Hillary's too vane to be president (Arianna Huffington/LAT)

Hillary's too vane to be president
It didn't matter much that Sen. Clinton is a fickle leader -- until Obama came along.
By Arianna Huffington, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON is the editor of huffingtonpost.com.
December 7, 2006


WHILE THE country is urgently engaged in finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, Hillary Rodham Clinton is busy holding private dinners for key Democrats from primary states and remaining curiously silent on the subject of Iraq. Indeed, as she has transformed herself over the last few years from first lady to presumptive presidential front-runner, the profile that has emerged is that of a politician more comfortable following than leading.

There are politicians with great instincts as leaders — those who recognize not just the crises directly in front of them but those around the corner as well. (And these leadership instincts come from the gut, not from a multitude of consultants, strategists and pollsters.) And then there are politicians with great instincts as followers — those who are the first to stick their fingers in the air and notice even the slightest shift in the wind of popular opinion.

Clinton is in the latter category: She is the quintessential political weather vane.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-huffington7dec07,0,3387578.story?coll=la-home-commentary

he would not say or do anything to show support for the anti-lynching bill.

He refused to racially de-segregate the military.

He did nothing to fight the federal LAW that made it legal to fire the a woman who worked for the federal government if her husband also did to free up jobs for men.

Etc.
Political expediency is part of the game.

Just because Hoover was a disaster will not make political expediency right.

Moreover I don't think that that those things had much to do with FDR's victory. The Great Depression overshadowed everything.

I have my beef with Hillary - important stuff.
Stupid criticism of her, however still irks me.

It is stupid, sexist criticism. They chat about Pelosi's wardrobe... now Hillary is "vane". I never heard anyone chat about how Frist dresses as an undertaker.

I have a beef with political dynasties and Hillary sometimes. But to criticize her a vane is superficial nonsense.

:shrug:

same could be said for you, Arianna. :)

when some females, no matter how exalted, descend to 'being
bitchy and petty"?

Ariana, is this the REAL YOU?

I am not really crazy about the idea of Hillary being the first
female Pres, although the female in me would love the idea of a Woman
in the White House. On second thought, Bill will be there too, so
maybe it would not be too bad. Then, for sure Ariana would blow a
gasket, since she HATES the Big Dawg more than Hil.

Imagine all that 'nasal keening'.......

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Which liberal and progressive groups support her? It seems without the support of those two groups she has NO chance.

http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Look at her ratings.

Arianna the woman who re-invented herself so many times and was unsuccessful trying to run for governor of California, not to mention she is about as vain as they come.

she certainly is as qualified as anyone else running and in some ways more qualified. I hope you didn't mean because Hillary is a woman.

policymaking, she has no foresight, no analitical skill and no original ideas which actually make sense.
I bet if her name was not Clinton she would not be the front runner now. You could see the same phenomenon with Bush in 2000 and it's as stupid as it gets.

The only one occasion when she tried to lead she actually helped the Repukes not the Dems, Clinton was foolish to listen to her instead of Gore and Hillarycare became the single biggest disaster of the Clinton years. Just like Iraq it was easily avoidable.

This sums it up. See why this person shouldn't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate let alone actually become president:



Either she just lost it completely or she will say anything and do anything to "control her image" -- no matter how insane what she says or does is. I mean frankly, what would you say if Cheney had said this especially in Feb 2005?

No, I don't care about Hillary's gender. That is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, however, many voters seem to support her for because she is a woman. They want the first female president, as if that itself would be a good thing. And that after the disasters of the last 6 years. Gender doesn't solve anything. Never did and never will. Ideas solve problems, ideas which are rooted in reality and explore viable options within reality. When it comes to that task Hillary is at the bottom of the list. She becomes nothing more than just another overblown celebrity pol.

failure when it never came about. Actually, healthcare and what Hillary was proposing is exactly what this country needs. The healthcare system in this country is a complete failure and millions of Americans are without it. As for what Hillary Clinton said in Feb. 2005 about Iraq is probably exactly what Cheney had to say in Feb. 2005 and is still saying. Unfortunately, many people supported every man who ran for president since 1789, as if that itself is a good thing, after all it gave us G.W. Bush. I would be interested to hear who your choice for president in 2008 is, please let me know.

