Real Bush
"Let's put some real bush in the White House! Hillary 2008."
Yes, it's sexist. But, hey, it's a Hillary joke that actually supports her. A writer for The Australian encountered this on a sticker on the back of a car in LA. There are a lot of Hillary slogans floating around the United States today (and, of course, not all of them are pro-Hillary). But just incredible is all the Hillary-talk when the woman has not even announced her intention. Go to Google, or any other search engine, and type in Hillary 2008, or Hillary 08, or Hillary President, or whatever, and the number of relevant matches is quite astounding.
Every journalist's question to Hillary about a possible candidacy has received either no comment, or simply an 'I'm enjoying being Senator' response. And neither has Bill given any real indication either way (though he has said that she would make an excellent president if indeed she chose to run). And despite this, it seems that the world is convinced that, come 2008, Hillary will be everywhere.
Little time is allowed to elapse without even one of our newspapers highlighting the possibility of another Clinton White House. And the Quotes sections of newspapers and magazines seem always to have the latest from Hillary.
As you know, I'm a fan of the Clintons. I would love to see Hillary run at the next election after gwb is impeached. The thought of another President Clinton is exciting, not least of all because, without a doubt, the Clintons are smart people. They are also competent, which would be very refreshing after the long and depressing years of the straight-out thick creature that currently inhabits 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and enjoys fucking up lives and entire countries (including his own). However, I only want to see Hillary Clinton run for president if she can win. The Democrats need to be sure that the candidate they put forward is the right one. Kerry was intellectually impressive and Kerry had the money to run. But Kerry was too liberal (and yes, it is unfortunately possible to be too liberal) and nowhere near enough likeable to the Americans. He also made some awful, awful mistakes. Beating gwb should have been a walk-over, in my opinion, despite this whole attitude that people should not desert their leader in a time of conflict. After gwb is gone, the Dems need someone who can tear the Republicans apart (which can be achieved simply by pointing to the Republican record). After all, the Repubs deserve to be torn apart after all the shit they've put the world through since they were, in Hillary's words, "selected" to office.
Problems in Hillary's way are already being highlighted by political analysts. Some say too liberal (like JK), others say too feminist, some say not likeable (like JK), others say forget it, she's a woman. Putting aside what sort of president she would make, Hillary first needs to get there. Has the US (and the world) grown up enough to make a woman the most influential power-wielding person on the planet? I know I certainly wouldn't hesitate to vote for a woman. I haven't come across one decent argument for why men make better leaders than women. But I won't be voting. Is she indeed too liberal? It has been observed that she has inserted much more 'moral discourse' into her speeches, referring to abortion as "sad, even tragic" (a significant thing for the staunch pro-choice Clinton to say). Causing minor divisions in the lead-up to a nomination is the fact that, as Senator, she voted in favour of the war in Iraq. This has distanced her from the anti-war activists, as well as some of the ultra-left anti-war Hollywood Democrats, who, it is claimed, would prefer to rally behind an avid anti-war, Bush-bashing candidate. And whilst Hillary has taken part in ample amounts of Bush-bashing, it is her support for the Iraq effort that is creating a couple of problems amongst potential supporters. But, is this perhaps the right course of action for her, considering the actual lack of an anti-war movement in America? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Iraq is being handled, and disapprove of gwb's farcical way of working, but are not necessarily opposed to the concept of the use of military power. If she does choose to adopt a moderate, almost conservative persona for the presidential bid, let's just hope she returns to the liberal, lefty approach of the real Hillary and pumps it up to full throttle once settled back into the White House.
But again, I do not want Hillary to run for president if her chances are dim. The Democrats and the Left cannot afford another loss. Indeed, the world cannot afford another right-wing US administration. But we absolutely can afford Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it's sexist. But, hey, it's a Hillary joke that actually supports her. A writer for The Australian encountered this on a sticker on the back of a car in LA. There are a lot of Hillary slogans floating around the United States today (and, of course, not all of them are pro-Hillary). But just incredible is all the Hillary-talk when the woman has not even announced her intention. Go to Google, or any other search engine, and type in Hillary 2008, or Hillary 08, or Hillary President, or whatever, and the number of relevant matches is quite astounding.
Every journalist's question to Hillary about a possible candidacy has received either no comment, or simply an 'I'm enjoying being Senator' response. And neither has Bill given any real indication either way (though he has said that she would make an excellent president if indeed she chose to run). And despite this, it seems that the world is convinced that, come 2008, Hillary will be everywhere.
Little time is allowed to elapse without even one of our newspapers highlighting the possibility of another Clinton White House. And the Quotes sections of newspapers and magazines seem always to have the latest from Hillary.
