An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Hillary Clinton’s Development As A Campaigner
One of the most fascinating aspects about this never ending 2008 Presidential campaign is the growth of Senator Hillary Clinton as a political campaigner. She started out more wooden than some of the characters that I use in my show. But she is blossoming by the month.
Look at her response below to when Senator John Edwards took a dig at her for appearing on the cover of Forbes magazine:
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Hillary Clinton’s Development As A Campaigner”
“She started out more wooden than some of the characters that I use in my show.”
Hehehe, good one, Joe!
Yes, she’s developed the “we must unite to crush the evil Republicans” meme quite well, hasn’t she?
I think Joe’s point about her affecting a more charismatic persona is true but I hardly think this is a good example of it unless you’re a partisan Democrat.
I’m sorry, but I would rather see the eventual president elect unite their party to move the country forward. Not unite the party to counter the other party. Running on a platform of “I’m Not Them” and “Let’s counter everything they did” is not going to put our country in the direction it needs to go for the future.
Up until now Hillary has not had a major misstep. But I have to say that saying she wants to unite the Dems against the Repubs. This just makes her sound like another politician who will divide the country instead of unite the country.
But this is not the general election. The entire point of the current campaign is that is purely within the parties. The question is how far anyone goes. I don’t think Senator Clinton has gone as far in attempting to appeal to the extremes of her party as many of the Republican candidates have gone in order to appeal to what Andrew Sullivan calls the Christianists.
So you are saying that what a candidate says to gain their party’s nomination should not reflect upon them in the national election. There I disagree strongly. I think it is just as important to consider what a candidate says to the base as it is to consider what they say to the nation as a whole. If he/she says things that burn bridges, its going to be very difficult to rebuild them to appeal to independents and people on the other side of the aisle.
Absolutely not, jonimp. It does matter. The question is how far do they go? If someone running for a Democratic nomination criticizes the Republican candidates it’s to be expected. The reverse is also true. But only the moderates of each party and the independents can say what they think goes too far. I happen to think that at this time the Republicans in charge of the party are far more extremist than the equivalent Democrats. At least in what they preach, that is.
What is an example of going too far to appeal to the base? IMO, it’s something like going to Bob Jones University. It’s the smear campaign against John McCain in South Carolina. Those kinds of things.
Jim, I guess I misunderstood you before. And I agree that with you. Candidates have to walk a tightrope to appeal to the base and independents. For me at least, this would be an example of going to far to appease the base, but then again, I am not part of the base so I’m going to have a slanted view. It just struck a nerve with me to hear a candidate declare that her goal was to to essentially be an anti-Republican candidate. I just like to think major, spotlight candidates would have higher priorities, thats all.