On Friday I happened to catch a cable newsreader interviewing a reporter for a Rhode Island newspaper in Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s district discussing the congressman’s non-arrest for erratic driving near the Capitol. Back home, the reporter said, Kennedy was “sort of like Hillary Clinton — people either love him or hate him.”
This reflects the conventional wisdom about Sen. Clinton. Rightwingers hate her, and we liberals love her. There’s no middle ground.
Sorry, but that just doesn’t square with reality on the ground, at least the reality here in the Los Angeles liberal enclave. I don’t know any liberals who “love” Hillary Clinton. Some of us respect her and admire her, but I just don’t see the fanatical love for the senator that the conventional wisdom says is out there.
In particular, I haven’t seen even a hint of a groundswell of support for her presidency here. I suspect she does well in the early polling simply because as a former First Lady she has extremely high name recognition and because even Republicans are now wistful for the good old days of the Clinton Era.
In an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas explains Clinton’s lack of connection on the left as part of her husband’s political legacy of moving the Democratic Party away from the left toward the center.
Moulitsas also says that Clinton’s failure to provide leadership on national issues has hurt her with DailyKos members, and points out that in a recent presidential straw poll on the site, she only got 2 percent of the vote.
In fact, I’m ambivalent about Clinton — and not because she’s not liberal enough. (She’s more liberal than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whom I admire a lot more than Hillary.) Clinton would probably make as good a president as any other politician but I don’t find her to be inspirational or exceptional leader on any level.
- Topic: News & Comment
- Topics: Elections
“Moulitsas also says that Clinton’s failure to provide leadership on national issues has hurt her with DailyKos members, and points out that in a recent presidential straw poll on the site, she only got 2 percent of the vote.”
I quit reading dKos because I got tired of the self-serving, totally self-absorbed, and tireless self promotion of Moulitsas. I see he has found a new way to blow his own horn via op-ed pieces knocking people with whom he disagrees, like Hillary. I’m no Hillary fan by any means, but Moulitsas used a time-worn sales technique that sucks a big root.
When I walk onto a Chevy lot I don’t want a salesman that spends his time (and wastes mine) telling me how lousy Fords, Kias, etc. are; I want to hear about HOW GOOD HIS CHEVYS ARE.
I believe a major source of political conflict arises from just this attitude, i.e., tell me who is a GOOD CANDIDATE and WHY or stop wasting my time and yours by telling me how BAD a certain candidate is and spending your time (and expending my patience and attention span) knocking that candidate.
In other words, identify the candidates you like and tell America why, while utterly ignoring those candidates you don’t like.
I was once told that ANY mention in the media was free advertising, for that name was put out there in the public domain. Why anyone wants to devote op-eds and reams of paper and an entire website KNOCKING candidates while simultaneously MAKING THEM BETTER KNOWN is just dumb. Keep it up if you like Republican administrations, ’cause when you talk about your opponents more than people on your side, you WILL LOSE.
While I enjoyed the Kos editorial yesterday and agree with many of his points, Taylor Marsh wrote a good post yesterday, rebutting quite a few and she made several good points. It was a good addendum to the editorial.
You’re right, Susan. Here’s the link.