Hillary: Pros and Cons, Facts and Fiction

Remove all ads!

Since so many political topics lately end up getting derailed by the Clintons, I thought I'd give them a happy little home here. I'll elaborate more on my personal feelings a bit later sans-lunchbreak, but I just wanted to get something started.

Disclosure: though I'm personally very much opposed to Hillary Clinton becoming President, and still honestly don't think she'll get the nomination despite her "juggernaut" status in the press (she has far too much negative sentiment to overcome IMO), I also don't think she's the anti-christ or that the world will come to an end if she's the first double-x chromo president. However - since I know very well that there are people here who subscribe to both extremes, I thought that it'd make for (if nothing else) an interesting discussion, especially since the Clintons haven't been discussed too often outside the occasional "but Clinton was worse" comparison for a number of years.

I think there are clearly both pros and cons to a Hillary presidency. I also think there is both a lot of hysterical myth and a lot of embarrassing truth surrounding her negatives. I'd like to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Considering all that's at stake with the next election, it's a dialogue that needs to be opened with an aim on separating fact from hysteria.

What is your take on the issue?

/fastens protective gear.

Have at it.

 

Hillary is the antithesis of almost everything I believe in. The fact that she's a woman is totally irrelevant. She is a big government leftist. Her past history is troublesome, to be sure, but pales in comparison to the damage she would do to the ideal of individual liberty and self-determination. She, like most politicians, holds the rabble in contempt and, in my opinion, doesn't even try to conceal it. She possesses all of the negative attributes possible in a politician. She is an elitist who believes she knows what is best for the populace. She would trample the Constitution with nary a second thought (kind of like G.W.B.). She would attempt to impose all kinds of socialistic idealism (universal health care, gun control, tax increases, wealth redistribution, etc.).

For the record, I don't think any of the candidates (Republican or Democrat) that have a shot are much better.

[ July 11, 2007, 00:56: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]

 

I don't like Hillary Clinton too teribly much, myself, but you're pushing it with this one. The only person who really knows whether Hillary Clinton holds the rabble in contempt is Hillary Clinton.

You know, I get the impression that all you are really doing here is thoughtlessly repeating the smear attacks of the right wing media. First of all, what constitutes an elitist? The word doesn't really mean anything. Is she an elitist because she is wealthy? Or because she thinks that all Americans should have access to health care rather than just the ones who can afford it? The right likes to characterize the Clintons as Liberal with a capital "L", but that isn't even remotely accurate. Bill and Hillary are moderate.....with Hillary actually leaning a bit to the right. (Now, Dennis Kucinich.....he's liberal with a capital "L".) Second, what proof do you have that Hillary is going to "trample the Constitution with nary a second thought"? I've never seen Hillary Clinton lobby to strip anyone of their constitutional rights.

And this is bad because.....?

If only it were actually true.

[ July 11, 2007, 01:24: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Hillary is a big government rightist: until recently she was a stalwart supporter of the War in Iraq and its huge cost in American blood and treasure. Many on the left, like myself, have been disappointed that Hillary often rejects the more centerist, populist, views of her husband. Like most on the right, she does seem to have distain for the "rabble," unlike her populist husband who does identify with the underdogs. And l think much of her move to the right has been more politically calculated, rather than out of deep conviction.

Like most on the right, she is pro big government, but I believe that she has a deeper respect for certain aspects of the Constitution than most conservatives. She is intelligent, poised and calculating. She has the potential to be a competent president, but I don't believe she'll be a great one. What she really has going for her - is Bill. He will be an awesome First Man, and it will undoubtedly put Rush back in rehab.

 

A very good example of the ... "less than rational" thoughts Hillary inspires in some people. Hillary leftist ... come on. And all that "the sky will fall " if she is elected president... What arguments you really have for such ridiculous statements.

By all accounts she makes quite a good senator. She worked with people on both sides of the aisle (one of the reasons why the true breathe-fire left is actually quite pissed at her). She managed to contrbute to some decent bills. Of course, this does not mean she would make a great president, but, after Bush, I would think even a mediocre one will be a relief.

