Advice to HRC: A Little Less Talk and A lot More Action
As I said, while I'm travelling on my Miracle Quest, some of my buddies and commenters will be doing guest blogs in between my sporadic updates. Here is one from Sgt. Joe Duran.
Every morning, my fellow Marines and I get together for our daily bull sessions. The McLaughlin Group, The Situation, and ESPN's Mike and Mike have nothing on us. Topics include (but aren't limited to) fantasy football, NASCAR, and the politics of the day. And if things ever get quiet, mention one name and you will get strong opinions and a conversation that will continue through chow. And it's not Jeff Gordon or Dale Earnhardt Jr.. No, today, right after our takes on the Nextel Cup Chase, the Saints 2-and-Oh! record, and the Pope's recent comments, I thought I would stir the pot a little more and mention Hillary Clinton's primary win from a week ago. Harvick team may or may not be letting a little air out of his tires, the Saints may or may not be for real, and the Pope may or may not be making us miss John Paul II, but one thing is for certain, the Marines in my shop are passionate about service, NASCAR, football, and their opinions on Hillary.
Now don't get me wrong. I like the lady. I like strong women. They don't initmidate me and whether I agree or disagree with them, I have much respect for folks that can make it in the dog-eat-dog of American politics, regardless of sex or any other signifier. And she obviously has been doing something right to get to where she is now. So what is her problem?
We Feel It
The distrust for her in our Marine bull sessions and apparently many other places (according to the recent polls) is felt at the gut level. It doesn't matter that we've heard that she is on the Armed Services Committee. It doesn't matter that we've seen that she visits her local base often or makes trips to see the troops overseas. It doesn't even matter that we know that she is hawkish on the war. We feel that she is not trustworthy. We feel that she is a political opportunist. It may not be fair to Ms. Clinton, and my little USMC bull session may be short on facts, but what we lack in political knowledge we make up in passionate feelings about our beliefs be it NASCAR, football, or politics. You can say we are "hard corps". Its a passion Ms Clinton would be wise to emulate.
Let Me Count The Ways
#1. She is a woman, but not the "right kind". As much as people say they will vote for a woman when asked by a pollster, they will not stick to it at the moment of truth. They answer that way so as not to appear sexist. Its human nature. Because of how she comes across, she gets stuck with all the stereotypical negatives of womanhood, but none of the positives. She is cold, not stoic. She is shrill, not passionate. She is calculating, not practical. She is slick, not persuasive.
#2. She is not trusted. We feel that she will do and say anything to get elected. How do we know that? Why she stuck with Bill - that's why! What woman in her right mind would stay with a man like that? Unless she wants something of course. A white Southern Baptist female friend of mine, has remarked in the past that Hillary "is not representative of women"...she thinks like a man: cold and calculating." Hillary is not the "stand by your man" type, therefore she has to be something else, and it's not good.
#3. She thinks she's smarter than everyone else. She is the anti-GWB. Maybe not in policy, but in persona. Everything they love about him is what she is not. Where he is humble, she is proud. Where he is common spoken, she's is high falutin. She's the girl that raised her hand in class for every question, had every answer, and asked the question that kept everyone after class. GWB was the guy that pulled the fire alarm to get out of class. On a very visceral level we liked that guy, and we didn't like the class-kiss-up. She ruined the curve. He's the reason why we had the curve in the first place.
#4. She's all talk and complaining. She is a Senator. with a voting record that comes along with it. Can you say "easy target"? (see Kerry, Dole etc.) Exectives have the upper hand. They make sure the trains run on time. They balance budgets.She is woman that argues and complains, alot. And most guys can't handle that on a gut level. As one of my favorite Toby Keith songs go "A Little Less Talk and Alot More Action" http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/toby-keith/138081.html is what we need. Senators don't have that rep.
There's more that I know political readers of this blog have a handle on: high negatives this early in the game, a tepid base due to her move to the center on some issues, and other things that politicaly aware folks know about. But in addition to these reasons, these are the "Gut Reasons" that people take with them into the polls. It doesn't mean she can't recover. She has some of the best in the business who are working her campaign and on her staff and she is adept at turning around criticisms and pointing them back at her opponents. She is still highly intelligent and highly capable, and she has not risen this far based only on us feeling sorry for her being cheated on.
