If Hillary Clinton really loved her country, she would withdraw immediately from the presidential race in order to avoid another bitter election and to promote national unity.
Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, wins only by division. And she is a far more polarizing figure than he. Despite his prodigious political gifts, he could not win a majority of the popular vote as a challenger in 1992 when the circumstances favored a challenger nor as an incumbent in 1996 when the circumstances favored an incumbent. And he had the media on his side both times.
When down in the polls, she would rather slime her opponent than engage him on the issues. As her husband did whatever it was he had to do to win reelection, even when that meant misrepresenting his opponent’s record. As Michael Barone observed:
The Clinton campaign, defeated in Iowa and nearly in New Hampshire, scraping by in Nevada and expecting a clobbering in South Carolina, faced a choice between losing clean and winning ugly. What is amusing is that so many liberal commentators were surprised when the Clinton apparat, with the unhesitation of a shark, chose the latter option.
And now those commentators are in an uproar over the Clintons’ tactics, using rhetoric to criticize this unhappy pair that would not have been out of place on conservative editorial pages in the 1990s.
Mrs. Clinton seems to relish baiting her opponents. While her husband hated Republicans only because they stood between him and power, her hatred seems more visceral, as if she thinks we’re evil. Note that when she took on Senator Obama, misrepresenting his praise of Ronald Reagan, she slammed the Gipper’s ideas as “bad ideas for America.”
And this after her husband was careful not to attack the Gipper in his 1992 campaign, recognizing his political success and acknowledging his achievements in office. Indeed, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out on Friday, Clinton’s biggest accomplishments in the domestic sphere were Reaganesque.
So, if Reagan’s ideas were so bad, Ms. Hillary, why did your husband imitate them?
To be sure, she called them bad ideas to appeal to her party’s left-wing base which has never acknowledged the Gipper’s accomplishments. She was also speaking from her heart. Despite her husband’s rhetoric and record, she thinks that any idea Ronald Reagan had was bad merely because Ronald Reagan had it.
Those comments says much about Mrs. Clinton. They show her to be a mean-spirited partisan, eager to appeal to the angry left, even if it means undercutting her husband’s record (the source of her much vaunted “experience”). And it shows her to harbor a visceral hatred of one of her husband’s most accomplished predecessors.
In short, Hillary Clinton is a divisive partisan, a polarizing figure whose campaign has opened up fissures in the Democratic Party. Her nomination would ensure that that rancor continues into the fall campaign. While Bill Clinton may claim that a contest between Senator McCain and his wife “would be the most civilized election in American history,” the Clinton record promises the opposite.
Should she get her party’s nod, expect them to dredge up all kinds of dirt, even hearsay from longtime McCain haters, to slime the Arizona Senator and veteran.
The longer she continues in the campaign, the more divisive and bitter it will become. For that is the Clinton record. If she stays in the campaign, the bitterness will continue until November. Should she win, it would continue for four years — at least. And our national divisions would be heightened rather than healed.
For that reason, she should withdraw from the presidential race immediately. It would be the one positive step she could take to unite our country (and even her own party).
UPDATE: On a related note, Glenn Reynolds links a post on Caucus, the New York Times Politics Blog, citing a poll finding that “fewer voters these days like the idea of the former president [Clinton] being back in the White House.”
In the curious way that history sometimes trumps facts, consider this….
Image that St. Hillarybeast won Super Tuesday, yet immediately withdrew to support Obama as the Party’s unity-candidate. No doubt she’d be immediately crowned as a “great statesman” for placing Nation and Party before personal ambition. And no question she would return to the US Senate with emormous clout and penultimate influence of Policy….especially if she openly campaigned for Obama amongst the Democratic loyalists.
Are the Clintons’ politically-saave-enough to see this as a gracious way out that serves their long-term need-for-power, while avoiding a “defeat” at the convention and/or the General Election?
“Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, wins only by division.”
I think that’s called politics.
Noticed that Gay Patriot doesn’t allow any comments on the sleazy identity politics LOGO Netowrk. Shame on Gay Patriot for slouching into collectivism.
What are you talking about, Crow?
I don’t want Hillary to withdraw. She has angered so many in her own party, she will be easier to defeat than Obama.
Yeah, I’m being partisan here not thinking of the good of the country.
Of course I think it would be best for the country if we don’t have a Democrat president.
