This Chick Is Brilliant
You know, I was just thinking that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running the risk of alienating the liberal base by pushing her centrist side too much. The conventional wisdom is that she's got an advantage in that the base loves her enough to free her up to chase the center, but I'm not sure that's true. In fact, I wonder if in a presidential election the base will think she's sold out and the middle will think she's too liberal.
In any event, Clinton certainly can losing progressives, especially since she's been so hawkish on the war. (Side note for my feminist friends: sometime take a look at how often women in politics are referred to by their first name. It's hilarious.) My feeling was that she spent 2005 establishing herself as a somewhat reasonable centrist, and she should spend at least part of 2006 reestablishing her liberal credentials. She's got a two-step ahead of her: she's still got to suck up to both sides.
So will Clinton spend any of 2006 going hard after the Republicans? Let's see what she said up in Harlem yesterday:
The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.""We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
Okay then. The best part is that everyone's claiming this was a huge mistake. Sorry friends, Hillary is just smarter than you are. I am still not convinced she can win the presidency, but if it's possible, she will do it.
POSTSCRIPT: What did the host of the event say?
As for Sharpton, he jokingly suggested that Clinton, who many believe is eying a run for President in 2008, had stolen his material.
Solid.
Comments
1. you are so right on about referring to female politicians by their first name. it has always bugged me. glad someone else has noticed that we have Hilary and Condi and Liddy, but never George and John. Then again, that may be because there are so damn many men in Congress, etc, that there is a greater chance of having to say "which John?" than there is with women's names.
2. Russ Feingold in '08. Or maybe I should just say Russ in '08.
Posted by: Rachel | January 17, 2006 11:28 PM
Feingold is an interesting one. I am not convinced he can do it (or that he has the fire in the belly) but he's won tough elections before. Of course, I said that about John Kerry too.
For the record, I still support John Edwards and Mark Warner more than Russ and Hillary, but they're all great. This is the part about presidential primaries I hate: we've got such a good batch, and we've all got to split up sides.
Posted by: Terry | January 18, 2006 12:03 AM
Things would be better if you still used me instead of primaries. Of course, Ted Kennedy would've been the nominee every time since 1972, but what a great method I was!
Posted by: The Smoke Filled Room | January 18, 2006 11:39 AM