Hillary and the upstate Republican
The Washington Post has a big article about how Hillary’s successes with upstate Republicans (she won 61% of the vote in upstate New York in 2006 despite the fact that Republicans outnumber Democrats in upstate New York) might or might not translate into further success in 2008. They talk to a bunch of people from around Batavia and, lo and behold, some like her and some don’t. Is that great journalism or what? They top it all off by talking to some political science professors who say that Hillary will do well if voters like her but, get this, she won’t do well if voters hate her. Once again, we see national reporters showing the kind of political acumen we bloggers can only dream about.
My opinion is as follows. When it comes to the general election, Hillary will be a formidable candidate. Only a fool would ever bet against a candidate with the last name “Clinton”. I don’t care if it’s Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, or George Clinton (and isn’t it time we truly became one nation under a groove?).
A much better article about Hillary can be found in Judith Warner’s blog on the New York Times. Ms. Warner suggests, correctly, that out here in flyover country no one gives a flying you know what about Monica Lewinsky or Socksgate or any of the other such nonsense the corporate media tried to foist off on us in the 90s. Here she explains why millionaire pundits thought Hillary was unelectable and why these pundits are wrong:
It was the fault of Bill and Monica, and the fact that you never knew when there was going to be another Bill and Monica. It was the fault of Hillary – for not taking the hard line on Bill and Monica the way a woman of her stature and standing was supposed to do. And it was the fault of voters – those people out there who would never, ever elect another Clinton.
(snip)
The “we†world of Tucker Carlson knew what they knew about Hillary Clinton — right up until about this week, I think — because they spend an awful lot of time talking to, socializing with and interviewing one another.
What they don’t do all that much is venture outside of a certain set of zip codes to get a feel for the way most people are actually living. They don’t sign up for adjustable rate mortgages, visit emergency rooms to get their primary health care, leave their children in unlicensed day care or lose their jobs because they have to drive their mothers home from the hospital after hip replacement surgery.
Hillary Clinton’s supporters, it turns out, do.
I will probably not vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war, her support for anti-flag burning laws, and her participation in saber-rattling exercises against Iran all disturb me greatly. And I have an array of other superb Democratic candidates to choose from.
But anyone who thinks that voters are concerned about the Clintons’ marriage or about Hillary’s hair or the amount of clevage she shows needs to get out of Georgetown more often.
Related posts:
Why don’t reporters like that just say “Hillary will win if she gets the most votes”? (From “Obvious Times” as reported by I.M. Evident )
I agree that it is time we became one nation under a groove. Cool post.
Thanks. And I’m glad there’s other P-Funk fans out there.
Now THAT’S the concert I want to see: P-Funk with Bill Clinton
Great post, by the way.
But we all know that winning the most votes does not get you elected President. You need the most electoral votes to be elected President.
Nevertheless, this post by Exile makes some very good points. Our national media, covering the election, is mostly content-less. I think our society would improve, and our media would improve, if they actually covered the different positions of the candidates instead of spending 99% of their space on garbage like Hillary’s cackle, Hillary’s cleavage, Hillary and Bill’s marriage and whether or not Hillary killed Vince Foster.