How Hillary Can Win Me Back

I saw it during the ABC/Facebook debate last night. That spark. I SAW IT.

When Edwards and Obama started hammering her tag-team style, she got ANGRY-that's when the Hillary I used to love came back out to fight.

Of course, that Hillary is the one that tends to fire me up while turning others off. That's the Hillary that gets the sexist and conservative voters calling her the b-word and railing against having a crazy woman in power.

That fight I saw in her? It was real. Genuine. It was the kind of thing her campaign was trying to manufacture with those cackles on national television and giggles of a "softer side." Why can't they just admit "Hillary lite" isn't nearly as exciting and commanding as "Hillary pissed and yelling" -- don't sell me a softer Hillary, sell me what I KNOW works and gets stuff done: Raging Ass Kicker Hillary.

I don't care anymore if you hate her for it. You hated her anyway and you'll hate her again. I don't care if she's so far into the establishment she is considered the "same old thing."

Bring back the Hillary people love to hate instead of this Middle-of-The-Road-play-all-sides, rhetoric spewing android Democrat and she'll get me back. Then we can talk about experience AND history. Then we can talk about having the resume AND being the First Woman President.

She was right last night -- a woman in the Oval Office would be huge. But no one is talking about it yet. No one is excited about it yet-why? She's made us forget she could make history by becoming one of the many drones of politics. By becoming one of them. She used to be trail blazer, now she's lost in the herd.

Show me that trail blazer again. Show me the woman who tried to push universal health care while not even a politician. Who, when I was still a teenager, had me reading up on drug makers and their lobby? Who had me proud and excited a strong and vocal woman was injecting herself into the national spotlight in a way no other First Lady has?

Let her loose.

Then all those women and young people the Hillary camp took for granted -- all those WOMEN LIKE ME who have been waiting their ENTIRE LIVES for this just might consider making it happen.

Let her loose.

And hope it's not too late.

Comments

[eaglecapri]

Erin,

I couldn't help but think of you last night as the 'Clinton Moment' started unfolding. Where was the Raging Ass-Kicker Hillary?

They say you're either born with it, or you're not...That 'IT' factor. Hillary doesn't have it and so she has to manufacture it: charisma, genuinity, appeal, etc. And although I believe 'the moment' was part frustration that she was losing and part calculating, I have to side with you that I prefer the harder side of her, ONLY because she doesn't have the IT factor. Go with what you know.

In the age of terrorism and terrorists gunning for the United States, we have no room for the 'softer side' of Hillary Clinton. We would be a laughing stock to the men and women out there who want to DESTROY us! I'm sure Osama Bin Laden etal are licking their chops waiting for the weakest link (Hillary) to be elected president. She is not a threat to them. Just a woman who cries under pressure as she talks about passion for her country...then in the next breath says - 1) Some of us are right, some of us are wrong; 2) Some of us are ready, some of us are not; and 3) (my favorite) Some of us know what we'd do on day one, some of us hasn't thought this through! Her last ditch 'softer side' ploy for votes should lose her the nomination, deservedly so.

[SFLouis]

As far as this likeability issue is concerned, I feel compelled to say that it is of little consequence to me as a voter in comparison to trustworthiness. Y'all can hem and haw all you want about how Hillary comes off as a robot to you, or how she takes $$$ from sources you don't like, but that's like calling a kettle black in comparison to two pots. Edwards has tried to convince you that he's just like you by talking about how his father worked in a mill. Obama has tried to convince you that he's just like you by reminding you that he was flipping back and forth between the republican debate and football.

These statements imply egregious lies. Make no mistake; unless you are very rich and very powerful, these men's personal lives are nothing like yours. Furthermore, like Clinton, they have also taken plenty of $$$ from sources you might not like. The only thing that they can cite to make you think that they won't be controlled by lobbyists/special interests is the fact that they haven't spent very much time in Washington. That, and a lot of big talk with no walk to back it up so far. Their argument, to me, is asinine, and comes from people who are showing me that I can't trust them because they're implying things about their personal lives that simply aren't true. How could they have any idea what they'll be up against should they be elected? They don't. They don't know what it's like to deal with lobbyists in the white house, and if you think they're going to throw them all out, you're a dreamer. (Sigh) well, the world does need them.

