(Note - the split infinitive in the title is not a mistake - it is poetic license taken and used for emphasis)...
Although I frequently comment at DK, I only rarely issue diaries (I believe this is only my third in a dozen years of DK). I'm even less of a blogger (zero times, if you don't consider diarists real bloggers). But in the absence of both (IMHO) a necessary and sufficient discussion/debate on the suitability of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 2016 Democratic candidate for President, I believe it's time to step up and begin asking all the impolite questions - and one hopes - stimulate something, because once she's formally declared, it will become increasingly difficult to air legitimate criticisms without seeming like an unwitting auxiliary to the right-wing noise machine. No, let's discuss it soon, this summer, and before folks get too distracted by the mid-term elections. Her book (which I haven't read, nor do I plan to read) is out now and we're told that it's the closest thing we have to a hint of a declaration to run for President. Let's please engender a lively discussion - all comers welcome - pros and cons - HRC lovers and haters and all that there is in-between. Below the orange croissant is a list of my concerns (which will telegraph more or less where I stand (perhaps a bit snarkastic), although where I stand is unimportant). What is important is that your voices are spoken and heard. Let's please keep it civil (i.e., attack the idea, not the person).
Reasons to consider the “unconsiderable” – why progressives may want to dump Hillary:
- When she was in college she was a Goldwater supporter. OK, now she’s older and wiser, but seriously - how many of us were that unclear on the concept at age 21? I was 12 at the time (1964) and nothing particularly precocious, and by jingo, even as a "tween" I fully understood the danger that Goldwater represented then. That speaks to errors in judgment – as did her overcautious (read less than courageous) and inevitably wrong vote for W’s illegal wars. It's good evidence that she cogitatively calculates from a perceived strategic advantage, rather than through a natural and authentic process of moral conviction - and that is a real problem for this voter!
- Just as W would never have become President without his daddy's name and influence, can we really say HRC would have been a serious "contendah" without Bill's shirttails? Seriously?
- She seems far more of a polished resume than an actual leader. She studies hard and gets all As on all tests - but where is the soul? After all the smirky flattered denials, where is any evidence of that somber calling to actually serve? Is she just content to do the honorarium circuit and sell books and continue to blather "haven't made up my mind"? Anyone else out there yet had it up to here with the coy routine?
- OK, granted and stipulated even - yes, she is conscientious and works hard and has held all the right pre-credential posts, but unless I've been missing something - there is little real evidence of HRC having that quality you could call fire in the belly. Do we want “the next in line with name recognition?” or do we want someone who has deeply demonstrated a desire to fight for principle as the fuel for the fire - above personal ambition?
- If there isn't much fire in the belly (I sense ambivalence, fatigue, reluctance, hesitation), where will the street-fighting capacities come from when it's time to really apply the boot to repugs' necks? Does she have that in her arsenal? Could she fight dirty when they refuse to play by the rules? Could she stare down Putin? Could she openly call out the Chinese on their renmimbi cheating and exports dumping? It's all well and good that you can vote for a war and let someone else assume the responsibility - but do you have the stuffing to be the responsible party yourself? This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. We are talking about the Commander-in-Chief, people.
- So now that health care has been basically solved by the O admin (it was her Big Issue in the '90s, remember?), what's left for her to really want to champion? Her policy passions now seem vague or absent. What does she stand for?
- Judge your candidate by their behavior, not by their words alone. Despite bromides about the "middle class" and "fairness" I see a "potential candidate" who seems much more comfortable in the boardroom than in the town hall room.
- And voters, please, aren't we done already with dynasties? Do we really want/need yet another set of retreads from the 1990s-2000s?
- When you contrast Hillary with bona fide ardent populists (e.g., Eliz Warren), she's way too much all about herself – self-important/narcissistic - as if we should be interested in her rather than what she stands for. Is it really all about HRC? BTW, what DOES she stand for?
- Aren't most of us are either sick and tired of this coronation/inevitablity garbage or are at minimum largely uncomfortable with it (not to mention it's a guaranteed free-served-up repug talking point, don't forget - that's an important liability)?
- And are we really OK with an inevitability with no dem jostling? - the absence of a vigorous horse race/policy debate and character/consensus-building race could seriously weaken the Democratic party for future contests. If there are potential candidates who we think would be superior to HRC (and could win). let's not waste any time - who are your favorites (I kinda like Sheldon Whitehouse myself) ?
- Reince Prebus’ recent remark on "there's Hillary Fatigue out there" has a boulder-sized grain of truth to it.
- Is she a corporatist first and populist last? Under an HRC presidency can you forget about banking reform, a return to Glass/Steigel, mortgage reform, etc.
- Is there too little or no evidence of an interest in environmental issues, climate change, immigration reform, etc. ?
- Is she too hawkish/interventionist for the majority of progressives? If the activist wing of the dems won’t come out to work for HRC – who the heck else will?
- Is she out of touch? Recent remarks about being “flat broke” indicate a poverty of self-awareness, compassion, and, once again, good judgment. Tends to be defensive and insecure – tends to take criticism personally and respond with too much self-reference. I'm not saying it's a kind of phony, but it's, ahem, not likeable enough and it will have its consequences, especially among low-info voters.
- Is she comfortable in her own skin? Maybe nowhere near as awkward as Mitt Romney, but IMO enough that many of us have noticed.
- She is especially hated by the RW. They will come out in droves to oppose her.
- Is age going to be a problem? She’s no spring chicken – she will turn 69 two weeks before the Nov 2016 election. If she is elected and then re-elected, she would be 77 on exit.
- Are there any health problems we need to know about?
...and coincidentally - just as I was about to publish this diary, who, but Howard Fineman is just out with his concerns:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
OK, have at it! And thanks!