PDA

View Full Version : Hillary the Moderate in 2008?



2Sheds_Jackson
02-07-2005, 03:16 PM
Clinton Draws Speculation Over 2008 White House Bid

Monday, February 07, 2005
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — With a speech that focused on providing contraceptives to poor women but added a notable tip of the hat to abstinence education, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (search) recently drew a gale of speculation — positive and negative — over whether she is anticipating a 2008 presidential run.

"She is one of many people after the election trying to build a broader audience — reaching across differences," said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project (search), a non-profit advocacy group promoting more women leaders. "As a party leader, that's her job. Will it make her more interesting as a presidential candidate? Sure."

"If anybody is going to [make a run] it's going to be a Clinton, because they seem to reinvent the mold and change the rules as they go along, and this is probably just the beginning," countered Kimberly Morella, first vice president of the Westchester County, N.Y., Republican Women's Club.

Despite the conciliatory nature of the speech, Clinton-watchers might be a little too anxious to detect and decipher any clues the New York senator and former first lady may drop indicating that she is running for president in 2008.

For instance, Clinton colleague Sen. Barbara Boxer recently led the opposition to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. Clinton voted to confirm Rice, as did 31 other Democrats. Asked to explain Clinton's vote, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel said, "She's running for president and Barbara Boxer isn't."


“I think the context gets distorted because people try to read into her every move,” said Karen White, political director of Emily’s List (search), the leading fund-raiser for pro-choice women candidates.

In her Jan. 24 speech before the New York State Family Planning Providers (search), Clinton spoke extensively about her ongoing support to make available family planning resources, including contraceptives, to low-income women. She blamed the Bush administration for freezing funding in the 2003 and 2004 Title X (search) budgets that make this happen.

She also said she supports the delivery of the controversial “morning after pill,” emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancies within 72 hours after ***, to women who have been ******ly assaulted.

On the other hand, Clinton emphasized that “we should embrace” research that shows that teenage girls with strong religious and moral values more frequently abstain from *** and argued that continuing to educate young people about abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. She concluded that “the jury is still out” on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

Clinton's call to abortion rights advocates in her audience to try and find common issues with their anti-abortion counterparts as well as recent high-profile appearances drove press coverage afterward — and talk of a possible 2008 candidacy.

"If you heard Sen. Clinton during the election, there was no one who sounded more presidential," said Wilson, referring to the New York senator's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

"But now, after [Sen. John] Kerry's defeat, there is speculation that the voice that sounded so presidential is now seeking to be president," said Wilson, who added that the political news wires have been electrified by “HRC” sightings, quotations and maneuvers.

Not everyone is pleased by the prospect of a Clinton run in 2008. Janice Crouse, executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the policy arm of the abortion opponents Concerned Women for America (search), said Clinton won’t get away with trying to re-invent herself as a moderate, particularly on the abortion issue.

"It all has a hollow ring to it," Crouse said, noting that “a radical agenda” lurks behind Clinton's speech. “It’s just another example of Clinton political spin. She’s been good at that from the very beginning.”

Crouse said she and many others believe the pro-life, socially conservative ranks had a strong role in helping Bush win re-election in November, and now Democrats like Clinton are running scared.

“The Democratic Party realizes that it has got to come to the center if they are going to win any election in the future,” Crouse said.

Some political analysts who spoke to FOXNews.com said Clinton has been deftly preparing for a run for higher office but she’s not pandering or pursing a strategy of deception to do it. They add that since taking office in 2000, Clinton has toned down both her liberal predilections and celebrity status. She has learned to operate effectively as one of 100 senators, a world that is much less hyperbolic, more cordial and usually more cooperative than the House of Representatives.

“I think Hillary Clinton has a record on the Senate and as first lady,” said White. “I don’t think she’s had to recast herself to reach out to the rest of the country. I think there are people in both red and blue states who believe in her ability to lead.”

Ann Lewis, a long-time spokeswoman and adviser to the Clintons who is now director of communications for Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign, said the lawmaker is concentrating on winning re-election to the Senate and it would be ridiculous to talk about anything beyond that.

“I cannot be responsible for the people’s speculations,” she told FOXNews.com, calling the non-stop Clinton-watch “the equivalent of the hot stove league in baseball.”