Hillary may come off as a robotic politician, but that's because she's the only one who's showing us her true colors. Wake up, people.

[itsnotmyfault]

In that very same debate Hillary engendered the tag team response by relying on quasi republican framing, accusing Obama of debating himself. Implying that Obama's record reflects inconsistency. That, besides being stupid on its face, does her no service. She deserved the response she got.

Her reaction to Edwards subsequent attack on her was, as you say, genuine and full of meaningful substance. If one carefully listened to the responses by the respective candidates, it was Hillary exclusively, who responded in meaningful and thoughtful ways which reflected not only her command of the information, but her leadership ability in being able to, on the fly, order the relevant information in a way that would engender an appropriate strategic position. Her analysis on withdrawing troops from Iraq was a perfect example of that.

It is that quality and capability, which she has failed to bring to the publics eye and as a result, she languishes in the election ether. She should commend Obama for his success thus far. And she should suggest that because the electorate has acknowledged his candidacy as credible, a far more serious vetting of the respective strengths of both Obama and Hillary is a necessity. The electorate should demand real substinative responses from Barack and no longer accept his platitudes.

Hillary is in that tough spot that when she suggests that aspects of Obama's record fall short of the illusion his campaign has created for Obama, the response is that Hillary is simply being shrill and smearing him. He never has to respond to a body of fact about his record, that if addressed would prove very difficult for him. If Hillary places the onus on the electorate to really demand more directly from Obama, his real record may be enough to diminish his momentum. Maybe then a campaign on real issues can commence.

[davedave]

the clinton rule is hit back when you've been unfairly maligned (gospel acc: rev bill). you get a free punch, as hard as want and you make your point. people want you to take that punch.

the problem is hillary is sort of unlikeable and has a voting record that puts her in the unenviable position of staying w unpopular positions too long. then the problem of appearing to be pandering when she changes her tune. these are fair criticisms of her electability and leadership.

not complex. when you're under a tree surrounded by apples, think apple tree. at least first....

d

[eaglecapri]

Sorry! What I say was my mother being pissed off and frustrated because she no longer could assert her power over me! It's a double standard, I know - women who get angry are 'b*tches' - but, it is what it is.

When she was 'ranting', I couldn't help but wonder if she turned off alot of married men that had 'ranting' wives! Who wants to see that in the house, let alone in the White House?

It also gave me some inclination of how she would be as our president. She can't express herself effectively, so she blows a gasket when she's been attacked? Ummmm....no, I don't thinks so. We need someone with poise and able to articulate themselves effectively in the eye of the storm.

Her 'fire' seemed more about being totally pissed off that she was no longer #1! It read, 'You f*cking idiots! Can't you see that I should be in the White House? I've worked very hard and I deserve some f'in respect!'.­...Waaaaaa­aa....poor baby!

[longislandlol]

She did indeed blaze a trail----

[AxelDC]

You mistake arrogance for passion and self-righteousness for righteous indignation.

Hillary is mad because she thinks she DESERVES to be President. She can't see that elections are based on popularity, not her scale of merit. It's not a graduate degree, where hard work gets you the reward. It's an election, and Hillary is not the preferred candidate.

She still thinks that she is the smartest one in the room. Her problem has always been that she thinks she is smarter than everyone else and therefor they need to listen to her, not the other way around. Barak Obama is clearly smarter than her, and she can't admit it.

[Kane]

I realize that the media is always looking for a new narrative, but I didn't see Obama and Edwards hammering Clinton tag-team style during last night's debate. If I recall, it was Clinton who launched a number of criticisms at Obama. And that's OK, it is after all a debate. Obama deflected those criticisms, and he reiterated the importance of not distorting each others records as election day approaches in New Hampshire. Edwards was visibly chomping at the bit to add his own two cents, obviously wanting to align himself with "change" while painting Clinton as the status quo. That too is OK.

And through the magic of the media it becomes, "Clinton Attacked by Obama and Edwards"

Such headlines are not only false and misleading, but they suggest that Obama and Edwards are working together against Clinton. This plays to the advantage of Clinton. Not only does it portray Clinton as the victim, but it gives the Clinton team permission to go negative and go on the attack.

