Via the NYT:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s entry into the 2008 presidential contest this morning set off rounds of e-mail and conference calls among both her allies and opponents, some of whom were shaking their heads that a major political event was happening at 9:30 on a Saturday morning.
The fact that she announced at that time has made this story even more newsworthy. Smart move on her part.
And what the heck is this supposed to mean?
“She’s tough enough, smart enough, and experienced enough to overcome a decidedly liberal philosophy,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to Senator John McCain, who is preparing to seek the Republican presidential nomination.
She's one of those evil libruls who must now 'overcome' that disease?
As if.
Hillary is hardly a small "l" liberal. She's a centrist.
Yet Mrs. Clinton has become a major political figure in her own right: She is broadly popular with women, African-Americans, and other core groups in the Democratic Party, and she is one of the party’s best fund-raisers and most sought-after speakers. She is admired by many independents and Republicans in New York, winning re-election last year by a 30 percentage-point margin. While she is not associated with any major piece of legislation, she is widely regarded as an effective, thoughtful lawmaker who has built bipartisan ties.
Her early support for the Iraq war, however, and her unpopularity in the 1990s have stirred doubts among Democrats about whether she can win the presidency. And she remains an enigma and a caricature to many people: Radically liberal, coldly ambitious, or ethically compromised. Her friends say that she is none of these, but acknowledge that part of her challenge is letting voters see the full her and not simply a controlled, rehearsed politician no easy task for such a private and protective person.
Again..."radically liberal"? The only people who see her that way are the "radically conservative". "Ethically compromised"? According to whom? And why? Because she stood by her man? I thought right-wingers were all for the so-called 'sanctity of marriage'.
Her political message flows from centrist Democratic views or, as she likes to say, common sense: Staking out pragmatic, doable, middle-of-the-road positions that can win the broadest popular support. She supports abortion rights, for instance, but has called abortion a tragic choice and speaks urgently about the need for more adoptions. She supports a ban on flag burning, but would not go so far as to amend the Constitution, as some conservatives wish. She supports gay rights generally, but not gay marriage.
'Nuff said about that and those who want to tar her with the librul branding.
Now let's take a look at some initial right-wing reaction courtesy of Mark Finkelstein of Newsbusters who, in typical CSI: Bloggerville form has decided to pick apart Clinton's video a la 'when and where did bin Laden really make that video?' style:
If this had been taped in the last couple days, could Hillary have resisted referring to her just-completed trip to Iraq? True, she does mention starting conversations "Monday," but it could have always been the plan to roll out the announcement over a weekend.
So, what's the story? Did Hillary have this video in the can during all those months while she was claiming to be making up her mind? Was it a carefully staged artificial background? Minor points in the great scheme of things, but perhaps interesting for us political junkie types.
Wrong.
That's only 'interesting' to right-wingers who are obviously trying to equate Hillary with terrorists.
Really. Who the hell cares when she made that video except for people like Finkelstein who somehow think they can bust her for...what?...I don't even know.
Get over yourselves. Sheesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment