Spencer ‘Accuses’ Hillary Clinton of Having ‘Presidential Aspirations’
In yesterday’s debate, Republican candidate for Senator of New York ‘accused’ Senator Hillary Clinton of having ‘Presidential aspirations’.
Clinton acknowledged that she has thought about running for the presidency in 2008, but said she is committed to running for Senate re-election.
Personally, I like how she transformed an ‘accusation’ (if that is the best you can come up with as an opponent, I am not sure whether you should consider running against Hillary at all) into a compliment:
“As you might guess, I’ve been asked that a few times before,” she said of her possible White House aspirations. “I am focused on this election. I am focused on my work in the Senate. Obviously, people are talking about whether I will or should be running for president, and I’m flattered by that.”
On a different note: I have been thinking about this every now and then: one could very well argue that – taking American history into regard and more specifically emancipation of African-Americans on one hand and of women on the other – it is more likely that a black man will be elected President before a white woman. On the other hand, one could also come to the opposite conclusion while looking at the same facts and – of course – one could be of the opinion that race and sex do not matter anymore regarding politics / elections. I am interested in reading what you all might think of this, so please leave a comment about that.
UPDATE
Great post by Henry at Crooked Timber. Henry quotes an article in the Economist. The quote:
But whatever the reason, [Warner’s] retreat has created a vacuum. He had positioned himself as the centrist alternative to Hillary Clinton, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination and the darling of the party’s liberal activists. Southerners, Westerners and moderates are now shopping for a new candidate, perhaps Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico or Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana or former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the vice-presidential nominee in 2004.
Henry responds:
Hillary Clinton is apparently the “darling of the party’s liberal activists.â€? Now, we don’t have any really decisive evidence on this – the only surveys that I know of which try to figure out what “liberal activistsâ€? want are the Pew survey (which focuses on Howard Dean supporters) and the Blogpac survey, which draws from a sample of MoveOn email list subscribers. Neither is definitive – but Pew finds that Clinton polls number 4 or number 3 among former Dean activists depending on which question you look at, while the Blogpac survey finds her to be joint fifth with Joe Biden, and to have higher unfavourable ratings than any other listed candidate. Given that Clinton has specifically tried to position herself as the centrist alternative over the last couple of years, this is about what one would expect. Equally bizarre is the suggestion that centrists might want to gravitate towards John Edwards… I don’t get the impression that the article’s author actually knows very much about what’s happening within the Democratic party. Not what you expect from a serious magazine.
This ‘darling of the party’s liberal activists’ is something I do not get either. Seems to be more of a talking point, meant to ‘discredit’ Hillary, than anything else to me.
23 Responses to “Spencer ‘Accuses’ Hillary Clinton of Having ‘Presidential Aspirations’”
mmmm I can see a woman becoming president before a black man. Racial polarization in the US is still very much a reality, while polarization on the basis of sex is less so. The only thing I can see as going against a woman as opposed to a black man is that the black man is expected to be strong and forceful, while the same properties in a woman would be considered strident and histerical.
A black candidate, if he were a democrat, would get the practical totality of black votes, and probably still a solid majority of them if he were republican. More democrats would vote for a black man than would republicans, but not because republicans are racist (most aren’t). Republicans would be more leery of a black candidate because they would expect a lot of race-baiting, blaming of white people for blacks ills (vs. personal responsibility) and a large expansion of social programs.
A female candidate could get trouble because of the “strong woman” taboo. On the other hand, unless she was a total bitch, she would get the support of a solid majority of women, a much much bigger group than blacks, and that’s not counting that black women would also vote for her. She could be from either party. Sure some of the hardliner retrograde rightwingers wouldn’t vote for her even if she was a republican but on the other hand, democratic or moderate women might vote for a female republican. A woman could probably pull off the “compassionate conservative” persona pretty well. I think in the end, people would vote for her or against her more based on her politics than her sex.
Then again, if I were a republican I might vote for Condi Rice, and get the whole thing done with it in one swoop. She’s smart, competent, a very impressive lady. There is the unfortunate detail that I think she’s essentially not a good person. Shame, that.