As about of the question if she's the best choice among all contenders ... unfortunate maybe, but I would say yes. Obama really does not seem like such a solid choice to me. Okay, he can talk, but ... talk is cheap. I would rather pick someone with more experience, like Gore (but he's not running) or Feingold, (who probably has no chance), but oh well. Hillary's good enough.

 

Three little words:

Health ... Care ... Reform.

 

It's...about...time.

 

well, at least she tried

 

khaavern - She was torpedoed by the big insurance companies, which ran a gigantic spin operation. Again, it is not the politicians who control the debate any longer, but hired operatives who know how to use the media to spin any issue into whatever they choose. It's a real shame. The American people really need to wake up and take their country back from "the powers that would be."

 

Except that I'm a Libertarian and I feel the same way about Guiliani, McCain, Edwards, Bush et al. Ask me what I think of George Bush or John McCain. I'm quite able to form my own opinions independent of the media, thank you very much. I'm against anyone who will forcibly confiscate my hard earned money and give it to others or fund bloated, incompetent and sometimes unconstitutional beauraucratic agencies with it (guess that's why I'm a Libertarian). That makes people like Hillary either thieves or oligarchs who think I can't be trusted to decide what should be done with the fruits of my labor. In truth she and most politicians are both. I realize full well that such a confiscatory system has been in place for nearly a hundred years. As the years go by it gets more and more odious (especially since the great fraud F.D.R.). I realize that Hillary is just one more in a long line of Big Government politicians. I believe that she is worse than many though, so as a result I reject her completely. Maybe I'm the idealistic one here after all.

When I refer to an elitist I mean a politician or other influential person who thinks those below them aren't invested with enough wit to make their own decisions in life hence they need to have the decisions made for them by...guess who! Hillary qualifies.

 

Can of worms, table 2.

 

I doubt what I think matters, but I don't like her that much. For the record, I doubt she is a "leftist." First, I doubt that there is a genuine left as I understand it in the US political mainstream, and if it exists, Mrs. Clinton is not it. Centrist with a lean to the right seems more like it. IMO she will be under a lot of pressure to deliver the relatively right-wing policy her husband offered - or at least the economic stability he got - and she will probably try to do so.

She could be a tolerable president - she has no less brains than her husband, who imo did okay, although imo she has a big populist streak that I am wary of. She is ambitious, competent, and I guess that if she weren't a political animal in the 1990s, she is definitely one now. She has good connections and could build a competent staff, but will be plagued by the comparisons with her husband, whose charisma - or at least media reputation, which is very often the same thing - she does not have. OTOH, chances are she is thick-skinned enough already. She better be, as she will be put to the test: she already has a lot of detractors, and things will not get much better if she gets to the Oval Office. The healthcare reform is not a big problem, as a) it was a heck of an obstacle to tackle (still is) and b) it was over 10 years ago. I am more worried by some policy changes she appears to have made as a senator to cater to the mainstream. I can approve of a politician who sometimes makes compromises when the situation warrants it, but vote pandering is not something that I find endearing. Of course, I wish she were the only candidate who did it, in the US or elsewhere, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Altogether, she appears a powerful, but problematic, relatively right-wing candidate for the Democratic party. At least, this is the opinion of someone who does not follow the campaign so intricately - simply someone who knows that a president he will not elect will have a lot more importance to his life than the entire government he may. Her biggest drawback is that she appears to be very divisive, much more than Obama or even Edwards - some people will not vote for her even if the heavens parted, the Holy Spirit descended upon her and they heard a voice from up high saying "Thou art my beloved daughter, in thee am I well pleased."

[ July 11, 2007, 12:16: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Uh-huh. You know, I kind of like roads, fire departments, and police protection, myself. Taxation isn't theft.

 

no one mentioned those things drew
dinsdale is probably speaking about the bloated government "help" agencies.

just go look at any government assisted living complexes

you will see people living here paying little or nothing but driving $60k bmws, hummers, etc

kinda sick when their kids come into the store after getting out of a luxury car and ask if you take food stamps!!!

or a 25 year old who's never worked a day in his life and living on welfare

or all the illegal aliens coming here and their children and themselves being treated for free at our hospitals

yep, die hard conservative here & proud of it
still have liberal leanings on some things (abortion, i'm a guy i don't have any right to tell a woman what to do with her body)

 

Speaking as a "damm furriner" I look upon her as Caesar looked upon Cassius:

She's noticeably ambitious, and that doth make me lose my ease. She seems to voice whatever opinions that appeal to the largest segment of the electorate, and will change her opinions to fit; fair weather friends are of great comfort...as long as it's not stormy...

