Clinton Is A Politician Not Easily Defined

[cal04]

Senator's Platform Remains Unclear
Hillary Rodham Clinton has fashioned a political persona that generates intense passions but defies easy characterization. She is viewed as a hawk on Iraq and national security, stamped as a big-government Democrat for her work on health care in the 1990s, and depicted as seeking the middle ground on abortion. After three decades in public life, New York's junior senator is one of the most recognized women in the world, her every move and utterance interpreted amid the assumption in Democratic circles and her own circle that her reelection campaign this fall will pivot into a run for president in 2008. Yet for all her fame, there are missing pieces to the Clinton puzzle: What does she stand for? And where would she try to take the country if elected?

Clinton's roles as senator, first lady, governor's wife, lawyer and children's advocate have given her a depth of experience that few national politicians can match, but she is still trying to demonstrate whether these yielded a coherent governing philosophy. For now, she is defined by a combination of celebrity and caution that strategists say leaves her more vulnerable than most politicians to charges that she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy.

In recent weeks, Clinton has moved to clarify her agenda with major speeches on the economy and energy. Later this summer she will help present a new strategy for the Democrats. She has also given speeches setting out her foreign policy views. But she has yet to wrap up her ideas in a kind of package like the "New Democrat" philosophy her husband, former president Bill Clinton, used in his 1992 campaign or the "compassionate conservative" label George W. Bush adopted in 2000.

To the contrary, she made clear in a telephone interview on Friday that her governing philosophy may never be easily reduced to a slogan. "I don't think like that," she said. "I approach each issue and problem from a perspective of combining my beliefs and ideals with a search for practical solutions. It doesn't perhaps fit in a preexisting box, but many of the problems we face as a nation don't either." As a result, everyone seems to have a label for her. Roger Altman, a former Treasury Department official and one of her outside advisers, calls Clinton "a modern centrist." William Galston of the Brookings Institution, who was domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, describes her as "a progressive without illusions" and a politician who has been "consistent but complicated."

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901029.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Very Easy to Define

Like her husband, she's very easy to define - she's always to the right of the other "Democrats", but a millimeter to the left of the Republicans. Two parts triangulation and one part "feel your pain", with a soupcon of "I am woman hear me roar".

[Writer]

2. Awaiting the Asshole Brigade

:popcorn:

[Totally Committed]

6. Re: "Asshole Brigade"

You attract more bees with honey. It's a nasty term, and it implies a pre-disposition to animosity for anyone who doesn't agree with you or your choice of candidate. It implies you are ready to fight, deride, and flame, rather than discuss. It's not friendly. It's not kind. And, I think it's unwarranted. You're the one who apparently supports Hillary, so a more welcoming term could be in order? But, whatever...

TC

[Writer]

12. Okay... whatever you say. You seem to know me so well...

:eyes:

[Placebo]

3. I'm sure the Hillary-haters will ignore this fact from the article:

In the Senate, Hillary Clinton has introduced about 190 bills. Of those not strictly involving parochial New York matters, about half include at least one Republican co-sponsor, her advisers say.

But a Congressional Quarterly analysis found that she has voted with a majority of Democrats 95 percent of the time and has consistently recorded one of the highest percentages for opposing Bush on legislation of any of her potential 2008 Democratic rivals.

[Totally Committed]

5. BTW... I am not a Hillary Hater, but I am a Hillary Cynic, and

I saw that part of the article, and would just like to say that it points out that she APPEARS as though she cannot be trusted. She says one thing, does another. Her rhetoric is one way and her voting record another. I feel (and felt before it became obvious she was gunning for the nomination) that I CANNOT TRUST HER. All her triangulation, hemming, hawing, and tough-guy war-monger talk make her appear to be someone I could never feel good about entrusting my family's future to.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone here, but it is my feeling. I feel she goes in whatever direction the wind blows at any one moment in order to appear the toughest and most electable; She is tied at the hip to the DLC -- and I oppose this particular group and everything they represent whole-heartedly; She has an unfair advantage inthat she is married to a former POTUS and uses that implied "twofer" shamelessly, even brazenly, to call in favors, suck up ALL the oxygen in the room, out-fundraise early and to the detrement of the other possible candidates; And she will, I guarantee, rouse the Republican base against us like no other candidate. There is a visceral hattred of her among Republicans of every stripe... so she's a major polarizer.

