Hillary Clinton Proving Useful Bogeywoman For Republican Presidential Candidates
Forget about President George Bush being “a uniter, not a divider.” The real uniter may be Senator Hillary Clinton — among conservative Republicans.
As The Politico notes, she’s proving useful to GOPers running for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination in what seems to be a dry run of the campaign to come if she’s the Democratic nominee:
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, often tiptoes in his attacks on her, sometimes criticizing her record without using her name.
But the leading Republicans are running as if Clinton were their opponent, constantly invoking her as a way to pep up disconsolate conservatives and as a reminder of the stakes in an election for which the rank-and-file GOP has no enthusiasm.
“Did you hear what Hillary Clinton said about the economy, by the way?†former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney asked at an event Friday night, doing his best Jay Leno.
“She said, you know, America has always been an on-your-own society. … But she said it’s time to change that. [Audience laughter.] She said we need to become a shared-responsibility society, a we’re-all-in-it-together society. So for her, it’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx!â€
Even though the bar on the quality of discourse in American political debate has been lowered so far that it’s now four feet below ground level, it would have hard to imagine several years ago that an ostensibly major candidate for one party would all but openly call another candidate a Marxist. But there you have it.
And as The Politico that piece notes, paraphrasing the great late comedian Jimmy Durante, when it comes to Hillary C, Romney (and other Republicans) “have a million of them.”
And there is a method to the demonization:
Therein lies the reason Clinton — often invoked simply by her first name — provides such a handy foil for beleaguered Republicans. It gives them a target at a time when their own party is widely blamed for mismanaging the Iraq war, the federal budget and the levers of government.
In other words: talking about what they perceive as the accomplishments of Bush administration and Republican Congressional dominance for most of the past seven years is too problematical. So the issue becomes the threat of Ms. Clinton. And there’s more:
It allows the hopefuls to abide nominally by President Ronald Reagan’s “11th commandment†against speaking ill of a fellow Republican.
And perhaps most importantly, it helps Republican candidates make the case that they are not afraid to take on Clinton in a year when the party is desperate to win and campaigns are making their candidate’s electability a central argument.
The last two are more standard political goals. But the key thrust of The Politico piece is that Republicans are now doing a dry run of a campaign that will be centered on the threat posed to the nation by Hillary Clinton.
The phrase “But under Clinton….” that has been uttered frequently by the White House, Republicans and talk show hosts any time criticism comes up of Bush or Republican policies will now apparently be morphed into a campaign that will once again likely be a How We Can Save The Nation campaign versus a How We Can Serve The Nation (and have served the nation).
Question: is Clinton — and are the Democrats — geared up for what most assuredly is to come if the prevailing conventional wisdom (and polls) are correct and she winds up her party’s nominee?
SOME OTHER RELATED READING:
–The Los Angeles Times chronicles how Ms. Clinton has built her lead in a piece that should be a sign to GOPers that she will not be a pushover. It talks about how Carol Levesque used to not like HC but now does:
Levesque’s conversion offers a window into how Clinton has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination: One of the most demonized politicians in America has begun to win a second look from skeptics. And among women and seniors, such as Levesque, she has built big leads over her rivals.
That underscores one of Clinton’s most important assets in the turbulent few months ahead of the balloting set for early January. She has built a political base — reflected in polls — of voters who dominate the Democratic nominating process: seniors, women and blue-collar voters.
That’s a troublesome trend for Obama, who has drawn his support mainly from the young and the affluent. He had been considered the candidate most likely to slow the Clinton juggernaut. But her lead in national polls has widened. Nationally, Clinton leads Obama 38% to 22%, according to the latest Pollster.com aggregation of surveys. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is under 14%. The latest campaign reports showed that in the last three months, Clinton for the first time raised more money than Obama.
—She is now ahead in an Iowa poll.
–But she stumbled badly (the clip of this will be used against her by rival Democrats, Republican talk show hosts and Republicans) by suggesting a voter with a tough question was a plant. He will not wind up voting for her.