First it was a bad plan. Extermely costly when we still had record deficit. Extermely complicated, which neither Bill nor Hillary could explain to the public. Noone knows whether it would have even worked if everything had been implemented as it was designed by Hillary's panel. It's not enough to say universal health care. The devil is in the details, as always.

Second it had no chance to pass but at the same time gave a nuclear weapon to the Repukes which they sure used in 1994.
Hillarycare was one of the biggest reasons why Clinton was perceived as a liberal back then, out-of-touch with mainstream America. Ask Clinton about that today. Ask him why he hired Dick Morris after the 1994 Repuke revolution to find out how he could change his image from a leftist to a centrist. And ask him why he never proposed government-run UC again.

King: What was your biggest mistake in office:

President Clinton: "But certainly one of the biggest mistakes I made was continuing to push in the first two years of my presidency to pass healthcare reform when it was obvious that the Republicans had made a decision that no healthcare reform would pass, or at least the leadership had. If instead I had done what my instincts should have told me to do and pass welfare reform first and then said after the election we'll try to get a bipartisan healthcare reform bill through, we might not have lost the Congress. And that might have been a good thing. You know, I think that was a significant mistake."

He is not saying healthcare reform is a mistake, it was the Republicans making a decision that no healthcare reform would pass, or at least the leadership had. You know darn well the Republicans were never going to pass healthcare reform. He is saying his timing was wrong. You should want healthcare reform, it is sorely needed in this country.

So, in your opinion President Clinton was wrong when he was being seen as a liberal? What is wrong with being a liberal?

Again, you didn't answer my question about your choice for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008?

I said that Hillarycare was a mistake. With everything that meant: including timing and the nature of the plan along with the way it was presented.

The phrase "healthcare reform" does not explain what kind of plan Hillary promoted.
You can reform health care in many different ways. The way Hillary approached it was wrong, both in terms of policy and politics. The US will not have government-run universal health care in the foreseeable future because this is not a country where social democracy is a popular philosophy. This is not Sweden and not Canada. This is a much more paranoid country which, frankly, is still haunted by the picture of the Red Army invading the US and forcing everyone to follow communism.

The way Hillary wanted to do it made Clinton and the Dems look liberal, out of touch with mainstream America, which is exactly what the Repukes exploited in 1994.

Didn't Hillary understand that her plan cannot pass? What was she thinking?

What is wrong with being a liberal?

Again, ask Clinton about that. Unless you think Halperin lies Clinton pretty much wanted to avoid of being labeled as a liberal as he knew that's a political loser.
And that actually is consistent with his post-1994 behavoir and triangulation.


Again, you didn't answer my question about your choice for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008?

I did. You can find it under the 'welcome' post.

So here it is copied from there


Gore would be the best but Clark would the second best.
Obama Edwards would be OK.
Vilsack, Bayh, Biden -- I don't know.

The worst among those whom I do know would be Hillary. She is an absolute disgrace.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3006368&mesg_id=3006945

was his and Hillary's attempt to push principle on one of America's biggest failings - lack of healthcare for tens of millions - against the political danger of doing so. Their committment to doing the right thing, and their willingness to brave the political pitfalls in doing so, are the hooks you hang your Billary bashing on?

Oh my. How does that comport with you and the rest of the high-horse Hillary bashers busily speaking out the other sides of your mouths - about what craven, 'unprincipled' triangulators the Clinton's are, in your very next breath. You should get your stories straight.

As to the war in Iraq, Hillary has been making the right moves at every turn. Those moves on the minefield of phony right-wing patriotism and strident fearmongering, backed up aggressively by the 'mainstream' media whores, are a major reason why I see Hillary as the best politician on our side going into 2008. Much like her attempt to breach the healthcare insurance forces back in 1993 show me how she's up for the fights for progressive values and willing to pay the costs where it counts.

