Are Republicans Really Scared of Hillary Clinton?
by Taylor Marsh
It's interesting that when I write pieces about Clinton I'm attacked for being in her camp. But when there's an all-out attack, with most of the venom focused on her personally or she and her husband, it's just because she's the frontrunner. I can't possibly be writing pieces on Clinton because she's the frontrunner, too. Interesting how people parse their problems with me these days. When talking about Russert's sexist targeting of Clinton, getting personal, bringing up Bill Clinton, who isn't running this time around, and treating Obama to Halloween costume, air travel and life beyond earth questions, while not following up on an Edwards money angle, or asking Obama about Rezko, I'm called out for changing the subject, as Dan Abrams did last night during my guest appearance on "The Abrams Report," or for unjustly attacking poor Tim Russert. Amusing, really. As an aside, I didn't write or mention a word about Brian Williams' questions, just to be clear. Evidently Dan doesn't get that by the very action of treating Obama with softball questions, while ignoring Edwards money angle, especially since he's pilloried Hillary on hers, that very act is treating the boys differently than Clinton. Nothing personal about Obama. Nothing personal about Edwards. Oh, but it's all because she's the frontrunner. No follow ups when Edwards was asked about his campaign contributions that had him admitting nobody is pure. Letting that slide to go once again at Clinton. There's a reason Chris Dodd's team has a debate clock available and it isn't because the election is over.
Clinton gets hit for acting like she's inevitable, but when I talk about the lopsided questioning from someone like Russert, everyone cries, "But she's the frontrunner." It would be terribly humorous if this wasn't a serious issue. We're selecting the Democratic candidate who likely will be the leader of the free world.
The tape above is interesting for what Scarborough has to say about Clinton. It's honest and transparent, something that is very rare right now. I've taken out after Scarborough before, but he is very frank about Republicans. ... ... .. In the deep dark, club chaired back rooms, Republicans are talking about what a nightmare Hillary Clinton might be to run against. As the Democrats in 1980 wished for Ronald Reagan, and got a nightmare landslide, Republicans are fearing, well, Hillary Clinton, according to Joe, while Democrats try to convince everyone they're hoping for her.
"Republicans are scared of Hillary Clinton." - Joe Scarborough
Karl Rove gave it away when he left the White House. Going on every show that would have him, including Rush, he stated over and over again that Clinton was flawed and had too many negatives. How many stories have been written saying many Democrats think the same thing? That was the giveaway. Because if Rove really wanted to run against Clinton he would have been talking about her formidable presence and how she was the one to beat, not playing into the real Democratic fears of some. Rove was trying to scare Democrats away from Clinton.
Democrats try to do the same thing over and over again while trying to do whatever they can to beat her. Edwards and Obama talked about it in the Drexel debate. They believe Republicans want to run against her, saying so often, loudly and in every medium they can. Considering that right now she's kicking the collective butt of her opponents you have to ask why exactly would Republicans want to run against her?
**crickets**
Unfortunately, nobody is asking that simple question. Everyone's too fixated on the conventional wisdom being dispensed, regardless of whether it makes any sense or is supported by facts.
It took a debate brawl at Drexel, where most of the questions were directed at Clinton, with every man on stage hitting her again and again before she finally skipped one beat. But even then she didn't forget to protect our own, Gov. Eliott Spitzer, who is trying to solve a national security issue in New York without any help from Bush or the Congress. Never mind that Clinton realizes Spitzer is actually charged with solving a problem, it's more important for Russert, Edwards, Obama et al. to make a point that she didn't answer a 15 minute question in 30 seconds before being asked to answer yes or no.
I also have to wonder if anyone else gets that the illegal immigration license question has got to be boiled down into a domestic and national security imperative, or if Democrats are just going to let Republicans turn it into their dog whistle issue of the '08 election. You know, like anti gay marriage amendments, or that all time wingnut favorite, abortion.
The issue is that Barack Obama and John Edwards have their own foibles, faults and not so shiny problems that are being ignored in the campaign so that everyone can rip into Clinton. Tearing down the frontrunner to make this a closer race, which allows the ones she's beating to rise is much easier when she gets the bright lights and the majority of the tough questions, sometimes even hostile charges. Newsflash: She is the frontrunner but she's not the only one in the race. It's called democracy and the primary isn't over. But again, because Clinton's got a big lead most of the tough questions should be thrown at her, while giving the others trying to catch her a pass so they can, even though that will mean we know less about them than her. But at least she'll be taken down a peg, right? Go figure.
Scarborough, in his very matter of fact, here's the truth way, revealed the Republicans' real feelings about Clinton. This week Russert went after Clinton because she's way ahead. I called him on it not because I'm in league with Clinton, but because this primary season isn't over yet, and even as Russert tries to help everyone else tear Clinton down so they can catch up, in the process we learn everything about her, but little about them and their flaws.
What if it works? What if the candidate Republicans fear is taken down by these tactics? Will we even know the weaknesses of the person who emerges? Or in the end will the only candidate we get to know be Clinton? That's fine if she wins, but what if she doesn't?
