It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Hillary Clinton Not Polarizing Enough, Actually |
Reuters has run an article about the announcement of Barack Obama that he will be forming an exploratory committee in order to begin a campaign for President in 2008. That’s not startling, really. The leak about the announcement came out last night.
What caught my eye in the article was the following statement, “Obama’s candidacy has stoked enthusiasm among grass-roots Democrats looking for fresh-faced alternative to Clinton, who some fear is too polarizing to win a general election campaign next year.”
It’s an old claim, this idea that Democrats are reluctant to support Hillary Clinton because they regard Senator Clinton as too polarizing. It’s an old claim, but I have not, to this date, seen any evidence to support it.
If the claim is to be believed, one would suppose that Democrats are just aching for a presidential candidate who will not challenge radical right wing Republican ideology and will not promote progressive values. If the claim is to be believed, what Democrats secretly want is to see a candidate who offer nothing but mushy proposals that everyone can agree on, like a proposal to name March 17 I Love Kittens and Puppies Day.
That’s not where I stand. From where I stand, the problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is not polarizing enough. Hillary Clinton has spent the last six years working harder trying to make Republicans happy than she has worked to represent the progressive voters of New York State. Hillary Clinton has been mostly cooperative with George W. Bush, only offering criticisms of the Bush White House in the margins, while mostly agreeing with terrible Bush policies. Let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton marched in lock step with George W. Bush in support of starting the Iraq War. That wasn’t very polarizing of her, was it?
We need more Democratic politicians who are not willing to compromise their principles in order to grab the support of a tiny number of swing voters. We need a Democratic nominee for President in 2008 who will stand up to right wing extremists like President Bush.
As Senator, Hillary Clinton has been mushy and slippery and appeasing. She has not been polarizing, and her failure to help create an opposite pole against the Bush agenda has led America into disaster.
It’s time to put to rest the myth that Democrats want non-confrontational leaders who work hand in hand with Republicans to craft a right wing agenda. For 2008, Democrats finally want to see a Democratic leader who has the backbone required to clean up the mess that the Republicans have created. We want strength. We want someone different from the Republicans. Hillary Clinton does not fit the bill.
Contact Us
Peregrin, I’m no political pundit, and I can’t claim to know what others mean by the phrase, but when I say that Hillary is too polarizing, I don’t mean she’s too confrontational, or too liberal, or any such thing. I mean that she divides the people too much, without necessarily doing so for a reason — she inspires hatred (and manages to do so on both sides of the aisle, somehow) despite her views and policies actually being weak-seeming compromises. I would not say she is too liberal, or too conservative; too radical, or reactionary, or strong-willed, or opinionated; too full of conviction, or faith, or inspiration or dedication. But, based on the strength of public reaction, adn the vitriol with which people speak about her, I would say she is too polarizing. I want a leader who can say thing sthat people may or may not agree with before she says them; but I do not want a leader who will have public opinion against her before she even gives her speech, becaus eit’s too hard to make people listen to the good ideas when they hate the source. It’s a sad fact of the nature of leading people.
(what? you can’t do that to st patty’s day!)
Comment by Vynce — 1/16/2007 @ 1:56 pm
(i meant to say “no professional political pundit” — guess, expressing opinions without a lot of research to back them up, i am a pundit.)
Comment by Vynce — 1/16/2007 @ 1:59 pm