« Something's Gotta Give | Main | It Really Is Super Tuesday! »

February 05, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c892653ef00e5502a2e7b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Hillary Clinton Moment:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I was waiting and waiting for this and think it's SO GOOD. And must be circulated around the web immediately. Find as many open threads as you can and LINK!!

I will do the same.

Well done.

Go Hillary!

Go Weboy!

Great post. Fair and accurate. Kristof's column also left me feeling less than inspired - and he usually inspires me.

Well said, my friend. Thank you for this--even though I love Mr. O, I'll happily and proudly cast my first-ever vote for either Hills or Obama come November (assuming, of course, that my citizenship comes through on time...*crosses fingers*.)

Wonderful post. Great perspective. Thank you.

After starting in the Edwards camp, I voted for Hillary at 8:15 this morning--and it feels absolutely right on every level. She'll make a magnificent president. This country needs her skills, her heart, her grit, and her savvy.

Go Hillary!

A very well-put endorsement.

As someone who has decided that I prefer Obama there are some things I could quibble with. The points about Obama's vagueness are pretty fair, and I think your insight about Howard Dean was excellent. That's something no one is talking about; many commentators note how Edwards moved this race to the left, but never noted how Dean moved the whole party to the left.

However, I simply don't trust Hillary. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong but I strongly suspect that's she's going to pivot heavily to the right in time for the general campaign, and govern as a cautious centrist like her husband. She admits error as infrequently as possible and has never addressed the shortcomings of the 1990s, from acquiesence to conservative demands for decling social expenditures, to passing DOMA, and on and on. I understand that it was a tough time for liberalism, but in those tough times the Clintons always compromised and gave in (like voting to authorize Iraq II), they never passionately defended liberalism -- they won't even use the word liberal to describe themselves.

Of course Obama didn't stand up for liberalism either because he wasn't on the national stage then. But to me that's kind of the point; he's a fresh face that might be able to move us past that era of triangulation. I simply don't think that cautious and poll-driven Hillary offers that kind of chance.

Well done, Weboy. I voted for Obama, in part because of the folks Clinton surrounds herself with (notably McAuliffe). Yes, Obama's rhetoric can be frustratingly vague at times, but as Eleanor Roosevelt said, the future belongs to those who believe in their dreams. I'm just not willing to go back to 1992.

and equated a husband/wife partnership, with a father/son dynasty.

I equate the 2 completely, because they have almost the exact same effect.

You are/were a Dean supporter and you choose Hillary over Obama? What are you smoking? Dean was the guy fighting the establishment; Hillary is the establishment embodied. The natural place for 2004 Dean people to go is Obama, or was Edwards. Hillary = the John Kerry of 2008.

Finally... controversy! :)

ELP - I didn't say this explicitly, but I think there's a difference between a spouse and a blood relation. Equating the potential Hillary Clinton with the various Father/son (and Uncle/nephew) pairings we have had in American history seems questionable, at best (if Abigail Adams had been President... well, then we'd have something. Or Eleanor Roosevelt... Indeed). I don't see the "same effect" distinction you're suggesting, and I think you would need to be clearer about it to make the point.

Second, I wasn't just a Dean supporter... I worked for a number of months at the Dean New York offices as a volunteer. As I mentioned, I agree Dean challenged the establishment, the one that Clinton does, still represent. However, I think that establishment has had to evolve and Mrs. Clinton's candidacy - which has changed even in the year of her running explicitly for the nomination - has evolved as well. I don't think one vote would or will ever change the need to keep challenge "establishment" thinking, so my sense of a "spirit of Dean" lives in more than just this choice, it is in everything political that I do. Including this blog.

Best - weboy

go, weboy, go!

Really nice work. I look forward to reading more - I followed your link from Ezra Klein and I'm really glad you put it there. I plan to forward this around.

I think Clinton herself addressed the dynastic issue in the debate the other night pretty well. Why should SHE be held responsible for the Bush dynasty, after all?

Of course there's no dynastic taint to a Hilary presidency. It's just a remarkable coincidence that in a country of 300 million people a president and a potential president happen to be married to each other. Of course it couldn't be that one has profited by sharing the same name as the other--noooo, it's all on the merits. What a wonderful lesson about American democracy: "Anyone can be president . . .if they're born into one of two families."

I don't agree that she will pivot to the right. There is absolutely no reason for her to do that as 75% of the country recognizes what deep doo-doo we are in and have correlated it to what creature is in the White House. I think a more partisan message will do well against the Maverick.

Really great post. As a student in DC, I've seen a lot of support in both the Hillary and Obama camps, but Obama has really united the young voters with his general message of "change". I definitely like Hillary's policies better than Obama's and I think that people need to realize that having two Clintons is not nearly the same as having two Bushs. Especially when the later has practically destroyed our country and its credibility with the rest of the world. Check out this video. Go Hillary!

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?candidate=1

Great article. And as for dynasties, since when does a dynastic ruler have to win a series of primary races and then a general election?

Good article. I think people forget that Bush ran on a platform of change also. That didn't work out so well.

Thanks for this post. I always enjoy your political op-eds, and this one was especially good.

Leslie: hear hear!

This essay exactly described my feelings on this race - and the changes in the Democratic party since the Dean campaign - that I couldn't pin down.

I believe Obama has a tremendous future in front of him, but believe even more so it's Hillary's time now to make history.

Bravo for this, and thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

google list

Bookmark and Share