Not Ready For Hillary

[rurallib]

Mods - I have permission to reprint the article in total

This is from today's blogforiowa post analyzing Hillary's run for president in the context of the Iowa caucuses.
***********************************************************************************

Not Ready For Hillary
December 27, 2013 | Author Trish Nelson



First let me say this: “I’m Ready for Hillary” is a terrible campaign slogan that the Hillary team should seriously reconsider. It not only implies that there is something bad on the way for which we need to brace ourselves, it invites a negative reaction, “No. I’m not ready for Hillary” from everyone who is not already a supporter. And it’s all about her – no hope/change or broader message. For this and other reasons, I will not be changing my Facebook profile photo to “I’m Ready for Hillary” any time soon.

I love Hillary Clinton. I admired her grit and toughness as first lady. She had me at vast right-wing conspiracy. She is brainy and hard-working. I appreciate her edgy sarcasm, like when she made the “I’m not going to stay home and bake cookies” gaffe. She has had to stand by her man, propping up her lying and cavorting husband in public, and has managed to do it in such a manner that she doesn’t seem desperate or dysfunctional. That is character.

Hillary is also a policy wonk who cares deeply about her country. She has been a passionate, effective advocate for women and girls, not just in the United States but around the globe. She understands how badly men continue to botch everything with their wars and oil companies and testosterone (yes I realize she voted for a war but she wouldn’t have started one). By all accounts Hillary performed her job as Senator from New York effectively, working hard for her constituents, caring about the grassroots.

She admirably mended fences with Barack Obama, after losing the primary. She gave an awesome speech, convincingly persuading her band of bitter, disappointed feminist supporters to throw their electoral weight behind the upstart male who grabbed her place in line for the presidency right out from under her. That must have been incredibly hard, but she did it.
Hillary has a progressive heart but a Democratic Leadership Council mind. And it’s the DLC part of her that makes me cringe. I hated her 2008 campaign. I was appalled when she said “shame on you, Barack Obama” purely for effect. Her stump speeches seemed phonied up and plastic, not inspirational. Other than just before New Hampshire when she teared up as she talked about how much was at stake, I got little sense of the real Hillary beneath her campaign advisors’ sound bytes and talking points. This was disturbing because it lent the feeling that she was being controlled by ambitious politicos with their own agendas, that it wasn’t really Hillary who was running the show.

Fast forward to now, looking ahead to 2016. Some Iowa caucus goers say that she should campaign in Iowa, kiss our ring and allow us to put her through the drill. My view is that it is entirely up to her whether she campaigns in Iowa, and I do not hold it against her if she does not. It seems perfectly understandable that this former first lady, Sec. Of State, heir-apparent to the presidency, etc. would not want to grovel around Iowa for months on end eating corn dogs if she doesn’t have to. I have no problem with that. It’s not for everyone. And after all, we betrayed her in favor of the upstart kid the last time she tried.

Strategically, it could be risky for her to skip Iowa entirely because of the chance that she would leave space for another upstart candidate to move in and make a race of it. Like Brian Schweitzer for example, the likable, red-state Democratic governor from Montana who has been quite successful getting things done in his state and who recently pledged to visit all of Iowa’s 99 counties.

In the end, the Iowa caucuses are not really about or for Hillary’s kind of candidacy, the big money, huge name recognition, established candidate. The Iowa caucuses are for the lesser-known, less well funded candidate with an appealing message who, if they can do well here, can possibly make a race of it. As Joe Biden has said, the Iowa caucuses are the last bastion of retail, grassroots politics where anyone who is willing to work hard can launch a campaign even without Wall St. backing and tons of cash. The Iowa caucuses are important to Democracy for that reason. Our value to the process is not to help an established, well bankrolled, front runner candidate like Hillary. Our value lies in giving a long-shot candidate a chance. We provide the best chance at an even playing field in an otherwise corrupt and money-driven system that depends on ad buys.

So Hillary, what this likely Iowa caucus attendee hopes to see from you as we approach 2016 is not that you pay homage to Iowa, but that you speak well of us anyway, that you recognize our part in the democratic process even if you don’t participate, and that you run your very own authentic, progressive, feminist campaign that inspires us and shows us the amazing, wonderful, real you who would make an awesome president.

http://www.blogforiowa.com/2013/12/27/not-ready-for-hillary/

[hfojvt]

1. well that piece did not live up to its title

the author closes saying that Hillary can run an "authentic, progressive" campaign.

I don't see how that is possible. Hillary can pretend to be progressive, she can talk more progressive than she ever has, but I don't see how that could be "authentic".

But I hardly see Schweitzer as some kind of progressive alternative either.

[Proud Public Servant]

3. That's simply not true

Iowa's pretty useless if there's a candidate with local (i.e., farm state) appeal running, like Gephardt in '88 or Harkin in '92. But the caucus picked Mondale in '84, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. It gave also Carter the largest plurality of any named candidate in '76, and it gave the McGovern campaign the momentum it needed to vault into front-runner status when the Muskie campaign imploded.

One may not always like how Iowa turns out, but it's not credible to say that it's useless in naming the nominee; on the contrary, it does a pretty good job of doing so.

[onehandle]

4. Never mind. I confused Iowa with something else. nt

[Lifelong Dem]

5. I agree

Probably why I'm for the slogan. Because I'm not for Clinton. But if she were to win I'd vote for her.

First let me say this: “I’m Ready for Hillary” is a terrible campaign slogan that the Hillary team should seriously reconsider. It not only implies that there is something bad on the way for which we need to brace ourselves, it invites a negative reaction,

[elaristotle]

6. It is too early to criticize

While I agree with the general direction of this blog post, that Hillary would do better to run as an idealist, putting forward her best ideas (as a progressive, feminist, etc) and letting the people decide as if she were a new candidate, I also have to ask: How do we know that Hillary does not intend to do exactly that?

This is far too early in the election cycle to criticize before we have heard her speak. Yes elections do tend to pull candidates to the center, and often seasoned politicians make the mistake of "playing it safe" and not saying anything (see Republican presidential candidates especially). But how do we know Hillary is making this mistake? The entire blog post seems predicated off an interpretation of her campaign slogan 'Ready for Hillary'. That seems to be passing judgement based on a title, rather than substance. Why not let Hillary speak first and then decide if she is making a mistake?

I put Hillary high in my list of preferred candidates based on her foreign policy success, based on her character, and based on all the things she has already accomplished. She might let me down, but only time will tell that. I do not have insight into the inner workings of her campaign, and unless you do please wait and see.

Finally consider that there will be an anti-female, and religious backlash against any woman candidate, and Hillary is the best woman to weather that storm. We know because she has done so in the past.