![]() ![]() |
|
| |
|
Hillary’s WayPosted on Jan 25, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—She will work herself to the bone. And bore the media to tears. This is Hillary Rodham Clinton’s strategy for securing the Democratic presidential nomination. It is no secret. But it has been the secret of her success. The candidate herself is going from network interview to network interview, telling the nation that she intends to win over the country the way she won over New York: “I’m going to go into people’s living rooms, into union halls, into church basements and let people ask me anything,’’ Clinton told NBC’s Brian Williams. “And believe me, people have asked me nearly anything.’’ To a degree that confounds Clinton’s incorrigible haters, people tend to like what they hear. From tiny hamlets along the shores of New York’s Finger Lakes to the tony suburbs of Long Island, Clinton as a first-time Senate candidate made extraordinary headway in softening voters’ calcified sentiments about her—about her marriage, her mistakes, her ambition, her ideological leanings and, yes, her hair. She’s now won twice in a state that likes its politicians loud of mouth and larger than life. She did it by becoming smaller than her outsized public image. And by almost never making a political error that was big enough to be set in tabloid type. “There is nothing worth discussing when it comes to strategic errors made in the state of New York,’’ says Gary Lewi, a New York public relations executive with long-standing ties to the state Republican Party—and to Clinton’s one-time Whitewater antagonist, former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato. “Even the most partisan has to give her points for very hard political spadework that she’s done across the board.’’ Though it seems a contradiction for such a celebrity, Clinton the politician has relied more on shoe leather than on star power. Beginning in high school, when she lost her bid for student government president, her answer to adversity always has been to work harder. “As soon as the election was over, the winner asked me to head the Organizations Committee, which as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work,’’ Clinton recalled in her 2003 memoir, “Living History.’’ “I agreed.’’ When she first pondered a Senate run in 2000, she began her research into the state’s history not with the Rockefellers or the Roosevelts but by reading up on the Iroquois Confederacy, a league of Native American tribes that preceded the arrival of Europeans by more than 300 years. Her obsessive attention to detail and methodical approach to fundraising, her careful choosing of words, even her picking a series of soft-focus Web “chats’’—with Clinton poised comfortably on a couch as she reintroduces herself to the public—are, to her detractors, monuments to Clinton’s lack of authenticity. But all of this is the real Hillary. These are the deliberate efforts of a straight-A student who refuses to settle for a B. The dead-ahead focus she maintained during the chaotic and painful years of her husband’s presidency reinforced the image of Clinton as ambitious and icy. She told me in a 2001 interview—around the time a supermarket tabloid floated a bizarre story that tried to link her romantically with former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle—that she was merely following motherly advice. “My mother told me this when I was a very little girl. ... She said, ‘Every day you have a choice to be the lead actor in your own play or to read the lines somebody else writes for you and react to somebody else’s role,’ ’’ Clinton recalled. “And every day I think, ‘You have a choice. You can live out your life according to somebody else’s script, or get up and do the best you can.’ So that’s what I try to do.’’ Clinton’s best will be tested in the 2008 presidential campaign. She lacks the charisma of Barack Obama and the silky smooth stump style of John Edwards. The size of the Democratic field—more than half a dozen candidates, and counting—is one measure of how vulnerable other politicians believe her to be. And Democrats are hormonally prone to primary-season infatuations—see Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Howard Dean. One loss, even one win by a margin the media deems insufficient, and the mantle of inevitability will fall away.
What then? Get up an hour earlier, work an hour longer and, most likely, remind everyone that in the chill of New Hampshire in 1992, her husband’s candidacy was written off as stone-cold dead.
Previous item: Yet Another Actor Acting Out Next item: A Reagan Democrat Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Skruff, February 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Comment #51534 by morgan -lynn lamberth griggsy on 2/04 at 4:55 am
Hillary is just the sort of liberal we need
exactly what is “liberal?”
Pro-choice is now centerist...she couldn’t get elected dog-catcher in New York without a strong pro-choice position.... but watch her moderate if she smells presidential success.
Her support of the war? ....and Bush’s siezing of congressional power?
Face it she’s a shill, and I wouldn’t give her my vote even if she were running against Oliver North!
Watch as she wins one state after the other. Hillary -Obama
Yeap I agree one state after another.... just like Kerry, Gore, and Gary Hart.
The Democratic party has a death wish.... and I’m not going with them.
Report thisBy morgan -lynn lamberth griggsy, February 4, 2007 at 4:55 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary is just the sort of liberal we need!She knows that the War is wrong-headed.I had been for it, so why should I discount her about turn? She is tough against the righwing nuts[ and the leftwing nuts, who cares?].She is more disciplined than Pes. Bill. She would get health legislation, knowing the pit falls.One can hope for single payer,but we will have good health legislation if she is president.Her detractors do not count! Watch as she wins one state after the other. Hillary -Obama!
Report thisBy Alice Wahl, January 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I was surprised at how much I liked Hillary during her televised Iowa appearance. I’m with Marie Coco. I eagerly await her position papers (and those of the other candidates).
