NEW YORK -- Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton embarked on a widely anticipated campaign for the White House on Saturday, a former first lady intent on becoming the first female president.
"I'm in and I'm in to win,'' she said on her Web site, announcing that she planned to form an exploratory committee.
...Ms. Clinton, who was re-elected to a second term last November, said she will spend the next two years "doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.''
In a defiant statement -- and a nod to questions about her electability -- Ms. Clinton said: "I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.''
If this doesn't shake up the GOP but fast and galvanize the base, I don't know what will. Love her or hate her, you have to hand it to Hillary -- she has the knack for igniting strong passions in voters. That's more than you could say for Bob Dole.
I don't know that we have much of a liberal readership, but can anyone answer: If you're a serious liberal, do the Democratic front-runners truly seem like candidates to get excited about? Barack Obama, Hillary, John Edwards -- these seem like gimmick candidacies. It's as if the Republicans were trying to run Schwartzenegger nationally. He's been kinda successful in California (though even the Gubernator can't lick the unions out there) but he doesn't seem to have real ideas and true national scope. He's a media personality, elected in a media state. He will ever be known as an action star. And I think Hillary is going to have a hard time shaking off the eight years she already spent in the White House. Remember HillaryCare?
8 comments:
Pardon me whilst I go to the bathroom and throw up...
I hope she gets the nomination... then she shall be crushed preferrably by Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback.
i think it would be great fun to see hillary & obama on the dem ticket, against brownback & condi for the good guys!
Why do I suddenly have this image of the lot of them, dressed as the strippers from "Gypsy," belting out a rousing chorus of "You Gotta Have a Gimmick?"
Yikes.
I suppose that I should write an essay in my weblog about "Why I will not be voting for Ms. Clinton", in the same way that, a few years back, I wrote one as regards my unwillingness to vote for John Kerry.
Prime among those reasons is the little matter called Filegate, which largely got swept under the carpet by most of the various news media.
Filegate was the situation in which the Clinton White House, apparently under the directions of the First Lady, obtained the FBI background files on hundreds of individuals. One can read more of the nature and the extent of this violation of the rights of privacy of U.S. citizens by starting here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_rpt/fbirep.htm
I would not be terribly surprised if Ms. Clinton launched her Senate career by axing the career of then Governor Rudolf Giuliani, who was also running for that Senate seat, by using the information revealed by the FBI.
At the very least, Ms. Clinton has shown herself quite capable of violating the rights of U.S. citizens in order to achieve her aims. Does one really want such a creature running the country as well?
I just stumbled in by way of Sacramentum Vitae. I don't know if I really qualify as a "liberal," although I have no love for our current breed of political conservatives and have voted almost exclusively for non-GOP candidates in the past. Your last question caught my eye, though...
I sincerely hope Hillary doesn't get the nomination, much as I wouldn't mind seeing a woman in the Whitehouse. Obama... I'm undecided on. I like some of what he's had to say, but he seems rather vague on too many important questions for me to feel comfortable (what does the man really believe, anyway?). To me, Edwards is the most promising of the bunch. I say this because I think he really does believe in the kind of economic and social justice issues he's known for working on. I wish wish wish he wasn't a DNC party-liner on abortion, but other than that issue I like him a whole lot. But that's a big issue.
I'll be interested in seeing who comes along on the GOP side. If it is someone along the lines of our current administration, I'll either be voting Dem or sitting this one out, a la Alasdair MacIntyre.
I actually think that HillaryCare experience may (*may*) help her to produce a more workable healthcare solution. She knows what won't work, after all, and has already tried her hand in that arena.
Dh has pointed out that the local press will refer, even in the same sentence, to "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "Obama". Is this just accident? The need to clarify which Clinton they are referring to? A leftover vestige of the time when "Mr." didn't go with a black man's name? Extra respect for Hillary as a woman?
--mandamum
It seems to be a general element of newswriting style to refer to people by last name only as a shorthand. However, Hillary presents a problem since there are two famous Clintons who have to do with presidential politics.
I would imagine they think saying "Mrs. Clinton" would sould demeening (implying she was nothing more than her husband's wife).
Of course, the clear solution would be to call her "Sen. Clinton". I don't know why they didn't think of that.
Or they could follow my late grandmother's convention and call her "that damn Hillary".
Post a Comment