Hillary has not moved to the middle, contrary to media reports, and she has failed to develop the leadership persona of her husband. Both of these vulnerabilities should be exploited by Republicans. Run a few television clips of Hillary Clinton droning on in her monotone, school-marm voice about “the children” or government healthcare.
Republicans are looking toward 2008 with increasing unease. Hillary Clinton’s name recognition gives her a towering edge over any other Republican or Democrat candidate. Americans are ready for a female president, and Hillary is a logical choice, having more visibility than even any potential male candidate.
Nevertheless, Hillary’s ascendancy can be overcome. She is assured to win the Democratic primary, but will have problems winning the general election. Her principal weakness? She is conspicuously lacking in charisma. As we have learned progressively since the arrival of television, personality counts considerably in national elections. How else would little-known Bill Clinton have emerged as the Democratic frontrunner in 1992, beating out better-known Democrats like Bob Kerrey and Richard Gephardt? The Republicans learned their lesson and nominated George W. Bush next, whose folksy demeanor was arguably the determining factor in his races against Al Gore and John Kerry. Undecided voters and independents decide elections. Many do not follow politics closely, acquiring their information from news sound bites. A few television clips of Hillary Clinton droning on in her monotone, school-marm voice about “the children” or government healthcare will tune out all but her most allegiant supporters.
It is puzzling why Hillary has not corrected this weakness. She must realize her husband’s charm was responsible for his career advancement – and hers. One would think she would take classes on how to improve her appeal. She no longer has Bill’s coattails to ride on; he can be little more than a shadow in the background when she runs for President. The reality is Hillary probably cannot change her disposition. She has a bitterness to her, an angriness, that she does not want to set aside. It is such a deep part of who she is that she is unwilling or incapable of suppressing it. It is part feminist resentment and part anger toward her husband for his infidelity and apparent ease obtaining success. She begrudges the fact that her advancement in politics is mostly a result of her connection to him. She cannot leave him, because he still opens doors for her that wouldn’t otherwise be opened (he will secure the Democratic presidential nomination for her), and she cannot be sure her popularity will remain as high if she abandons him.
Hillary is predisposed to releasing her bitterness in careless remarks like “the vast right-wing conspiracy,” describing the House of Representatives as “run like a plantation,” criticizing women who stay at home “baking cookies” instead of pursuing a career like her, and praising the “white suburbs” of her youth. These offensive remarks only exacerbate voters’ negative perception of her.
Hillary is generally a dislikable person. One never hears people exclaim, “I just love Hillary Clinton!” There is something disturbing about her that most people can’t put their finger on. Those who observe Hillary regularly know what it is. As Carl Cannon in Washington Monthly put it, perhaps voters will realize that “her marriage is a sham, and…she’s an opportunist.” For Hillary, holding public office is not about principles – it is about status and power.
New York Times best-selling author Edward Klein quotes a Hillary insider, a former campaign staffer, in his book, The Truth About Hillary , “She has this unbelievable ability to be a liar. She is soulless.” Dick Morris describes some of these lies in his book, Rewriting History . Hillary has lied about how she got her name, how she met Bill, and about Chelsea Clinton jogging near the World Trade Center Towers on 9-11. These weren’t just exaggerations, or suspected mistruths, they were lies that have since been distinctly exposed. Hillary told reporters that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to climb Mount Everest – but he didn’t climb Mt. Everest until 1953, five and a half years after Hillary was born. Prior to that, he was an unknown beekeeper. Hillary has a problem telling the truth. This may not bother the consciences of her friends on the left, but it will disturb the swing voters in middle America, who want honest leaders and the best for America.
There are other weaknesses of Hillary’s that can be exploited as well. Hillary has tried to position herself toward the middle since becoming a Senator. Or has she? The liberal group Americans for Democratic Action gave her a 95% rating in 2004, the same score as Barbara Boxer and socialist Representatives Jim McDermott and Bernie Sanders. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gave her a 100% rating in 2003. Her 2004 rating from the American Conservative Union? 0. She was one of only 10 Senators to receive a score of 0. Other Senators receiving 0 included Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman. Hillary’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 9%. This is lower than Diane Feinstein’s lifetime score of 11%. It is only slightly higher than John Kerry’s lifetime score of 5% and socialist Bernie Sanders’ lifetime score of 6%.
