I’ve been thinking of my mom as a sort of microcosm of the Southern conservative voter for some time. Her habitual declaration that she votes “the man, not the party” only strenghthen this theory. That’s why I was so heartened when a couple of years ago she abruptly dismissed Mr. Bush as “that *sshole. He’s sending all our beautiful young boys off to be killed,” or something like that. And sure enough, Bush’s Republican approval rating started to slide.
Last weekend the subject of Hillary came up. Mom shivered. “Ugh, that woman. I think she’s the antichrist. Really, I do,” she said. ”Something about the way she looks at you.” I’m not saying this was rational, and it’s entirely possible she picked up the idea from Rush or somebody, but it’s what she claims to think.
And that is why I am not at all sure that Hillary is electable. When relatively unimaginative little old ladies start talking about the antichrist…well. I’m just saying, is all.
Advertising works. The Mighty Wurlitzer has been demonizing Hillary Clinton almost nonstop for 15 years, and that kind of branding is hard to overcome. Of course, she has more money than God to advertise back at them, but throw in the fact that liberals like me aren’t too keen on her either and it starts to look like a genuine electability issue.
As a middle of the road type, if Hillary is too conservative for the Democratic base, then there is no hope for the republic. Because very frankly the Dems can’t win without folks like me and if Hillary is too right-wing for the faithful, we might as well give Mitt/Fred/Jeb or whoever the repugs annoint the keys to the throne room. Because very honestly, Hillary is more liberal than I am about some things but I could see myself voting for her. But many of us in the middle will only go so far to the left or the right. Hillary is too left for many in the middle. But how liberal must one be to pass the purity of liberalism test to be the Dem nominee? If I am forced to write in a cartoon character, the Republicans win.
My God, Democrats, the 2008 presidency is yours for the taking. Stop demanding ideological purity. Dobson pulled that one on the Republicans and we got GWB.
She’s not my favorite, but I’d certainly choose her over anybody the Republicans might put up this time around. But hold on—here we have a potential candidate who is too far to the right for some Dems, too far to the left for others…and furthermore seems certain to galvanize the Republican base in a way few others could. And yet this incendiary person somehow seems destined to win the Democrat nomination…or is that just another bit of brainwashing from what Mooncat aptly calls the Mighty Wurlitzer?
I appreciate your point about the Dems needing to suck it up, Bill, but I would hope that the boys (and girls! these are after all Dems) in the smoke-filled room are at least taking this kind of stuff into consideration. Or maybe there isn’t a smoke-filled room any more—maybe the candidate really IS freely and democratically chosen via a melee of media soundbyte blitzing, ridiculously influential early primaries, and seat-of-the-pantsery like my mother’s opinion of “the way she looks at you.”
To paraphrase Blanche DuBois: I tremble. I just tremble.
Del, do you really think Southern conservatives like your mother will vote for any Democratic presidential candidate? Yeah, many of them have come to the realization that GWB is indeed an asshole, but does that knowledge put them off the entire Republican party? I really can’t see Southern conservatives voting for Obama (and I don’t mean to include your mother in that generalization, having no idea of her opinions on race) or Edwards either.
I think the Democratic candidate, whoever it might be, would be better off looking for moderate voters who pulled the lever for Bush in the past but have been put off not only by him but by the pervasive war-mongering, corruption, and deficits.
I guess my point was that voters like mom, even if not thrilled to pieces with Rudy or Mitt, would be motivated to get to the polls just to vote against Hillary. But maybe something like that is more important in local elections with smaller turnout.
Go ahead and include her in the generalization about Obama—although I think she would’ve voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat.
I guess my point was that voters like mom, even if not thrilled to pieces with Rudy or Mitt, would be motivated to get to the polls just to vote against Hillary.”
And an excellent point it is — definitely a reason for concern.
Hillary on the ballot would be a Republican turn-out machine — probably the only one they have left in their arsenal. I think Hillary is too much of a corporatist, a third-way Democrat who has a hard time telling people what she really stands for without focus groups and polls. It took her campaign three or four hours to issue a statement saying what she thought of Bush commuting Libby’s sentence — all the other major Democratic candidates issued strong condemnations almost immediately.
She could probably win in spite of all her negatives, but good grief, can’t we find someone who isn’t named Bush or Clinton to run the country. We don’t have a monarchy here.
Gore.
Gore would be nice. Then we could have a campaign slogan like “A Do-Over for America” or “Let’s Get It Right This Time.”
“Hillary: Let’s Make History” kinda bothers me. Frankly, I think America has made enough history lately.
Here’s another bellwether. My 14 year old daughter recently asked, “Why does everyone hate Hillary Clinton? Is it because she’s a woman?” Yikes! “Well, Honey, I don’t think that’s all there is to it, but I’m afraid that might be part of it. You see, here in Mountain Brook (Republicanville) they really, really hated Bill Clinton, so they hate his wife too. She actually tried to do something as First Lady other than look pretty at parties, and the Republicans REALLY hated her for that.” Or something like that…
To derail my own thread: as much as I disliked the people who advanced it, I thought there was some merit to the argument that she hadn’t been elected to do the things she was doing—much the same situation that Mr. Cheney is in now. Of course, the Executive can appoint whoever he pleases to carry out executive functions. But I agree, Renee, folks did seem to resent her simply because she was a woman.