In short, from the buttons you keep trying to push, what I see are principled people willing to fight, and with the learned and earned political chops to do so against the venal right and the mainstream banality that lickspittles their every spin.

And what I have come to increasingly see from the Hillary bashers is little more than baseless, contentless and now contradictory rancor. The more I see of your attacks, the more comfortable I become that Hillary is indeed the best candidate for 2008.

Neither Bill nor Hill could explain how that plan would have worked in the real world. It was a maze and would have been extermely costly and we simply didn't have the money for it, especially not when we had a record deficit.

Government-run universal health care is not good policy and it will not happen in the US in the foreseeable future.


Oh my. How does that comport with you and the rest of the high-horse Hillary bashers busily speaking out the other sides of your mouths - about what craven, 'unprincipled' triangulators the Clinton's are, in your very next breath.

Gee, as if Clinton had not changed after 1994.
I'm not a liberal and I don't have much problem with triangulation per se until it leads to good policies.
I have a bunch of problems with Hillary's disgusting self-serving and stupid maneuvers aroung the Iraq issue and her lack of ability to see further than her nose.

You should get your stories straight.

I got it straight but apparently you confuse me with someone. I don't oppose centrism. I oppose political opportunism
especially when it leads to bad policies.

As to the war in Iraq, Hillary has been making the right moves at every turn. Those moves on the minefield of phony right-wing patriotism and strident fearmongering, backed up aggressively by the 'mainstream' media whores, are a major reason why I see Hillary as the best politician on our side going into 2008.

She has been disgraceful on this issue. There is no better word for it.

Much like her attempt to breach the healthcare insurance forces back in 1993 show me how she's up for the fights for progressive values and willing to pay the costs where it counts.

She was not willing to pay the cost where it counts. She believed that voting for the war and supporting it no matter what will make her look "strong on defense". That's all she cared about. Her image. Where is the sacrifice in that? She is a coward.

And what I have come to increasingly see from the Hillary bashers is little more than baseless, contentless and now contradictory rancor.

I didn't contradict myself. My problem with Hillary is rather simple: Iraq, opportunism, lack of policymaking skills.


The more I see of your attacks, the more comfortable I become that Hillary is indeed the best candidate for 2008.


If you like political opportunism, myopia and getting a Republican Congress again then sure she is the best candidate.

"Disgusting", "self-serving", "stupid", "disgraceful", "coward", etc, etc etc. And that's just in a few lines of your pathetic excuse for a reasonable post. Look to the telephone pole in your own eye, vogon. Tirades are your territory.

And no, I'm not confusing you with anyone. You've been badmouthing the triangulating, lack-of-principle politics of the Clintons, then in the very next breath getting all pissy about ... them not triangulating universal healthcare, instead sticking to principle. So yes, you do contradict yourself pretty clearly, notwithstanding you putting up 'problems' you have with Hillary that don't contradict each other as proof otherwise. The fact that you don't acknowlege your blatant hypocrisy demonstrates the level of dishonesty we've come to expect from Hillary bashers. Which is fine by me, btw.

You obviously don't believe in Universal Health Care. You're wrong, but that's your ideological prerogative. What's dishonest is making broad claims against the Clinton's integrity, then purposefully ignoring a rather stark refutation of that contrived position because you don't like the issue it is based on.

Hillary has been spot-on throughout the entire Iraq debacle. That you can't see it as anything more than disgraceful shows how very little you understand the politics of the situation. Thankfully, for Democrats everywhere, Hillary and her team do. And that's what counts.

I have no problem with centrism I am a centrist myself.

As I said Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 because he was perceived as a liberal and that happened mostly because of Hillary's stupid health care push.

And it's not enough to stand on some kind of principle, anyway. Your proposal has to make sense, OK?
If it doesn't I don't care about your principle. It has to be 1+1=2 or you are just another sloppy pol.
Did Hillarycare follow the principle of 1+1=2? No, it didn't. Which is why it was bad policy.

them not triangulating universal healthcare, , instead sticking to principle

I didn't say anything like that. You put words in my mouth.
I said it was stupid policy and stupid politics at the same time.
I do not support government run health care. And especially not one which not even Hillary could explain how it would work. Her proposal was a mess and one which we couldn't have funded without a large tax increase.