The Clintons are responsible for hateful and very mean politics. Politics of personal distruction. Politics ain’t beanball but it can be played fairly and without trying to destroy people and their reputations. Since the Clintons have been on the national stage this is what we have gotten. If they went away I truely believe we would have a more detailed discussion of policies without the hatred and attacks. The missing 900 FBI files during Bill’s first term, that wasn’t an accident. They combed them for information on their potential opponents, and “supporters”. Remember two months ago, the Clinton’s leaked out….”we have damaging info on Barack but we won’t use it.” Who does that? The Clinton’s.
The thing I like about Obama is his call to our better nature. His uplifting message is long overdue. It is Reaganesque. After the code pinks, daily kos, the Clintons… it is refreshing. I know it is hiding incipid socialism. Huckabee’s early success is because of the same thing. People are so sick of hateful politics they are searching for some vanilla discussions of policy questions, and solutions. The Clintons haven’t gotten nearly as mean and back stabbing as they are capable of. Stayed tuned.
Gene you are right, and here’s my problem. There is no substance behind the lovely rhetoric. Most people don’t vote on substance, they vote on how the candidate makes them feel.
Which is why I want Hillary, I think she will be easier to defeat in November.
Of course if Obama defeats her in the primaries, I will have the satisfaction of knowing that even the Democrats aren’t that stupid.
Video of the day: Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife for President?
Crow (#3) –
Uhhhhhhhhh….. I’m not allowing comments because the posting is a CONTEST.
WTF?
Back to the REAL topic of Dan’s posting now….. Hillary Should Go NOW!
”Should she get her party’s nod, expect them to dredge up all kinds of dirt, even hearsay from longtime McCain haters, to slime the Arizona Senator and veteran.”
She might even claim that McCain fathered a black child!! Oh wait that was Bush. Anyhow, what do we expect from the lesbian who murdered her ex-lover, Vince Forster. I think we see the first diagnosed case of premature Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
[If it is Hillary Derangement Syndrome, then why aren’t you contesting the points of my post to show how the Clintons have never engaged in gutter politics? Instead, like the Clintons, you don’t address the point, but instead criticize your political adversaries. –Dan]
If Hillary and the rest of the liberals really loved their country, they’d lay off the Socialist bullshit and tell Kos what he can do with himself.
#12 This is how the Clinton machine works….”In 2000 the GW Bush campaign got word out that John McCain had fathered a black child. This Clinton campaign never would trade in such idle gossip and horrible tactics. We deplore the Bush record of negative campaigning and what ever Sen McCain has in his past about black hispanic or muslim children we in the Clinton campaign don’t traffic in such negative distructive gossip.”
6: Clearly they are mean unlike the Republicans who hounded President and Mrs. Clinton from the moment he was inaugurated. For 6 years I watched them lower the bar of political civility while Clinton was President and for another 6 years I watched them go further as they played “sore winners right up through the ’06 elections. Gimmee a break.
[Did they? Even if they did, that doesn’t excuse what the Clintons do and have done. And yes, I agree, some Republicans went overboard, way overboard in taking on the Clintons. –Dan]
“#12 This is how the Clinton machine works….”In 2000 the GW Bush campaign got word out that John McCain had fathered a black child. This Clinton campaign never would trade in such idle gossip and horrible tactics. We deplore the Bush record of negative campaigning and what ever Sen McCain has in his past about black hispanic or muslim children we in the Clinton campaign don’t traffic in such negative distructive gossip.””
are you trying to say something? If so, it didn’t quite work.
#16
It does if you pay attention.
#14
If it were the Clintoon Machine, they would have said the black child was a drug dealing rag head.
[If it is Hillary Derangement Syndrome, then why aren’t you contesting the points of my post to show how the Clintons have never engaged in gutter politics? Instead, like the Clintons, you don’t address the point, but instead criticize your political adversaries. –Dan]
GPW: Because I am not disputing that Clinton(s) never engage in “gutter” politics. I am not voting for Clinton today though I will if she is the nominee. It is just a bit naive and/or disingenuous to act like Clinton is the only candidate to engage in hard ball politics. It is a bit odd for the right wing to complain that she is divisive when it is the right that has made a cottage industry out of trying to convince people of this claim.
