Hillary as Guilty Pleasure

Georgetown law professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow:

As I have said on these pages before, I will happily vote for Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee, but I still see some merits in voting for Hillary Clinton. As a member of one of the most “liberal” law schools in the country ..., I have been quite surprised to learn how “silenced” I feel by my many colleagues who are enthusiastically supporting Obama .... On the issues we likely feel mostly the same-end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, do more to deal with our stubborn problems of poverty, inequality and inequities, restore some sense of a positive reputation for our nation in its internal and external affairs, provide health care for all and restore faith in our beliefs in inclusion, justice, and social equity and opportunity [Ed: Is that all?] . Yet, in conversation after conversation I feel like a Republican in a Democratic world for expressing any positive views about Hillary (and until yesterday about John Edwards too). Or as one of my similarly minded colleagues said, why does it feel like a “guilty pleasure” to vote for Hillary?

Chuckle. Now perhaps she can imagine how a Republican law professor feels. Not, I suspect, that Georgetown has (m)any.

But seriously.  If I were an Obama supporter, I would probably argue that Hillary is old news.  Electing her would simply build a bridge back to the 20th century.  Second, I suspect, many Obama supporters will point to Hillary’s flip-flop on the Iraq war.  She got in bed with George Bush (which is better than some of the people Bill Clinton has gotten into bed with over the years, I suppose) and a lot of Democrats seem unable to get past that.  Third, if you believe the recent National Journal analysis, Hillary is merely the 16th most liberal senator.  Obama is number one.  Compared to Obama, Hillary probably does look like Republican-lite to many liberal Democrats, especially on the war.  I was listening to Left, Right & Center on KCRW this afternoon and thought I heard Bob Scheer say that there is little daylight between Hillary and John McCain on national security issues. Bob then went off on one of his patented loony left rants, but the point remains that many Democrats probably do think that Hillary is too far to the right on those issues.  Finally, although I know most Democrats seem to look back on the Bill Clinton era with fondness, I suspect that most—in their heart of hearts—don’t miss the slease, vindictiveness, political opportunism, and general ickiness of the Clinton White House.  If so, Bill Clinton’s recent prominence on the campaign trail may have reminded those Democrats of how nice it would be to have a fresh face at the top of their party. Even a lot of liberals seem disgusted with Bill’s attacks on Obama, for example,

Personally, if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t take any pleasure please - guilty or otherwise - in voting for Hillary.

Posted on Friday, February 01 2008 | Permalink

Carrie Menkel-Meadow (is she still hyphenating her name? That is soooooo 1985!) seems quite typical of leftists in that their breathless pronouncements invariably decline into shopping lists.

I’ll bet Carrie has a “To Do” list on her nightstand that she checks every morning:

1. Make the world a better place.

2. Paint anti-Bush parade puppet.

3. Protest unjust Gitmo detentions (orange jumpsuits are on sale at Kohl’s, 1/2 off!).

4. Send letter to local newspaper expressing outrage about the “Scottsboro Boys.”

5. Finish law journal article about fraudulent 2000 election results.

6. Sign MoveOn petition to impeach Bush and Cheney.

7. Pick up 2 lb. “Fair Trade Double Chocolate Espresso” at health food coop.

9. Send $100 to Hillary campaign fund. Also send $100 to Obama campaign fund (just in case!).

10. KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Posted by  on  02/02  at  03:23 PM

I get many of you do not like or trust McCain.  I respect that--McCain deserves a good horse whipping at CPAC for some of his positions in the past.  I don’t like some of McCain positions either, but you claim Mitt Romney is the better candidate in the election?  Where does that come from, listening to Hugh Hewitt?  Mitt has had essentially every opportunity, outspent his competition 10:1, and has still lost the GOP primaries to McCain.  What makes you think Romney would do better with independents and x-over democrats which he absolutely needs to win the general?  Mitt can barely get decent numbers with Republicans.  Do a little research on state by state electoral college numbers, McCain can put blue states like Pennsylvania, Maryland and others in play.  McCain wins purple states like New Mexico.  Romney will not win those blue and purple states and puts red states like Virginia at risk.

McCain has a compelling story and career (frankly a lot more compelling than Bob Dole’s).  I respect Romney is a successful business and family man, but I want a president with brass balls.  We are at war.  Sometimes Hillary has more of that mojo quality than Romney. 

What makes McCain scary to conservatives, makes him electable in the general.  Hence the reason some conservatives are freaking out.  Focus on Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp and Ted Olson, and for that matter Rudy, Fred (maybe even Mitt) who will be there to advise McCain.  McCain may not be perfect, but he can win the general and will be a far better president (for conservatives) than Hillary and Obama.  Mitt Romney will lose.

Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:17 PM

Obama has received less mainstream media scrutiny than the last 30 years’ worth of candidates who were serious contenders for the Presidency.  I don’t think the honeymoon would continue during the general election campaign.  I would hope that those who think that Obama beats McCain while Hillary loses to him would rethink things.

Posted by  on  02/02  at  06:12 PM

You wrote “please” where you intended “pleasure.”

Posted by  on  02/02  at  07:07 PM

To answer her shopping list point by point:

“end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home”

We all want that. (I know I do.) So what is Carrie really saying? Do it *prematurely*, ensuring al Qaeda victory and genocide to follow?

“do more to deal with our stubborn problems of poverty, inequality and inequities”

Which inequities? Do more of what? There is an inherent conflict between ending poverty and ending inequality. The only way to achieve widespread equality of result, is to drag everyone down to the same level of poverty - a la socialism. If you want to raise living standards even for the poorest of the poor, you must turn to laissez-faire capitalism. Only a rising tide can lift anyone’s boat.

“restore some sense of a positive reputation for our nation”

Because liberating 50 million Muslims from hideous tyranny, and protecting all civilization in the process, just wasn’t enough?

“provide health care for all”

Paid for by whom? Paid for how? And what level of health care? I.e., paid for with what damage and destruction to our health care system?

“restore faith in our beliefs in inclusion, justice, and social equity and opportunity”

Restore **faith in our beliefs** in XYZ? What does that even mean? Does it mean forcing people to believe a certain way (or to say they do), even though they don’t? Imponderable mystery of the day: is Carrie pure mush - or is she an actual fascist?

Posted by  on  02/04  at  03:49 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Charles Stross on Kids Today

Previous entry: Microsoft-Yahoo Talks: Show Me The Money

Introduction


Recent Punditry Entries


Hot Topics on Food & Wine

Hot Topics on Law & Business


Punditry RSS Feed

Flickr

Archives

My Books



Blogroll