Only after Governor Eliot Spitzer announces his reversal on providing New York’s illegal immigrants with drivers licenses does Senator Hillary Clinton articulate her position. Yet again, she has to stick her fingers in the wind to see what position she will support.
“I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal. As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”
Many voters say they would never vote for Hillary, although they can’t exactly tell you why they dislike her so.
With performances like this, she continues to give them reasons to distrust and dislike her.
Beyond this one incident, the anti-Hillary feeling seems to be so strong and pervasive that it outweighs the PRO-Hillary sentiment, and convinces me that if she does win the nomination, the Republican candidate — WHOEVER that turns out to be — will soundly defeat her in the 2008 election, which will be an anti-Hillary referendum.
Her political strategies are wrapped in a condom.
Always playing it safe to avoid the inevitable.
I won’t pray for rain, but I’ll pray that the Democrats aren’t foolish enough to nominate Hillary.
Imagine what the Republican slime machine, with guidance from Karl Rove, would do with such an inviting target.
It’d be the surest way to throw away an opportunity to take back the White House from corporate dictatorship, restore fiscal sanity to government spending (rather than bankrupting our grandchildren), and correct disastrous Republican economic policies.
…..and you certainly won’t achieve those goals by choosing a standard bearer whose made ethical and moral choices over the past fifteen years specifically contrived to place her in the Oval Office.
While I’m not sure which self-serving “ethical and moral choices Hillary has made over the past 15 years”, I do agree that her nomination would guarantee a Democratic defeat in 2008.
Steve: with respect to your observation regarding self-serving ethical and moral choices we will just have to wait and see what percentage of the voting public will let bygones be bygones.
As I noted in a previous commentary, Nixon was elected to the presidency and the rest is history.
I was always amused by the visceral hatred that some people, especially conservative men, have for Hillary– she really sets them off like nobody else.
Too me she’s off-putting, and I wouldn’t want to work for her. Not to get all pseudo-Freudian on you, but I think at least some of these men unconsciously feel their masculinity threatened by such a calculating, aggressive and fierce woman.
Women need be raised to achieve, be self-determined, and self-supporting, independent of men. Arm candy bimboism is something which men unfortunately are habituated to encourage and maintain. Thus we have the Paris Hilton’s and there ilk, do-nothings, pursuing a hedonistic existence at play, under the sponsorship of some well-heeled dumb-ass male.
Clinton, sans gender, embraces all of the characteristics of the political animal which we find fault with. In her case, however,there are circumstances of her past which, were it not for her political aspirations, would have likely been resolved differently by her.
In that regard, I believe that she demonstrates total contempt for the electorate and feels that, once again, she can put one over on us.
Margaret Thatcher was a tough lady, as well, but with a different charisma. She had the charisma of state which Hillary lacks. Hillary, in form and function, could never convince me that she could have made Nikita Kruschev blink, and that, makes all the difference.
More specifically, with respect to Hiliary,I would rather she had had “the balls” to publicly state that her husband’s private life was his own business, that she was not personally put off by it, and gone on to suffer the socio-political consequences, either positive or negative, as they might have been.
She did not do that. Rather, she weathered what would have been an absolutely insufferable situation for the woman-on-the-street, for many years, in deal she brokered with her husband, all for the sake of political gain.
Incredibly, in the face of it all, she has garnered significant support. On the one hand, her husband was condemned, and she is raised by come to the level of a Jean D’Arc.
So is it any wonder that if a Richard Nixon, or a George W. Bush, or a Bill Clinton was able to garner the public support necessary to ascend to the presidency, she shouldn’t believe that such a thing would be possible for her?
Regret the typos!
If my nightmare scenario plays out, and she gets the nomination, I expect Rove or one of his operatives to try to Swiftboat her with a lesbian love scandal or something like it.
I don’t think whisper campaigns (one of Rove’s old specialties) work in presidential elections.