.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/schiffren/66
I’m in agreement with that Kevin
NBC 2008: No Bush or Clinton. Sign me up for that club too. I hate to think of the Presidency as a form of real-life HBO series in which power bounces back and forth between one family and another. And what is so weak about a crowded field of candidates that includes Giuliani, Richardson, McCain and Romney?
Ditto, ditto, ditto. No more Bush’s and Clinton’s for me. This is getting way, way too dynastic.
“Giuliani, Richardson, McCain and Romney”
Is it just me or is anyone REALLY excited about any of the above? And if so, which one(s) and why?
I like Romney - he’s actually managed successfully and accomplished things, in business, civics (the Salt Lake City Olympics) and politics (Conservative governor elected in an uber-Liberal/Left state). So has Guliani - for that matter, although I generally oppose electing Senators (unless they can show that they have actually managed large entities successfully), I would accept McCain too. In fact, I would sleep well at night knowing that any one of those three was there up on the wall standing watch. Not so with ANY of the people on the other side, however.
Romney–maybe but I really think being a member of the LDS will ultimately be a detriment.
Guliani–I really liked the way he cleaned up Times Square but since I’m a social conservative, I don’t trust him to appoint Supreme Court Justices that I want. I would have more respect for someone who can actually make a marriage commitment and keep it. If he’ll betray vows to someone as close as his wife, why should I think he wouldn’t sell me out in a heartbeat (this, incidently is why I found Clinton to be so repugnant.) As for his handling 9/11, he just happened to be Mayor at the time (albeit, he did handle it better than Nagin would have.)
McCain–I actually voted for him over Bush but as Bookworm has said of Carter, I’m glad my vote was for naught. Originally, I questioned his judgment due to his being one of the Keating Five but was prepared to give him a one-time pass because of the character he showed during his time as a P.O.W. That has now passed since I think he once again exhibited a lack of good judgemnt by being duped into co-sponsoring the (disasterous) campaign finance reform legislation. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, we have to judge policies by the incentives they create and not the good will that inspired them. When it comes to big issues, McCain appears to exhibit poor judgment.
Any other possible choises out there?
I added Bill Richardson to the mix above because he’s been a state governor and thus held an executive position which means he actually had to get things done and not merely posture; he has served as U.S. rep to the UN and Cabinet Secretary, giving him some federal and foreign policy experience; he may also be more on the conservative side (was endorsed by the NRA in last reelection for governor of NM). It is not that I endorse Richardson, simply that among the Democrats (now that Mark Warner has bowed out) he’s one of the few who grabs my interest as a voter. Re McCain, Giuliani and Romney, I’d concur with the comments above but will take issue with kevin re SCOTUS appointments. My hunch is Giuliani’s appointments would be jurists likes Roberts or Alito.
I like Romney for exactly the reasons others have stated above: he’s proven to be highly effective in every area of endeavor. As for the LDS matter, I’ll be the first to admit that the Mormon faith leaves me absolutely cold, and I know a fair amount about it. I also understand that this may jettison his candidacy, but I’m still not sure why. Are people worried that he’ll violate the Constitution by imposing religious tests? Or do people feel he’s shown poor judgment in following the wrong religion? If the latter is true, that would mean Protestant should vote for Guliani, a Catholic, and that no Catholic should vote for, well, anyone else, and it would forever bar a Jewish conservative candidate from running. Isn’t that throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I’m not John F. Kennedy fan, but it does seem to me that the one thing he DID NOT do was what everyone feared most — bring the Pope into the White House. People can let their religious morality inform their decisions without imposing their religion itself on others, and I think Romney has shown that his religious morality squares well with conservative thinking.
Zhoimbre,
I’m sorry for overlooking Bill Richardson. Of the group you listed, I actually like his resume the most since he’s definitely got the experience. I’ll be interested to see how he fares and (currently anyway), I could support him.
Bookworm,
On the LDS thing, I would actually welcome Romney since all of the Mormons I know are incredibly hard-working, helpful, and conservative individuals (what happened to Reid, I don’t know.) I agree with you on Kennedy–I remember the concern everyone had until he confronted the issue directly, pledging to be an American president and his election did much to lessen anti-Catholic prejudice in the United States. The problem with the LDS, however, is that many people view it as a cult and I think that won’t play well with many of the voters.
It would really be nice to actually vote for the person I want instead of the lesser of two evils for a change (the last time was Regan.)
#15 - given the way JFK lived his life, a better speculation would be: if invited, would the Pope have showed? I mean, for some purpose other than to have excommunicated him as a serial, unrepentant - and planning to do it some more - adulterer… Never much worry about the Pope spending a weekend in the Lincoln bedroom.
I am opposed to dynastic families, but there is little serious question (or perhaps to rephrase: little question among serious people) that Jeb Bush has been America’s most effective governor for the last several years. He leaves office with an approval rating of well over 60% in a state where the majority of voters are not from his party, and if he wasn’t constitutionally limited he’d be Florida governor for as long as he wanted the job.
It is in fact too bad that his last name is Bush. He has more aptitude for the job than anyone else currently on offer. But the reflexive attitudes expressed above will make it certain that the best guy won’t be at the party. (Though I don’t believe he wants the job anyway.)
I love the phrase: “ruthless, highly effective inauthenticity,” too. Perfectly sums Hillary up in only four words, not bad at all.
I am always amused that in a world of genuine female achievers, Hillary Clinton was ever picked up on and pedestalized by the feminists: she is the antithesis of what they claim to believe. And she has used her time in the senate to accomplish….? Well, about as much as Obama has. (This would be, to me, a somewhat more critical criteria to keep an eye on vis-a-vis Jeb Bush than their last names.)
Mitt Romney is going to have to decide what he actually believes, and stay there. This changing the message from audience to audience stuff isn’t going to work out for him in the national spotlight. Everyone tailors the message to an extent, but he’s been for abortion, then opposed to it; for gay marriage, then opposed to - very much depending on who it was he was addressing at the time. I’m a little curious about what he actually believes, if it’s something other than that he should be President.