Will Hillary's Attempts to Seem Moderate Backfire?

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law

December 5, 2005, 10:44 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.

Her support of Bennett's bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn't support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.

In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.

The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
Click to expand...

From: Newsday

Is this appropriate? Do you think she'll succeed in getting moderate support by sponsoring bills that make her seem more "patriotic" (for want of a better term), knowing full well this bill will never pass (and in the rare event it is, it would be struck down by the constitution immediately)?

Or, do you think that this is pandering that is far too transparent as to appear anything but? That is, are the American people wise enough to recognize that she's prepping her image for 2008, and that someone this blatantly obvious lacks the character to be president (or can not be trusted)?

I suppose my wording above exposes my views. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']From: Newsday

Is this appropriate? Do you think she'll succeed in getting moderate support by sponsoring bills that make her seem more "patriotic" (for want of a better term), knowing full well this bill will never pass (and in the rare event it is, it would be struck down by the constitution immediately)?

Or, do you think that this is pandering that is far too transparent as to appear anything but? That is, are the American people wise enough to recognize that she's prepping her image for 2008, and that someone this blatantly obvious lacks the character to be president (or can not be trusted)?

I suppose my wording above exposes my views. ;)[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if it will work or not but it is DEFINETLY indicative of her intention to run for president in '08.

As such, personally, I think it will fail because I think your point about it being too transparent is right.
 
This is exactly why I'm getting sick of her. This bill has been proposed time and time again, only to be defeated everytime because of the first ammendment. She will alienate her grassroots, and no republican will ever vote for her, so she will never win in 2008.
 
Angry activists set to hound Hil

WASHINGTON - Anti-war activists furious with Sen. Hillary Clinton are vowing to bird-dog her everywhere she goes, starting with a swanky Manhattan fund-raiser tonight.
Clinton's letter last week clarifying her position on Iraq - which included rejecting a timetable for withdrawal - fanned the anger of some war opponents, who decided to launch a campaign against New York's junior senator.

"We're calling it Bird-Dog Hillary," said Medea Benjamin of the peace group Codepink.

"I'm so mad at her," said Nancy Kricorian, Codepink's New York City coordinator. "We will dog her wherever she goes."

Kricorian's group and several others plan to show up tonight at Crobar in Manhattan, where former President Bill Clinton is the top draw at a fund-raiser for his wife.

The idea is to have protesters tail the senator around the state and the country in hopes of persuading her to oppose the war.

Protesters from the group interrupted a Clinton speech Saturday in Chicago and an unrelated group demonstrated at her appearance Friday at a Democratic fund-raiser in Kentucky.

Codepink is also organizing a bigger rally for Dec. 20, when Clinton heads to San Francisco for a bar association benefit and an interview session with Jane Pauley.

Although she criticized President Bush's handling of the war in her letter, her no-timetable stance particularly peeved the activists.

"Stop waffling, and let's work on bringing the troops home," said Bill Dobbs of United for Peace. Dobbs and Benjamin predicted Clinton or any Democrat would lose a White House bid in 2008 if they run on a pro-war platform.

Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said Clinton has little to fear from anti-war activists, as long as she looks deliberative. "The right wing and the left wing both want to move her to the left. She can't let them do that," Sheinkopf said.

Clinton's office stood by her letter yesterday.

"In her letter, Senator Clinton laid out a thoughtful explanation to her constituents of her position on Iraq," said spokesman Philippe Reines.
Link

She's going to be catching holy hell from the left and the right.

She can't moderate without being viewed as a hypocrite by the left or right. No Republican is ever going to be fooled by Clinton tactics.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No Republican is ever going to be fooled by Clinton tactics.[/QUOTE]

You've missed the point; she's clearly trying to go after moderates.
 
No, I got the point.

She's being attacked vociferously on the left as she ever was on the right. That kind of bad press coming from both sides wil alienate moderates. If her base doesn't trust her or support her fully and her opponents obviously don't who in the middle can?

She's trying her "husband's" strategy of triangulation but she can't pull it off. First, her political spin machine is nowhere near as good as Slick Willies. Second, she's not half the politician as Bill. Where he oozed charisma and was admittedly the best pure politician (Note, I did not say President or leader.) of my lifetime she is far too shrill, polarizing and unlikable to make up for a constant drum beat of criticism from all corners of the political spectrum.
 
Maybe maybe not. I know some moderates who like people that are blasted by both extremes. It somehow reinforces their moderation.

No matter what. Her base isn't going to vote for the GOP candidate.

