Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Love Clinton?

Times have indeed changed. Remember when Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton were the Republicans’ favorite punching bag? Nothing either did was good or right. The Clinton-punching bag was in use every minute of every day. Today, it appears that Republicans prefer Hillary Clinton to all the other Democratic candidates for president!

Not because Republicans think they can win against Hillary. They admit the chances for any Republican presidential candidate are pretty slim. They "love" Clinton because she is more conservative than the others. This is essentially what Bruce Barlett, a conservative pundit says:

Is hell freezing over? One might think so after reading recent comments from editors at National Review and the Weekly Standard, America's leading conservative magazines. Over the last 15 years, both magazines seldom have passed up an opportunity to excoriate Hillary Rodham Clinton as some kind of crypto-communist.

No more. Today, Sen. Clinton is rapidly becoming not merely acceptable to many right-wingers but possibly even their candidate of choice.

Bartlett prefers Clinton because she did not repudiate her vote for the Iraq War, which makes her a better potential commander-in-chief, in his eyes. Also she has made favorable comments about Big Business, trade and lobbyists. Obama is too liberal for Bartlett.

In other words, Barlettt favors Clinton because he thinks she would not change too much the conservative government that the Republicans built. He likes her because she would provide more of the same.

I can't think of a better reason NOT to vote for Clinton. Boy, do we need change. We need change in Iraq: we need to get out. We need change in the Middle East: we must work towards peace between Palestinians and Israelis and we must quiet the Iran-U.S confrontation that may otherwise lead to another war. We need to rebuild our reputation as a leader for good in the world. We need to restore our civil liberties at home, the liberties that Gonzales robbed from us. We need to build our economy so that all people, not only the wealthy, benefit. We need a universal healthcare system that serves all our needs.

Above all, we need change. We need to stop the ridiculous and wild personal attacks and talk to each other civilly. We need less polarization and more understanding. We need less fighting for rights and more working for the common good. We need less competition and more cooperation.

We don't need the Republican favorite, the confrontational Hillary Clinton. We need the liberal Democratic favorite, the accommodational Barack Obama.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 10, 2007 5:08 PM
Comments
Comment #228971

The Republicans might prefer Hillary to all the other Democratic candidates, but that doesn’t mean they like her. That just well could mean that they feel the Republican candidates have a better chance of beating her in 08 over the rest.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 10, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #228972

“We need less fighting for rights and more working for the common good.”

Of course we do, the extreme left will have total power and you will agree with their views so you believe that is for the common good. Why else would you make such a silly statement as “less fighting for rights.”

“We need less competition and more cooperation”

As long as you leftists don’t respect the rights those on the right are concerned about and the righties don’t respect the rights you are concerned about, no cooperation will be had.

When hillary wins in 08, millions of people will have serious concerns and you will ignore them as you all did in the 90s and the way you have been ignored currently.

Posted by: kctim at August 10, 2007 6:00 PM
Comment #228978

Paul Siegel- I believe first of all, Clinton an Obama need to end their tit for tat childish
arguing back an forth amongst each other, an set
a professional example for these debates. Could be a
good start getting the rest on a new an invigorating
an respectable debate.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 10, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #228980

Paul,

Yes, that is the risk you run with Clinton, more of the same. She is a tried and true political heavyweight. And although I yearn for the freshness of Obama I do believe he needs some seasoning. If he can withstand the rigor of the beltway and get reelected Senator or even become Governor of Illinois and still maintain his vision I will vote for him in a heartbeat.

If you think Bill Clinton was bad for the country then we couldn’t use more of the same. I know it will be a far cry from the last eight years.

Posted by: chris2x at August 10, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #228981

“The Republicans might prefer Hillary to all the other Democratic candidates, but that doesn’t mean they like her. That just well could mean that they feel the Republican candidates have a better chance of beating her in 08 over the rest.”
Posted by: Ron Brown at August 10, 2007 05:55 PM

Ron,

It is easy to see through the attampts of the Hillary machine to declare that the Republicans are going to vote for her while she is courting the hard lefties at their conventions.
She is running her campaign like Bill ran his; protraying himself as a centrist, while promising the left whatever they wish to hear. She is trying to garner as many votes from the middle as she can, having her team talk about how Republicans even favor her over their own candidates. This is political strategy. She is not stupid!
She knows that if she gets the nomination, the hard left will vote for her anyway for their old saying “Anyone but Bush” will become “Anyone but a Republican”. What she needs is the center if she is going to have any chance. The Press will be looking for every Republican they can find with moderate to liberal views who will admit that Hillary is a bit more centrist than Obama. Somehow this will be played that even Republicans are considering voting for her. Don’t believe it, for it is a big media-created centrist hype!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 10, 2007 7:19 PM
Comment #228988

Obama and Edwards while fresh lack gravitas. There is a reason Al Gore still polls in double digits.

