I read an article today at the San Francisco Chronicle online about why Illinois Senator Barack Obama "is good for" New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
When it comes to politics, like any Republican, I'm skeptical about Democrats and liberals. Perhaps it's my Catholic upbringing or my conservative views on the right to life and the right to practice religion that steer me in the "right" direction.
True, there are many people who admire Sen. Clinton for her courage to become a senator, despite the disgraceful acts of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. There are voters who believe she has great family values and that she cares about America's children and their education (at least the children who manage to be born, that is) and overall well-being. Some people believe she is concerned with health care despite her "Hillary Care" debacle in the early 1990s.
And then there are those who are hesitant to fully support the senator in the 2008 nominations because they do not feel she can or will win the presidency.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most liberal politicians of this country and yet many voters believe she is not liberal enough. Her political advisors may not want to portray her as extreme for fear that America's conservative right will not be drawn to her as a presidential candidate.
Yet, conservatives may be tempted to lean her way because she didn't stand up against the war in Iraq, in fact she supported the war initially. They may also view her caution in politics as appealing.
What really worries me is the memory of the first (and second) Clinton presidency and all the lies, scandals and cover ups.
The SFC article says:
"The doubters are ashamed to say what really worries them: that Americans don't want to relive the supposed psychodramas of the Bill Clinton years; that her association with her husband will mobilize his enemies more than it will energize his friends; that their relationship is just too complex for those critical swing voters to understand or accept."
I couldn't agree more.
On the opposite hand, Barack Obama with his two short years in the Senate hasn't accumulated a "track record" like Hillary. Granted, Hillary's reputation is often based on the sins of her husband, but compared to Obama she looks like the wicked witch of the west with a political agenda.
"... the prospect of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy is not only good for the Democratic Party, but also good for Clinton. Without Obama in the race, the Democratic primaries would boil down to Hillary and those vying to be the anti-Hillary. She might well win a battle of attrition, but without quelling the doubts."
However, I get the impression that a Clinton vs. Obama political death match may begin in the near future.
Rightwing Guy writes:
"A battle between these two Senators in the primary would be something to see and it would be a good thing for Republicans because the fighting between the two would help air out the all the dirty laundry that is heavily buried."
Indeed, it would be quite a production. I look forward to the entertainment.
The Queer Whisper has her own take on Clinton and Obama as presidential candidates (as well as John Kerry and others). She writes:
"Hillary Clinton: Not in a million years would I vote for her after her stint as Senator. She really has proven herself to be an opportunistic, backroom dealer who lacks the courage of her convictions.
Barak Obama: He's going to need to come to me when he has more experience under his belt."
I'm going to be perfectly honest and admit that I like the idea of Barack Obama as president because of his lack of experience. He hasn't had the chance to be tarnished or scandalized by the media or other politicians, yet.
Obama is a family man, with family values. Other conservatives may agree, considering the poor polls of the GOP. The Republican scandal of Mark Foley is still fresh in our minds, too.
My only concern is his views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, two very big deal breakers for myself and many conservative voters.
But can Obama survive a presidential race? He certainly has received a fair amount of media coverage.
Outdide Report writes:
"It also says that all the Obama hype..is..well hype. Despite the endless 24 hour news buzz, Obama has not been able to make a crack in the polls. If you remember, when Wesley Clark rushed onto the scene, he briefly polled strong in the Democratic primary and was even beating Bush in the first few polls before imploding. Obama isn't as invincible as the pundits would suggest and despite Kos's statements that the Presidential race is Obama's to lose, the polls have not borne this out."
And then there is the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Watching Washington writes:
"Republican strategists are reportedly sweating the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket in 2008. Their theory is that Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would easily carry the states that Sen John Kerry (D-MA) carried in 2004.
But Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) would pick up swing states -- like Ohio -- to put the Democrats over the top. "
The only way this Republican would satisfied is if Obama were president. Hillary must be kept away from the power seat, even the Democrats can't deny it.
Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files and Watch Blog.
Comments
Ignorance is bliss--since when?
By: ByJane Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoMy god, don't we have enough inexperience on our hands with our current president? You think a virgin is the best lover?
I'm struck by how out of touch with your fellow Republicans you seem to be. Did you miss the last election results? The kind of divisive, retro rhetoric you're spewing is just what the middle-of-the-road American (and we are the now-vocal Majority) has had enough of.
By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com
ByJane, thank you for your
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoByJane, thank you for your opinion and accusation. I just have to ask, what is your point? Are you saying that Barack couldn't be president? Or are you simply against George Bush? And when you claim to be "middle-of-the-road", does that mean you change sides often?
My political beliefs as a Republican do not mean that I'm restricted to following my party. If Repulicans, Conservatives, Americans and myself followed the GOP so blindly as you assume I should, this country is in serious trouble.
Politics is not one side versus the other side all the time. My morality, my integrity and my capacity to learn everything I can about the issues are what influence my vote.
Hi Dana, Thank you for
By: Elise Bauer Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoHi Dana,
Thank you for voicing a conservative opinion; we don't get many of those around here. When I first heard Obama's keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention I was stunned. I stayed up late to watch it again when they rebroadcast it, and then downloaded it from iTunes. He is well spoken, obviously extremely intelligent, and charismatic. It is hard not to listen to him when he starts talking. He would outshine anyone on a ticket with him, even Hillary Clinton. As a Democrat, I am often surprised by how polarizing Clinton is. Many Republicans I know truly loathe her. I don't think the Democratic party gets that many in the country still resent her for inserting herself so much in the Clinton administration when the country didn't vote for her, even though she has proven to be effective and popular in New York. I personally believe that she would make a better president than Obama, given her experience. But Obama just sparkles, and after two Bush administrations, do people really want a second Clinton administration?
Elise Bauer
Simply Recipes
Learning Movable Type
Elise, thank you for taking
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoElise, thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. It takes a lot for me to really believe in a Democrat. I can admit that often I cringe at that thought, but that's just based on my own perceptions and upbringing. But, I believe as an American it's my duty to learn about all candidates regardless of their party.
Obama intrigues me. I think his novice abilities, his fresh take (without the traditional party bias) on government is what Americans are looking for. Only time will tell if he's the man for the job.
No more clintons or bushes. Ever!
By: lpchi2006 Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoI'm a partisan democrat who just cant stand Hilary Clinton... Its the Iraq war and also all the baggage associated with her from her husband's presidency. She seems cold and calculating, not a model of leadership. She needs to stay in the Senate.
I'm attracted to Obama simply because he's new and fresh. I'm not alone on this issue, look at the venerable conservative columnists George Will and Rich Lowry's recent columns: they want him to run!
I'm one of his constituents who took the time to research him and the other candidates in the 2004 Democratic primary. He didnt start public service in the US Senate in 2004: he was an Illinois State Senator for at least 6-7 years. At the state level (where he was in the majority) he's got some solid legislative achievements and he's even willing to work across the aisle, earning him some scorn from people like David Sirota. He was endorsed by Paul Simon in one of the last acts before his untimely death.
Obama will be an excellent President.
That's just it! Obama is
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 21 weeks agoThat's just it! Obama is new and fresh -- whereas my Republicans are becoming outdated and out of touch with real issues. I'm getting sick of their rhetoric. There are a lot of important issues that are important to me, and I don't know if my GOP can tackle them.
I'm just being honest. Only time will tell if the GOP can step up to the plate. Obama...he's very promising.
Ignorance is bliss--since when - Take Two
By: ByJane Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoDana,
My point isn't that Obama is good and Clinton(s) bad or vice versa. As I said in my blog last week I don't think Clinton has a chance precisely for the reasons that Elise mentioned: she is a polarizing presence even among staunch Democrats.
Rather, my point is that your assumption that lack of experience is a viable attribute for a presidential candidate is, imho, woefully naive. It is the equivalent of the one that helped put Bush Jr in the White House: 'He seems like a regular guy, one of us. I could imagine having a beer with him.'
Being a middle-of-the-roader does not mean changing sides willy nilly. It means letting your beliefs dictate your vote and not your political party's rhetoric. I'm sorry, but when you make statements such as
--I am shocked. Who do you go to for your information? What papers do you read? Commentators? Publications? Are you as even-handed in your quest to "learn everything you can about the issues" as you would have us be about our choices? Or are you content, as some of what you've said seems, to replay Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, and Karl Rove?
By Jane
ByJane.blogspot.com
Oh Jane, I just love how you
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoOh Jane, I just love how you align me with the politicians and media personalities that you dislike. It shows me what you really mean behind your words.
:)
????
By: PunditMom Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoYou're still worried about the "lies, scandals and cover-ups" of Clinton? What about the current president?
Call me crazy, but I'll taking lying about sex over lying about war any day.
And cringing about any Democrat? I wish more voters would ignore the labels and look at the person running and what they stand for, and critize them less for whether they've taken on the designation to (D) or (R).
There's a difference in
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoThere's a difference in creating a distraction by debating the definition of the word "is" and going to war over what we believe in.
If a politician is going to claim to be all about family values (and I'm talking about both Clintons representing family values) and then have an affair and lie to the public my trust in that leader is going to be non-existent.
Regarding the war, which lies are you referring to? I'd be glad to analyze them with you.
But isn't a woman running good for all of us?
By: Sarah Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoI consider myself pretty liberal (although I am an Independent) and even though I am far from a Hillary Clinton fan part of me feels like just having a woman run for President would be a wonderful thing for all women.
That being said, I really like Obama even though he is inexperienced. He is truly a likeable character and that isn't something we have seen in a Presidential race since Bill Clinton's first campaign.
I wish I could be sure that the rest of this country is as okay with a woman or African-American President as I am. I would love to think that we are all beyond race and gender as reasons to not vote for somebody, but in a country that voted Bush in for a second term, I'm not so sure.
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Sports and Fitness
Sarah and the Goon Squad
Draft Day Suit
Sarah, I agree. I would
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 22 weeks agoSarah, I agree. I would love to have a female president.
Hillary is not that woman. She is not the woman I want for president. She is not the type of candidate I can willingly put faith and trust into, based on her past, based on her politics and based on her voting history in the senate. That's just me, however. Others will agree and disagree.
I guess we haven't really come a long way, baby
By: The Journal Blogger Posted: 1 year 21 weeks agoI think it's fairly obvious that we aren't past the gender-as-a-reason-not-to-vote-for-somebody bit.
In fact, I think it's a pretty sad commentary on that state of affairs that here we are, commenting on a post at BlogHer, of all places, in which Senator Clinton is being judged as a potential presidential candidate (or a potential president) based on the antics of her husband.
What makes you think having Hillary as president would be the same as having Bill again? They are not joined at the hip (or the cerebrum), you know.
If you don't like her stand on the issues, fine. But to say you don't want to vote for her because of what her husband did when he was in the White House ... well, that's very 1950s of you, isn't it?
Cheers!
Dawn
Dawn Rivers Baker writes The Journal Blog
- where business and politics meet the mind of a wise-ass
Well, now that the cat is
By: Dana J. Tuszke Posted: 1 year 21 weeks agoWell, now that the cat is out of the bag, yes...I don't like her issues. She can't defend the rights of unborn children. She pretends to care about health care, but can't handle that. She's like a snake in the grass, waiting to strike.
One of her many issues is BILL. Plain and simple. She and Bill are joined together. Not at the cerebellum as you put it, but there is a connection.
And yes, it may be "1950's" of me to assume the "the sins of the father" affect Hillary. You are being naive if you don't feel the same.