GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Hillary’s Diminishing Stature

by

While those Americans who appreciated Martin Luther King’s vision honored his day yesterday by focusing on his dream of a color-blind society where “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood,” some saw King’s holiday as an excuse to further political divisions. It seems that most of those voices using divisive and angry rhetoric yesterday came from the political left, including the current “front-runner” (if we can use such a term so far out) in the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, New York’s Junior Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yesterday, appearing with Reverend Al Sharpton, Mrs. Clinton “compared the Republican-controlled House on Capitol Hill to a ‘plantation’ where opposing views are not tolerated.” Seems this woman is a lot like some of those who criticized my recent post, more eager to offer grandiose slogans than to tell the truth. A White House spokeswoman got it right when she said, “On a day when Americans are focused on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Hillary Clinton is focused on the legacy of Hillary Clinton.”

Mrs. Clinton’s comments yesterday, like a good deal of her rhetoric, makes clear that that legacy will not be one of a unifying national leader, but as a vicious left-wing partisan in the tradition of her party’s national chairman. It seems that she is well aware of the power of the angry left in her party’s nominating process and is throwing them red meat in order to strengthen her position in presidential primaries and caucuses. Yet, the more she appeals to them (as she, in my view, reveals her true colors), the more she diminishes her stature.

In contrast to her husband, Mrs. Clinton does not come across as a leader. As I wrote before, he speaks “in velvet tones while her voice is often harsh and frequently screechy.” She has risen in her party’s leadership not because of her own accomplishments, but because of her husband’s political success. Quite in contrast to career of her Senate colleague Elizabeth Dole, the wife of her husband’s 1996 opponent, who met her husband only after building a successful career. (Indeed, had it not been for her professional success, Elizabeth Hanford may never have met then-Senator Robert Dole.)

This is not to say that Hillary would not have made her mark without marrying her husband, it’s merely to note that she owes her political success more to others than herself. She does not have the commanding presence her husband does, a key ingredient to success in presidential politics. To be sure, Hillary is a bright woman who, in her five years in the Senate, has demonstrated a knack for public policy and the political process. But, she lacks the stature of other women who have risen to political prominence, like Margaret Thatcher, her California colleague, Dianne Feinstein, and the aforementioned Senator Dole.

To overcome her shortcomings, Hillary needs to put forward a unifying vision for leading our nation. To do that, instead of cozying up to divisive demagogues like Al Sharpton, she should study the speeches of such great figures in her own party as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. She could even learn from some of her husband’s rhetoric. But, the way she’s going, especially given her performance yesterday, insteading of sounding like this forward-looking and optimistic Democrats, Mrs. Clinton increasingly coming across as an angry wife who projects her own marital unhappiness onto her political adversaries.

If Hillary really wants to become president, she has to start acting like a national leader and instead of using a holiday honoring one of the greatest Americans of the last century to slur her opponents, she should use the day, as Dr. King used his brief time on this earth, to remind us of the majesty — and unifying power — of our national creed. In appealing for racial equality, Dr. King turned to the words of our founding documents, the vision of our founders and even verses of our patriotic songs. He did not insult his opponents, but encouraged them instead to change their minds as he invited them to extend the liberties they so cherished to all Americans.

Mrs. Clinton should remember that, should she throw her hat into the presidential ring a year or so hence, she would be running to be president of the United States, not merely running against the conservatives whom she loathes (and who, in many cases, loathe her). Her task is to confound her critics by offering a unifying vision and thus show she’s serious about leading the entire country and not just promoting her own partisan agenda and serving her own selfish needs.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

ADDENDUM: Michelle has more on Hillary’s MLK Day Demagoguery.

UPDATE (via GOP Vixen): Unlike his predecessor’s wife, the president adopted the right tone in remembering Dr. King:

We recommit ourselves to working for the dream that Martin Luther King gave his life for — an America where the dignity of every person is respected; where people are judged not by the color of their skin — by the content of their character; and where the hope of a better tomorrow is in every neighborhood in this country.

UP-UPDATE: Just saw this on National Review Online’s The Corner. First, Tim Graham:

John, that brief AP account (as well as today’s NYT account) is too light on the speech, since she also went after the “culture of corruption” in the GOP–a rich argument from the woman with the bag full of money from Tyson Chicken commodities trading. How can the Dems really believe corruption is “their” issue this year? Do they really believe the voters suffer from complete amnesia of the scandal-packed Clinton years, and beyond?

