Clinton Less Capable, Less Electable

2008-01-31
By

An average of national polls currently shows Hillary Clinton slightly behind John McCain (show data) and Barack Obama slightly ahead (show data). But that isn’t the whole story on the Obama electability advantage. Right leaning voters are far less motivated than the left. (related article) Hillary Clinton would change that.

A newly released DVD, “Hillary – The Movie” provides an insightful look at Clinton as the candidate Republicans are ready for. There were those 8 years as first lady in which everybody got to know her; from scandals, to personality problems, to ineptitude with policy issues. She is a truly polarizing figure, one capable of producing record voter turnout this year – for the other side. Appearing publically after 9/11 in this – her politically adopted state – she was sometimes booed off the stage.

The common wisdom is that one should not underestimate her husband’s political machine. It took her to an early lead in the Democratic primaries. That lead is rapidly slipping away however and perhaps for some of the same reasons she would likely lose in November if the machine manages to hang on long enough to make her the nominee.

The cultivated Clinton image is that of a strong and determined woman. Based on her own words, she is seen as a political extremist – something of a Nazi, a Communist, or a hybrid of both. She’s angry, manipulative, mean-spirited, and hateful. Standing firmly on stage with that “determined” look, waving her hands, and shouting she’ll “take and take” in order to impose her will; one can’t help but think of Hitler at least a little. Her extremism seems punctuated lately by strong support from the NY chapter of N.O.W. whose articles can make one feel that their members may don brown shirts and beat up on anyone who doesn’t support her – because she’s a woman.

But then there have been those pesky debates between Democratic candidates. Rehearsed facial expressions, memorized lines, professionally written speeches, waving and pointing randomly and glassy eyed can only go so far. This is where the “conversation” really begins and an entirely different Hillary Clinton emerges. This one doesn’t seem to know which version of her stated policy preferences is the one she prefers or even much about the meaning of what she’s said. This, I think, is where we have caught a glimpse of the real Hillary Clinton; slumping quietly without a clue.

What one should realize about extremism is that it is easy. To be anywhere in between, to make carefully weighed judgments, to balance alternatives and consider trade-offs, to consider the weakness of an idea along with its strength, requires knowledge and intellectual prowess. To simply shout “more, more, more”, demonize opponents, and disenfranchise victims takes nothing but a mouth. The “strong” Hillary Clinton would fail quickly as an anonymous user in an average internet discussion and would probably be banned from further participation as well.

In a general election, Hillary Clinton would be the mouse in a cat and mouse game. She’s done it to herself. Every lie she has used to appear bigger than life would come back to haunt her. Her management experience – none really. Her policy experience … her political experienc … her preparation for the role of Commander in Chief … We should remember the health care reform “conversation” that took place during her husband’s first term. They did it so that Hillary could be in charge and it was a disaster, demonstrating unequivocally her lack of knowledge and leadership skills. Now, she has treated health care as a leading campaign issue, and so far only demonstrated that she’s fool enough to make a fool of herself twice in much the same way.

Come November, she would face a huge, emotionally charged opposition – many of whom would lay down their lives to save the country from an extremist. Certainly many more would make it to the polls to vote against her. The support once imagined would have fallen due to the inherent weakness of the candidate. The “strong” Hillary would build its own opposition. (Run mouse! Run!) The incompetent, dishonest Hillary would be clawed and devoured.

&#nbsp

30 views

  • barkingdog

    I agree with all you say about Billary, but we have another problem. When the Dems and their fauning media (NYT, etc.) keep saying that McCain is the candidate they fear most, I hear a little voice shouting “Do anything to me, but pleeeease don’t throw me in the briar patch.” Excuse the politically incorrect reference to Uncle Remus, but the Dems are playing Brer Rabbit on us. They would loooooove to run Hillary against McCain, because on many policy issues the two are indistinguishable. If you have two big government (“I will take from you for the common good”) libs to choose from, why not pick the woman? Conservatives may detest Hillary, but they are not much fonder of McCain, and they may just stay home are cry in their beer. I will hold my nose while voting for McCain — and I’m from Arizona!