Then there's the other issue. What if Clinton wins the nomination, but in the process we hand the Republicans all the tools they need to take her down?
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ms. Marsh, first you cry that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly treated; now you cry that you have been unfairly treated.
Women are not victims.
You and H. Clinton do crap for women's rights and for women being treated fairly.
Quit whining.
Heck no! The Republicans have no fear. Not only that, Hillary is a big target and they will spare nothing to win. The bigger they are the harder they fall. And so far, I haven't seen anything about Hillary that makes me confident that she will win in the General.
I will not be voting for her in the Primary.
Her position on Illegal aliens is an example: She will not enforce the law any more than Bill Clinton did, if it interferes with her business friends and corporate allies.
Unfortunately Hillary is a corporatist. She sold out to the mega-corporations long ago to get where she is. To think she would buck them for the little people is absurd. I am starting to think that Edwards might be worth a vote. Let's be realistic, Bill Clinton is desperate to get another bite of the apple. He didn't really do much but govern by polls when he was in and I think he now realizes it. The trouble with both the Clintons is that it is just about having the power not really doing any great things. On the whole I think Hillary would be a lot like the yoyo we have in power now. She is positioning herself to continue the Chimp's insane policies just like Nixon did with LBJ's war. Anyone who thinks that the Dems have a spine should only look at how they wet themselves when the Chimp speaks now. That is fear not leadership.
The Republicans do not fear running against Hillary Clinton. They fear NOT running against her. There is a reason they've been pumping her inevitably up on the other side. Because, they know that they can beat her. She has high negative and is a rallying cry for their base. On top of that, we're taking one of the most dire election in modern history and experimenting on whether or not this country is ready for a woman president, and not just any woman, but one with some very controversial baggage and high negatives. One that just did a redo of her wreckless vote on Iraq with Iran. This is what we want? We must really want change. We must really want this election.
That goes for Barak O'Bama, too. Sadly, I can say with certainty he will not win a general election. Again, looking at President Guiliani if either of the 2 aforementioned are our party's nominees.
For some reason, John Edwards, who I believe has the best shot of winnning a general and who wants to take on the status quo and gain control of this country's direction and values again, is being downplayed and discounted by the other side. Not just the other side, but this side as well, and there is a reason for that. He is not representing the status quo.
I think people better take their heads out of the sand if they want to win this next election. There is so much at stake and right now I'm fearing with dread a President Guiliani. That will truly be a tragedy that didn't have to happen.
Again, we are being misled by the system to the system candidates. Let's pick a candidate that will represent us. Kucinch can't win sadly, but Edwards can. Don't be misled. Too much at stake.
I have yet to see anyone post about the 800-pound gorilla in the room:
Putting Hillary in the White House puts Bill back in the White House (and don't even pretend to be naive about this). They will both be President. And as the Constitution stands right now, that is illegal for one of the Clintons.
Is no one else at least mildly irritated by this end-run around the Constitution?
Sen. Clinton's Strangelove or: How she learned to love the bomb
http://www
http://www
Hillary Clinton, a wishy-washy Pseudo-Republican who masquerades around Washington as a Democrat, learns to Stop worrying about Bill and start Loving the bomb... Loving the bomb for a war with Iran.
"ALL OPTIONS ARE LEFT ON THE TABLE WITH RESPECT TO IRAN" = CODE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS STRIKE
STOP THE BOMB - www.gravel
So we should elect a president because others are picking on them. Are you saying there is no substantive problems with her vision of governing? She has plenty but I do agree this is not examined properly by using "horse race" tactics at debates and in the media. However if the attention focused on the other candidates I'm sure Ms. Clinton would scream bloody murder. This scrutiny that is not scrutiny is right up any pol's alley. She is riding her campaign on name recognition, not any in depth qualifications.
Questions: What does she bring new to the table? What is her true executive experience in domestic and foreign issues? What problems has she solved or worked on to improve the lives of many?
When she was asked about her resume at the debate it was a bit on the thin side to be president of the United States: Lawyer, Children's Defense Fund, One term Senator, and President's spouse.
She has not governed. She has not advanced a unique bill. She has advocated a shaking fist approach at countries we have deal with as diplomacy. She wanted to make flag burning a Federal offense, for goodness sakes.
Fifty per cent of this country has stated they will not vote for her in a recent Zogby poll. You can not state that this number of people after all this time watching her operate is based on nothing. Yes George Bush's approval rating was once over 50% but after 4 or 5 years in office it was in the toilet. People have been observing Senator Clinton now some 20 years, so their feelings and reasoning should not be easily dismissed. Heck they may even have valid reasons and some of them are women.
Taylor, while none of your points are incorrect, they seem to take no account of whether the Clinton presidency would unfold as something desirable to a real Democratic voter.
It seems to me that all this analysis is about "politics", with a small "p", as opposed to Politics. The maneuvering and skill at campaigning, is a given. The eventual enforcement of true Democratic principles remains in doubt.