The fact that you don't acknowlege your blatant hypocrisy demonstrates the level of dishonesty we've come to expect from Hillary bashers.

There is no hypocrisy on my part you created a phoney contradiction based on your general opinion about those who oppose Hillary.

Hillary has been spot-on throughout the entire Iraq debacle.

She has been spot-on about what?
The resolution?
That the insurgency was failing?
That the Clinton and Bush administation thought the same about the the Iraq intel?

Hillary was dead wrong in 2002 in 2005 and she is still dead wrong. She is just too coward to admit it. It's that simple.

That you can't see it as anything more than disgraceful shows how very little you understand the politics of the situation.

Now that says everything. The "politics of the situation" is the only one thing Hillary cared about. That's precisely the problem. She was shortsighted and opportunist.
She wouldn't have had anything to lose in New York itself if she had voted against the IWR. You can't even justify her vote on that basis. It was all about her national ambitions and her image as a hawk.

Otherwise how do you explain her vote when you can see her telling her donor that she opposes the war but noone would vote for a woman is she is perceived as "weak on defense".

You ignore Hillary's own words and tries to justify her actions with pure political opportunism.


Thankfully, for Democrats everywhere, Hillary and her team do. And that's what counts.

If you like political opportunism and myopia then sure that's what counts.
If you like good policymaking then that's not what counts. There's the problem with you and other Hillary appologists.
You don't care about anything but politics. The package not the substance.

What is your substantial exuse? One that doesn't talk about some vague "political situation" but
about the merits of her claims like this one:




Tell me what the hell was spot-on about this?

another shallow "Hillary is so wonderful" emotional tirade.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2876437#2876878

A lot of folks wanted to see her fall flat on her face were impressed.

She also showed a good 'plays well with others' capacity that no one knew she had.

She's not my first, or second choice for nominee, but she has just as much right to look in the mirror and see a president as do the other 99 in the Senate.

name one thing which was her original idea, something noone else was talking about at the time. Something that was politically risky, something bold.
One "break out of the pack" moment. There is none.

You can play the game in Washington with small things so that you will be seen as a middle-of-the-road cooperator. And usually such whisy-washy individuals get good reviews in the Beltway.
But that's not what makes someone a leader.

Gore was doing that as well in the 70s and 80s. He was dealing with small, non controversial issues on a bipartisan basis. Safe politics. But he had three issues where he was unlike anyone else where he clearly stood out and led regardless whether the voters cared about it or not (and of course they didn't) regardless of whether it would improve his image or not: arms control, global warming and internetworking. Hillary doesn't have anything like that on her resume. When it comes to the big issues all she has is an extermely stupid vote she cast simply because she wanted to look "hawkish".

but she has just as much right to look in the mirror and see a president as do the other 99 in the Senate.

Well that doesn't say much.

But come on. That California election was a joke and Arianna knew she had no chance to win. She wanted to make a statement not to run a serious campaign.
It was not the same what Hillary is doing now. And governor is one thing. President is another.

Your disdain/jealousy/envy of Hillary Clinton is going to be the ruination of your mentality. You're spending way too much time belly aching about Hillary or Bill. It's getting boring Arianna. Why don't you go back to the republican party? weren't you much happier there? How childish!!
:boring: :boring: :boring: :shrug: :shrug:

with an original idea. Name one ocassion when she led. Name one moment when she was ahead of the curve.

edgr

her alone on Iraq.

Except leftists like Arianna but she is not the MSM.

If Gore or Kerry tried to play this game they would be crucified on Late Edition and This Week and Tweety and
Scarborough and Meet the Press and in the NYT and the WaPo and USA Today, you name it. But Hillary? Oh she is different. If she does it it is called "politically savvy".

that's news to me...

Again, far from a Hillary supporter, but that's freeperish talk.

And to what direction?

She is in fact a follower. That's her record. You don't need to be a freeper to see that.