As you know, I'm a fan of the Clintons. I would love to see Hillary run at the next election after gwb is impeached. The thought of another President Clinton is exciting, not least of all because, without a doubt, the Clintons are smart people. They are also competent, which would be very refreshing after the long and depressing years of the straight-out thick creature that currently inhabits 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and enjoys fucking up lives and entire countries (including his own). However, I only want to see Hillary Clinton run for president if she can win. The Democrats need to be sure that the candidate they put forward is the right one. Kerry was intellectually impressive and Kerry had the money to run. But Kerry was too liberal (and yes, it is unfortunately possible to be too liberal) and nowhere near enough likeable to the Americans. He also made some awful, awful mistakes. Beating gwb should have been a walk-over, in my opinion, despite this whole attitude that people should not desert their leader in a time of conflict. After gwb is gone, the Dems need someone who can tear the Republicans apart (which can be achieved simply by pointing to the Republican record). After all, the Repubs deserve to be torn apart after all the shit they've put the world through since they were, in Hillary's words, "selected" to office.
Problems in Hillary's way are already being highlighted by political analysts. Some say too liberal (like JK), others say too feminist, some say not likeable (like JK), others say forget it, she's a woman. Putting aside what sort of president she would make, Hillary first needs to get there. Has the US (and the world) grown up enough to make a woman the most influential power-wielding person on the planet? I know I certainly wouldn't hesitate to vote for a woman. I haven't come across one decent argument for why men make better leaders than women. But I won't be voting. Is she indeed too liberal? It has been observed that she has inserted much more 'moral discourse' into her speeches, referring to abortion as "sad, even tragic" (a significant thing for the staunch pro-choice Clinton to say). Causing minor divisions in the lead-up to a nomination is the fact that, as Senator, she voted in favour of the war in Iraq. This has distanced her from the anti-war activists, as well as some of the ultra-left anti-war Hollywood Democrats, who, it is claimed, would prefer to rally behind an avid anti-war, Bush-bashing candidate. And whilst Hillary has taken part in ample amounts of Bush-bashing, it is her support for the Iraq effort that is creating a couple of problems amongst potential supporters. But, is this perhaps the right course of action for her, considering the actual lack of an anti-war movement in America? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Iraq is being handled, and disapprove of gwb's farcical way of working, but are not necessarily opposed to the concept of the use of military power. If she does choose to adopt a moderate, almost conservative persona for the presidential bid, let's just hope she returns to the liberal, lefty approach of the real Hillary and pumps it up to full throttle once settled back into the White House.
But again, I do not want Hillary to run for president if her chances are dim. The Democrats and the Left cannot afford another loss. Indeed, the world cannot afford another right-wing US administration. But we absolutely can afford Hillary Clinton.
posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 7:33 AM
3 Comments:
At Mon Nov 07, 09:10:00 AM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
I think there are certainly some very good examples of strength in female leaders. Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State in the second Clinton term (and she was renowned for her toughness); there is a woman in that position currently also; Thatcher was British PM for eleven and a half years, and a very strong leader (albeit with some backward policies); and Germany and New Zealand recently elected/re-elected women (both of whom appear strong and, in Germany's case, a little on the authoritative side).
But I think you're right. The key absolutely is to convince.
At Mon Nov 07, 11:28:00 AM,
Lisa said…
On the whole, I'm not sure voters would be uncomfortable to elect a female leader, just uncomfortable to elect someone who isn't convincing with regard to their "ability to handle pressure" (regardless of gender).
Female leaders of the present and past handle immense pressure and the USA isn't actually the whole world so I don't see why a woman would be less likely to be elected based on this perception.
In the end it would come down to popularity, contemporary charisma, political savvy, all those things Clinton seems to have in spades in addition to his intelligence (I agree with that statement, having found his comments straightforward and intelligenct post-presidency)
Can we assume Hillary has the same intelligence as her husband? Hopefully she will be better at managing her private life privately!
I just hope she doesn't get elected on transferred popularity from Bill but on her own merit (which I confess I don't really know much about yet).
At Mon Nov 07, 09:37:00 PM,
Sarah said…
Personally, I see Hillary Clinton's taking a more centrist approach to hot-button issues like abortion as simply going down the road that John Kerry trod at the last election- to a big, fat LOSS. Why? Because trying to spin herself as something that the entire country knows she isn't just won't work. It didn't work for Kerry, and Americans know, or at least feel they know, even more about Hillary Clinton than they did about Kerry, so such spin is even less likely to work for her. Americans liked her when Bill was President, they liked him too. Why then should she even need to change her image? There is no way in hell she is going to win over the Redneck Right: she needs to motivate the Democratic base and actually get them to vote...
Also, I couldn't care less if a man or woman gets the job so long as they are GOOD for it. George Bush is a man, and he's been a spectacular disaster. It wouldn't have been any better if he'd had an extra X chromosome instead of a Y, but it wouldn't have been any worse, either.
Post a Comment
<< Home