Does it come down to this?
Center left writers, more or less OK with the Hillary we know, say she's in good shape.
Progressives and others further left say her chances are poor if she doesn't move left to fire up their support.
Is she less the Alinsky radical the right tries to paint her as than the very judgmental Methodist from the Midwest a former White House aide says she is?
Hillary announces
I didn't see her ad but it sounds like there was not one white male worker in the whole thing.
Odd, considering the anti 1 %, anti-inequality appeals in her ad.
The people she showed in the ad as "everyday Americans" were mostly women and minorities, the only white guy in there that I know of being a small businessman.
More about Hillary
The more you know about her as an individual the less you think of her.
Her reaction to 9/11 bodes ill.
She will be easy to provoke to really, really big stupid wars.
Chusid quotes Beinart.
NONE OF THIS is to suggest that Hillary would be an ineffective president—only that her successes and failures would look different from Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s.
Bill’s failures often owed to indiscipline.
Obama’s have stemmed in part from aloofness.
If past is prologue, Hillary’s would stem in significant measure from unwillingness to change course.
Hillary does learn from her mistakes.
But only after the damage is done.
Swell.
Think of LBJ, Nixon, the entire US establishment, and Vietnam.
It occurs to me she will do better among whites and white men than O did.
How much better will be diminished by open association with the wars on Christians, men, and whites conducted with such enthusiasm by some segments of the Democratic base, or with anti-union, anti-worker moves.
It will be increased by any overt support shown for unions and white working men.
No comments:
Post a Comment