Hillary received an 8% rating in 2004 from Citizens Against Government Waste, the same rating as socialist Bernie Sanders’, and lower than Ted Kennedy’s and John Kerry’s 25%, as well as Barbara Boxer’s 29%. Hillary received a 10% rating in 2005 from Americans for Tax Reform – the same score as Ted Kennedy. She received a score of 0 from the Christian Coalition in 2003, and a 14% from the Family Research Council – the same score as Robert Byrd and Washington state’s liberal feminist Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Hillary’s 2003 score from the Eagle Forum was 13%, just one point higher than socialist Bernie Sanders’ 12%, and the same as Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and Maria Cantwell.
Hillary favors universal healthcare, and when she was put in charge of it at the Clinton White House, failed miserably. She has received a 100% rating from the American Public Health Association (APHA) for her pro-government health record in the Senate.
Hillary is not a moderate, she comes from the liberal wing of the Democrat party. Media reports that she has been trying to position herself more to the middle are simply incorrect. The only issue she has moved to the right on is Iraq, reflected in a few of her votes, which isn’t saying much, since Democrats in Congress are divided on the presence of troops in Iraq. Other than Iraq, her record on foreign policy and defense is really quite liberal. The Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy (SANE) gave Hillary a 100% score in 2003 for a pro-peace voting record. She has voted for an international nuclear test ban treaty.
Her record on Israel is troubling. Although she has tried to pull back from her pro-Palestinian positions, because she is lacking in principles her maneuvering is seen as pandering for votes. It is hard to forget that Hillary was on the forefront of calling for the creation of a Palestinian state in 1998 – even before the Clinton White House had announced its support for one. As White House First Lady, she chose to attend a meeting of the Palestine National Council and praise Arafat. It is difficult to trust someone whose opinion on such a problematic issue swings from one extreme to the other.
A recent Fox News poll found that 44% of registered voters expressed that “under no conditions” would they vote for Hillary. Only half as many voters said the same thing about Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. This leaves a lot of undecided voters that Hillary must pick up in order to win. Considering there are usually less than 10% undecided voters in presidential elections, Hillary will not only have to pick up more than half of them, but 100% of her Democratic base. In hypothetical matches polled, Giuliani beats Hillary by 11 percentage points, and McCain beats her by 13 percentage points. It is critical that Republicans put forth a candidate in 2008 with charisma. This is the decisive area in which they can beat Hillary. She can lie about her record, but she can’t hide her sullen disposition in a sound bite.
This article is unfit for publication on the IC website. Crudely subjective statements such as "Hillary is generally a dislikable person" have no place among true objectivists or intellectuals.
Furthermore, the comparative ratings of clearly biased organizations should never be used to back up any facts about either Mrs. Clinton's effort to position herself as a moderate or her actual political standing. The objective basis of the rating system is clearly in question. If you were head of ATR and you saw that Mrs. Clinton was your most dangerous competition, wouldn't you rate her poorly? The title of this article is misleading as well – rather than take Mrs. Clinton seriously as an opponent, the author chooses evidence that serves only to allay genuine concerns over this considerable competitor from the left. The author provides no strategy for actually defeating Mrs. Clinton, aside from seeing through Mrs. Clinton's apparent moderate swing and choosing a candidate with a "folksy demeanor." Stick to the facts, Rachel.
To be frankly honest, if Hillary does take the primaries, I'd vote for her purely on strategic grounds – her election would most likely cause a split executive / legislative branch, leading to the same situation that we small-government conservatives enjoyed in her husband's era. Add to that the fact she's an Ayn Rand (founder of objectivism) supporter and you have a candidate that looks appealing to any moderate, even if she IS, as Klein puts it, a "radical liberal."
And you actually find it noteworthy that, in the quickly diminishing time before the presidential nominations, a conservative think tank would give the most likely Democratic candidate, whoever they were, such a low score? Come on! That's like expecting a member of the Democrats to write a scathing biography of Franklin Roosevelt.
Well it's nice to see the left is reading IC. I'm not quite sure how Hillary Clinton qualifies as an "objectivist." The scores are based on objective criteria – how many times each Senator or Representative votes for or against the values of that organization. Each member of Congress is graded on the exact same criteria. Check out http://www.acuratings.org/ or http://www.conservative.org/archive2/other.asp It would be pretty difficult for an organization to get around this and adjust scores as they please, unless they used a different method for grading Congressmen.
Everything stated in this article cannot be denied.Liberals never admit to the truth,they only twist and turn it around,kind of like a mental disorder.
