RSSWest Coast: No To Hillary?
Robert Novak this morning has a column about the failure of the West Coast Liberal Establishment to embrace Hillary Clinton. To be honest, I think that if Hillary has the momentum, Hollywood will fall right into line. They will do anything to defeat the Republicans, and even if they are not thrilled with Hillary, they will back her to the hilt.
And when you think about it, the Democrats have no real bench strength anymore. They have been pulled further to the left that is reasonable, and thus moderates like Evan Bayh will not be able to get through the primaries without a huge shift to the left, which will destroy his credibility. So in my opinion, the nomination is Hillary’s to take.
Back east, well-placed Democrats have agreed that the party’s 2008 nomination is all wrapped up better than three years in advance. They say that the prize is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s for the asking, and that she is sure to ask. But here on the left coast, I found surprising and substantial Democratic opposition to going with the former first lady.
Both the Hollywood glitterati and the more mundane politicians of Los Angeles are looking elsewhere. They have seen plenty of Sen. Clinton over the past dozen years, and they don’t particularly like what they’ve seen. Two far less well-known Democrats — Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh — were hits on recent visits to California, mainly because they were not Hillary.
The concern here with Clinton is not borne in fear that she might fail to carry California. Almost any Democrat would be likely to win in the nation’s most populous state, where the advent of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an exotic event that has not changed the GOP’s minority status in California. Rather, the fear here is pronounced that Clinton cannot win in Red America, guaranteeing a third straight Republican term in the White House.
…
Talking to some of them, I found concern that Hillary carries too much baggage from her turbulent marriage and her husband’s presidency to do any better than John Kerry did last year. One female office holder was looking hard for another Southern moderate who could bite into the Confederacy as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had done.
Another woman office holder was hostile to a Clinton candidacy on a more personal basis. “Don’t think that Hillary has the women’s vote,” she told me. “I will never forgive her for sticking with her husband after he humiliated her. It’s something I can’t get over.”
While all this sounds good, I think that when push comes to shove, these Californians will be waving the Hillary banner long and hard.
Michelle Malkin is not sure if Hillary has is wrapped up.
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
6 Responses to “West Coast: No To Hillary?”
Leave a Reply
Well, as someone in California, I have to say that I think it’s only the punditocracy on the east coast who take Hilary seriously. I don’t think she has any chance whatsoever at the nomination. I doubt if she’ll even survive the first round of primaries, if she even gets that far. The pundits have to stop talking to other pundits and start listening to the people. Left, center or right, they don’t want her.
I’m a radical leftist, lifelong progressive, who has never ever voted for a Republican, and totally despises everything that they’ve done. But I would definitely work for and vote for them if the alternative were Hilary. No question about it. Anybody but her. I hate her on a very deep, visceral level, much, much more than I do Bush or anybody else. Much more. It’s hard to say why I hate her so much, but I do, to the very core of my being. To me she is the epitome of the greedy, corrupt lawyers who have destroyed this country. I don’t trust her at all, I think she’s dishonest as hell. And I don’t think I’m the only one, I think most of the people in this country who aren’t on the east coast feel the same way.
And I don’t see anything about her that represents Democratic or liberal policies. For instance, she voted for the war in Iraq, and she’s one of its strongest supporters in the Senate, doing everything she can to get as much war profiteering as possible for the people in New York. She hasn’t made the slightest effort to call for investigations into any of the many abuses and scandals related to the war, and in fact seems to be working to help cover them up. She and her husband have accepted tens of millions of dollars from the publishing industry (for their books) at a time when she’s in a position to influence legislation related to copyrights and such. (You can totally forget about any sort of public domain or fair use if she’s elected, guaranteed. She’s totally committed to the NY publishers.) She doesn’t have a clue as to what to do about health care, except make sure that the lawyers continue to get rich off of it. She hasn’t done a thing for labor that I know of, and has no union support. All her support is corporate and from other multimillionaire lawyers. She’s much more interested in collecting contributions from the fat cats on Wall Street than she is in corporate governance — just like Bill. I can’t remember the last time she mentioned the environment. What’s liberal, or even centrist, about her?
There’s just no way she could carry California. This is the home state of Nixon and Reagan. If she was the Democratic nominee, in California at least it would be a Republican landslide. Most people out here hate the Republicans, but not anywhere near as much as they do crooked New York lawyers, Democratic or otherwise.
If you think the Democrats are in bad shape now, run Hilary, and these will seem lilke the good old days.
Instead of Hilary, why not Jerry Brown? He’s a Californian, and could definitely carry the nation’s biggest state, and probably most of the west as well. He’s got decades more political experience than her, and a much better track record. He’s never held any federal office, which is practically essential in a presidential candidate these days, and isn’t connected with the corruption in the beltway. Honest too.
talk to red about healthcare….
I am not in California but I bet if the choice is Hillary and any other Democrat [except Kerry] against another Bush, Rice, or anyone else in anyway associated with President Bush, Hillary will win hands down. She will probably win against any Republican candidate.
I suspect as far as her sticking with Bill inspite of his affairs, had she left someone would have condemned her for not being loyal. Rather a six of one/ half-dozen of the other situation. Doesn’t she represent the so called family values of the right by staying with her man right or wrong?
She doesn’t represent the Dems? I am not sure that any politician represents the party they affiliate with except at election time. After the election they all seem to go their own way unless reigned in by party leaders with threats of withdrawing support.
The only question we need to be asking in the next presidential election is can they begin to undo the damage of the last eight years of the Republicans and Bush & Co.
L Cody,
Hilliary beat Condi??? IN your dreams buddy. Condi is a TRUE role model for women. I only wish she were running in ’08, I would sign right up to work on that campaign.
No, its the other way around… Condi beat Hillary? In your dreams mrs.red.
Besides according to Dean, the Republican Party is made up of Rightwing White MALE Christians and I can’t see them putting a woman on the ticket, can you?
L Cody –
Have you ever been to Vermont? Talk about white and male…. and yes, I lived there while the Dr. was governor. Not all it was cracked up to be….