She strikes me as the sort of 'mercenary' politician who will take whatever side that gives the most clout/votes/power and either keeps his/her personal opinions out of the matter or simply doesn't HAVE a personal opinion. And that REALLY unsettles me.

For example, I dislike George Walker Bush as PotUS; I disagree with much of his policies and those personal opinions he has made public, but I respect him more than most politicians. If I had been a US voter in 2000, I would have chosen him over Al Gore even though I tended to agree with those positions he did take.

(This is, mostly, due to the 'feel' that Gore gave of being a career 'apparatchik' or bureaucrat - or "burro-crat" like Gallagher thinks it should be spelled. )

'Junior' despite his flaws (and I'd say he's got fewer than Clinton(either)) always appears earnest. And he actually seems to feel sincere about the opinion or decision he is making. And it MAY be possible that he's simply voicing positions that others give him, but at least he makes a credible performance in hiding this. Not as smooth as 'Plain ol' Bill', but then few people can be...


Sorry for getting doubly sidetracked there, but I hope those diversions still illuminated something of what I think about Sen. Clinton...

She seems eager almost to the point of...greed? hunger for power? (sometimes vocabulary fails one )

I'm willing to wager that a LOT of her husband's presidential policy had been influenced by her (but then, this happens to some extend with ALL married PotUS') and that "Slick Willy" woulda been content being a law professor at UofA.


The big difference between her time as an 'eminence grise' and now as a political candidate herself is that she doesn't have that...indefinable charm that her husband does. For all his faults (and WJC does have more than one or two) he's the sort of person you have to struggle to dislike, and struggle even more to say 'no' to. As Dennis Miller said: (I might paraphrase) "He's the sort of guy who can stroll over and sweet-talk you into loaning him your brand new riding lawnmower, even though you KNOW he'll never return it, all whilst feeling up your wife." (I'm still undecided if his strong charisma is a good or a bad thing )

But she doesn't have that; from those occasions where I've listened to her speak, she's competent, but not really engaging, almost as if not only not personally believing the side she's taking, but either can't quite build a believable performance that she does, or (and this is really unsettling) she can't be bothered doing so...

 

Hmmm.. Have you been reading "The Assault on Reason"? Because that statement looks like it appears almost verbatim in Gore's book.

As for Hillary - while she is by no means my first choice for President, if she wins the Democratic nomination, she will get my vote.

 

If that is her views, then I stand at her side. Those are all good things (the tax increases are neccessary).

 

Er, what? Righties prefer smaller government, lefties want the people dependent on big government.

The problem Hillary has is the same on the big names have: the minority of the base controls the party. The far left won't forgive her for supporting the war. The far right can't get pass Guiliani's support of abortion or Romney's "strange" religion.

Edwards had a chance to be the outsider candidate, nut being the "Poverty" candidate and spend $1250 on a haircut and build a 30,000 sq ft house won't cut it.

On the same note, McCain could have been the maverick candidate from 2004 and won nomination, but he now won't even make it to the primaries.

If the Democrats would stop running against Bush (ah, he's not running again) and push their agenda, they have a strong chance. If they can't get past the HATE, the average Joe Public won't back them and their far left backers to go with a more centrist Fred Thompson.

 

Martaug, do you actually have those kind of people in any significant number, in the US or elsewhere? For all the talk, I have never so far seen anyone live in opulence in welfare. A few have been dumb enough to get a satellite TV - dumb, because it was at the expense of the clothes on their back or their and their children's health. That is, unfortunately a choice they were free to make, at least when welfare involves monetary help. But afaik, there is no such thing as a welfare baron - those that were touted as such either were not particularly rich or made their money from something different, usually crime.

GG, afaik people on the left want a more active government - whether the people get dependent on it is another thing entirely, and in fact the presumption often is that they will/should not. Thanks for the neutral review, btw

 

Ostensibly, but the last 7 years' worth of legislation and White House agenda hardly bear that out.