According to press releases posted on her Web site in January, Clinton is demanding more first-responder funds for New York, increased survivor benefits for families of fallen soldiers and more funding for veterans' health care. She has also looked outward, congratulating the Iraqis on their hard-won election last month; nominating the Georgian and Ukrainian presidents for a Nobel Peace Prize; and pushing through a tax-relief bill for U.S. donors to contribute more to the Indian Ocean tsunami relief efforts.

“All the indications are that she is in the running for 2008 and you have to say she is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination,” said John Fortier, political expert for the American Enterprise Institute (search), noting that Clinton has been somewhat successful in softening her image. “She is still a polarizing figure, but coming out of the 2000 election you would have said that even more.”

Fortier cautioned, however, against assuming that Clinton is lurching to the right because of the 2004 election results.

"It was still a rather close election," said Fortier. "We don't know how things will be in four years so I wouldn't overreact."

If there's one thing that can assure Republican victory, it would be for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in '08. I hope they fail to learn from past mistakes and nominate her. No matter how much they try to polish that turd, it's still gonna shine like the left wing freak show it is. She must think the American public is not only stupid, but has no memory...you'd think that by studying the Kerry campaign, she'd know better. He tried and tried to portray himself as a centrist...but you can't cover up history that easily any more, not with Google at our disposal.

HooyahCQB
02-07-2005, 04:16 PM
Google woot

FallenAngel
02-07-2005, 05:15 PM
McCain in '08 p-)

American Patriot
02-07-2005, 05:25 PM
I hope we get a real conservative, not McCain or Ahhhhhnold

Geezah
02-07-2005, 05:37 PM
Didn't Billary try and put through a bill to ban ammo cans?

budgie
02-07-2005, 08:29 PM
Boy who are you guys gonna whine about when Hillary doesn't even win the Democratic nomination? Think about it - Rove has 'four more years' years to hone his attack dogs on Hillary's scent. She'll be even less popular by 2008.

Ratamacue
02-07-2005, 08:32 PM
I hope we get a real conservative, not McCain or Ahhhhhnold
Why? Do even more bridges need to be burned in 2008? I'd rather have someone like McCain or Colin Powell run who are moderate than another ultra-conservative like Bush.

usa320
02-07-2005, 10:16 PM
Conservatives have made alot of progress in the past few years in this country, and it would be rediculous to backpedal to the clintonian period of "who gives a damn about foreign policy" and "lets give cash to people who are just to damn lazy to work".

If the 2004 election was a sign of anything, it was a clear sign that Americans are moving towards the high moral standards, foreign policy and self-responsibility that conservatives have stressed in their agendas. Republicans only gained seats. Bush won both popular and electoral vote. His approval rating is at nearly 60%, the highest its been in about a year. Bush and the republicans will only gain even more steam as the next 4 years progress and more of his domestic reforms begin to take shape. This president has his eyes on the future. I think if he does what he plans on doing over the next 4 years, a Republican candidate will be able to win by an even wider margin in 2008.

Do i think Powell is a great candidate? Yes. Sure he is more moderate than Bush, but he still holds morals, responsibility and character in high regard. He is a good man, and i would definately vote for him. I would have no problem voting for moderate conservatives, such as Powell, mcCain, and possibly even Arnold, though i disagree with him on alot of points. But i cant forsee myself voting for a democrat, left wing or moderate at this point. The democratic party has lost touch with the people. It has lost touch with itself. The democratic party only seems to keep focused on the past. They are negative and pessimistic, and they have no vision of hope for the future of this country.


Clinton is no moderate. She is just a left winger posing as a moderate to try and grab as many voters as she can. She totally screwed over New York, and i hope people realize this.

Hillary can run, but no one will vote for her. A ahndful of lefties like her (feminists and unions) but alot of democrats despise her just as much as the Republicans do. She will be just like Kerry. People found themselves voting for kerry only because he wasnt Bush, not because they truly believe in his message. Karl Rove will crucify her. I doubt she will make it through the primaries.

Until the democrats find a candidate that truly cares about the people, and stands up strongly for his convictions, i just cannot support that party.

I think the best thing the democrats could do is put into play people like Barak Obama... he is actually dedicated to the cause.

Catering to buffoons like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are only going to make their party look worse.

budgie
02-07-2005, 10:31 PM
320 keeps hitting nails on the head today. It's true that Kerry voters didn't really see 'all that much' in him but they were instead just reacting against Bush. I can't imagine who the dems can field next time, but I don't think Hillary will win the nomination to even run for President.