  • Denis

    If it comes down to McCain versus Clinton I will stay home. McCain and Clinton ARE indistinguishable in numerous ways when reviewing the record. McCain and the GOP are assuming that conservatives will take anybody besides Clinton. McCain is a war hero and perhaps our greatest war hero in public office. McCain is also a liar. His core is largely liberal. Whoever is the next President and administers the office as a liberal, will wreck the country as we have known it. America is at a crossroad. I’d rather see the Democrats carry that outcome into history and not the GOP. Bush fractured the GOP and it is now on life support. McCain will give the GOP it’s final fatal blow.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    But I take it you both agree that Hillary is actually an idiot, carried into a presidential election by a very well-paid professional campaign team.

    The Republican nomination is pretty much a dead issue for conservatives. There is no one with any fleeting chance of getting it that isn’t what you describe McCain to be. The difference between Romney and McCain is that Romney would steal your wallet and your mother’s purse before pushing you both in front of a train. With McCain, there’s a chance your mother would survive.

    McCain verses Clinton – McCain has the better chance of selling himself as a moderate and capturing the huge middle ground, as well as – based on what both of you are saying – some votes on the left side of “moderate.” That wouldn’t leave Hillary anywhere to go. His military experience will easily win votes where security is a concern. Hillary running a real war?

  • Denis

    “The difference between Romney and McCain is that Romney would steal your wallet and your mother’s purse before pushing you both in front of a train. With McCain, there’s a chance your mother would survive.”

    wow. you really convinced me with that!

    Really. McCain is an idiot. HRC is an idiot.

    I know that McCain is selling himself as a moderate. BFD

    Like a $10 whore.

    He may or may not win. The outcome for the country is largely the same with either:

    Bad.

  • http://smokefilledroom.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/clinton-less-capable-less-electable/ Clinton Less Capable, Less Electable « The Smoke-Filled Room

    [...] Clinton Less Capable, Less Electable (Via Men’s News Daily.) [...]

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I don’t know if I’m convincing you. I’m just sayin’. Romney has fooled some people into thinking he’s conservative. I’m aware or that. McCain is stripping him down now based on his actual record. I don’t want there to be a misunderstanding here. I’m not pushing for McCain. If I was, I would have said so. My position has already been stated in:

    Three Election Pledges
    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/07/three-election-pledges/

  • Denis

    We must be in different universes. I see it the otherway around: Romney is exposing the “The Straight Talk Express” for the hypocritical lie that it is.
    I do know that Romney hasn’t attempted a grab on my wallet. My taxes never went up while he was Governor. Neither did anyone else’s taxes for that matter. I had’nt noticed that Romney was pushing anyone in front of trains either. I do know that McCain is running conservatives over with his so-called Straight Talk Express. He’s running over the Constitution as well. He’s running over free speech. He’s running over liberty. He’s putting non-citizen’s over citizen’s. He’s a train wreck. Trouble is…when President, he will wreck the country also.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Romney did great with pork-barrel politics. But that just shifts the burden over to federal taxes. Pork has been the driving force behind the destruction of constitutional rights and the fall of marriage and family. The real story about the destruction of America is at the federal level; supported by governors seeking pork and providing cover (unaccountability). So, the other part of the country that’s pretty much dead was the idea of a federation. There’s a super-state and a bunch of administrative units that used to be states. And much as there’s disbelief at this moment – international politics is overtaking national politics. Al Gore, with his idea of putting the UN in charge of everything, is just jumping the gun. He knows that the trend and will one day act like he invented the idea (after he invented the internet).

    We have two parties that are merely two power factions on the same course. Democrats put one kind of spin on things and Republicans put another kind on it. Democrats say it’s about peace and democracy and lending a helping hand. Republicans say it’s about free trade. Tax adjustments only mean paying out of your paycheck now or paying in other ways, sometimes later.

  • Denis

    Pork Barrel politics? Are you referring to The Big Dig? That started long before Romney was Governor. That’s Ted Kennedy’s pork barrel project. Not Romney’s.