A Little Less Talk and A lot More Action
But my money is against her and I peeled my Clinton/Edwards sticker off my pickup truck a few months ago. (I wanted to keep the Edwards half up but it was not happening). I want someone who is passionate and feels it to her very core and is willing to put her political neck on the line for what she loves, "A Little Less Talk and Alot More Action" woman, not the "it's My Party and I'll cry if I want to" woman. Unfortunately, "The Party" may have other ideas and it'll be us who are left crying in '08. I can feel it to my core.
Comments (15)
Yeah, I've hollered about this to just about everybody I know. Terrifies me just thinking about yet another way Dems can screw this deal up.
I do _like_ her, I guess; smart, ambitious, etc. But she does seem too calculated on Iraq, and it's going to come back to kill her in a general election for the presidency.
In a nutshell, this is my case for your same point:
1. Everybody who voted for Bush will vote against Hillary. EVERYBODY. Without exception. Especially if--as I've been ranting about for months now--the Republicans are smart enough (and they are) to end up with a nominee who seems like a smarter and somewhat more moderate version of Bush. (Off the subject a bit, but basically, Dems are still relying too much on the Evil Screw-Up Republican strategy to get elected. As in, "Elect us because the other guys lie, got us into a bad war, and screwed everything up." What they don't seem to realize is, for a very large minority of the electorate--certainly enough to be the deciding bloc--a better Republican is at least as good a solution as a Democrat. Watch the midterms; that's how all Republicans in competitive races are positioning themselves. Democrats have got to make a better case to the nation for their entire way of governing, what they believe about everything across the board, and at the same time make the case that this nation has suffered huge losses and is far less safe for the foreseeable future than we ever have been.)
2. Some of the people who voted for Kerry last time around will vote for a moderate Republican over Hillary.
3. If you thought Republican turnout last time was something, with Kerry as the opposition, just wait until Hillary's the Democratic candidate. It'll pass that record turnout like it's sitting still, and all of it will be anti-Hillary.
I'm not making an argument that she shouldn't be president, although frankly I'd prefer somebody who's seen Iraq for what it is from the beginning (Senator Feingold, I'm open for dinner anytime next week). I'm saying that there is no way--NO way--the numbers can work out, unless stuff happens between now and '08 that is so tragic for the country that people will elect _any_ non-Republican alternative.
And I don't think we should wish for something like that. Like any good basketball coach (I used to do a little of that myself), you prepare for the toughest team you'll face, rather than the easiest. You don't do things that will win only if all the circumstances line up your way; you figure out what will beat their toughest lineup and their best level of play, and that's how you prepare. If circumstances aren't that tough for you once the thing starts, well, fine; it'll be easier than you think. But to work on methods and techniques and strategies that succeed only against weakness is competitive suicide.
Point is, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Hillary and anyone could beat, say, a McCain/Hagel ticket. It would be a landslide, even after years of Republican lying, mistakes, corruption, a decline in our status worldwide, etc. It would be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Why is anyone even considering it? Have Democrats not lost enough elections yet, that we still think about who would be a "pioneer" or a "great thing for America" just by running at all? Are we ready to concede defeat again, and make a point merely by running somebody? If so, the party has become useless to the nation.
Posted by: steve finley on September 20, 2006 22:03
Yeah, I've hollered about this to just about everybody I know. Terrifies me just thinking about yet another way Dems can screw this deal up.
I do _like_ her, I guess; smart, ambitious, etc. But she does seem too calculated on Iraq, and it's going to come back to kill her in a general election for the presidency.
In a nutshell, this is my case for your same point:
1. Everybody who voted for Bush will vote against Hillary. EVERYBODY. Without exception. Especially if--as I've been ranting about for months now--the Republicans are smart enough (and they are) to end up with a nominee who seems like a smarter and somewhat more moderate version of Bush. (Off the subject a bit, but basically, Dems are still relying too much on the Evil Screw-Up Republican strategy to get elected. As in, "Elect us because the other guys lie, got us into a bad war, and screwed everything up." What they don't seem to realize is, for a very large minority of the electorate--certainly enough to be the deciding bloc--a better Republican is at least as good a solution as a Democrat. Watch the midterms; that's how all Republicans in competitive races are positioning themselves. Democrats have got to make a better case to the nation for their entire way of governing, what they believe about everything across the board, and at the same time make the case that this nation has suffered huge losses and is far less safe for the foreseeable future than we ever have been.)
2. Some of the people who voted for Kerry last time around will vote for a moderate Republican over Hillary.
3. If you thought Republican turnout last time was something, with Kerry as the opposition, just wait until Hillary's the Democratic candidate. It'll pass that record turnout like it's sitting still, and all of it will be anti-Hillary.
