Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager reported that she had raised 26 million dollars in the first quarter of 2007 and had transferred 10 million from her senatorial campaign coffers for a total of 36 million. Quite a feat for a first timer in the history of presidential campaigns. In fact one could say she has attained an almost Kennedy like persona in her aspiration to be president. The parallels are undeniable in that Bobby Kennedy also was elected as a New York Senator despite not being from New York. But that is where the parallels end.
With Hillary Clinton there is no grand vision. Only slick political strategy with a keen eye on the prize. When she gives speeches there is no passionate motivation to them. In fact your left feeling like 
you just watched a high school kid running for class president give their obligatory auditorium speech. Oh there’s definitely a lot of polish and well rehearsed sound bites, but no substance, no depth. It’s like we’re watching a hologram of Bill Clinton that has been horribly morphed into a short, crazy eyed woman. There is so much Bill Clinton déjà vu in her speeches, if you squint your eyes and lean your head to the left, you can actually hear Bill’s voice.
This begs the question; If circumstances were different, would there be a Hillary Rodham Candidacy? If she had not risen to national notoriety through her marriage to Bill Clinton, would anyone even know who Hillary Rodham was? This correspondent doubts it. Other than the fact that she married Bill Clinton, I can see nothing that would separate her from the rest of us slugs.
Trust is a real problem for Hillary Clinton too. Before she met Bill she was a Republican, which is highly suspicious to me. And who can forget how strongly she supported Bush when he first dragged us into the quagmire we’re in now. And even now that she has decided the movement against the war is too strong to buck, she still won’t apologize for voting for it.
I’m left with the terrible feeling that Hillary Clinton is at best a stand in for her husband Bill. And as good a president as I thought he was, his demonstration of poor judgment revealed a character flaw too scary for a second chance. No, a Hillary presidency would only amount to Clinton II and I really don’t want to see our country go though that again. The Clintons and the Bushes have dominated the White House for nearly twenty years and it’s time for new blood.
With Barac Obama and John Edwards you get genuine, passionate, original thinking leaders with a lot of talent and dedication. Without her husbands coat tails, instead of Senator Hillary Clinton, she’d likely be Hillary Rodham, local Republican lawyer.
************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every Tuesday and Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
Yes, she stood behind the Bush administration plan to invade Iraq, but she wasn't the only one. Congrees, the U.N., hell, even the American people were hoodwinked and bamboozled by flawed information, so why even bring that up? If we condemned every congressman and/or senator that voted for the resolution for war, the herd would thin considerably. If she should apologize for her vote, then we should demand that ALL do the same. I, frankly, would like an apology from the Commander-In-Chief, but I suspect monkeys will fly out of my behind before THAT happens.
Trust is an issue for the Clintons' and any other candidate for political office. We've seen lies and corruption on both sides of the political parties and people are fed up, plain and simple. If Sen. Clinton can come up with clear, concise plans as to how to lead and repair our nation, then she very well just may get her vote. But I, for one, choose to pick my candidate on their achievements and qualifications, not because of whom they happened to be married to.
I can only conclude from your article that you don't like Hillary! Which makes you one of a few million people, hardly unique.
One cannot divorce the Clinton from Hillary in a bit of revisionist history. She is the sum total of all that has gone on in her life before, as are we all. And, while I'd prefer to see Edwards as the next president, I'd vote for Hillary with confidence she'd be a competent administrator and serve her country well!
Senator Clinton comes off as shrill, demanding, unwilling to admit to error - not unlike the CURRENT occupant of the Oval Office. We've had enough of that. We don't need another "Decider". We need someone who can undo all the damage that the Frat-Boy squad has done to this country over the last 6 1/2 years, and promises to continue for another year and a half.
We certainly do NOT need a sorority diva to follow them.
It is comments like that that really make me uneasy about the possibility of the first female president being a former first lady. Just what women need - "She only got there because she rode her husband's reputation."
I personally do not care for Hillary as a presidential candidate, but I sure hope that, if she does make it, people can vote for her and what she does and not who her husband is (and isn't!).
Regardless of how she got into politics, I expect she will either succeed or fail in her presidential bid on how well she connects with the voting public.
This woman who you say is so slick was unwilling to tell the lie that would endear her to the far left, and say that even though the facts were misrepresented by the Bush administration, her 2002 vote in favor of the bill that gave the President the authority to invade Iraq was wrong.
This woman who you say is so slick had the courage to publish "It Takes a Village" at a time when Congress was dominated by adversaries who gave the impression they believed that a parent had the right to make any and all decisions regarding how their child was raised, what their child was taught, how that child was disciplined and how that child was cared for.
This woman who you say is so slick stood by her marriage vows in the worst of times even though few would have blamed her for leaving the man who had broken them. The slick move would have been to leave her husband, a move which would have have her adversaries and the supposed advocates of "family values" shouting praising her for her courage..
The charge the Hillary is slick is perhaps the one that amuses me the most. I can only conclude that the Hillary haters figure that if they repeat it enough it will be believed.
She is a slick enough politician not to say she has the courage to tell both the far-right and the far-left to go to H___ so I will say it for her. Three cheers for Hillary!
Hillary Rodham may not have had the same fund-raising success as Hillary Rodham Clinton does but you have to take the good with the bad when it comes to the Clinton name. I personally thought Bill Clinton was a great president and could have done even more for this country if he wasn't embroiled in the Lewinsky-gate drama - this was a personal failure by Bill and should have been handled as such.
Regardless, Hillary has risen in the ranks as a Senator and is quite capable in her own right. She's a very smart woman and has a lot to say...you may not personally like her but then again I don't think any of us are going to be hanging out and becoming best friends with whoever occupies the White House.
That being said, I am backing Barack Obama for the Demotractic ticket but if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic party's choice I will vote for her and be confident that she could lead this country effectively.
Another point I'd like to address is your logic: You can make the case for almost every famous person that ever lived – would they have been famous if somebody (or something) before them hadn't helped to give them a "push?" Would George W. have become president if his father hadn't been one before him? He might have remained a failed baseball owner instead.
You have to go 3 or 5 deep in Democratic candidates before you find someone who could even be legitimately challenged as presidential material by any of the top Repbulican candidates. I don't view this as a desirable situation--after the debacles of the past 2 elections it would be great to have two strong candidates going into November 2008.