Hillary is pretty dull. And I agree, Rachel, that a charismatic GOP candidate may well do the trick. I just wish we had a potential charismatic candidate who was conservative. NR did a nice piece on Sen. Allen (R-VA) a few months ago, he seems like a charismatic fellow and genuinely conservative (although after such duds as W, Bill Owens and most of the GOP congress, I will be skeptical). It is too bad Allen doesn't seem to be registering on the minds of voters yet. I just hope it isn't a fight between McCain and Guiliani. I may finally crack and vote Libertarian.
Comment for Lincoln Uyeda.
Would you mind pointing out for me where Mrs. Clinton has stated that she is an Ayn Rand supporter? I would like to see how she can justify supporting objectivism and socialism at the same time. This is the woman who claims that it "takes a village to raise a child" and wants to push her "free health care" on the taxpayers. Hillary stands for everything that Ayn Rand so vocally abhorred.
The best way to defeat Hillary is to simply give her all the air time she wants. Give that woman enough rope and she will hang herself. She has been a phony in every aspect of her public life, and seemingly her private one as well. This flaw will not hold up during a national campaign. I do strongly agree with Lincoln Uyeda's comments however as far as it is conceivable the only way to get a GOP House and Senate to act like Conservatives may be to have a Democrat *(gasp)* in the White House. The spending of this Congress and President surpass even FDR in short-sighted stupidity. Years from now we will look back on this Congress and this President as the worst keepers of our tax dollars in history, and sadly they ran as Republicans . We need Conservatives to represent us, RINO's have changed the chant of "tax and spend democrats" to "spend and deficit republicans." We have become what we despised, and winning an election has taken precedent over fiscal conservatism. Ronald Reagan is turning in his grave.
To those who vote to "split" the Executive and Legislative branches:
Let's think this through. In your oh-so-clever ploy to split the branches, you will vote for a left leaning candidate for president? What message will this send to ALL potential politicians? They will, more likely than not, look at the results and say, "Gee, looks like the public supports a left-leaning agenda. If I want to win office, I'd better pander to that."
The result? A shift to the left at all levels of government. Just what we need…
Fiscally, what is the difference? I despise the left wing agenda, but truth be told, would have a GOP Congress passed our transportation budget under a democratic White House? I doubt it. As for as pandering to win an office, how in the world could it be done anymore than it is?
"Hillary favors universal healthcare, and when she was put in charge of it at the Clinton White House, failed miserably."
Bill put her in charge of reforming the public education system in Arkansas when he was governor, and also failed miserably. Has she ever managed ANYTHING successfully?
LOL if Hillary is an objectivist, that must make President Reagan a Marxist.
It is sad that you resort to such language to descibe people. Are you that frightened that she is going to win.
I agree with the latest post. I would like to think the conservative intellectual is based mainly off of reason and logic instead of typical liberal rhetoric. Im tired of conservatives like Rush and Hannity using terms, that liberals use rhetoric in describing an opponent as an angry and bitter person. Theres people in every political ideology that are angry and bitter. Those have nothing to do political credentials. She has a socialist upbringing from her college days up to the present. The pathetic article also used right wing sources, American Conservative Union and Fox News (which can be seen by some as being right-lean) and left wing groups like NARAL and SANE to describe their stance on her. It's not rocket sncience knowing that conservative groups don't like Hillary and leftist ones do. Im sick and tired of reading daily news reports that state these obvious facts. I love the comment "once a socialist, always a socialist." Since her new left teachings at college all the way through she has been a major proponent of welfarism, radical feminism and environmentalism, anti-war sentiments, and an overall massively government advocate. Anyone can see this by her comments and voting record on the net. Obviously in order to become pres she's going to have to come to the right more as a moderate and become a hawk (by voting for a few out of hundreds of defense projects and national defense legislation) but then again that can be seen by selling out her own cause. She's a smart woman that knows theres a means to an end and will go back to her counterculture leftist roots.
I myself will not support Clinton#2. She's completly to far left. However, we as conservatives
cannoy underestimate her political poweras a candidate. Moreover, the power and weight she would carry as the Vice President.
It would be more prudent than not to have a "smart" person as President. That seems to be the only aspect of Ms. Clinton's character everyone agrees upon.
A separate but germaine question is when did a huge military–read huge budget with an even larger waste of taxpayer funding through the behemoth political and bureaucratic industrial complex it entails–become the aspiration for a group noted for their disdain of big government and love of personal wealth?