I'm not making an argument that she shouldn't be president, although frankly I'd prefer somebody who's seen Iraq for what it is from the beginning (Senator Feingold, I'm open for dinner anytime next week). I'm saying that there is no way--NO way--the numbers can work out, unless stuff happens between now and '08 that is so tragic for the country that people will elect _any_ non-Republican alternative.
And I don't think we should wish for something like that. Like any good basketball coach (I used to do a little of that myself), you prepare for the toughest team you'll face, rather than the easiest. You don't do things that will win only if all the circumstances line up your way; you figure out what will beat their toughest lineup and their best level of play, and that's how you prepare. If circumstances aren't that tough for you once the thing starts, well, fine; it'll be easier than you think. But to work on methods and techniques and strategies that succeed only against weakness is competitive suicide.
Point is, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Hillary and anyone could beat, say, a McCain/Hagel ticket. It would be a landslide, even after years of Republican lying, mistakes, corruption, a decline in our status worldwide, etc. It would be defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Why is anyone even considering it? Have Democrats not lost enough elections yet, that we still think about who would be a "pioneer" or a "great thing for America" just by running at all? Are we ready to concede defeat again, and make a point merely by running somebody? If so, the party has become useless to the nation.
Posted by: steve finley on September 20, 2006 22:06
Damn, sorry...my crappy prehistoric dial-up indicated a failed send on that comment, so I went back, pasted saved material in and re-sent. Sorry for the repeat. I gotta join this century sometime.
Posted by: steve finley on September 20, 2006 22:09
Sorry, one more thing: Why peel away Kerry from the bumper sticker?
OK, I'm a hypocrite; I had to pull the whole sticker off my car not too many weeks after the election, after being egged and milk-shaked and coked enough times...in Lubbock Freakin' Texas. So I guess I shouldn't even be asking.
And I reeeallly like Edwards too, except that I want to mess up his hair. It really makes me mad. But man, do I like him.
But the point is, hasn't Kerry turned out right about, you know, EVERYTHING? From the escalating costs of the war, to how things were going to end up, to our down-spiraling reputation in the world, to about a hundred other things?
Ouch.
Sometimes I wonder if there's any hope left in a country where people can't figure out why all that "flip-flop" crap was utter nonsense; where the voting public seems to buy off, a little, on the notion that a war hero is a traitor, and a draft-dodging coward is an uber-manly leader of troops; where the best guy in the race is now seen as a permanent loser, basically unfit to run again; and where a different Democratic candidate's run gets poleaxed because he--GASP!--hollered at a campaign rally, in a way that was unnaturally amplified to people seeing it on the tube.
It's enough to depress a guy.
Flavia, we need a miracle...now... ;-)
Posted by: steve finley on September 20, 2006 22:22
Pleeeeeaaaasssseeeee, I hope and pray for a Hillary Clinton nomination. Nothing will get me, my friends, my neighbors, and my family out to the polls than to vote against a woman Democrat - a Clinton! Do you remember her thick glasses back in the 60's? Can't you people pick anyone better? Please don't. Please.
Posted by: Right Talk on September 21, 2006 09:19
Gore has turned out right on many things as well. Read his Democratic Speech at the 2000 conventions. And another commenter had mentioned that he was all about Bin Laden, if we would have elected him. Another Gore/Clinton ticket? Remember, she will no doubt utilize all the carrots in her grocery cart to make us think twice about her. She may placate the left with a Feingold outreach etc. Or she may stay in the middle with Clark....or...maybe go the "Fight Poverty" route with Edwards... Why can't a woman make up her mind!?
Posted by: maximus on September 21, 2006 09:35
She has voted against a Border Patrol check point on I-87, a direct route from Canada to new York. The checkpoint is responsible for many apprehensions of illegal aliens and a lot of drugs. Yet, due to a few vehicle accidents (which resulted in some deaths) she and Schummer want it shut down. Oh, so does the smugglers (both people and rug types.) You see, there are a lot of big rig trucks that drive that highway. They drive waaay too fast and do not pay attention (the crashes are a a direct result of driver error.) There are some 2 miles of signs warning drivers to slow down. The signs bring you from 65 MPH to 30 and slower until you come to a complete stop. heck, they even have a radar equiped sign that tells you how fast you are driving and to slow down if it is above 35.
Yet, these two senators have not voted to close any of the toll booths along New York's highways. Huh? Yeah, ever been to a tool Booth before? they have maybe 3 signs telling you to slow down for a toll booth ahead. Hmm?
