Who Would Be The More History-Making Candidate -- Hillary Or Obama?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both campaigned over the weekend in South Carolina -- and their pitches to black voters was a reminder that one of the peculiarities of this Democratic Presidential primary is that there are not one, but two candidates in the race with the potential to make history. Both candidates appeared mindful of that as they stumped through the state, and both seemed to be making appeals based on the idea that each of their candidacies could rewrite the history books.
Hillary, for instance, sought to persuade a crowd at one forum that black voters could support her (rather, presumably, than one of their own) and still be supporting a historic candidacy:
“I believe this presidential election is about breaking barriers — and this is the campaign, and I am the candidate with the experience to break the barriers,” Mrs. Clinton said.A little later, hundreds of audience members, many of them black women, stood and cheered when Mrs. Clinton asked, “Can a woman be president?” Many stood and cheered again, seconds later, when she added, “I believe one of the great things about America is, anyone can be president, and what it depends upon is the individual.”
Obama made similar appeals:
Mr. Obama said Saturday that history was full of examples of people telling blacks, “We can’t.” He then said that, with black support, he could say to voters, “Yes, we can.”
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Hillary denied in an interview that her campaign had traded consulting fees for an endorsement from one of the state's top black politicians. Questions had been raised about state Senator Darrell Jackson, who endorsed Hillary last week but also had inked a lucrative consulting deal with the campaign. Jackson said that he'd turned down better deals from other campaigns.
I'm more concerned that if you put them on the same ticket they'd be too history making to get elected.
It's a long time til the election though. That may just be the ticket we need.
February 20, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know I would have been a woman cheering Hillary on in 92, 96, and 2004 because she was a very impressive candidate. I felt then, it was time for the nation to have a female chief executive.
With the entrance of Barack into the race, he overshadows Hillary in terms of integrity, judgement and leadership. So, if I wanted to make history today, he would be my first choice.
If he did not win the nomination, I would vote for Hillary if she ran against McCain or Guiliani. I believe I would vote for Romney if he is the nominee vs. Hillary simply because he has outstanding executive skills with a significant track record.
I also beleive that Romney has the same social values he espoused when he ran against Ted Kennedy just as I believe Hillary is still very much a Goldwater girl and will be quite Nixonian when it comes to power, ergo there is a very good chance that Hillary will choose Lieberman as her running mate and no matter her denials I believe she certainly paid off those Senate legislators in SC to make not just announcements to support her but to denounce Barack. It is implausible otherwise..
I am uncertain why Mormonism is such a big issue for people in general, to date it does not bother me, anymoreso than a person being Catholic. My experience with people of the Mormon faith has been positive for the most part. I find they are no more dogmatic or fervent than catholics or prostestants when it comes to their faith and imposing it on others or within the public square. The catholic religion, in fact, imposes their religion on public policy issues much more so than Mormons.
February 20, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's absurd and somewhat embarassing to say that Clinton is "still a goldwater girl". She was a child at the time. She's not my first choice, but this is something that goes beyond typical candidate bashing.
Given Romney's current trend to the right, a vote for him is a vote against women's rights. And I'm not just talking about Roe. The next supreme court justice will be very influential. All the current conservatives on the court are relatively young, all the nonconservatives are relatively old. There are many cases that could tilt against women (and minorities, and workers, and the environment) with a vote for a Republican.
February 20, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose Richardson doesn't count...
February 20, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson, doesn't think his marriage vows count. He is a known serial adulterer. Learn the facts.
February 20, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break.
Since when did you become the arbiter of what is bashing let alone typical?
Do you even know how old Hillary was when she was a Goldwater girl? It was 1964...add it up!
Hillary was a Goldwater Girl who became the President of the Youth for Republicans group at Wellsley, so it seems that whatever her STAUNCHLY GOP family liked about republicans was inculcated into her character sufficiently for her to AS an ADULT continue to not only support republicans but to also be the PRESIDENT of the group in college.
The only thing absurd and embarassing here is your not knowing the facts.
I disagree. If this is what has your shorts/panties in a knot, tough! Romney ran for the US Senate against Ted Kennedy and was more leftist than Kennedy.
Bottomline: I believe both of these folks at the core have the same social values they had looong time ago. Both of them switched parties for political ambitions. At this point in time, Romney's track record in terms of using power and exercising executive judgement is a helluva lot better than Hilliarys. Not to mention that as Governor of MA he was the first state to introduce gay marriage nationally AS WELL AS universal health care.
So based on their track records as ELECTED official, Mitt is a RINO and HIllary is a DINO.
I repeat. I will vote for MItt over Hillary anyday.
February 20, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to back that up with concrete facts instead of rumors?
I thought Obama's supporters were all about getting away from cynicism.
February 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's supporters, mistake reality for cynicism due to a lack of discerning judgement consequently facts are characterized as rumors.
February 20, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richardson swears like Amanda Marcotte, smokes stogeys, and is known to be crude with women but despite that would make a great president. Unfortunately he doesn't have much of a chance. If he isn't elected any Dem who doesn't have him on the short list for Secretary of State is a fool.
February 20, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you possibly know what is at their core?
There is no way Mitt Romney is going to run for President as the hard-right candidate and then all of a sudden turn around and act like a socially liberal Democrat if elected President. He will have made to many promises to the hard right at that point. He will appoint just as conservative Supreme Court justices as the other candidates.
He was not a social liberal as governor of Massachusetts, he fought the MA Supreme Judicial Court's decision on gay marriage tooth and nail, he fought expansion of stem cell research in MA, he left the regional group developing a system to limit carbon emissions (only state in New England to leave, getting back in now that he is gone), and he tried to limit access to emergency contraceptives, among other things.
The MA legislature introduced universal health care, and he went along with it because he had no choice, given the number of supporters in the legislature. All he did was add an individual mandate that still may end up resulting in lower income individuals being unable to afford health insurance AND getting hit with fines by the state for not purchasing it, in order to keep the costs down for employers.
February 20, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink