Hillary In the Middle? Hardly

[Annie]

From Mickey Kaus, hardly a Conservative, plenty of links:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123392/

Hillary's Cheap Dates
Turns out the center is as easily bought off as the left.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 3:09 PM PT

From Josh Gerstein's N.Y. Sun report on Hillary Clinton's speech to the DLC:

The potential candidates and their staffs were treated to a first-hand reminder of how Mrs. Clinton's sheer star power threatens to skew any race for the nomination. The senator's delivery yesterday was strong, but far from her most electric.

Is Hillary Clinton ever electric? I deny it. Her speaking style is controlled and insistent--at best, strong--and her substance quotient hovers close to zero. Expectations of electricity are expectations that will be disappointed. ...

Update: Gerstein and other reporters saw in Hillary's DLC speech more of her now-famous move to the center. Here's Gerstein:

Mrs. Clinton also set forth the litany of socially conservative points that are part of her regular repertoire, such as a call to reduce the number of abortions and to protect children from destructive forces in popular culture. At moments, she voiced themes that sounded downright conservative. "We can restore America to its historic devotion to opportunity, responsibility, and the common good, with big dreams, new ideas, and old-fashioned values," the senator said.

I'm not so sure. The speech (which you can read here) doesn't sound too conservative to me. For one thing, Hillary avoids completely the obvious hot-button move-to-the-right issue of immigration, a subject on which she's made conservative noises in the past. Her language on abortion pledges to "support a woman's right to choose"--as Joe Klein has noted, her abortion statements are "centrist" mainly in attitude, not substance. And if reporters are willing to give Hillary credit for being "downright conservative" just because she uses the phrase "old fashioned values"--well, reporters are cheap dates!

I'd always thought this Cheap Date Syndrome helped Hillary mainly with the Left, which loves Hillary so much it could conceivably be bought off with a bit of Bush-bashing that covers a dramatic Hillary shift to the right. But it's now also clear that her shift to the right doesn't have to be that dramatic, because the equally Cheap Date press is ready to interpret even the subtlest, most insubstantial shading as part of Hillary's New Moderation. She can get credit for centrism without having to actually take too many positions that the left would disagree with (and hold against any another politician). Paleoliberals can love her, the DLC can love her, and she never has to say anything, either leftish or moderatish, that commits her publicly to a position that might annoy someone. Her primal drive for vagueness is free to trump her drive to the center.

The only problem is that the resulting biteless rhetoric is almost totally uninspiring. Read the speech, and see if you are actually moved to cheer at any point. (I was, only once, at the line: "The Republicans abandoned arithmetic; well, we brought it back.") Hillary's instinctive contentlessness is both the symbol and part of the substance of what may be the biggest doubt she has to overcome--not the issue of whether she's right or left, or the issue of whether she's "tough" enough on defense, but the issue of whether she's tough generally. When has she told off or even firmly-but-gently rejected someone in her own coalition? When has she ever stood up, in public, against, say, a big union? When has she pulled off a difficult legislative triumph? ** We know she's smart and cautious and flexible. We need to know she has balls.

No more cheap dates!

P.S.: In the options-preserving department, Hillary's DLC statement on Social Security does leave her a breathtakingly large amount of room to make major un-paleoliberal changes. Here is her vision of the Democratic future:

And in 2020, Social Security is safe from the ideologues. It is still providing survivor benefits and benefits for the disabled and providing millions of retired baby boomers with benefits without the threat of bankruptcy while all Americans, regardless of income, have more options to amass additional retirement savings. [Emph. added]

Note that this statement is perfectly consistent with a radical means-testing of the Social Security system, in which the affluent get cut out (but still "millions of retired baby boomers get benefits" because they're not affluent). The non-Cheap Date Centrist version of this sentence wouldn't simply (and covertly) leave the means-test option open. It would advocate or at least explicitly suggest cutting the benefits of the affluent. Even John Kerry did that much. You could call it starting a "National Conversation!"

**--Don't answer "welfare reform" to any of these questions. I do think Hillary favored the 1996 bill, but if so she did it in private, which allowed her left-wing Cheap Dates to tell themselves she surely must have actually opposed it. Meanwhile, her strategic contribution to the bill was passive--she just didn't block her husband. Not ballsy!) 5:25 P.M.

 

[Nienna]

Ew! Hillary talk! Blech! Blech!
:shiver: I need a shower.

 

[Bonnie]

What's really unsettling about this is her voting record in the Senate completely contradicts everything right down the line that she is now saying in public. And scarier still is the notion that some will actually believe her, and not even bother to check the facts.