I am looking for a candidate that can and will WIN, unite the Party, draw votes from the other side of the aisle wherever possible, and, did I mention WIN????

TC

[mtnsnake]

9. "she goes in whatever direction the wind blows"

She's not the only one. That's for sure.

Her rhetoric is one way and her voting record another.

Such as? She's one of the most progressive voting Senators in Congress, so I'm curious how she votes differently from her rhetoric.

I am looking for a candidate that can and will WIN

Yeah, aren't we all. The thing is, unless someone new magically emerges from the woodwork, it might not happen because the rest of the field sure doesn't fare much better when it comes to any of their chances of winning either. Until Obama is ready someday, I don't see anyone right now who we can say "can and will WIN." Hopefully, there's a budding Democratic superstar somewhere out there we haven't discovered yet. Time is running out, though.

[Placebo]

13. It's true.

If the true test of electibility is looking at the polls, Hillary fares far better then any of her potential '08 rivals in terms of public approval, and being seen as a "strong leader" etc...

But if someone's test of electibility is whether or not you happen to like the candidate, then I can understand why Hillary is seen as such a problem.

[Totally Committed]

4. Member of the Asshole Brigade reporting for duty!

Hillary Clinton is not difficult to define.

Her politics: Cynically triangulated as far to the right as needed to look bigger, badder, tougher, and meaner than any Republican the other side might choose to run against her. Takes her cues from the DLC's "Must Be This to Get Elected" List, and takes her political advice from the same weak-ass, mealy-mouthed, collusional, deluded advisors that have lost us every election for us since Clinton-the-Husband left the White House. And, she thinks that she can do this triangulation at the expense of minorities, the poor, and women, and young people because who else are they going to vote for? The words that come to mind: War-mongering, cynical, bravado-filled, DLC/DINO.

Her persona: This is a little harder to define, but here, let me try... She is so ambitious that she just about crackles with that very ambition, itself. She wants the Presidency BAD. She already has her place in the history book marked off with yellow hi-lighter and has the pattern for the new curtains for the Lincoln bedroom already chosen. She knows exactly who she wants to fire and who she wants to fire, and what old scores need to be settled. She's willing to fight as dirty as any of the uys would fight. The words that come to mind: Entitled, opportunistic, do-anything-to-get-elected, disingenuous, ambitious, delusional.

To sum this all up... one word: UNELECTABLE.

There ya go -- my view from the Left side of the Party. Proud member of The Asshole Brigade over and out!

TC

[ShortnFiery]

8. "UNELECTABLE" ==> That's a fact! eom

[izzybeans]

7. Does me not liking the fact that we have a father and son president

and the possibility of a husband/wife president in alternate succession make me a member of the asshole brigade? Or shall I cheer on the power elite like a good little soldier?

[Dubiosus]

10. have heart different things about her

for example did I watch on Winamp/Freedomtv some kind of speech of a woman acusing some of the most powerfull people in the World of having participated in child abuse and sex-slaving, forming them for their needs in espionage and military, drugdealing and war, just the dirty stuff.
Actually she wrote a book about it and not one of these mentioned people like bush senior, fox of mexico or the clintons reacted about it. NOT ONE WORD! If this wouldn't have been so, I would say that this woman was telling silly stuff and some mentaly problems, but she is touring with her liberater (ex FBI agend I believe) and keeps repeating their and her daughter's story before quite a big audience again and again....


What this "elite" or better this believed "elite" is capable to, isn't thinkable for me at the first place, cause I am just a simple, quite naive, tv-hypnotised freak :grr:

want to recommend to everybody who does not live in the USA or does so and is brave enough to stand for his rights or has the knowledge to keep his computer from beeing spied "I-AM-THAT-I-AM" an WinAmp. Some immense interesting stuff for open minded people

[Cha]

11. Like liquid

mercury? Like an eel?