View Comments |
Print This Post
|
Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, powerful gals like Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton are admired but seldom loved.
All does not seem rosy in the world of those supporting the nascent White House aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many have noted the rumblings of some on the far left of her party toward certain of her stances, if you can call them that. In response, she has begun to tiptoe the tightrope between the moderate and leftist camps of the Democrats' big tent.
You may remember "Governor" Charles Durning's rendition of "The Sidestep" in the otherwise forgettable movie version of The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. To be kind, let us say that Mrs. Clinton is not nearly so nimble as was Mr. Durning.
Her conflicting statements on abortion and the Iraq War are indicative of the huge rift within her party. On one side are the self-proclaimed New Democrats of the moderate Democratic Leadership Committee, while on the other stand the dark forces of George Soros and his MoveOn.org minions.
Founded in 1985 in response to Ronald Reagan's landslide re-election, the DLC pioneered the doctrine of triangulation as practiced by its guru Bill Clinton, himself a former chairman of the group and its most illustrious star. Indeed, his wife now chairs its "American Dream Initiative," a vague program short on details, but a vaporous, patriotic-sounding, third-way slogan so typical of the DLC.
Though no friend of President Bush, the DLC supports the Iraq War and most recently opposed a filibuster of the Samuel Alito nomination. It's also been vocal in opposition to radicals like Michael Moore. Will Marshall, a DLC founder, framed it this way: "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."
As can be imagined, these expressions from the "vital center," as the DLC likes to call itself, are not music to the ears of the more vocal wing of the party, the far left. So much so, that the Rev. Jesse Jackson has dismissed the DLC as "Democrats for the Leisure Class."
Though a minority, the radical leftists — as personified by organizations like United for Peace and Justice that are planning to storm the White House on the Ides of March — pack a punch at the campaign cash register; so much so that MoveOn now claims to own the Democratic Party. If it doesn't don't have possession outright, MoveOn's down payment resulted in its darling Howard Dean ousting longtime DLC bagman Terry McAuliffe as party chairman.
A quick search of the liberal blogosphere will give you a hint of how a typical leftist feels about the vital center: "There is a cancer in the party, and it is the DLC. We must do all we can to get rid of this neo-fascist tumor, starting by insuring state members of the DNC are not members, better, to insure we elect progressives true to the party's core values."
Can you imagine? The DLC, launching pad for Bill Clinton, co-founded by Al Gore with members such as John Kerry and John Edwards, a neo-fascist tumor? But such is the divide facing Hillary's run to the top if she persists in using the DLC as her platform.
But this is not her only problem. Most senators who have contended for the presidency have gone down to defeat because their voting record follows them around like so much toilet tissue trailing from their shoes. John Forbes Kerry learned this lesson the hard way in 2004.
Yet Hillary knows how to change the subject and go on the offensive. Her recent claim that Karl Rove "spends a lot of time obsessing about me" harkens back to the halcyon days when the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy served as her nemesis. This ability to attack, in the minds of some, cemented her image of toughness needed for higher office.
But like it or not — and America's feminists decidedly do not — women in this country prefer manly men while men prefer feminine women. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, powerful gals like Martha Stewart may be admired, but are seldom loved, unless they're ready to shed some girlish tears a la Oprah Winfrey, a feat not yet attempted by New York's junior senator.
However, Mrs. Clinton knows that she is never more admired than when she is a victim, especially of her husband's excesses. So, I look for some kind of domestic problem to necessitate Hillary's withdrawal from her upcoming senatorial defense in order to minister to her family, thus killing two birds with one stone: shortening her voting record and polishing up her feminine side.
And, in what may be a coincidence, it looks like Bill Clinton is rounding up interns. Stay tuned.
mailbox@lisafab.com
Visit their website at: http://www.lisafab.com
Responses to "Can Hillary Walk the Line?"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



There seems to be a growing concensus that Hillary will be easy to defeat in the general election. This simply is false. Does anyone remember the Saturday Night Live skit which featured Keifer Sutherland as Benson and the rest of the cast as prominant Democrats? The theme was "Who wants to lose to George Bush (41) in the Presidential election. The skit was great, but like all great comedy's there has to be a bit of truth to be truly funny. We lost an election based on underestimating our opponets and not presenting a agenda. Perot decided the election of 1992, not Bush. Bush did not define the election and lost because ot it. I believe we are setting ourselves for a similar fate by focusing on Hillary. All of this postering by conservatives ( which I am ) trying to depict Hillary as a candidate who won't carry her own base is futile. She will carry her base stongly for who she is not more than who she is. We need to bring forth a candidate who can bring a positive message to the American people and stop focusing on Hillary. She will be the Dems nominee, face it, embarace it, and concentrate on bringing forth a true conservative to defeat her. We need to learn the lesson of 1992 and define the debate. We need to focus on what WE are going to do, not what our opponents are going to do. Who will lead this charge to promote conservatism?
Comment by Dan Behrens | March 2, 2006
Sad to say probably not. The party is in disarray due to Bush's continuous pandering to the left on numerous issues conservatives care about. He had both houses and still saw fit to pander to left and center of left causes. He has fallen for the politically correct line concerning islam and the middle east and only now the party is starting to worry about Bush's frequent wanderings toward the left as in the UAE port issue. Bush doesn't care he's done but the rest of us conservatives have to live with the man's failure in several areas: the war, education and school choice, government spending our hard earned tax dollars on ever more wasteful entitlements (drug benefit), and a host of other non starters. Yep, sad to say Bush 43 has left a mess for Republicans to clean up but in the mean time a nation of fools will swoon for a media hyped 'Hillary'.
Comment by Dean | March 2, 2006
Hillary won't run because she'll be too busy with her defense committee.
Comment by Denise | March 3, 2006