Gay Patriot Header Image

Ms. Hillary: Tenacious? Yes, but Strong? Doubtful

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:28 pm - May 5, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics

In the current issue of the Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery observes the *strange new respect” many on the right currently accord Mrs. Clinton, largely because of her tenacity on the campaign trail. No fan of the former First Lady, I admire how scrappy she’s become, her back up to the wall, “hanging in there with ferocious and grim resolution.”

My admiration might become respect if the New York Senator had been as consistent in support of certain principles as she has been tenacious on the hustings. Right now it seems the only thing Mrs. Clinton believes is that she should be president.

Emery finds she’s now “running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues.” This lady has gone from decrying Republican tactics to adopting them for her own survival.

She seems to have had as many campaign strategies in 2008 as she had hairstyles in the 1990s.

And seemingly as many views on each issue.   This weekend she said again that she was “actually against Nafta” while the recently-released schedule from her days as First Lady shows how diligently she lobbied for that treaty’s passage.

As another conservative woman puts it, “If Hillary has shown anything over a lifetime of climbing the greasy pole of political power, it’s that she’s willing become whatever you want her to be.” (Via Thunder Run).

Many of Hillary’s supporters claim she’s a strong woman, so strong says one that she makes Rocky Balboa seem weak, but wouldn’t a strong woman be steadfast in support of something more significant than her own political survival? While we commend her perseverance, we wonder about someone so determined to promote herself.



  1. I have to admit to having developed a grudging respect for her, but it all went out the window yesterday when she jumped the shark, and started pandering about how she was going to break up OPEC. It would be lovely if a POTUS could, but WTF?

    Comment by Larry — May 6, 2008 @ 1:14 pm - May 6, 2008

  2. I am a true believer when it comes to markets. The Iowa Electronic Markets has numbers and graphs… and Clinton has a very long way to go to get the nomination. ie,

    Also, Jay Cost has an acerbic column today on the Dem Race, at ‘real clear politics.’ He analyzes these things like a machine. And he says Clinton is failing because of Hubris: Obama, raising tons of money, also organized under the radar, in the places where caucuses delivered the delegates. Now, I have no idea what the difference is between ‘caucus’ and ‘primary’ (I’m Canadian), but I guess it is key in this kind of race…

    Comment by heather — May 6, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - May 6, 2008

  3. #2 – In a primary election, voters decide which of the candidates within a party will represent the party’s ticket in the general election. This is done through an actual voting process, i.e. a ballot at a local precinct. The winner of the primary goes on to the general election in November as the party’s nominee. In the DNC case, it is whoever has won the most committed delegates from a primary victory.

    A caucus is a very active, time-intensive system of selecting that state’s delegates to the party’s national convention. It normally consists of all registered members of that political party to meet at a precinct for an entire evening to elect a certain percentage of the people there to serve as delegates to the county caucus, and thence to the state caucus.

    Delegates that are elected in a caucus are then pledged to support a particular candidate. The date of the actual state caucus (like Iowa’s) is preceded by days of precinct caucuses so that the requisite number of voters are represented at the state level in order to select a final nominee.

    Usually, these state caucus delegates then go on to the national convention and carry that state’s nomination with them of that candidate. So if Obama won the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, those states would formally endorse him in Denver this summer.

    The conventional wisdom is that Obama does better in a caucus than a primary because the caucus delegates are much more politically active and have the energy to go out and caucus for a whole evening. Clinton generally does better in the primaries because all she has to do is just get-out-the-vote and she’s done.

    Now to really confuse you – here in Texas we have what is known as the “Texas primary,” which is a primary election from 7 am to 7 pm on election day (punching the ballot), and precinct caucuses from 7 pm onwards! The caucuses exist to not only elect delegates to the county and state political conventions, but also to draft policies and planks for our respective parties. Because turnout was so high in the caucuses this year, they dragged on for the rest of the week.

    And here’s the ringer: Clinton won the Texas primary, but Obama won the state caucuses. So they pretty much split their delegates.

    Hope this helps.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 6, 2008 @ 4:50 pm - May 6, 2008

  4. Peter, your explanation may explain why a Clinton-supporter friend of mine sees caucuses as ‘elitist’, ie your run of the mill worker/lower class/older/busy person just doesn’t have the time or stamina to sit through a caucus process, which means that caucuses favour Obama’s supporters.


    Comment by heather — May 6, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - May 6, 2008

  5. […] Heather linked Jay Cost’s analysis of the Democratic race. He noted that Obama prepared for the caucuses, […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Barack’s Big Night — May 7, 2008 @ 2:40 am - May 7, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.