Then, John J. Miller:

Tim: Yes, HRC went after Republicans on the “culture of corruption,” and you’re right that this seer of cattle-futures trading has no business complaining about such things. But the line about the plantation takes her rhetoric to a new level of outrageousness. This is race-baiting, pure and simple. Republicans should fully expect to have their partisan opponents call them corrupt, especially in the era of Abramoff and the bridges to nowhere. But there should be no place in our public rhetoric for metaphors that make Denny Haster the massa, Tom DeLay an overseer, and the GOP whip — er, let’s not even go there.

UP-UP-UPDATE: In today’s (01-18-06) OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund writes on the “inflammatory rhetoric” of “liberal speakers” yesterday, calling Mrs. Clinton and others “manipulative politicians” who “are the major obstacles to letting the country get beyond race.” And concludes:

If GOP Senator Trent Lott was forced to step down from his post as Majority Leader in 2002 for insensitive and thoughtless praise of the late Strom Thurmond, those on the left who deliberately exploit race for political gain deserve at least similar scrutiny and condemnation.

Exactly.

Comments

  4. #1 – As with so many things liberal: “double standard” is the name of the game.

    Mentioning God or speaking to a religious group is a constitutional crisis – unless it’s a liberal who’s doing it.

    Mentioning 9-11 or our enemies is a constitutional crisis – unless it’s a liberal who’s doing it.

    Spying on overseas terrorists phoning the U.S. is a constitutional crisis – unless it’s a liberal who’s doing it.

    Fighting Saddam is a constitutional crisis – unless it’s a liberal who’s doing it.

    Expecting cities and states to be the first line of defense against hurricanes hitting them is a constitutional crisis – unless it’s a liberal who’s doing it.

    Questioning the patriotism of opponents (which, actually, conservatives generally refrain from) is a constitutional crisis – unless Al Gore or Ted Kennedy is doing it.

    Shall I go on?

  7. I remember the 1997 “pretty in pink” press conference that then-first lady Clinton did during the impeachment proceedings, when she claimed to channel Eleanore Roosevelt during times of crisis.

    I think her efforts would best be served nowadays trying to channel Marcel Marceau – and clam up. HRC is fooling nobody with her self-serving rhetoric and bloviating.

    Does anyone else notice that her initials are the same as the Human Rights Campaign? Uh-oh, I see a pattern here…worse, I see a lockstep endorsement right around the corner.

    Just a reminder – her husband allowed the DOMA to enact into law without his signature. He could still have vetoed it before the damage was done.

    This is a dangerous woman who will do anything and undermine anyone who gets in her way. Read Ed Klein’s book and consider yourselves warned.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  8. Thanks for your comment, Peter Hughes. You said it quite well. That HRC coincidence may be more than a coincidence, indeed.

    As Average Gay Joe makes clear in this post, the Democrats count on gay votes and gay activism, even as they routinely refuse to stand up for gay rights (and often work against them). And the vast majority of gay voters keep voting for them and defending them. Hillary and John Kerry say they’re opposed to gay marriage, and yet they still get endorsed by the likes of the HRC.

    Meanwhile we have people like “The Angry Fag” who are upset that some Republicans and right-leaning talk show hosts have called the Democratic Party a “plantation” in the past. Well, take a look around you. The Democrats expect you to advance their agenda, but all they do is kick you around for doing it. Which sounds more like a plantation to you? The House and Senate (where people like Kennedy and Biden are free to make asses of themselves during confirmation hearings), or the Democratic Party?

  13. Angry Frog is correct that conservatives, especially black conservatives, sometimes refer to the Democrat party and the welfare state that they support as a plantation. However, their use of it is a lot more appropriate, if exaggerated. The Democrat party supported slavery while Republicans vigorously fought to end it. When it did end, Democrats fought hard to maintain a lower status for ex-slaves while Republicans fought to keep them completely equal, all the way up to Civil Rights legislation in the 60s when a larger proportion of Republicans voted for it than did Democrats. The welfare state encourages and rewards a state of dependancy, which is exactly what liberal politicians want. They take our money and then offer to take care of people in exchange for their loyal support.

    While comparing that to a plantation is a gross exaggeration for the purpose of making a point, Hillary using it is downright backwards-talk propoganda.

  14. Angry Fag,
    What exactly is your point?
    I think you’re confusing apples with oranges. There is a huge differece between reporters and radio personalities, compared to a sitting senator, when it comes to making public statements. There are a zillion guys on the radio saying irresponsible things, but a senator with presidential asperations definatly needs to be more careful with the words.
    Perhaps you had another point?