Hillary is simply pull a McCain in reverse.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Maybe maybe not. I know some moderates who like people that are blasted by both extremes. It somehow reinforces their moderation.

No matter what. Her base isn't going to vote for the GOP candidate.

Hillary is simply pull a McCain in reverse.[/QUOTE]

I agree that she is somewhat a "McCain," though without any data, I'll claim that McCain has more moderate support than Clinton, and if the country's feelings continue to go in the direction they are (i.e., if we're still "staying the course" in 2008), then Clinton can handily beat ANY republican, with the exception being McCain.

McCain versus Hillary in 2008? I'm more than happy to think our country could come to that.

OTOH, McCain still has the problem that Republicans dislike him more than Democrats dislike Hillary. His biggest struggle in 2008 (and Hillary's easiest hurdle, comparatively) is to clinch the party nomination. We can all agree that, much to the detriment of the political middle in America, it tends to be the extremes of each party that chooses their presidential candidate. With that in mind, I think McCain will have a *very* bumpy road in trying to get that nomination.

Although I must reiterate, even *I* would have a hard time choosing between McCain and Clinton. It would depend, in the end, on their platforms. Contrary to the simple-mindedness of PAD, I am not stringently anti-war in any circumstance; for the commander-in-chief of the military, I would greatly trust McCain in that position. I think that's pretty damned crucial in this day and age.
 
Hillary Clinton has been posessed by the spirit of Richard Nixon. And we all know what he was like!

nixon.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I agree that she is somewhat a "McCain," though without any data, I'll claim that McCain has more moderate support than Clinton, and if the country's feelings continue to go in the direction they are (i.e., if we're still "staying the course" in 2008), then Clinton can handily beat ANY republican, with the exception being McCain.

[/QUOTE]

Well I was refering to how McCain had to retreat from his moderate positions to show he could "play ball" with the GOP and position himself for a run in 2008. Personally, I think he is fooling himself. Ain't no way the today's GOP would nominate him.

But as far as how they are within their own parties, McCain and Hillary are in similar positions even if McCain is more disliked.
 
PAD, why none of the right wing propaganda? I heard a pundit (can't remember which) suggesting she planted those anti war protestors just to make herself look good.

Though I think the liberal side is less vindictive then the conservative side. They're less likely to label everyone as morally corrupt and not vote, as some strong christian conservatives do. I remember some telling people to write in "satan" in the 2004 elections. Also, Nader seems to hang over liberals heads, as well as humphrey's loss (some liberals and anti war groups boycotted the election) hangs over the heads of some older liberals. I think liberals have a harder time alienating their parties extremes than conservatives do. Far left groups have become increasingly familiar with choosing the lesser of two evils.

Essentially thats why I don't think this will backfire. If there is a strong democratic candidate to oppose her then her move right could harm her but, outside of a strong challenger, I don't think it will. The fact that liberals see it as political posturing may actually be a benefit. It allows her to appeal to moderates while, at the same time, liberals complain but don't really turn on her. It's more of an annoyance, they don't seem to believe she has actually moderated herself or think that these actions reflect what kind of president she'd be.
 
Personally, I can't stand Hillary, and from a 'professional' point of view (only considering her as a political canidate), she clearly has a political tin ear at least as bad as Bush's. This move is truly amazing in how stupid it is, politically.

These sort of moves are _never_ going to attract conservatives to vote for her. Meanwhile, she's alienating her liberal base. The middle-of-the-road people are going to see this for what it is, a sham to appear more moderate. If Bush's election has taught us anything, its that people want leaders who appear confident and seem to believe in something. If their positions aren't mind-bogglingly idiotic, so much the better. This positioning by Hillary makes her look very clearly like a stereotypical politician, concerned with nothing more than short-term political gain, and that's just not going to fly.

If Hillary had any sense at all, she's stake out a moderately liberal position and fiercely defend it. It would be quite easy to fire back at those who criticize that position ('Yeah, but they considered Bush to be a good moderate canidate, so who are you going to trust?' It lets her play off of Bush's poor performance without looking like she's running her campaign against someone other than her opponent.) It guarantees support from the liberals, makes her look strong to the moderates, and the conservatives - well, they're falling apart anyway. As I said, though, she clearly has a political tin ear (if she wanted to guarantee her presidentcy, she should have divorced Bill back around '98. Spend a few months avoiding the press, then go on Oprah and cry about how much betrayal hurts, then run for Senate as part of 'putting her life back together'. She would have had a guaranteed presidency right there - 98% of the female vote, and 50% of the male vote could have been guilted into voting for her. At the time, I thought she actually did sort of love Bill. Now I realize she's just stupid...)