Sir or Madame?

Sorry, I have no way of knowing, your profile is disabled.

"WHILE THE country is urgently engaged in finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq, Hillary Rodham Clinton is busy holding private dinners for key Democrats from primary states and remaining curiously silent on the subject of Iraq."

She's running for President by courting the powers (key Democrats), rather than by leading on Iraq, or any other issue. Her fundraising advantages may decide the primary, regardless of what rank and file Democrats want. The same way she was frigging hand-picked to be Senator for a state she never lived in. Government of the people and by the people indeed. NOT.

that the invasion was a mistake?




Did she make the case in 2002 that the resolution would give too much power to Bush?


No. Kerry, Edwards had the guts to admit that they were wrong to support Bush in 2002. But Hillary (along with her husband) tries to spin her way out of it. Oh the vote was actually not a vote for war. It was a vote for "leverage".
It was about the inspections not about a black check for war -- even though the resolution was drafted by the White House hence it was nothing less than a black check for war. She knew that. She knew that the deployment was already underway. She knew the history of the neocons who surrounded Bush, not the least because they wrote a letter to his husband in 1998 urging him to take a tougher stand on Iraq. She was not that naive she knew what Bush wanted to do: full scale invansion. She also knew that there was no post-war plan. Hell if Gore knew that Hillary who was in the Senate somehow didn't? Of course she did.

So why did she vote for the IWR?

Here's why:



This is what this game is all about. Her image and her political career. She is even willing to lie:




No the consensus was not the same. The Clinton administration after Operation Desert Fox and the IAEA report didn't argue that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program nor did they say that he was in league with al Qaeda. Those two points were the strongest arguments from the Bush gang. It was not just about chembio weapons and missiles. That wouldn't have been enough to generate enough support for an invasion.
Bush came up with a new story which exploited 9/11: Saddam would give his nukes to al Qaeda and we would see a mushroom cloud in New York. Noone in the Clinton administration ever received any intel which justified that view. And Hillary knew that. But instead of telling the truth she repeated the Bush talking point of "everyone believed the same".

She still pretends that there was nothing wrong with her vote and she avoids the subject whenever she can. But when others already called for the resignation of Rummy she jumped on the bandwagon and she critized him in a way that noone could miss it. How convenient? Where was she when Gore called for the resignation of Rummy in 2004? That was right after Abu Ghraib. Oh wait back then Bush still had a 50%+ approval rating and most people didn't want Rummy to resign.


It's the most disgusting political dance from a prominent Dem I have seen. And she can get away with it because she is the "superstar" Hillary Clinton.


What is this talk about the profile? You are the second today who notes that.
Is it important to show my profile? Sorry I'm new here I don't know every rule.

The media crucified both Clintons for 12 years, that seems long enough to me. We heard it every day: "She murdered Vince Foster", she committed "filegate" "travelgate" "Whitewatergate" added a gate to anything, and said Hillary and Bill did it. Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of all this. Hillary probably is too. She's too smart to be wasted. :grr:

The right wing media tried to do it not the media. Just compare how the MSM treated them and Gore. They have been waging war on Gore. Nothing less. You can read the dailyhowler's archive to see that.

They didn't wage war on the Clintons.

The two are not even close.

Both Clintons have got pretty good MSM coverage so far, unless you think that the MSM talking about Monica was a crucifiction -- but hey? Clinton indeed did that. Unlike, for example, Gore didn't say he invented the Internet but you still heard it over and over again not just from Rush Limbaugh but from ABC, CNN, NBC, NYT, LA Times etc.

"Filegate, travelgate, Whitewatergate were not the creations of the media. They were made up by Repukes politicians.

But just look at the dominant narrative which was created by the media? Look the words with which they describe the Clintons. Is it negative? No. They are the two "rock starts" of politics. They are the winners. They are the best political strategists. La la la la la

Now Bill mostly deserves that. But Hillary doesn't.