Of course, I may be entirely wrong, and she may well, to paraphrase her supporters, merely lying to get elected by moderate Republicans, for whom she "must appear tough"... Somehow, that notion gives me very little comfort.
Why would the Republicans fear someone whose position is: the boys are picking on me cause i'm a girl!?
Just the opposite of someone to fear.
Ms Marsh, all legal Americans of voting age are equally vested to decide who the next President will be.
If you want Hillary ... Fine ... if you don't want Hillary ... Fine ... that's your choice and I respect it.
The title of your last blog entry hinted you felt Hillary was attacked because she was a woman, not because she was the front runner. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, maybe it was both. I think excluding Senator Gravel from the debate was anti-democratic. I think the Kucinich UFO question was a low blow too. The lack of equal time. This debate, like all of the others we have seen, was flawed.
HRC is a problem for me because I don't like people being ramroded into political office because of their clout or family affiliations. Politics works like that in the Philippines. The Bush political dynasty is in that design as well. It is not a form of vetting political leaders that benefits a Democratic Republic.
In San Francisco years ago Angela Alioto, the daughter of the former Mayor Joe Alioto, was running for Mayor. She had been on the Board of Supervisors ... maybe even the President of the Board, I don't recall, but her Mayoral Campaign Message could have been distilled down to the statement:
"It's my turn."
I liked Angela and had voted for her before, but "It's my turn." didn't warm my heart or win my vote.
I don't know if other voters felt the same way as I did, but she didn't win.
It's possible some people don't like Hillary because she is a woman, or a Clinton, or numerous other classifications they find unappealing, but some may not like her because they don't feel she is the right candidate for the job of President of the United States.
I think that, in itself, is a fair enough reason not to support her.
And, frankly, who knows what the Republicans really feel about Hillary? If recent experience be the guide, the American people won't find out that answer until it is too late.
Republicons may fear Clinton in an election, but I think they really fear what she'll do to them once she's in. The American people have a short attention span, because no one, not anybody, has said a thing about the relentless attacks the Clintons have taken starting back in 1992. They've been cleared of investigation after investigation only to have it reported as a "rape" or "murder". It will be hell for them to pay, and I honestly hope she goes after them 100 percent. Prosecution, trustbusting, the whole nine yards. Role up the fists Hillary and call on your country to take these goons on. We're ready!
**********
WAKE UP CALL! WAKE UP CALL!
Bush II is a sequel to
Bush I which is a sequel to
Reagan II which is a sequel to
Reagan I which is a sequel to
Ford which is a sequel to
NIXON
EVERYONE that kissed Nixons Nazi butt back in the day
HAS BEEN PART of the Bush crime family "team"
THE REAL STORY:
DESTROYING THE NIXON/REAGAN/BUSH GOP
once and for all! Take back America.
The Republicans & the Bushes
* H A T E *
the idea of someone stealing their thunder.
What happened to the Kennedys?
Yes, the Republicans are really afraid of Clinton. Why? For many reasons. One reason however stands out quite boldly and that is that the Repubs have no one who can stand up to her. All of the Repub contenders are rather blah and have no steam. They are all John Kerry types, no appeal, no sex, no nothing. On the other hand Hillary has corruption problems. Her and hubby are trying to put together a Daley Machine together at a national level. This has it's good points and bad points as anyone can tell you if they know about the Daley Machine phenomenon. She can consolidate power for the Dems for many years to come with such a plan. This will for sure kill the Neocons but at the price of bringing back the old school for Dems. Obama on the other hand is unchartered territory, the brave new world. He probably is the better choice for this country but I believe the Dems will nominate Hillary cause their machine will allow the Dems to bonecrush.
Clinton's lead in the national polls has more to do with name recognition than her "kicking the collective butts of her oponents." And her prominence has been magnified, with Obama also benefitting, by the media's constant drumbeat about the media's own inspired horserace between Clinton and Obama. By ignoring the other candidates, and going on about Clinton, and Obama, they have thus been able to raise obscene amounts of money. Clinton, in particular, clearly has absolutely no ethical guidelines in her (and Bill's) fundraising bonanza. Edwards is right when he suggests that by nominating Clinton we are exchanging "their cronies for ours." Hillary has shown she will "work with" the very corporate structure that has been raping this country at the expense of America's working people. And because John Edwards has had the courage to make clear that he will always put the working people above corporate greed, he has been purposely ignored by the very same corporate media that is supporting Hillary. Russert did his job. It's about time journalists asked the hard questions, and gave the voters the opportunity to see the real person behind the script/mask. Now the campaign is finally underway. And the American people need to know exactly who these candidates are, what they stand for, and exactly what they intend to do. That is what happened in that last debate. And good for Russert and the candidates who finally forced Clinton to answer questions, which she has avoided doing until now. It's about time!!!
Did I miss a similar article after the Iowa debate when the moderators and the candidates went after Obama when he spoke about unilateral action in Pakistan and having direct talks with Iran or Cuba?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
