Losing Her Chance at the Presidency
Wasn’t sleeping in the White house for eight years enough for her?
When popular opinion seems to hold that Clinton was a Godsend (because this presidency coincided with the stock market boom with the computer technology decade, so the economy was good), and every news media outlet proudly proclaims that Bush is bad after ̶-;robbing” Gore from the presidency. People have wondered that after the Clintons moved to New York and since Hillary Rodham Clinton has become a senator, people have wondered if Hillary would be a shoe-in for the presidency after W’s eight years are up.
By definition, I’m a feminist — and that doesn’t mean when should have special rights, that means women should have equal rights. But as a ̶-;classic” feminist, I believe it would be a good move if a talented woman was elected president. Now, Hillary was only the first lady in the 90s, but she was involved enough with knowing about what business Bill was involved with (Presidential business, apparently not all personal business), and she was involved with health care reform, so I’d think she would know how to step into those presidential shoes. She kept a good face for the public when Bill Clinton was going through his personal ̶-;cigar” ordeal, and both Hillary and her husband Bill are even lawyers (just proving that she’s not just some dumb cookie). But I know there are a lot of people out there who wouldn’t want a woman as their President, so any woman who runs for office will really have an uphill battle. So... going on her lawyer schooling, and her eight years of semi-experience in the White house (even if it’s only as the first lady, she probably knew more about the business of the Presidency than first ladies thirty years ago), and her position as a senator in New York now... People wonder if she has the experience. But then the question then arises: does Hillary Rodham Clinton deserve it?
Some Democrats love Hillary Clinton (but then again, they lost the Presidential election when they wanted anyone and anything to get rid of Bush), but Republicans will quickly point out that as Senator, Hillary Clinton has introduced tons of relatively useless legislation that hasn't gone anywhere in the Senate (if she actually spearheaded something of value, it would show initiative, and the desire to make positive changes and the ability to lead). A writer has even released a book hoping for an all-female Presidential battle, pitting Hillary Rodham Clinton against the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who has stated she didn’t want to run for President), where race could also play a serious role in electing a new President. So where does that leave us?
It leaves me seeing television shows highlight her talking to a black group on Martin Luther King, Jr. day, saying the current government was run like a Plantation. ̶-;When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about,” is what this Democrat Senator of New York told the crowd at the Canaan BaptistChurch of Christ in Harlem.
Yes, she said that. You know, to relate to the black people she was talking to. And well, I’m not black, but I don’t know what she was talking about with that remark. Did she mean that the House of Representatives owns a plantation and the rest of the government works like slaves for the House of Representatives? Or is it that because the government is so Republican right now, did she mean that it allows the House of Representatives to act like Plantation owners, and all American civilians are slaves? Her statement is confusing, and probably offensive to black people, and I still don’t even get what she means. When I heard about her comment, and when I even heard the liberal media comment on it on television, they even thought she was off her rocker with that line.
All I could think was, ‘doesn’t she have someone to bounce off speeches to? Wouldn’t someone have pointed out that this might not be an appropriate thing to say?’ But I was told that she probably did confer with a writing staff to pull that line off, and staff writers could have even suggested that line to her. So I thought, ‘And they let her say that?’
So then I wondered that if she couldn’t figure out how to use decorum talking to a group on Martin Luther King, Jr. day, maybe she wouldn’t be appropriate for the Presidency.
And yeah, it’s not fair of me to make a judgment about a potential Presidential candidate from one bad quote, but there are a lot of people — including Democrats — talking about her potential - and the potential demise for a Democrat as president, if Hillary is their front runner. Everyone seems to agree that she would be a shoe-in for the Primaries, but she wouldn’t stand a chance in a general election. That she’s too liberal, she’s polarizing, that people aren’t ready to vote for a woman President. And if people think she’s too polarizing, consider a nationwide Quinnipiac University poll conducted on December 16, George Bush’s negatives are even worse than hers—by six points. Or consider Ronald Reagan, who in 1978 was only some b movie actor, who even played second fiddle to a monkey in a movie. But he strutted around like he knew he was good to be the President, and said the right things - and this cheesy actor managed to win two elections. In 1980, Democrats were praying Reagan would run in the Republican primary, believing he was too conservative, and he won. In this case, people say Hillary is too liberal, so she would never win. So who’s right?
And there are both sides to every story told. Because if people think she’s too liberal, well, since working in the Senate, she has done everything to look like a centrist, from supporting the death penalty to supporting the war in Iraq. She’s even sitting on the Armed Services Committee... And although she appears to have become more centrist, according to the National Journal, Hillary’s voting record has gotten increasingly liberal, as her senatorial career has worn on.
Although she could raise a ton of money for her Presidential run, and although she’d have the charming Bill Clinton helping her every step of the way free of charge, and although she can charm anyone she meets, she still seems bland and unappealing on television. She’s got a lot of uphill battles, and... And saying things like she said
Jennifer Senior of The New York Metro noted that if this were to actually happen, we’d see two strange alternating political dynasties, one composed of husband and wife, the other of father and son. She also noted in her article The Once and Future President Clinton (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/11082/): ̶-;Unlike Bush, though, who never seemed to wrestle with his political eligibility—that’s the marvelous thing about family wealth, how it lends the illusion you’ve earned your privileges—Hillary would be dogged by the same questions that dogged a whole generation of feminists about power and how it’s acquired. Sure, her candidacy would be the ultimate suffragette triumph, but it’d also send a complicated message: So this is how we get to the White House? On a flagstone path laid by our husbands? And what would Bill be, if she won? Co-president? Just as her husband promised to end welfare, as we knew it, Hillary, by definition, would have to end the office of the First Lady, as we know it. Unless Bill was content to spend the next four years selecting china patterns.”
So yea, there are a lot of questions on both sides. But a Quinnipiac polls even show she’d beat Rudolph Giuliani if he ran against her for Senate in 2006. And I don’t even know if she actually could stand a chance. All the things we’re sure would be her downfall, are things others have used to actually win the Presidency.
But then again, I read on BBC News that Hillary Rodham Clinton said to ABC’s Barbara Walters she has no intention of running for the White House herself in 2008. At this point in the game, I don’t know her intentions, or her chances.
Copyright Janet Kuypers.
All rights reserved. No material
may be reprinted without express permission.
|