Lynx- How about a Clinton/Obama ticket in ’08? That would break both taboos. I think America is ready to move beyond its rather strange preoccupation with electing male WASPs. I personally think either Clinton, Obama, or even Rice would be better than Bush/Cheney.
Clinton / Obama: that would be a fascinating ticket wouldn’t it? In fact, I actually think that they could go a long way, don’t you agree?
Could this be some sort of syntax/editing problem at the Economist? The phrase “darling of liberal activists” should have been attached to Warner, not Clinton.
If any black man has a chance to get to the presidency or vice-presidency it’s gotta be Obama. He’s the most unthreatening and charismatic black politician I’ve ever seen. He isn’t very experienced, but then, neither was Bush. He’d be good for a veep position. As for Hillary, I dunno, she would apeal to centrists, but my time on Ablog shows me that the liberal base hates her, and republicans seem to be the ones most delighted by the idea of her being the dem candidate, which isn’t a good sign. I also think there is a growing sentiment of “the bubble”, that politicians belong to a separate class that mostly keeps to itself, a high powered insider species. Lots of people are looking for “fresh meat” and having your last name as “Clinton” kinda makes you an instant insider.
I don’t think Condi could win this election cycle. More years have to pass so that she isn’t instantly associated with the administrations mess in Iraq. 4 or 8 more years and she could write a book, become a governer or some other high end but more low profile position, and come back when the memory of Iraq has faded some.
He has the excitement of JFK, and would provide a counterbalance to Clinton’s political baggage. His fresh new perspective of hope and open demeanor would give voters a nice change after the darker, more closed personna of Dick Cheney. He is lighting fires wherever he goes, and while he lacks experience, he could prove an exceptional Vice Presidential candidate. Voters may be ready to not have the Veep running his own cabal out of his office. I like it. I like it a lot. In my state, Dems are under fire for not running blacks as national candidates. We have a black Republican
Lt Governor running for Senator, who is trying to capitalize on black voter dissatisfaction with the Dems. That would help keep the constituency inside the party.
Condi’s biggest limitation is that she’ll be forever partnered with the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration. I think she was able to shine despite the obvious limitations, but she also has never held elective office. We have no idea what her own personal agenda would be like, so she’s an unknown. I’d still like to see Colin Powell run for the Republicans, as he is another name that could break the race barrier.
On an old episode of Saturday Night Live, Chris Rock explains why there will never be a black president:
I’ve never worked for a campaign before, but I would actively work against Hilary Clinton. That’s because of the opinion I got when I met her, not due to gender.
Actually I fail to understand why there is even a question about when will a black or when will a woman or when will a hispanic get elected to the office of the President. They’re gender or color of their skin means nothing.
or should mean nothing.
Whoo he pulled out all the stops there … you you presidential hopeful you! ooo it burns so deep.
Gore/Clark 08
Hillary=Democratic Poison
Interested- More than 200 years of American government without a single female or minority president or vice president I think it means something.
And you can dislike Hillary- many do- but no one can claim that she’s not smart or as qualified as many of the men running.
Sure it means something,
doesn’t explain why race/gender should be a factor though. IMO – look up Jeanne Shaheen, she made an excellent gov. would be excellent in any office.
Who claimed she wasn’t?
interested–
Please tell us about your meeting with Hilary Clinton, and what she did that bothered you.
Seriously. I’d be, well, interested to read your impressions!
Actually that’s a tough one to explain. It wasn’t her mannerism – she was very – campaign-ive. She even had one of her staff hand deliver their economic plan to my house later that day.
Heck the only reason I got to meet her was due to the position I had and the location I worked in. It lent itself to – meeting unique individuals – from time to time.
Best way to describe it – It’s the gut feeling you get when you meet someone. It’s a feeling I’ve learned to trust.
Interested-Best way to describe it – It’s the gut feeling you get when you meet someone. It’s a feeling I’ve learned to trust.