Posted by: chris2x at August 10, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #228989

JD,Ron Brown
You are both right.

All
We have a way to go yet.Edwards will do well in Iowa and SC and other early primaries while in the mean time HC and BO will keep doing the Reps work for them. Bad idea to let the MSM pick our candidate.

cris2x
Gravitas sounds like some sort of greek salad. Really,that is subjective. Read Edwards healthcare proposal.

Posted by: BillS at August 10, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #228990

Usually I have a strong favorite, but I really love O’Bama, Edwards, and Hillary. I think any of them will do fine. Hillary does have experience though. She will hit the ground running. After all that Republicans have put her through, I give her credit simply for still wanting to serve her country.

Posted by: Max at August 10, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #228993

BillS,

I like Greek salad. I also want a single-payer health plan for the country. Edwards plan to get there looks promising. I especially like Medicare going head-to-head with the HMOs because I think the outcome will shut up the for-profit privateers of health insurance. Let’s see who is more efficient.

Posted by: chris2x at August 10, 2007 9:28 PM
Comment #228995

chris2x

That is one reason I like his plan also. It gives people a choice. I think that shows much Greek salad.

Posted by: BillS at August 10, 2007 10:04 PM
Comment #228996

Careful Bill, I sense a catch phrase in the making.

Yours,
Chris (Mucho Greek Salad) 2x

Posted by: chris2x at August 10, 2007 10:11 PM
Comment #229003

Okay, your point is that Republicans might prefer Hillary over the other Democratic candidates.

But you also say that we need “less polarization.” So how does that lead to the conclusion that we need the “liberal Democrat favorite,” Barack Obama?

As usual, Paul, this makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 11, 2007 1:27 AM
Comment #229004

I suspect Hillary’s popularity with Republicans — and by Republicans, I’m talking Reagan Democrats (welcome back!) — speaks more to their disdain of the Republican candidates than an actual love of Hillary and her policies.

I think Obama and Hillary would both make excellent Presidents, but I lean towards Hillary precisely because I’m not interested in a revolution. The biggest change I’d like to see in Washington right now is in the competence of our government officials.

I expect universal healthcare, a balanced budget, better relations with our allies and a recommitment to getting al-Qaeda — the guys who attacked America — rather than screwing around in Iraq, but first and foremost I want competence. That pretty much means Hillary.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 11, 2007 1:34 AM
Comment #229061

Chris2x

I have seen recent photos of Gore. There is no doubt that he has put on lots of gravitas.

Paul

I never said too many bad things re Clinton. His big accomplishments were in line with what I like (welfare reform, NATO expansion, NAFTA & limited government). I did not like the Clinton hate, just like I do not like the Bush hate today.

The problem with being more liberal than Clinton is that some things just do not work. The reason Americans rejected liberal policies is not that they did not like the notions involved, but because experience in the 1960s and 1970s indicated they did not work and sometimes made problems such as poverty worse. That is why the “conservative” Clinton welfare reform was a good thing.

Perhaps a new generation has grow up that does not remember the liberal failures and lacking experience will audaciously embrace hope. They will learn, as we did.

Posted by: Jack at August 12, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #229063

The Bartlett piece suggests that Clinton might be the “candidate of choice” for some Republicans, but gives no evidence for anything except that Republicans find her less distasteful than the other Democratic candidates. It certainly doesn’t suggest that they’d vote for her over a Republican candidate.

For a lot of Republicans (this one included), Hillary is the devil we know. We have a reasonably good sense of what her administration would be like—and how we’d oppose it. On national security issues especially, we feel far more comfortable with her than we do any of the others, and that’s the real source of this sentiment. Doesn’t mean, however, that we’d actually vote for her over a Republican.


Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 12, 2007 1:07 AM
Comment #229071

Jack

As others have pointed out ,you guys spent something like 50 million dollars trying to pin something on the Clintons. You have already vetted Her.
Sad thing about some some of the War on Poverty” programs.(why is it always a war on something?)There was some success,depending on how you measure it. Children did eat better. Fewer young mothers turned to prostitution than otherwise might have but you are correct that a horrible cycle of dependancy was developed. Where is your usual optimism? Consider it a learning experience. The problem of poverty still exist in the richest country on earth.Can’t we do better?One of the great errors with the AFDC program was it penalized or cut off recipients if there was a man in the house. This was done for”moral” reasons. Great,lets run off all the fathers or father figures,that ‘ll help.Another big difference between now and then is that mothers were encouraged to not work,to stay home and care for their children. That is not the emphasis now. I am a mixed on that one. Oh yeah,H.Clinton is right. It takes a village to raise a child.Improved help with child care would help.The price of one Osprey should do it.

Posted by: BillS at August 12, 2007 2:19 AM
Comment #229074

ta hell with hillary, i’d far prefer obama… assuming ron paul, huckabee (and possibly even giuliani) fall flat.

