The Atlantic has a big sweeping profile of Hillary Clinton this week which posits her successful Senate career (she'll definitely be re-elected tomorrow) may hurt her presidential prospects in 2008.
It suggests that Clinton (as senator) has played a cautious game since her health care initiative died in 1993, taking "small steps" without much political risk. It goes on to say it is unlikely that she'll be able to defeat a popular Republican like John McCain. (from Slate magazine)
You know it bothers me that whenever anyone considers Hillary Clinton's presidential possibilities he/she always, always brings up her failed health-care bill. Why do they do that? That's not all she stands for.
It's not that I'm sure I would vote for Hillary in a Democratic primary but she IS more than just that bill.
And she may be just the Democrat to put up against John McCain because she's what they call a national security Democrat. "She is better at framing national-security issues for the current era than her husband was at a common point in his career.” (New York magazine)
Don't get me wrong she's definitely a Democrat: she's anti-abortion, she's against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and recently she took a lead role in crafting a Senate amendment that prods the White House to bring some troops home this year.
Here's a link called "Hillary Clinton on Civil Rights"
Can she beat Barack Obama or John Edwards? That's still a big question. But Hillary has changed or at least the perception of her has changed since she's been in the Senate and she just might be the One in 2008. the teach
Photo: Jez Coulson
1 comment:
The only way Dems lost in 2008 is if they nominate Hillary. She is toxic to much of America. I can't believe people aren't mentioning Al Gore more when discussing serious candidates. To me he is the obvious choice. Shafted in 2000, right on the war, a true visionary/leader on the environment. The anti-Hillary, so to speak...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Post a Comment