Hey, Steve Finley, big fan of yours when you were on the Padres. :0 LOL.
Sgt. Duran, thanks for your service. tell your Marine brothers the same. yeah, even the Hollywood ones. :) keep your heads down.
Posted by: Onefrozen Migra on September 21, 2006 11:51
I hope she tries too. And Liebermann, if only to show the rest of the country that Dems stand by are convictions when we dump them in the primaries (like we did to Joe). We do need to go after the middle voters. They make up the vast majority, but with red meat like Hillary, I am sure it will be base versus base again, and with those political machines called evangelical churchs' (they should be taxed!) getting out the vote and the money for the R's at the mere mention of her name, I don't think she is the way to go...maybe Warner, or Feingold. Someone without all the baggage.
Posted by: maximus on September 21, 2006 11:52
OneFrozenMigra-
Do you think she would win the primary? I thought she wanted to do something about the immigration problem- tougher than most out there. According to Michale Savage.
Posted by: Nicholson on September 21, 2006 12:05
Well, I never thought New York would have voted her in, period. I mean, she didn't even know the METS were a New York team. he knew nothing of New York. They purchased their house and just moved in calling themselves New Yorkers, Huh?
I would have voted for her had she stuck with a tough immigration stance. heck, i would even vote for Kerry, well, let's not get carried away, that guy would vote for tough Immigration control before he voted against it. :)
The DEMs need to stand for something, period. Yet, they just use the bashing of Bush and what the current administartion is doing. But, aren't they a part of the government? Shouldn't they stand up and tell us what they think we should do? Don't they owe that to their home states, the rest of America?
Yeah, I was hoping the other guy would have won. I think it was Spencer. By closing (or trying to close) the I-87 checkpoint, she is not taking a tough stand on Immigration or National security, IMHO.
Posted by: Onefrozen Migra on September 21, 2006 12:12
I wonder if there was more to why they didnt do the checkpoint at that particular spot than just deaths. I wonder if it slowed down industry or trucks, like how much influence did they have on her vote. I think that is a political error on her part. She and Terry McCauliffe should start fleshing out a way to be super tough on immigration. I say a moratorium for 4 years to help us get our ship in order. If she was tough, I think she would do well nation wide. I mean 80% of the Americans want tough action - now. I think that if she were to adopt that stance (the Clintons are the master triangulators - they are like the Wal-Mart of American Issues - something for everyone! But I have to hand it to them -they do deliver on what they promise. But if she were to initiate some major and I mean major steps to defend the borders, I think she may have a chance.
Posted by: Nicholson on September 21, 2006 12:26
Interesting perspective. I agree with your Hillary characterization for the most part, although I'm not sure exactly how much personality and character really counts these days when the rubber meets the road in the voting booth. Fundraising, name recognition, party seniority, nostalgia for the Bill Clinton 90's, a clear strategy in Iraq/WoT v. her opponents - I could see all these factors helping Hillary to overcome any persona deficiencies. It'll be a fascinating race to follow that's for sure.
Posted by: JSM on September 21, 2006 12:32
I think so too.
The addition of Terry McCauliffe to her cause (did he ever really leave the Clintons?) is a step in the "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" direction. I heard that song yesterday morning and I can remember the electricity of hope we all felt on election night back in '92. Her name came up during dinner conversation last night and my friend said that she honestly believes that Hillary truly loves her husband, is brilliant in her own right, and has a good shot. She likes her. But I'm a harder sell - I'm picky when it comes to dates and political candidates. It's either there or it isn't and for Hillary - I'm just not that into her. For now.
She needs to show us more. She does have time. It will be interesting to see.
Posted by: Joe on September 21, 2006 12:50
yeah, not sure what he means by strong woman. but who really knows if someone is strong or not if you dont know them. some say bush is strong, but one could argue one way or the other. some could argue that strong means different things to different people. in bushes case Clinton (Bill) has called him strong and wrong.
My question is this : how do you know why she stayed with him. Bush senior cheated on barbara, and babrbara stayed with him. maybe because she has designs on power and his family. who knows.
and bush was a drinker and drug abuser until 30's. why did laura stay with him..?
stupid questions maybe. all deserve answers.
but strong is what you beleive it to be, her intentions is what people perceive them to be. for bushes and clintons.
Posted by: ben on September 26, 2006 16:01
Does Hillary have to win and then screw everything up for people to realize that more government is not better?
Posted by: jlb on January 30, 2008 22:03