If you had to pick one Democrat for President?

[RMNIXON]

Hillary walks a fine line many could accept


By Charles Krauthammer

Bill Clinton's greatest domestic achievement, aside from abolishing welfare, was free trade. The crown jewel was the North American Free Trade Agreement. He got that through Congress over sustained union opposition in 1993. Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed that NAFTA and other existing trade agreements be reassessed every five years.

The Washington Post correctly calls Hillary's retreat from free trade "opportunism under pressure," the pressure being the rampant and popular protectionism of her presidential rivals, particularly in protectionist Iowa. But while "opportunism under pressure" suggests (pace Hemingway) cowardice, the better description of Clintonism is slipperiness. Adaptability. Cynicism, if you like.

Note her clever use of terms. Reassessing NAFTA sounds great to protectionists, but it is perfectly ambiguous. It could mean abolition or radical curtailment. It could also mean establishing a study commission whose recommendations might not reach President Hillary Clinton's desk until too late in her second term.

The Post editorial noted "a perverse kind of good news" in Hillary's free-trade revisionism: "There's little chance that her position reflects any deeply held principle." And there lies the beauty not just of Clinton on free trade but of the Clinton candidacy itself: She has no principle. Her liberalism is redeemed by her ambition; her ideology subordinate to her political needs.

I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her - precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband's - flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated - always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e. self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.

I could never vote for her because the Clintons' liberal internationalism on display in the 1990s is naive in theory and feckless in practice. And her domestic policy sees state intervention and expansion as the answer to every human ill from mortgage default to the common cold. Nonetheless, if 2008 is going to be a Democratic year, as it very well could, Hillary would serve the country better than any of her Democratic rivals.

On Iraq, for example, she talks like someone who knows she may soon be commander in chief and will need room to maneuver to achieve whatever success might be possible. Clinton has emphatically refused to give assurances that she would get us out of Iraq during her first term. She has committed herself to little more than a drawdown of forces as conditions allow.

On Iran, Clinton has been pilloried from the left for supporting a completely anodyne resolution designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. This would trigger serious economic sanctions that would greatly complicate its ability to operate.
Her leading rivals opposed the resolution on the bogus grounds that it is a blank check for Bush to go to war with Iran. It is nothing of the sort. An earlier version of the Iran resolution that would have allowed "the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments" to counter Iranian activity inside Iraq might indeed have been interpreted as such an authorization. But that provision was dropped in the resolution that Clinton, and 75 other senators, voted for.

And look what Clinton unveiled this week: a modestly government-subsidized, personal retirement account. True, it is yet another big-government middle-class entitlement. Yes, she ignores the looming Social Security crisis. On the other hand, establishing a universal, portable, personal retirement account is something conservatives have long and devoutly sought. It establishes a parallel to the Social Security system - the perfect vehicle for a future conservative administration to use for shifting from the current unsustainable government-controlled program to a privatized system such as the one in Chile.

Even Clinton's response to a debate question on torture - "As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period" - is elegantly phrased to imply an implacable opposition to torture, and yet leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances a president would do what she had to do, i.e. authorize torture, regardless of the express policy.

Clinton rarely falters. Always careful, always calibrated, always leaving room for expediency over ideology. That's Clintonism, of both marital flavors. Gender sensitivity prevents me from calling her the consummate needle threader. Consider her instead Columbus' match as the Great Navigator.

__________________________________________________ _______________


You may not like the mans Ideology, but Krauthhammer is one smart guy and very good at political observation. I cannot help but agree in many respects.

Personally, I like Obama. If I had to spend time with any of the big three he would be it. He is honest even when I think he is naive. I don't know where he will be when leadership means doing the right thing however. Not just what public perception dictates. That unknown bothers me.

I have no doubt that Edwards is a spineless phony. He would cry like a baby at the first crisis he encounters. He will be run by his advisors. He does not have that JFK quality to talk down to some older guy with many years Washington experiance. He would be a disaster in the Whitehouse!

So that leaves Hillary Clinton. And just as Krauthhammer suggests, she will know that being a President means all the people are watching, not just the far left. She will know how to play the middle and maybe do the right thing by accident or even by intention even if the Daily Kos cries foul as the left did with Welfare Reform. And if we get into a bad situation in the war on terror I think she just might concentrate more on the Nations Security than how good her hair looks on Television.

On Taxes, spending, and domestic policy she would be a mess. We are already, but that is not beyond repair. So If I had to pick one Democrat I am going to shock you and pick her! If no Republican stands out I think the county might also? But were gonna put up a fight!

[motivez]

I think Hillary is obviously going to be a centrist President like Bill was if she's elected, she is a panderer.. but a centrist one. She wont do something she thinks is going to alienate most of the country to placate the far left or the far right..

Which is exactly why the left wing blogs are really not supporting her at all, she's the 'establishment' candidate and, well, they don't like the establishment.

I don't really know who I'd pick, honestly. I haven't made my mind up about any of them because we're so far out.. but I want someone who is going to stand on principle and hopefully work to change the way our government has been mismanaged for the last two terms instead of allowing the power to go to their head (too much)

[JaJae]

I'd probably go with Biden, Obama or Richardson for the Democratic party... in no particular order. I have my reservations about each of them, but I prefer them over the other choices.

[DosEquis]

Joe Biden would be my choice.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'd probably go with Biden, Obama or Richardson for the Democratic party... in no particular order. I have my reservations about each of them, but I prefer them over the other choices.

That's about where I am at the moment.

[David Octavius]

Dennis Kucinich...

He is 61 and his wife is 28

[hsmith]

My choice:

1)

[Donkey®]

Hillary is my choice because Bill is right there.

[garbagemanlb]

I like Richardson and Obama. I will never vote for Hillary.

[thomez]

Mark Warner

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think Hillary is obviously going to be a centrist President like Bill was if she's elected, she is a panderer.. but a centrist one. She wont do something she thinks is going to alienate most of the country to placate the far left or the far right..

Which is exactly why the left wing blogs are really not supporting her at all, she's the 'establishment' candidate and, well, they don't like the establishment.

I don't really know who I'd pick, honestly. I haven't made my mind up about any of them because we're so far out.. but I want someone who is going to stand on principle and hopefully work to change the way our government has been mismanaged for the last two terms instead of allowing the power to go to their head (too much)

From what I understand she was behind Bill's big push to the left just after he got elected. She pratically ran domestic policy and healthcare. Then when they gor creamed by Republicans in 2004 she was against Dick Morris pushing Bill back to center. They hate each other to this day! But she probably came to understand that it saved him in 2006. I would not expect anything to risky left out of her unless she can get re-elected in 2012.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I like Richardson and Obama. I will never vote for Hillary.

I thought Richardson might make a run to the right of Hillary, but he seems to have lost any momentum. I heard he made some very left-wing statments about Iraq not to long ago and nobody seemed to even care?