I Don't Think Hillary Ever Anticipated Serving 8 Years

[The River]

as a Senator during the reign of Emperor Bush II. I'll just bet that when
she started planning her run for the Presidency she probably thought
she'd accumulate a very safe Senate record (in a safe liberal state)
serving her terms under President Gore.
I'll bet she planned on running after 8 years of peace and prosperity.
I'll bet she thought she'd be seen as a realistic (centrist) liberal by
safely voting yes on most of Al's progressively green agenda.
If there had been minor military actions (like those during Bills admin)
she could be all flag wavingly hawkish to build an image of being
strong on defense without getting too much blood on her hands.

I'll bet she never though she'd have to cast a vote to authorize
an imbecile to wage war but when it came time to vote, she
had to follow her plan to look tough on defense. I think in
her heart she knew it was the wrong vote but to actually show
leadership and vote her conscious, she would have left herself
looking weak on defense in 08. She couldn't do that and thats why she
still won't apologize for that vote;it would open her up to new
charges of looking weak on defense.
It's just too damned bad that thousands of soldiers and civilians
had to die to keep her presidential resume on track.

And that’s the bottom line for me. Her candidacy seems to
be all about her candidacy and little else. I don't believe she
has done a single thing in the last 8+ years that hasn't been
vetted ahead of time for its potential impact on "Hillary 08".

With Hillary, I get the impression that her proposed plans and vague promises
(like troops in Iraq until 2012?) are more like enticements, like free
extras a new car salesman might toss in to close the deal, than actual
reasons to run for President.

There are, at a minimum, a couple of other equally qualified candidates
who are way more about their plans and their vision for America
than they are about themselves being the preordained President.

These are the candidates I'm contributing to and eventually voting for.
Not someone who seems to be in IT, to win IT, just for IT's own sake.

[slick8790]

1. An interesting hypothesis.

If we'd had 8 years of president gore, i might be more enthusiastic about supporting HRC. I just think after 8 years of Bush destroying our country, she's too centrist for me. I don't mean this as a slur, but she has been running a more centrist campaign rather than the openly raging liberal rhetoric of edwards and kucinich. We're in dire straits right now, and I don't know if 8 years of HRC would be the best thing for repairing the country right now. The time is right for a liberal to be president, and that's where my support goes.

[aquart]

2. So, you've made vast assumptions about someone you don't know.

And heaped all your personal biases upon her. Are you making those assumptions about the male candidates?

[The River]

5. You've Just Assumed

that I have made "vast assumptions" based on bias?
You have no clue who I am or how I arrive at my conclusions.
How presumptive of you.

[Hieronymus]

11. You're post sounds sexist.

[SheilaT]

3. Very interesting analysis.

And it makes a great deal of sense. When I think about her time in the Senate and her current campaign the way you've just suggested, it all seems to fall into place, and her constant and consistent wrong stands on so many things all fits together. If all she's ever really been about is running for President, and the man she thought we be president for 8 years wasn't in office, well then she's had to make do with what she had. It helps explain why she is so tone deaf on so many issues.

[AX10]

4. Pure BS!

[sandnsea]

6. I used to think it was just that

Until I read comments about her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 where she said we had to "stay the course". And until she opposed every effort to set deadlines or otherwise end this war, until the entire country wanted the war ended. And until she voted to trust Bush, yet again, with a tool to threaten Iran with war.

Then I decided she really believes in all this empire and democracy spreading shit.

[Progress And Change]

8. Obama is even worse on those things

1) he stated there was no difference between him and Bush on Iraq (going forward) in 2004
2) Obama opposed every effort to set deadlines or otherwise end the war until the polls forced him to flip-flop
3) Obama has no position on K/L until he saw the fallout among progressives and suddenly became "opposed" to something he could not even be bothered to vote for
4) Obama is a bigger hawk on Iran and has advocated bombing Iran--unlike Clinton

[sandnsea]

10. That's a load of propaganda bullshit

Why do you post it? None of it is anything near true. You just prove that Hillary's campaign is nothing but slime.

[Progress And Change]

20. truth hurts?

[BootinUp]

13. Do you remember the debate

where Hillary refused to answer the catch 22 question about bombing Iran? Saying that she did not want to add anymore to the tension of the situation with Iran. She was the first to make that kind of statement if I recall correctly.

[Progress And Change]

19. yep. meanwhile obama was floating the "bomb iran" trial balloon way back in 2004...

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. There's nothing wrong with a long term plan. I bought into it and so did the

rest of NY state. HRC promised she'd serve a full term and did. Now, it's time for effective governance to return to DC.

[The River]

9. Oh Dear Fredda

I follow your posts with interest.
You've raised pragmatism to an art form.
It blinds you.

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. I'm an effective leader w/permanent accomplishments. That's my art

As for blindness, I cursed those who "stayed asleep" when I was a youth, but learned since then to simply achieve and ignore the rest.

I bid you peace.

[cuke]

15. And you've done nothing for the art of insult

It's still in the gutter, where you found it

[cuke]

14. More rightwing propoganda on DU

Surprised that so many try to misportray ambition as a bad thing, when it's been seen as a good thing when it's a man.

Bill Clinton wanted to be president since he was a teenager, and he bragged about that when he campaigned for president. No one thought there was anything wrong with it. It was taken as a sign of his commitment to public service.

People have wanted to be high achievers, but it's only wrong when Hillary does it

[BootinUp]

17. well stated. nt

[paulk]

16. this has to be the weakest attack on HRC that I've seen on DU

and that's sayin' something.

[Madam Mossfern]

18. OK, I'm gonna shout-so hold your ears (eyes)

STOP PLAYING THE GENDER CARD!

The OP was not sexist.
This nauseates me to no end.

[karynnj]

21. Actually, she likely expected to run after 4 lackluster years of Bush

If Gore had run, she would have had to wait until 2008. I can't imagine what dynamics would allow her to succeed in winning the nomination from a sitting Democratic President who was her husband's VP. Assuming Gore won re-election, the Democrats would have beenin office for 16 years - in recent history this is an incredibly long span for one party. That alone would make it unlikely. She would have a better shot if Gore lost, but then she would be up against a sitting Republican President. If Bush was President, she could choose to run against him in 2004 if he was a weak President or wait to 2008 if he looked safe in 2004.

What was better was for Gore to lose. The economy was already worsening in 2000 - the tech bubble was a legal Ponzi scheme, with people buying over inflated stock because of their incredible gains. As long as buyers were willing to keep bidding the price up, the stocks rose. One impact was a huge bonanza for the government - as people who sold made huge capital gains. That as much as fiscal responsibility is what created the surplus. Look back in the late 1990s, people like Paul Krugman warned about this. In 2000, Clinton could assume that sometime in Bush's early years he would be faced with the down side of the business cycle. He could not have antipated 911 or the invasion of Iraq. Before 911, Bush was rapidly losing popularity. The best guess in August 2001 was that Bush would be seen as weak President and could easily be defeated by the top eligible person in the Democratic party - HRC.

In mid 2003, when the Clintons needed to decide on 2004, it did not look winnable - so she did not run. By early spril 2004, when it looked like Kerry had a shot of winning, there were comments by Carville that the best bet for the Democrats was a brokered confention. As Kerry had the delegate count he was ignored.