But this makes me wonder about the whole husband-wife partnership idea. I remember years and years ago having an argument with another woman about being a priest’s wife (Episcopal, naturally). I thought that, unlike most other professions, the priesthood was different, and that anyone who married a priest (or whose husband heard the call mid-life, as seems to be happening more and more) should make up her mind that she would be included in the deal, so to speak. My friend thought the opposite, that neither the church, the congregation, or anybody else had any right to expect anything at all from the rector’s wife. I don’t remember if politicians’ wives were mentioned, but seems like they must’ve been.
From an independent voter’s point of view it seems to me that Hillary is at least two things. First, I think she’s a lightning rod (for various reasons, depending on which voter you talk with) that will electrify all Republicans and many non-Republican conservative voters. Secondly, she seems to be trying to appeal to everyone — those to the left, and those to the right. She can’t get away with trying to be all things to all people, can she?
I almost said. “those to HER left, and those to HER right”, but with her going back an forth I really can’t say where she stands.
Renee,
I absolutely think the radical right’s hatred for Hillary is largely because of her sex.
I genuinely don’t think sexism has much to do with her own party’s issues with her. However, what troubles me is this ideological purity gig that Hillary is “not liberal enough” to get the nomination. If that is really the how the Democratic party feels, they can sit on the sidelines for the rest of their history and feel good about their ideological purity. And we will continue to have the likes of GWB and the Dark Vice Lord leading us into disaster.
Don, I’m not sure why it’s such a problem for a candidate to try to appeal to everyone. After all, our president is supposed to serve all citizens, not just those who support him or her. Haven’t we had enough of GWB and Cheney protecting their own constituencies to the detriment of the rest of us?
I don’t mean to jump on you personally about this, because I suspect you’d say the same thing about Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who’ve changed their positions on choice and gay rights so drastically that they make Hillary look merely a bit flexible.
Kathy, I could be wrong (and I don’t mind anyone jumping on me when I am, least of all you) but it just seems to me that if a candidate takes a position that appeals to voters on the right right or left, it just naturally turns off some if not most of the voters on the other side. Does that make any sense, or should I just spend more time growing my veggies?
Don, you’re right — or should I say correct?
But the level of turn-off probably depends on the issue as well as how far to the left or right a particular voter stands. I think there are lots of moderates out there who can accept a disagreement on one issue as long as the candidate is generally in line with their philosophy.
And, of course, when it comes time for the general election, plenty of voters hold their noses and vote for the candidate they consider to be the lesser of two evils.
Bill,
You just said that the Democratic Party “can sit on the sidelines for the rest of history and feel good about their ideological purity” yet the Republicans have had ideological purity since the Reagan years and that never stopped them from obtaining a ruling majority. Your argument also displays an accute misunderstanding of the current Democratic Party. There are three differrent active factions within the Democratic Party. Those are the Liberalsand Progressives, the Centrists, and the Blue Dogs. The second faction(The Centrists also known as moderate Dems) had control of our party during the 1990s and they ran our party into the ground. The only time we were winning was when our party embraced Liberalism.
The first rule regarding controversy is that those who embrace it have a chance to influence it. Running from controversy with one’s tail between his/her legs as Hillary did back in the mid-nineties is the absolute worst thing one can do. How one responds to the forbidden fruit of controversy can measure one’s merit as a leader.
Matthew,
I wish your party well. I’m sure my ignorance does not allow for in depth political analysis as I am passionately independent. However, as one who votes Democratic most of the time, I can tell you that I lean your way more than most independents. And if your party feels like Hillary is too conservative, the majority will vote for more of the same. I assure you that the majority of this country does not consider Hillary Clinton too conservative. But I clearly don’t know what I’m talking about.
Matthew, I have to disagree with you. The Republican party has done an excellent job of pushing the “ideological purity” meme, but in reality it has made a devil’s bargain between neocons and the religious right in order to win elections. Candidates who routinely promise all manner of draconian action to appease fundamentalists also routinely renege once they get into office. (Even GWB hasn’t been “pure” enough.) They thereby give a wink and a nod to pro-business moderates who might otherwise vote for Democratic candidates but have been persuaded that even centrists are “evil” liberals.
And, as I recall, Bill Clinton won the presidency twice in the 90’s running as a moderate, so I’d have to dispute your claim that our party only wins when it embraces liberalism.
With voters apparently split close to 50-50 along party lines over the past decade, a candidate who wants to win a national election is going to have to pull from the middle. I recognize that the dynamics are different in local and state races.
Kathy, I think we’re both correct in a way. But I think any candidate has to try to determine how far left or right they can position themselves without doing more harm than good for their campaign. Now THAT, is an acrobatic balancing maneuver, that can easily be miscalculated.
You later said, “With voters apparently split close to 50-50 along party lines over the past decade….”, and I have to respectfully disagree with that. Yes, the VOTES on elections normally turn out that way in the absence of a fairly strong minor party candidate, but I believe VOTERS are split on about a 30-30-30 basis, and it is the middle 30 that candidates have to go after because they decide the outcome of elections.
“Yes, the VOTES on elections normally turn out that way in the absence of a fairly strong minor party candidate, but I believe VOTERS are split on about a 30-30-30 basis, and it is the middle 30 that candidates have to go after because they decide the outcome of elections.”
Point taken, and I do think we’re coming to the same conclusion.
I’ll go back and read the comments afterward and probably shudder at my own ignorance, but I’ve truly never understood why Hillary generates such a strong response in people. As far as I know, she has never killed or mutilated anyone. She stood by her husband during his trials and tribulations which is about Christian as you can get. I just don’t get it. Maybe she’s a squirrel lover.
Yeah, she must be a skwerlvert!!
I just read that word on some blog and have been waiting and hoping for a chance to use it. Thanks Jennifer!