Posted by: diogenes at August 12, 2007 3:22 AM
Comment #229076

Your all in this Trojan Horse on this one!

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 12, 2007 3:34 AM
Comment #229080

BillS

The war on poverty WAS a learning experience. We learned that incentives matter and behavior is what drives poverty or an escape from it. We learned that the idea that you can buy your way out of a cultural/behavioral problem with government money does not work.

Welfare reform did not get government out of the poverty fighting business. On the contrary, the Bush administration has spent more on anti-poverty programs than any other. But we have changed from the poor as helpless victims paradigm to the poor as decision making actors, who respond to incentives and conditions and who can help or hinder their recovery from poverty.

We are just a lot smarter now and we know that the traditional liberal idea that understood individuals as groups was flawed.

Posted by: Jack at August 12, 2007 8:43 AM
Comment #229130

Well of course Republicans love Hillary. They are about to hand her an unwinnable war in Iraq for which they can blame her in perpetuity for having failed. They have a 16 years of rhetoric and history with Clinton(s) upon which to draw upon after she is elected. They view Hillary as their easiest and best laid path back into the White House after the abysmal failure of their the current Republican President. Hillary affords them the opportunity to turn excrement into gold in the election of 2012. At least, that is how many of their analysts are viewing it, having written off any chance of winning in ‘08.

Obama on the other hand, would pose a serious threat to their taking back the White House in 2012 - he was opposed to Iraq from the beginning and cannot be tagged with the responsibility for its outcome so easily. But, you can readily see I think the rationale for Bush insuring that the Iraq conflict is passed on to a Democratic President. It is essential to their political future and strategy. And in light of Democrats refusal to seal the borders, making another terrorist attack in the U.S. an inevitability, the road is paved for Republican comeback.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #229131

Jack said: “We are just a lot smarter now and we know that the traditional liberal idea that understood individuals as groups was flawed.”

You mean like Terry Schaivo? That was a conservative action, Jack. Exemplifying no difference between Democrats and Republicans regarding individuals as groups, when the issue is one they favor for political divisiveness and gain.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2007 8:12 PM
Comment #229164

When Hillary wins in 08 there will be no stopping the Democrat Pork Party!

So much for fiscal responsibility….they are outspending the republicans and democrats don’t even want to talk about it…now. Before the elections they were crying about how worried they were about how all that spending is affecting the future of the “little children”. Today the democrats spend massively and no longer talk about how they are spending the “little children’s future”.

Posted by: Stephen at August 13, 2007 12:41 AM
Comment #229165

Both Clinton and Obama have now stated they would be in Iraq for years if elected. I think Obama is climbing on board with Hillary so she can be clear to pick him as her VP.

Posted by: Stephen at August 13, 2007 12:42 AM
Comment #229176

Stephen, your comment is pure bullcrap. Republicans added 3.15 Trillion to the national debt in 6.5 years. Democrats haven’t been in control but 6 months and the deficit is going to be less under this Congress than previous ones over the last 5 years.

You will have to wait 6.5 years of Democratic control to make the claim they are outspending the Republicans. Doesn’t logic or rationality have even the remotest place in your comments?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 2:36 AM
Comment #229203

Hillary is too conservative, but I will be voting for her anyway, because I want a Hillary Clinton library in Park Ridge. I like the idea of Obama for governor, our current one is pretty useless. The vice presidency should go to someone from a state where we will get more electoral votes. Edwards did not carry North Carolina as the VP candidate last time.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 13, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #229236

clinton is too conservative for you.
She is too liberal for me.
You will vote for her in hope your party will win.
I will vote against her in hope that America will win.

Posted by: kctim at August 13, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #229413

Paul Siegel infers that Hillary is not a good candidate for president because she appears to support some of the GOPS way of life. Well, maybe; Lets consider, the right is backing off and moving their pawns in a position to take her down if she is the nominee this time around. Of course they are, the Republicans are preparing now for every possible Democratic nominee. Every well known conservative writer has been softly, and with studied fore thought, leaving their “bleeding heart” (two words they love) positions which put Bush in office. This is the common CYA (cover your a—) period in which the right wing writers have to establish printed words that will substantiate their future columns.
It must be well known that because of eight years of Bush there is more money available for truth-twisting than ever before in history.
Any Democratic nominated will have to fight billions of under the table dollars to get elected. We Democrats have to band together to face this boiling cauldron of greed. It will only be the intelligent communication on the part of our party that will make a difference.

Posted by: David Kish at August 14, 2007 7:21 PM
Comment #230231

Obama has self destructed saying incredibly ignorant things for foreign policy. He has proven Hillary is the better man for the job and that he will be her VP.

So what’s new? Hey guess what, once she’s in, she wont have to pander to the left! LAUGH.

Posted by: Stephen at August 22, 2007 5:39 AM
Post a comment