  • roger

    for my money, Romney has proven himself an excellent manager (see his resume with a Governorship, running the Olympic Games profitably, etc) as well as a Family advocate. Mormans have large families and tend to have large incomes, even while Mom stays at home and raises the kids (from what I have seen personally). They pay their fair share of taxes. And he has a tough stance on illegal immigrants. I’m down with Romney.

    I think McCain is closer to a democrat than anything. He worked with Kennedy on their attrocious amnesty bill!! Thank God that died!

  • Squiggy

    Okay, Roger. So who do you like? I was a Fred-head, now I’m just in a fog.

    I’m thinking Romney is the closest we have left to a conservative (sort of). At least he wouldn’t trash the country.

    If it’s between Hillary and McCain, I’m voting for Hillary. They’ll both trash our economy, but at least then the Dems will get the blame.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Squiggy:

    I’m sure that Romney is not a conservative. Many Republicans have mastered the art of conservative rhetoric while government expands and civil rights retreat. The modern model is Ronald Reagan. See my article: Looks Bad for Republicans:
    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/24/looks-bad-for-republicans/

    As for my position, I’ve already revealed that in an article, with link in post #6 of this discussion.

  • Squiggy

    Okay, a third party then. I don’t know who that might be, but okay.

    Until Fred weenied out, I would have argued with you that a third party vote was a vote for Hillary, but now I don’t care. This will be the only election in my lifetime (almost half a century) that it wouldn’t be a wasted vote (useless maybe – they still won’t get the message).

  • barkingdog

    The above discussion is very interesting, but it only proves my original point: a McCain nomination is a huge victory for the left, and leaves conservatives with no choices. Who stole the Republican party from us? Reagan is spinning in his grave.

    I’m starting to believe the conspiracy theories: none of this really matters, because it’s all controlled by the Bilderburgers, or the Illuminati, and we’re all headed for the “one world order.” Oh, joy! We can look forward to the day when we will be one with Mexico. E pluribus unum!

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    You’re not far off in beginning to believe the conspiracy theories. I’m not an expert on those particular theories, but might be able to point out how they distract a little from the precise truth – something like UFO conspiracy theories distracting from actual top secret military work. Before I once again embark on explaining the unbelievable, let me say I tracked down information for years trying to really understand the whole story on the transformation of family law in the US. I’ve seen the evidence and had years to process it and get over the emotional responses I had (stages of grief) so that I can now talk about it in a straightforward way (not meaning I approve).

    I’ve been discussing this on freeconservatives, and the administrator is enough of a disbeliever that it was put in their Twilight Zone forum, but some facts are emerging in discussion with people who are interested.

    Quick summary: The US no longer operates as the constitutional federation defined in the Constitution. We have become internationalized. Treaties trump everything (ordinary law, constitution, etc.) and now we adapt to international conventions on account of little more than a memo from the State department. The fed is rapidly accumulating power over everything, and as they grab powers they are not constitutionally authorized to take, the status of laws are changed so that individual rights are nullified.

    The Rockerfellers are big on the internationalization thing, but I don’t know that you can blame them directly. The two parties hold the political power and now the mechanism of law making described in the summary above seems more prominent than anything most people think is going on. Our new world order toward One World Government thingy is making who we vote for a lot less important. I mean, it’s not going to have much impact.

    More discussion at:
    http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55180&page=3

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Squiggy;

    Punishing a political party is pretty much all we’ve got left in the democratic process. I think Bush became president because we supported him to punish the Democrats. I think Republicans could fail this time if we don’t. I’ve decided to start voting for anyone I actually agree with rather than wasting my vote on the impression of a “lesser of two evils” – the game played by the two parties. My vote isn’t going to be based on partisan politics but on policy that I want. If Hillary is going to fix the problem, I’ll vote for her. (Not that I’d believe her if she made a superficial statement – it would have to go farther than that.)

  • Denis

    The GOP is almost dead.

    There is only one candidtae who is strong on illegal immigration and who has stated what he will do as President: see to it that illegals return home. It’s not Juan McCain. Juan McCain’s position is to now “seal the border first”. He will not answer what he will do with illegals already here. He avoided answering that specific question twice in this weeks debate in a Clintonesque manner. Juan McCain favors people who broke the law getting here. Illegals lower the wages of Americans and force American competitors to lay off Americans or lower their wages to compete with companies hiring illegals. Juan McCain puts illegals over American’s and American businesses. Juan McCain co-authored McCain-Kennedy.