 

[archangel]

She uses the old "Bait and switch" technique...she as well as her party of liberals are well aware of her deceit to obtain the needed moderate votes to put her in office...She promises and makes comments suggesting she will deliver a "Middle of the road" product...when in fact once the purchase is completed she will deliver the old "Lemon" (Socialism) :bat:

 

[Abbey Normal]

The inconsistencies between Kerry's voting record and his stump speeches hurt him, and I am hopeful that Hillary's will hurt her as well.

If only Vince Foster could come back and tell us what really happened...

 

[dilloduck]

From Mickey Kaus, hardly a Conservative, plenty of links:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123392/

Face it--she's cunning, ambitious, a politician, rich and will fool enough people to win. Barring a MAJOR faux pas, I'm afraid she's the next pres.

 

[archangel]

Face it--she's cunning, ambitious, a politician, rich and will fool enough people to win. Baring a MAJOR faux pas, I'm afraid she's the next pres.

no way Jose...she is having "some fun" as the song goes...but the "writing is on the wall"...another song!

 

[Big Blue Machin]

If by accident, she does get the nod, she should pick a more moderate democrat. Like Mark Warner, and Bill Richardson, or John Edwards.

 

[archangel]

If by accident, she does get the nod, she should pick a more moderate democrat. Like Mark Warner, and Bill Richardson, or John Edwards.

won't help...Hillary is history...in other words a socialist loser!

 

[Big Blue Machin]

But still it would minimize the damage caused by nominating Hilary.

 

[archangel]

But still it would minimize the damage caused by nominating Hilary.

you are arguing like gabby...geez...give it a rest! :firing:

 

[Nuc]

Face it--she's cunning, ambitious, a politician, rich and will fool enough people to win. Barring a MAJOR faux pas, I'm afraid she's the next pres.

If the Republicans run a woman like Condy against her that would split the single issue feminist vote. Then if both candidates are female conservatives who don't like that idea will vote along party lines and Republicans will win.

On the other hand if the Republicans put up a female or black and the Democrat is a white male, you'll see a lot of Republicans defecting just because of race and gender issues.

We won't know what the equation looks like until both nominees are announced. It's premature to declare Hillary the winner or even the nominee.

 

[dilloduck]

If the Republicans run a woman like Condy against her that would split the single issue feminist vote. Then if both candidates are female conservatives who don't like that idea will vote along party lines and Republicans will win.

On the other hand if the Republicans put up a female or black and the Democrat is a white male, you'll see a lot of Republicans defecting just because of race and gender issues.

We won't know what the equation looks like until both nominees are announced. It's premature to declare Hillary the winner or even the nominee.

Hell--I'm not a national pundit here--just making a call as I see it. How about a candidate? You willing to go THAT far?

 

[Merlin]

Face it--she's cunning, ambitious, a politician, rich and will fool enough people to win. Barring a MAJOR faux pas, I'm afraid she's the next pres.

I'll stick my neck out here and say if she does get the nomination, she won't get but about 15 to 20 percent of the votes cast and they will be in the Northeast part of the USA. The rest of the country sees her as the moronic, pathetic joke that she is. When I visit Ca. even the liberals I have talked to say they would vote for Manson, a brainless monkey, Sadam, and other interesting people before they would vote for her.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll stick my neck out here and say if she does get the nomination, she won't get but about 15 to 20 percent of the votes cast and they will be in the Northeast part of the USA. The rest of the country sees her as the moronic, pathetic joke that she is. When I visit Ca. even the liberals I have talked to say they would vote for Manson, a brainless monkey, Sadam, and other interesting people before they would vote for her.

God I hope you're right and not me !

 

[ThomasPaine]

Face it--she's cunning, ambitious, a politician, rich and will fool enough people to win. Barring a MAJOR faux pas, I'm afraid she's the next pres.

potential Dem nominees. If she is on the ticket every Repub with a heartbeat will be headed to the polls. No more Clintons. She's a socialist and I'm sure that the Repub nominee would have no problem demonstrating the same by the examples of her voting record and past rhetoric.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

It will be like McGovern V Nixon in 1972. The Democrats entered a wild socialist and the Republicans creamed him.

 

[wolverine]

The sad thing is a lot of people who never vote may do so for her just to see history made in their lifetime. Not even giving any thought to the ramifications.

 

[Nienna]

I think she will get the Dem ticket, but I HOPE she doesn't win. God help us!

 

[Bonnie]

God I hope you're right and not me !

I hope Im correct in saying this, she may get some attention and votes but I honestly don't see her winning the presidency, especially during the troubled times we live in, and due in part also to the fact that she has so much baggage she needs a caboose to carry it which she will not be able to hide if forever especially with all the conservative news outlets now. If this was the late Seventies she may stand a good chance.