–She has generally extended her lead for the Democratic nomination.
–Is there a Hillary Clinton “bubble?” John Fout says no.
–The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Clinton is growing on Iowans….in a state previously seen as tough sell.
–GOP Presidential wannabe Rudy Giuliani is now predicting a “formidable” Clinton-Obama ticket.
–Clinton nemesis and not-always-a-great-predictor Dick Morris insists Giuliani’s attacks on Clinton have “hit home” and will help Giuliani win in the primaries.
–A Bloomberg report says Ms. Clinton reigns as “queen of federal pork.” (My own info from friends in New York state for years — including some who do not like her politically — is that she has proven to be a Senator who quickly responds to constituents and has not forgotten that “all politics is local.”)
–She may face skepticism from her party’s left wing, but a liberal icon has now endorsed her: former Senator George McGovern.
–PR Web contends that political bloggers’ “obsession” with Hillary Clinton means the race is still wide open:
Texas representative and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul lived up to his Internet fame in September. Wonkosphere.com has reported that Paul finished in first place amongst Republican candidates for buzz share from conservative bloggers. Buzz share measures how much the political blogosphere is talking about a particular candidate, and Paul’s 16% beat out Senator Fred Thompson (13%) and Mayor Rudy Giuliani (10%). The real untold story however of Internet politics in September is bloggers’ obsession with New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
In September, approximately one out of every four blog posts that talked about a presidential candidate talked about Senator Clinton. “Clinton (22%) barely beat out John Edwards (20%) for buzz share amongst liberal bloggers,” said Wonkosphere’s Kevin Dooley, “but she was all conservative bloggers could talk about — she had more conservative buzz share than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani combined.”
“Senator Clinton’s dominance in the political blogosphere is important for three reasons,” added Wonkosphere’s Steve Corman. “First, it means she is succeeding in driving the discussion, which can be powerful. Second, because the race is being defined as Clinton versus Not-Clinton, it means that anyone on either side can potentially fill the contender role; the narrative is ‘Who will beat Hillary?’ Third, because conservative bloggers have concentrated on Clinton, their own Republican candidates have gone largely un-vetted by the blogging community.”
–The Sunday (UK) Times says Bush is already working on a transition to a Hillary takeover.
–But is America ready for a woman President? James Clark writing in the Houston Chronicle says no. (FOOTNOTE: A look at many countries suggests that the United States is way behind the erasure of gender barriers in top political posts.)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Proving Useful Bogeywoman For Republican Presidential Candidates”
[...] Mine Hillary Clinton Proving Useful Bogeywoman For Republican Presidential Candidates » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
The problem with running as the anti-Hillary is that they’ll fire up the disconsolate GOP base … and not much more. They might want to take a page from Newt Gingrich; he’s been far less than complimentary of Hillary Clinton in the past, but in his recent remarks, he’s talked about how much he respects her as a politician and a candidate for being tough, determined, etc., etc., … while simultaneously ripping into her for being to liberal and saying she’ll lead the country in the wrong direction.
–|PW|–
Limbaugh and the entire (so-called) conservative noise machine have been banging away at Hillary Clinton since 1992.
That’s supposed to disqualify her?
Remember, in 2004, that same noise machine only needed a few weeks to turn a decorated war hero into a coward.
Kerry proved that he was not tough enough in 2004 to take on his right-wing attackers. His critical mistake was not to dignify the attacks with a response.
The Clintons have been sending the message by their appearances on FNC and statements in Democratic debates, that they do understand how to fight back. That’s the big difference and why I will probably end up voting for Hillary. Obama is great, but Hillary is proving that she alone really knows how to succeed in this atmosphere. The Clintons are showing Democrats how to grow a tougher skin in order to take on the Limbaughs and the Hannitys, who do sway a great number of voters.
[...] SOME OTHER RELATED READING: (more…) [...]
Has Romney ever actually read even extensive summaries of Adam Smith, much less his actual work? I admit that I haven’t read the whole thing but even I know that Smith would consider much of modern capitalism appalling.
