The "big story" over the last couple of weeks has been Hillary Clinton moving further ahead of Barack Obama in the national polls. Now that Hillary's leading Obama by up to 20 points, the media is asking a lot of Hillary questions. How she got so far in front? Is she the presumed Democratic nominee? What do the other Democratic candidates have do to beat her, and how does she stack up against the Republicans.
Here, I want to briefly argue that Hillary's lead is real. Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics argues the opposite. Cost believes that the real campaign is only going to begin when Obama and Hillary spend their 60 mill on political advertising and that current public opinion is driven by the chatter from the media and political pros rather than the hardened opinions of voters. From this perspective, the voters won't make their decision until later.
But Cost underestimates the depth of Hillary Clinton's appeal. I don't have any polling data here, but I believe that the core of Hillary's appeal is the respect that people developed for her as a result of her conduct during the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment confrontation. Unlike some opinion, I don't think the Lewinsky scandal "humanized" or "softened" Hillary. Instead, Hillary came off as someone who was morally strong and self-respecting even while in the depths of intense personal crisis. For a lot of people, it was that perception of moral strength then began to make Hillary Clinton's widely acknowledged intelligence, policy knowledge, and political acumen look "presidential." Because of that bedrock perception, Hilalry was getting more than 40% support among everyday Democrats as early as spring 2005 while the media and political elites were still viewing her as suspiciously "polarizing" and likely to lose a general election.
What's happening is that Hillary Clinton's performance during the debates is reenforcing the bedrock perception that she would be the kind of strong, effective president that's now needed after our disastrous eight-year experiment in right-wing government. By referring to Hillary as the "best" or "best prepared" of the Democratic candidates, the media is beginning to catch up with popular opinion about Hillary.
But Hillary's ahead because of popular opinion rather than the media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Good points. In an earlier post about Hillary's electability and the likelihood I indicated that there is no inevitable nominee in either party but there are very likely nominees vs. very unlikely nominees. Hillary Rodham Clinton is without question an extremely likely nominee and extremely likely to be our next President. She stands out in the Democratic field as the most pragmatic, effective, level-headed candidate with very specific goals and very specific plans regarding how those goals can be achieved.
Her resume' is flawless. As First Lady, she visited numerous countries all over the world including in Arabic and Muslim countries. She met kings, presidents and prime ministers.
Her time is the US Senate is unassailable. As a Senator she has had high-level meetings with the leaders of Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan and a number of other countries.
And her efforts at home on health care and her advocacy on behalf of children and education have been her lifes work.
I admire Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, all the Democratic candidates really. Any one of them would be easy to support and they all stand head and shoulders above their Republican counterparts. Each is ready and able to lead. But when push comes to shove, I not only believe Hillary shoud be our next President, I believe she will be our next President.
"She stands out in the Democratic field as the most pragmatic, effective, level-headed candidate with very specific goals and very specific plans regarding how those goals can be achieved."
"...I believe that the core of Hillary's appeal is the respect that people developed for her as a result of her conduct during the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment confrontation...
She showed her goal was political power, and that she was willing to suffer any humiliation to maintain that power. Your idea that her putting up with decades of Bill making a fool of her shows moral strength is ridiculous. Would a woman putting up with a serial physical abuser impress you so? Then why should mental abuse be acceptable?
If Michael doesn't think that my explanation for Hillary's appeal is very good, he should try one of his own.
Personally, I thought little of Hillary's conduct during the Lewinsky crisis. However, Hillary's first lady poll numbers went up dramatically in 1998 and 1999 because of public perception of her conduct. My argument is that much of the public developed a genuine respect for Hillary at this time and that she's building on that respect during her presidential campaign.
btw. Millions of women have to deal with philandering, emotionally abusive, or physically abusive husbands. If right-wingers are going to argue that sticking with these kinds of guys doesn't involve a lot of fortitude, they're going to soon find out that lots of people disagree.
So you think women should stick with their abusive husbands? Because he really loves her, you know, he just can't help hisself sometimes, a good man is hard to find, you know. I believe the technical term is enablers, right?
Hillary's poll boost could just as easily be explained by sympathy. People often feel sorry for pathetic creatures in difficult circumstances, that doesn't mean they want to elect them Leader of the Free World. Hillary appeals to lefties addicted to pandering, the political version of Ronco addicts, there has been a very consistent percentage of the voters, mid 40s, that absolutely will not vote for her, an astronomical number in the history of polls. If you believe in polls, that is, frankly I have my doubts.
Oooh! A new form of right-wing misogyny--relentless contempt for women who've been abused, scorned, and cheated on. I guess you don't like female country singers. What happened to "Stand By Your Man?"
I would suggest the man who says there is something noble in women quietly suffering abuse is the misogynist, Professor. Is it now the position of Modern Feminism that women should accept abuse as a character builder? Personally, I am going to continue to donate to the local shelter and encourage women to get the fuck out of bad relationships, but to each his own I guess.
Yeah, you donate to shelters, Rush Limbaugh gives to the NAACP and Ann Coulter kicks in a couple bucks to the SPCA. I bet Dick Cheney donated to Mother Teresa after kicking a couple of poor people on his way to work. The underlying contempt is still there.
What can I say, if it is contemptible to encourage and enable women to leave abusive relationships, then I will wear that label with pride.
What about your contempt for those who have found it impossible to extricate themselves? The ones who've had the confidence beaten out of them? The ones who've been taught to "love, honor, and obey" at all costs? The ones with conflicted loyalties? The one's who point to the passages about submission in the Bible? Etc.
"What about your contempt for those who have found it impossible to extricate themselves?"
What the fuck are you talking about? Because I am talking about Hillary Clinton. I have nothing but sympathy and compassion for poor, trailer park victims like, say, Paula Jones, and I do indeed give money and support to local shelters and fuck you for your condesending implications otherwise. Are you seriously trying to argue that your choice for leader of the free world has had the confidence beaten out of her? That she had no options? An Ivy League lawyer? Conflicted loyalties is close, I would say conflicted ambitions.
Tell you what Professor, I just realized I am old buddies with a colleague of yours. Ask John Hennon about Michael across the hall at the Unitarian House when he was doing grad work at Marshall. His old drinking buddy Michael, who helped him take on some ROTC pricks in brawl in the alley behind Tavern on the Green. Ask him what kind of misogynistic, racsist, right wing nut bag that Michael is.
Then go look in the mirror and see what a real live close-minded fucking bigot looks like.
People change don't they?
Nothing but personal attacks on my character. That is all you got. Some folds would call that a smear.
Whatever, don't know why I bother. Tell John I said hello, if he is ever down Athens look me up, I haven't changed that much. I just realized the instigator of the fight was a dude named Morehead, small world.
Post a Comment