[No presidential candidate engages in gutter politics to the extent the Clintons do. Perhaps, the right, as you put it, has made a cottage industry trying to convince people she is divisive, but you haven’t been able to dispute my points. And recent commentary from the left only confirms the veracity of the claims of this “cottage industry”
Finally, and this goes back to the first sentence of my comment to your comment. Even if the right engaged in gutter politics taking on the Clintons (and I acknowledge that some did), none of those conservatives are running for president. Ms. Hillary is. –Dan]
I have no doubt Hillary and every other candidate running truely love their counrty. Some have interesting solutions to various problems (“We need to slow dow the economy to stop global warming” BC), but they love the country. I also have no doubt that the Clintons love power even more.
Is she or isn’t she divisive? (Hint: are her “negatives” in the 20% or below range?)
Since Bush is not running, why would a non-divisive candidate continue to trash him while being coy about how she would restore America to her version of perfection? (Hint: Better to bash the Bug-a-Boo than to lead an honest debate.)
I agree that Brendan makes an attempt at a decent argument in contesting my post, but, in the end, really misses the boat for he and others who have taken issue with my here fail to take issue with the arguments I raise (save to address the first line, but that’s why I used the adverb, “really” to modify “loved”–perhaps I should have said, if she loved her country more than she loved herself — or believed in her divine mission.)
My point of far from Hillary Derangement Syndrome. I don’t deny the woman’s intelligence and do acknowledge that she cares about the country, but seems to believe that only she is qualified to fix it.
Basically, all I’ve said here is that here is a divisive, indeed polarizing figure who practices gutter politics and harbors a visceral hatred of her adversaries.
Other sensible conservative writers as well as a growing number of centrist and even liberal commentators share this assessment.
“Basically, all I’ve said here is that here is a divisive, indeed polarizing figure who practices gutter politics and harbors a visceral hatred of her adversaries.”
I don’t think I am missing your point at all–I disagree and that is different. I am not a big HRC fan and I don’t dispute she is divisive and polarizing but much of that is purely manufactured and fanned by the right wing. GW has clearly been a divisive president and yet I don’t recall any republicans asking him to stand down for re-election. As for HRC’s “divine mission” that is just snarkiness–what are you referring to? Has she ever claimed she has a divine mission to be president? Wasn’t it the current president who suggested he was in office by the choice of god–though in fairness I can’t find the quote, but I am almost he made such a claim, not HRC.
It’s hard to say. Like all statists – including some Republicans, all fascists and all Democrats – she believes the way to “love” or “help” someone is to use government force to control them and/or make them dependent on government – and herself. Can one really call that “caring”? I mean, we know she calls it that, but is it really?
Mark Steyn brilliantly argues in his book “America Alone” that the short-sighted ideal of “fixing” society by subverting the individual to the needs of “society as a whole” is not only a terrible idea, but one that can lead to complete societal collapse:
“This is the paradox of ‘social democracy.’ When you demand lower taxes and less government, you’re damned by the Left as ‘selfish.’…The Left, for its part, offers an appeal to moral virtue: it’s better to pay more in taxes and to share the burdens as a community. It’s kinder, gentler, more compassionate, more equitable. Unfortunately, as recent European election results demonstrate, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of government health care and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s got his, and if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence, well, as long as they can keep the checks coming till he’s dead, it’s fine by him. ‘Social democracy’ is, it turns out, explicitly anti-social. To modify Polybius, it’s ‘avarice’ dressed up with ‘pretentiousness.’ And it leads, in Europe and elsewhere, to societal ‘indolence.'”
Steyn nails it. Hillary’s plan would do nothing more than force us all to “care more” and be more “compassionate” by allowing her to rob us blind so that she can give it away to people who don’t give a rat’s ass about “greater society” and aren’t inclined to because the entitlement comes in the form of a government check as if by magic. Since government acts as a middle-man, the recipient never stops to consider where the money to pay for the entitlement came from, or the sacrifices that the taxpayers had to make to provide it. But as long as people like Hillary and Obama continue to give flowery speeches that idealize the recipients as the most wonderful people on Earth who are just down on their luck and need a helping hand, liberals are going to keep buying into it and demonizing anyone who dares to question their socialist proposals. We only need to look at the battle for welfare reform in the mid-90s to see the real people that the Liberals are so good at idealizing as noble victims in need of a helping hand. Maxine Waters and her army of entitlement-addicts went ballistic and their rhetoric was so vicious you would have thought Congress was passing legislation to revive slavery.
That’s why Hillary cannot win. You can’t just tear down and rebuild 1/7 of our economy into a socialist juggernaut and then decide later that you’d like to hit the reverse button. If she gets her healthcare plot…er…plan… through Congress, it’s here to stay.