Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey, Reince, that's not how presidential elections work (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm only "against" her up until the point she (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, DMentalist, JVolvo, zed, schnecke21, Ahianne

    wins the nomination, if in fact she does.  Until then, I'd like to think we might have a better choice.

    I'm simply afraid that she is too centrist, to ready to try and placate the GOP like Obama has done, to much a career politician with all the baggage and obligations that carries.  

    Once the nomination is in, I will support any Democratic candidate as clearly a much better choice than any potential republican opponent.  On any ticket at any level of government.

    I didn't use to think that way - I've voted republican in the past when I thought it was appropriate.  Now, with the republican party as screwed up as it is and their priorities as wrong as they are, I don't think I can even consider a republican candidate for anything.   Especially when "reasonable" republicans have to switch parties - like Crist in FL.

    •  Hillary is very unlikely to "placate" Republicans (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

          While I respect your right to prefer a different candidate than Hillary, on this one point I think you are quite incorrect.  

           I voted for Hillary in 2008, and when Obama eventually got the nomination, I was really worried that Obama was going to have a Presidency like Jimmy Carter's.  Jimmy Carter was a pure liberal and a pure idealist, and he won as the outsider candidate in 1976 as the result of the backlash of public outrage against the extreme corruption of the Nixon Presidency. Likewise, Obama won in 2008 as the outsider candidate because of the backlash against the extreme corruption and failure of the Bush Presidency.  

           But when Carter actually became President, his idealism and his inexperience with Washington politics made him a totally ineffective leader, and his Presidency was so inept that he paved the way for another backlash and the election of Reagan in 1980.  

           Obama has not been nearly as much of a disappointment as Carter was.  But Obama DID make all of the stupid, rookie mistakes that I feared he would.  He spent his first years in office bending over backwards to get bipartisan support, offering concessions in advance, out of a naive, idealistic belief that Republicans and Democrats could all just get along if everyone would just compromise, while Republicans were planning total obstruction from the start.  Obama wasted precious time trying to get at least some Republicans to like him so that he could fulfill his vain, idealistic goal of being the great consensus builder who "changed the climate" of Washington, time which he should have been using to aggressively pursue a progressive agenda.  In 2010, his time ran out, he lost his Democratic majority, and he's unlikely to get another opportunity to make real progressive change like he had in the first two years of his Presidency.  

           Even if you might prefer another candidate over Hillary, I think one thing you can say in her favor is that she is the ONE candidate who quite likely WON'T make the kinds of stupid, rookie mistakes that any other newly elected President probably would.  Virtually every new President takes office believing that he is the GREAT EXCEPTION, the one who can do the thing which every predecessor has tried and failed, the one who has the intellectual and leadership skills to CHANGE the way Washington works.  The same types of stupid rookie mistakes that Obama made from 2008-2010 were also made by  Bill Clinton from 1992-1994, with similar results.  For that matter, Hillary ALSO made the same rookie mistakes during that 1992-1994 period, with her failed healthcare reform initiative being a prime example.  

           And that's why you WON'T see such stupid, rookie mistakes from Hillary if she wins in 2016.  She's been there.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that the "right leader" can "change the tone" in Washington, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of believing that if you offer concessions to Republicans in the spirit of compromise, they will offer concessions in return, only to be proven wrong.  She's already experienced the disillusion of learning that no matter how much you try to co-opt Republican support by including Republican policy goals like deficit reduction in your agenda, today's Republican Party will still do everything in its power to ensure the failure of ANY Democratic President.  

           So I don't think Hillary is likely to try to "placate" Republicans.  She's been down that road, and she knows where it leads.  She knows the Republicans will hate her and try to destroy her no matter what she does, so she's prepared to simply accept it and move on with actually GETTING THINGS DONE.  And she won't just WANT to get things done, she'll also know HOW.  If she runs in 2016, her resumé will include experience in a state governorship, two Presidential administrations in the Executive Branch, a Senate career in the Legislative Branch, and foreign policy experience as the Secretary of State.  Few Presidents in history have had such diverse experience in so many branches and levels of government.  

           While I understand the appeal of a fresh face with fresh ideas for 2016, I can also see the appeal of electing a President who, for once, won't spend the first couple of years in office fumbling around, figuring out what the rules are, being disillusioned about what can and can't be done, before possibly stumbling on a realistic way to actually accomplish something.  I like the idea of a President who won't waste a SINGLE DAY of her Presidency just learning the job, because she already knows the job inside and out.   I  like the idea of a President who's had the experience to really KNOW  what she's doing, starting from DAY ONE.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site