It is amazing that, as a conservative, I find myself hoping that Krit and other liberals vote for Hillary.
Pennywit said: “the anti-Hillary is that they’ll fire up the disconsolate GOP base … and not much more.”
I disagree…Hillary Clinton is easily the BEST candidate from a GOP perspective. The MSM is sceptical of her – unlike its gushing over Obama – and she has negatives in the stratosphere.
Plus, if she becomes President, it would be a godsend to American conservatives-currently in the wilderness after years of political dominance.
If you read any of the insider accounts of the Clinton Admin like Stepanopolous’ etc….Hillary is the one with the “Enemies List” who only masked her venom with difficulty. Bill had his issues, but he could often find some common ground or charm opponents (c.f. Bush elder, or Bob Dole).
Barring a Republican victory, Hillary is the second-best outcome for Conservatives. Her presidency would repel a nation. In contrast, an Obama candidacy would likely be a GOP nightmare scenario.
Fortunately, the Democrats can be expected to help the American conservative movement, and nominate Hillary. Let the “Culture Wars – Round 2″ begin….
Further to Hillary as the Conservative “dream candidate”…
I just noticed on Memorandum that Sandy Berger has returned as a senior advisor to Hillary Clinton…despite his security clearance being stripped, and his refusal to answer questions about what he really stole from the archives (he chose to yield his law license rather than face questioning).
Can you imagine how Hillary’s face would freeze into her smiling mask if she was asked about Berger in the presidential debates?
Hillary has SOOOO much baggage. The primaries have not even started, and the wackiness (Hsu etc.) is seeping out of her campaign. The MSM is critically reporting on her strong-arming the media (cf. snuffing the GQ critical article).
Go Hillary!!!!!
…again, if she reverts to 1993-1994 arrogance once in office, drops her phony “centrist” or “moderate” mask, and lurches leftward.
This is exactly why in my mind Clinton should not be president. We’ve had enough of divisive politics and screaming radio folks since the 90′s, and another Clinton in the WH would just continue the cycle. Regardless of what she did in office her presence there would be a divisive influence on the country as a whole. If she was the only qualified Democratic candidate maybe I’d feel differently, but this go around I feel the Dems are flush with presidential material.
Also, the only slim hope the GOP has of getting someone in office resides with Hillary as the democratic nomination.
http://www.TrueWorldHistory.info
It was Hillary back then who was so divisive. It was she who produced the 1994 election results (which shocked elites out of touch with real Americans). The political talk shows, some of which are loud (not screaming sessions, but loud), will get a boost if Hillary is elected President, particularly if once in the White House again she moves well to the left in her policy objectives and actions. (Her viciousness, worse than any claimed for the talk shows who are critical of her, will also repel decent people once more.) I find Rush Limbaugh’s show to be boring and “tired” on the few occasions I’ve listened to it for a moment or two; Hillary as President would re-inject life into his show and could enable Limbaugh to retire with a final flourish.
Marlowe, DLS- You are assuming Hillary is the same person she was in the ’90′s. But the GOP assumed that for the reasons you mention she would fail in her NY Senate race. When she won, the GOP assumed she’d be a laughingstock in office . Then when she became respected by others in the Senate, they assumed her presidential campaign would falter because she many because she was percieved as cold, calculating and shrill, and because Democrats viewed her as unelectable. Wrong again.
But if Republicans think that all they have to do is wait until she wins the nomination to get the party back in gear, they need to realize that she has been successful in winning over many of her critics. Why do you think everyone from Karl Rove to President Bush is warning about a Hillary win? Talk radio hosts have formed “Stop Hillary” movements, LOL. Anyone can see they are running scared.
Even her opposition now treats her campaign with respect, and with the realization that she makes few mistakes and that her organizational skills and ability to absorb details is formidable. Plus she is married to Bill-the most popular Democrat alive. No way Judith Giuliani, who is best known for booking a seat for her purse on a plane, will measure up as a counterpart.