I also think Powell would have made a good President - before he got up and lied for Bush over the WMD. He even said "This is Bull****" when presented with the 'evidence' he was supposed to push. However had he been the President instead of Bush that whole mess could have been avoided. Maybe McCain can restore sanity. Until then I'd still take 'Anyone But Bush'.

ZaakM433
02-08-2005, 12:44 AM
i think we are heading for a paradigm shift in america's party structure.

username
02-08-2005, 04:06 AM
No matter how much they try to polish that turd, it's still gonna shine like the left wing freak show it is.

I disagree with you on this matter. I do not see the US Democratic party as being left wing. They are left wing compared to the democrats but in the same way you could argue that Chairman Mao is right wing compared to Stalin.

The following link support's my claim that the US Democratic Party is not a proper left-wing party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party


Of the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, though its politics are not as consistently leftist as the traditional social democratic and labor parties in much of the rest of the world.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-08-2005, 09:52 AM
No matter how much they try to polish that turd, it's still gonna shine like the left wing freak show it is.

I disagree with you on this matter. I do not see the US Democratic party as being left wing. They are left wing compared to the democrats but in the same way you could argue that Chairman Mao is right wing compared to Stalin.

The following link support's my claim that the US Democratic Party is not a proper left-wing party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party


Of the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, though its politics are not as consistently leftist as the traditional social democratic and labor parties in much of the rest of the world.

Well, fair enough, but that just proves my point...that of the two parties we have to choose from in the US, the Democrat party is our left wing party. It is useless to compare apples & oranges - you can't apply left & right wing across international borders with uniform results - because the "center" shifts. But there is no question which of the two US parties is left wing. We don't live somewhere else, and can't look at the Democrats as centrist - if we did, they'd be in the White House & control both houses of Congress right now. Instead, they're out (and I think the Republicans are still busy filling out "thank you" cards to the last Clinton administration for making it all possible).

You have to remember that parties are a grouping of constituents. The constituent groups have policies ranging from centrist to extreme left or right. The party's job is to get candidates elected, and so it grooms nominees to be electable. But behind them are vast numbers of radical agendas - and in the case of the Democrats there is the extreme left. The loony left in the States - from Berkeley to Cambridge are just as leftist as the leftist of the left in any nation. And there's no chance any of the radical left here would ever vote Republican.

Back to Hillary (formerly well to the left, now grooming herself as a centrist)- don't forget that this is politics, and politics is a game. Powerful people owe the Clintons, and the Clintons have leverage over them. Don't think that if Hillary decides to give it a shot, that she won't pick up endorsement after endorsement. And of course there's all that money. The Democratic party wasn't born yesterday, and yet they backed an obviously flawed candidate like Kerry - they could just as easily shoot themselves in the foot again with Hillary.

I guess my point is that I'd love for them to nominate her. To the average person, even to our left leaning members here - it's obvious that she has no chance. But she doesn't think that. The Democrats don't think that - if they did, there'd be none of this talk going on. It's obvious that they still haven't "gotten it". They're still bitching about how somehow they didn't lose, Bush just stole the election somehow. Hell, she wouldn't even need to win the nomination, it would be entertaining enough just to see that shrill harpy desperately reshaping herself for a primary run. She'd be all in a tizzy, trying so hard to grab that brass ring - she'll be willing to do and say anything to get it. It would be like Kerry on nitrous...he was fun enough to wach as he pathetically tried to repackage his 20 years in the Senate, tried to dress and talk a different way for the cameras - what a hoot. I can see it now, Hilly baking cookies for her man, Hilly with no more pant suits, only dresses or skirts, Hilly going duck hunting. :lol:

usa320
02-08-2005, 12:56 PM
shes gonna make the same mistake kerry made... try and play off as a centrist, while her voting record is pretty much in left field...

hopefully people will be able to see through the bull****.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-08-2005, 02:47 PM
Well, as has been said...there's a long road between here and there. It just struck me as funny that it's even being considered. Talk about not getting the message. I'd have thought her name would be greeted with a polite "thanks but no thanks" from the DNC.

That raises a point - I think the DNC has gone pretty well to the left of the rank & file Democrats. This would explain their constant preoccupation with these very liberal types. Think of what would have happened if they'd fielded a real centrist, with a voting record to prove it. It's almost as if the DNC has hijacked the party. Maybe the rank & file need to rise up and make them pick somebody who's not a born election loser. Or...3rd party anyone?