    Juan McCain was one of two Republicans opposing Bush’s tax cuts. That is not what “foot soldiers for the Reagon Revolution” do. Juan McCain showed his contempt for business people in this weeks debate with snide remarks about Romney as a business man.

    Juan McCain believes in limits on free speech. McCain-Feingold.

    Juan McCain thinks that he owns the word “timetables”. Romney does not and never has favored timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. Juan McCain lied and used Clintonesque tactics of creating a lie and repeating it over and over.

    Romney is talking tax cuts, shrinking government, competing with China and India with fair trade agreements, putting American jobs first, fixing illegal immigration, and bringing fiscal, social, and defense policy conservatives together.

    Juan McCain divides fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense policy conservatives. He lacks the temperament to lead this country.

    Romney is more intelligent than McCain. He has the temperament to be President. He is an example of the American dream. A successful professional and personal life. He governed as a moderate Republican out of necessity in the most left wing state, with the most left wing state legislature in America.

    Of the four remaining leading candidates only one is good for America. Juan McCain is not that one.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Denis:

    Sorry, but I don’t believe what Romney says on account of his history. It’s spin. He is an absolute expert in the Reagan technique of wrapping the same old, sometimes far left, crap in conservative rhetoric. Just like “Strengthening Marriage” legislation actually destroys it. Romney is a super-porker and doesn’t care beans about the effect it has on the nation and the people. As for personality – he’s like a sales guy. It’s his business to look good and sound good. But he doesn’t care about how the product is developed or what it actually does, so long as there’s lots and lots of money involved.

  • Denis

    Roger-

    I understand that you are not a Romney supporter. You stated this on numerous occasions. Fair enough. I haven’t seen anywhere in Romney’s record what you claim to be true. Staples, as one example, is a company that was made successful by Romney. You comments are largely generalizations. Fair enough. You may convince others to see it your way.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I’m just stating the facts Denis. Whether an individual believes them is a matter of personal choice.

  • Denis

    You’re stating opinion. Facts are provable.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I’m not lying Denis. He’s a big phony.

  • Denis

    Okay. Now I believe everything you say.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Good. I’m glad.

  • Squiggy

    The question is “would Romney be better for the country than all the rest of them”? I can see no situation where the answer would be “no”.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Squiggy: I can see it quite clearly. I was going to write an article about it, but got distracted by other things. I still think it’s a good idea but don’t know if I will. Romney seems to be losing, so …. the article would probably be more interesting on the Clinton / Obama side where my reasoning would still apply.

    Romney is a Reagan Republican. There is some confusion about what that actually means. Reagan mastered the art of selling far left domestic policy by wrapping it in conservative rhetoric. Many “Reagan Democrats” weren’t supporting him because he won them over to conservativism with strong arguments. Feminists for example, did not attack him because he gave them everything they asked for and more. So, in this way, Romney is one kind of (average) appropriate representative of what the Republican Party has become.

    What’s lacking in Romney as candidate is allowance for any kind of democratic (little d) result from holding elections. The Reagan approach has proven successful (at least up till now). Many people voting for Romney would vote for him based on what he says – his claim of being conservative; not realizing they’re voting for a pork barreling leftist and constitution burner. We would get four more years of exactly what’s been destroying the Republican Party for the past 27 years.

    People seem to understand McCain better than Romney no matter what McCain says. McCain says he’s conservative, but people respond – on this and that and the other – that he certainly does not appear to be. Ann Coulter makes a point for me I think, when she says one of the claims he has to being a conservative was his support for the troop surge – which every Republican supported. McCain is a very good representative (average) of the Republican Party. With McCain as candidate, it will be much more obvious to people what the party is all about.

    My response to this is that it’s time to play the democracy card (little d). Get the cards out on the table and get some citizen participation going in the national debate (internet actually has it going now more than ever before). There’s two years to go before mid terms, and four years to find an actual conservative Republican candidate for president who might actually have a shot.






Search