Anyway, the Democrats can definitely do better than Hillary in '08. If Murtha can keep the spotlight, he would have a good shot as the mess in Iraq keeps going further into the toilet. Reid would also be a good canidate, having shown a lot of leadership in demanding answers. McCain is probably the best anyone can hope for from the Republicans (as least he's not totally insane, just a massive brown-noser), but unfortuantely (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it...) they're more likely to run a Santorum clone.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It allows her to appeal to moderates[/QUOTE]

Does this kind of bill-backing do that, in your opinion?
 
I think her being divorced, and especially if she's single, hurts her image. Many still oppose divorce (as well as remarriage), but a divorced, single woman screems feminist and would be placing a target on her back, much larger than the one she has for sticking by her man. Powerful women make many people uncomfortable, an independent, divorced, single woman even moreso.

[quote name='mykevermin']Does this kind of bill-backing do that, in your opinion?[/QUOTE]

Yes. The people who are going to be angered by a bill outlawing flag burning are politically concerned liberals. They seem to be viewing all this as political posturing. All this bill seems to do is play to patriotism, with the main opponents of this being the ones least likely to turn on her. A main criticism against liberals is they are unpatriotic and this counters that image.

She already has the image of a politician (compared to dean or bush), one she's unlikely to shake. A patriotic politician is at least an improvement.

Basically I don't believe that moderates are going to be upset with a bill outlawing flag burning. Do you?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think her being divorced, and especially if she's single, hurts her image. Many still oppose divorce (as well as remarriage), but a divorced, single woman screems feminist and would be placing a target on her back, much larger than the one she has for sticking by her man. Powerful women make many people uncomfortable, an independent, divorced, single woman even moreso. [/QUOTE]
I don't doubt that it would have cost her the vote from some backwoods country rednecks (but lets face it, they'd never consider voting for her anyway), but I don't don't doubt that it would have endeared her to the vast majority of the rest of the country. They key is to spin it right: she was the long-suffering wife who tried to look the other way while her husband misbehaved for as long as she could, but in the end, there was simply nothing else that could be done in the face of his constant betrayal. Cry some (at least in the beginning) and occasionally drop hints that she still sort-of loves him, but is too strong to keep being hurt by him. Go on Oprah and talk about how much betrayal hurts, and how marriage is a sacred institution, but that it takes the dedication of both parties to make it work. Announce that she's running for Congress as part of putting her life back together, then later for president because she wants to do the things she and Bill went to Washington to accomplish (but didn't because he was too busy following his penis.)

I have absolutely no doubt that, with the proper spin and some decent acting, this path would have led to President Hillary in 2008 or 2012.
 
She's not divoriced but might as well be. I don't imagine many in America believe her and Bill have anything more than a sham political marriage that's wide open. I will credit the Clinton's with one thing. They did a great and admirable job keeping Chelsea off the pages when they were in the WH. I fully respect any first family from keeping their kids away from issues that surround them.

As much as I dislike her personally I think militarily she'd be as tough as nails as Margaret Thatcher. I have no misgivings about her willingness to put forces into harms way to achieve national objectives and policy. No, that's not a criticism, that's complete admiration. Though I don't think she has any love for the armed forces she's such an iron bitch that she'd use any instrument available at U.S. disposal in defeating countries or people she saw as her or our enemy.

It doesn't pain me to say that I think she'd make a good wartime President but would be a complete disaster in every other aspect. Much like FDR.

BTW, divoriced isn't a hinderence to the WH. Reagan was divoriced it was a non-issue.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

BTW, divoriced isn't a hinderence to the WH. Reagan was divoriced it was a non-issue.[/QUOTE]

Well women are judged differently. Though I agree divorce wouldn't really be an issue for a woman, but any way she could go about it could be. Divorced and single is an issue. Divorcing bill clinton and remarrying, all while in the public eye, could be as well. She's at a different stage than reagan was. Any husband she picks risks being attacked as a political marriage even moreso than her current one.

Basically I think there is a real risk to that and, considering what we assume to be her long term goal, she may not want to take it. Then again, there's always the chance that she genuinely doesn't want a divorce.
 
People should be able to do whatever they want with any flag, people have good reason to hate America so they should be able to take the frustrations out on the flag. It's better than becoming a suicide bomber right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top