Still, one of the reasons why Hillary is the front-runner now is that the MSM has been - in effect - promoting her ever since 2001! They let her off the hook on Iraq, let her off the hook for political manuevers which if done by other Dems they would be indeed crucified.
Why don't we hear on mainstream networks, for example, that Hillary has reinvented herself? That she doesn't know who she is? The she would say and do anything to get elected? If Gore had done exactly what Hillary has done in the last 6 years you can be sure those talking points would dominate his coverage. But Hillary? Oh she is different. She is a "superstar" -- or whatever -- so leave her alone.

"She murdered Vince Foster"

Yeah we heard that from right wing nuts. And noone believed that, other than right wing nuts.
How many MSM talking heads said that? Did the NYT or the WaPo
repeat "she murdered Vince Foster" the way they repeated Gore claimed he inspired Love Story? No.

The right wing media preaches to the choir. Until the MSM picks up their talking points they are harmless.
In fact, if 90% of the attacks on you come from the fringe right it actually helps you. You look like a moderate who is unfairly attacked by lunatics. It generates symphathy among the voters which is exactly what has happened to the Clintons.

But when the MSM goes after you , non-stop, 24/7, as they did with Gore in 1999 and 2000 you are toast.
The MSM reaches far more people than the American Spectator or the Weekly Standard or Rush Limbaugh and because they are widely preceived as, well, mainstream, if their echo chamber unfairly attacks you there is not one thing you can do to defend yourself. The Clintons never had to deal with anything like that.
Gore had to. For 2 years. And the coverage became even worse after his "defeat".

She's too smart to be wasted

Exactly what proves that she is smart?
Her vote for the IWR?
Or her very orginial proposal about ...well... she didn't have a single original proposal EVER which actually made sense. The one occassion when she tried to be a leader turned out to be a disaster for the Dems.

or maybe an ourtery. (sorry, couldn't help myself....)

That's not nice. But funny. I'm sorry, but sp. mistakes grate on me, too.

Vain, adj.
1 : having no real value : IDLE, WORTHLESS <vain pretensions>
2 : marked by futility or ineffectualness : UNSUCCESSFUL, USELESS <vain efforts to escape>
3 archaic : FOOLISH, SILLY
4 : having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements : CONCEITED
synonym see FUTILE
- vain·ly adverb
- vain·ness /'vAn-n&s/ noun
- in vain
1 : to no end : without success or result <her efforts were in vain>
2 : in an irreverent or blasphemous manner <you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain -- Deuteronomy 5:11 (Revised Standard Version)>

Vane, noun
1 a : a movable device attached to an elevated object (as a spire) for showing the direction of the wind b : one that is changeable or inconstant
2 : a thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid to flow or that redirects a flow of fluid <the vanes of a windmill>
3 : the web or flat expanded part of a feather -- see FEATHER illustration
4 : a feather fastened to the shaft near the nock of an arrow

Hot on the heels of the release of the Iraq Study Group Report -- and a day in which 10 U.S. servicemen were killed and at least 84 Iraqis were blown up or shot -- prospective presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will join with Joe Lieberman to hold a press conference today at 3 pm ET to announce the launch of a television PSA campaign about... video game ratings.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/7/142237/762

Sen. Clinton and Sen. Lieberman are great Leaders. :boring:

Hillary wears a dress, and Joe wears pants...and I'll think of some others...:shrug:

--IMM

that it's not possible to take her seriously as a political pundit anymore.

Well, actually, I never did take her seriously, but I really do think she's lost a lot of credibility with her obvious
bias against the Clintons. I mean, really, she doesn't sound a lot different than a Republican when it comes to those two.

What?

You say she used to be a Republican?


:freak:

to get out the Clinton bug she's had up her ass for 10 years. Does she ever talk about anything else?

Arianna has a personal vendetta against Hillary, and it's childish for her to pick on everything Hillary does. There are so many more important topics for her to discuss, it just seems like a waste of time. It's her right to dislike anyone she likes, but she just sounds so whiny.

Find something which proves Hillary has been a leader and that would be it. Arianna wouldn't have a point.
Something that was bold, risky and made sense at the same time. Something which makes her different from 99% of Beltway pols.