[garcohsf]

Edwards' only hope is to stick around long enough for Clinton to get knocked out of the race and then to beat Obama mano a mano (so to speak). It isn't going to work, but it explains why he defended Obama and went after her -- I think it was calculated and executed brilliantly.

I agree that Clinton's best hope now is to "let Hillary be Hillary" and show the anger, the passion, etc. But Edwards is getting criticized for being too angry, and there's no question that Clinton would have an even harder time with this, because of sexism.

No doubt this is all very complicated -- the first woman to be elected President will have to be so much more than the men she is running against. I think it hurts Clinton that she is essentially sexless, and that it's hard to look at her without thinking about her philandering husband.

I think her two biggest problems are that it is even more obvious in her case (as it was in Bill's) that she will say and do anything to get elected than it is with her opponents. And in her case, she made some big mistakes, such as supporting the Iraq war. She didn't just vote for it -- she supported it, in speeches that were indistinguishable from what Bush and the Republicans were saying. She hasn't ever had the humility and courage to admit that she was wrong.

Tragically, she continues to play the "fear" card now, trying to convince voters that Obama isn't -- what? -- "something" enough to be President and face the next terrorist attack. Once again, she sounds just like Bush.

Clinton's biggest problem in my mind is that she is the one Democrat who could actually lose this thing. And we just can't afford to take that chance. Her negatives are so high, there are so many people who hate her and will never vote for her, she mobilizes the evangelicals and right wing crazies like no other candidate. Maybe it's sexism, maybe it's the Clinton legacy, maybe it's unfair, but it's true.

[amosduncan]

The problem may be that their isn't a problem; or that part of Hillary that She can't take back (those terrible votes) has come home to roost. The moment may simply belong to Obama.

Seems to me, if anyones been fighting dirty it's Ophra's Bullies, but these thin skinned warriors are in for the ultimate rude awakinging if they think the likes of Chris Matthews is going to stick with him when he's running against a Republican.

[Ranta]

Hillary , DLC, Blue Dog = Republican lite.

It doesn't matter that she is female. It matters that she is corporate money and pro-war.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

The only person who can let Hillary loose is Hillary. but first she has to unleash all the consultants, pollsters, strategists and yes, even Bill. I've seen glimpses of real Hillary, and I find her far less objectionable than Hillary the candidate. In fact, sometimes I've actually found myself liking her against my will.

[maidyalook]

watching the debate, the one thing I took from it was, I still like Hillary, I see nothing that inspires me with Obama, and Edwards was Obamas guardian angel. When given the opporunity by Hillary to confront Obama on issues and policies, and even taking up for Edwards at one point, Edwards backstabbed Hillary like a little bitch. It"s time for Obama to be vetted now, whether by Hillary, or Republicans, but I"m tired of him getting treated like Bush, untouchable. Just can't take another Bush clone again. One that has to be protected from the masses like royalty. Quit whining everytime Hillary gets close to proving you are not ready for primetime Mr. Obama.

[Libsrule]

I don't care about her anger or standing up or anything.

More than anything I'm just tired of Bush's and Clinton's in the White House. I really am. I don't think Hillary is actually interested in being president of the country so much as I've always gotten the feeling it's total ego driving her. Just my feeling.

Her inability to really give us an answer on illegal driver's licenses spoke volumes and volumes about her ability to give us what she really thinks without consulting her experts and pollsters.

Besides I'm just tired of Clinton's and Bush's running things. We have had a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 1980!(yes I know Ronnie Raygun was president but you know what I mean, B1 was behind the throne a lot) And the idea of a Clinton in the White House for another 8 years just drives me crazy.

Think about it, if we get Hillary for 8 years that will be THIRTY SIX YEARS OF THOSE TWO NAMES!!

What is this? A freaking dynasty being set up?

I'm tired of those two names being all we know running the country.

[leeskyblue]

Ms. Vest, Sen Clinton is not a "fighter" any more than Robt. Kennedy was. She is insecure and comes across as very arrogant. She is not a fighter, she is "abrasive." She is not a fighter, but she is evidently driven, a Southern po' girl who is hungry for power. She gives the impression that principles and methods are less important than power. She conveys that her agenda is not an end but a means, to satisfy an inner hunger that should not be the concern of the rest of us.
Hence, the "cackle", hence the fact that she comes across as patronizing (matronizing?) and abrasive and irritating.