You mean truthiness! Thats exactly how GW Bush operates-from the gut. He trusted his gut when the FBI tried to warn him about evidence of a planned attack inside America before 9/11, but his gut told him there wasn’t enough there to warrant his concern. I’m guessing here, but I believe he trusts his gut in maintaining the stay the course policy that has served our country so miserably in Iraq.
To me, I need facts and reasoned arguments-not gut feelings, to rule out a qualified candidate.
Okay you just compared me to GWB and linked the way I think to the success of the terrorists on 9/11
Thought you had some integrity Kim.
Guess not.
Furthermore, you have failed to answer my question about who said Hillary was not intelligent or qualified enough.
Kim Ritter: what kind of comment is that? I am used to much better of you. You are one of the most respected commenters here, but that comment really was completely ridiculous.
As is obvious, you should know this too, is that sometimes one gets this particular feeling about a certain person, just by looking at them. For instance, I have that with Condi Rice. As Lynx said yesterday “I don’t believe she is a good person”. I don’t think so either.
How do I know? I don’t. It’s a gut feeling.
MvdG-Kim Ritter: what kind of comment is that? I am used to much better of you. You are one of the most respected commenters here, but that comment really was completely ridiculous.
What??? Respected? I thought I was still on Joe’s probation list for my little hussy comment! You’re just upset because I don’t have you on my list of the 2006 10 hottest Conservative Commentators with Rush and Bill.
Kim: that is correct and I hoped you would get the hint by putting me on it.
Seemingly you still refuse to do so.
Damn shame….
Interested- I’m trying to get you to come up with more of a basis for your opinion than a gut feeling. I was trying to show you some decisions that have been made that way that haven’t turned out too well for us. Sorry, if you were insulted-not my intention.
Most people who would go out and campaign against a candidate have some specific reason. You think she’s qualified and intelligent—and I don’t see you supporting anyone else so what is the reason? Of course you have a perfect right in our system to do so, but you’re not making a very clear point.
I would say that the country is full of very bright, ambitious, very capable individuals. Most like Hilary who really do have the desire to serve the public at heart. Well coupled along with the desire for a powerful position. Spend anytime down in DC with political types and you can easily get that impression.
However bright &capable does not equal a vote/support/etc.
I guess you have never met anyone where you had an instant dislike/distrust or the opposite an instant like/trust for. Politicians are humans too. Whatever your impressions of the way Bush has done things, it is irrelevant and senseless to compare that to how I base decisions on. In no place did I state that gut feeling is the only factor I consider. However, if the feeling is strong it will weigh in heavily. – I put a large amount of trust in myself. – not everybody does. In fact what *most* people do is – well irrelevant as well, I could care less what most people do when they support a candidate. Most people are not living my life, making the decisions I’ve made, enjoying the things I enjoy. People are capable of unique thought.
I refer you to my earlier post.
Here are some stats on Jeanne Shaheen.
I actually met Hillary for a few minutes longer than I did Jeanna Shaheen. I would actively work for Jeanne Shaheen. I wished I still lived in NH during her Senate run, as I would have loved to have voted for her again.
What I think you fail to understand is gender or race is a non-factor to me. I have a tough time understanding why it is a factor to people at all. Someone’s ethnic background or gender or religion can bring diversity and uniqueness of thoughts to todays issues – we are a diverse country – it is not and should not be looked upon as a hindrance. No matter for employment, friends, politicians, etc. But again *most* people have different thoughts.
I could have written that: so 100% agreement here. In fact, the only reason why I asked the question in the post is that I know that some people do consider it to be important, or playing a role in whatever way shape or form.
As I always say, I do not care whether a politician is black, white, asian, male, female, straight, gay, whatever: as long as before mentioned politician is capable, intelligent and competent.
It is a non-issue for me as well and to be honest, it requires of me to distance myself from my own line of thinking when I ask people questions like the one in the post.
Also: I just wanted to add: my personal experience with politicians is that all of them are power hungry and have a ‘touch’, an air over them that makes me automatically back off.
They seem to be fake. All of them.