I don’t see how the GOP can win- if they run a conservative like Thompson, they lose the middle, if they run Giuliani, they lose the Christian right, if they run McCain they lose the anti-immigrant crowd, and as much as a third of the GOP has come out and stated they won’t vote for a Mormon.
It probably can’t, unless the Democrats become overconfident and blow it. So, keep up the good work, Kim! LOL
Um, I’d never heard that until I read one of the last several times you’d mentioned it, but if you say so.
Agreed. The we-must-stop-Hillary crowd actually is not very large (or loud).
She has developed some critics now on the Left because of her war stance, but I believe on election day that the lefties will vote for her anyway.
No argument. And the GOP contenders are lightweight (and turn off many of the voters).
It doesn’t look possible right now, especially with Hillary playing her “moderate” or “centrist” role (which will fool a lot of people). We’ll have to look to another miracle like in 2000 where Al Gore looked to easily be able to beat Bush, then proceeded to lose; I believe if Hillary commits more blunders like hiring Sandy Berger, or shifts too far left (and gives substance to the we-must-stop-Hillary crowd’s expressed fears) then the GOP has a chance. It’s up to her more than it is up to the GOP.
Krit said: “Even her opposition now treats her campaign with respect, and with the realization that she makes few mistakes and that her organizational skills and ability to absorb details is formidable. Plus she is married to Bill…”
Krit, all of that is true. But she also has negatives in the stratosphere…and unlike Bill, she can’t finesse her mistakes with charm – when wounded she lashes out. Aside from the bimbo eruptions, many of the scandals of the Clinton era (literally) had her fingerprints on them.
I always thought there was something calculated in Rove’s making her the “threat”. He is smart enough to know that when he indicates an enemy, the instinctive reaction of liberals would be to rally around the anti-Rove.
Obama is the GOP nightmare because he is a new break with the past…can touch idealism in American in a way Hillary’s triangulation can’t…he doesn’t have Hillary’s negatives, nor her value of fundraising among GOP.
The GOP is hoping beyond hope she doesn’t flame out early (with Hsu, or Berger, or some other skeleton in the closet).
In all honesty, I believe Hillary holds the fate of the GOP’s immediate future in her hands.
“It was Hillary back then who was so divisive. It was she who produced the 1994 election results (which shocked elites out of touch with real Americans).”
It really doesn’t matter who started it, if she is in the Oval Office its going to be all that crap all over again. This time everyone has had a decade to rehearse their parts for the American Politics Show. And there seems to be only one channel that plays it 24/7.
If Hillary Clinton has, she has a comeback, not only with Smith’s words but with a non-liberal complaint about big government, thrown back at him:
“To quote Adam Smith: ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.’ This sounds a lot like the scandals we have seen with contractors in Iraq, or with energy policy in this country. And he does not want that to change! I do want that to change! While he may want an ‘invisible hand,’ one that permits such things to happen, I am not afraid to say it’s time instead for the highly visible foot!“
The Clintons did. 1994 was the reaction.
This is where I agree with Kritter that people have had time to put her and her behavior in perspective and while Americans are wary of the Clintons being in the White House again, it is true that people are not as critical now as they were then (if for no other reason than that the Clintons are not currently in the White House and haven’t done anything outrageous lately), and it’s largely a matter of waiting to see after Clinton is elected (I believe she will be elected) how far left she and her husband move after returning to the White House. We’re forced to wait and see; presumably they have learned some lessons and won’t be as provocative and outrageous this time (just as they learned some lessons during Bill’s first term). I suspect people’s expectations that some lessons have been learned affect how they view Hillary Clinton as possibly (even probably) our next President. And they probably believe she’s the more capable, less self-indulgent of the two.
Unfortunately Adam Smith did not believe the things that people like Romney and every other modern Republican who refers to him claim he did. Do any of them understand that this too was a quote from Smith?
Or consider this section of the Wikipedia article on Smith’s biography called “The Adam Smith Problem”.