Report thisBy Lord Byron, January 30, 2007 at 2:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why did you write this?
<She may lack Obama’s charisma and Edwards’ poise, but Sen. Clinton has made fools of her naysayers before.>
Who’s the fool??? You should speak for yourself! Hillary Clinton does not yet have my support in her bid for the Presidency. She has not expressed contrition for her earlier support of Bush’s war on Iraq and I’m afraid until she expresses the better qualities of human nature she will never have my support. She also has not come out and expressed support for a single payer health care system. Where does she stand on medical marijuana?
Where does she stand on the so-called “drug war?”
A multitude of issues remain where I do not know where Hillary stands nor what exactly she wants to do about it. She’s raised a 100 million dollars in private funds. I guess we know where Hillary stands on campaign finance reform??
Hillary is the biggest wolf in sheep’s clothing this country has seen in a long time…
Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, January 30, 2007 at 11:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Lefty (#50429), just remember that, as Isaiah Berlin has demonstrated so vividly, the fundamental precepts of the Age of Reason are as faith-based as any religious conviction. They just point in a different direction! Like Berlin I only ask for a society that places enough value of tolerance that any belief is open to discussion!
Report thisBy Lefty, January 29, 2007 at 10:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The last thing America needs is another faith based President, genuine or phoney. If Hillary, Obama, or any other candidate wants my vote, they will first have to come into the age of reason. I just can’t respect a candidate who panders to primative, superstitious, religionist, faith based, morons, much less a candidate who is one.
Report thisBy Virginia from Virginia, January 29, 2007 at 11:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why in the world does anyone consider Hillary a liberal?
Report thisWhat legislation has she passed or what effort has she taken the lead on?
What has she been forward thinking about - not what has she spoken on after the fact?
Finally, no one who voted for the October 2002 War Powers Act (aka) is qualified to run for even dog catcher. (Apologies to all the fine dog catchers out there.) Why do I write this? Not just because these Senators should have known perfectly well that they were being fed a pack of lies about Iraq. They certainly knew that Iraq was no immediate threat. And they could hear Bush rattling his war chains. No, I say that those who turned over the authority to wage war to “W”, gave that one person unconstitutional authority. The constitution wisely stipulates that war, being so vicious and destructive, should be decided by a group of people. Congress should never have allowed themselves to abrogate their constitutional responsibility and fork over their power to declare war to one person- especially that one person.
BTW, I plan to hand over my job of paying taxes to Hillary.
By Ceylan, January 28, 2007 at 6:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow—I am preceded by quite a misogynistic barrage. Yikes.
Report thisWhat I wanted to say is that Robert Scheer spends most of his time on Right, Left, and Center establishing a trip-wire for 08 candidates based on their unwillingness to “take a stand on the War.” I’ve wondered for months now why I am bored with Bob’s position on this.
While watching Hillary’s online chats, I realized what it is:
Hillary wants to talk about other things. Hillary is excited to talk about other things. Domestic things. Social democratic things. Economic things. Health care things. Poor things. Gay things.
The war is going to end. Everyone hates it. Bob seems to be the only one stuck back in 2004 when there was actual uncertainty about whether it was ever going to end. This surge business is the last gasp of a poor statesman, a loser who wants to bring as many lives down with him as he can. The war will die with him.
So why can’t we just take the eventual end of the war and a corresponding buffet of Haliburton indictments (in the next few years) as a done deal, and just listen to people who want to talk about issues that we used to care about in the 90s—before the pernicious reinvention of good and evil as political absolutes?
By LiveFree, January 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
People wake up, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton ponyied up with the Bushes. For all of you with short term memory..when Bill was in office he was critical of Daddy Bush only to be his good friend on the way out. What this country needs is to rid itself of these people once and for all. It time for a new face with new ideas. We must vote all these politicans out of office and get rid of foreign spies in the government. We must hold these politicians accountable to the people of the US not other countries. This government is so corrupt and has gone unchecked with foreign influence it is really sickening.
Hillary just like Bill is big with corporations and jews. She carries so much baggage that Samsonite will endorse her. She voted for the war and now she wants to explain her position..well I think she explained her position when she voted for the war. She sent a message to the AMerican people that she has no backbone and would send their children off to war without any or lack of intelligence. With all these people jumping into the fray people really need to research the voting records and any dirt these people have before they vote. A clear message needs to be sent to these politicians enough with the corruption and lobbyist influence
Again, Many republicans and democrats alike are one in the same they are loyal to other countries but the United States.
Report thisBy Homer Hewitt, January 26, 2007 at 10:27 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The bunching of big state primaries in early 2008 will certainly work to Hillary’s advantage. See these related fake news items from http://www.altara.blogspot.com:
January 24 In negotiations with the U.S. Treasury Department Secretary Henry Paulson Chinese officials resisted all efforts to have them increase the exchange rate for Chinese currency, the yuan. In addition to prior arguments, the officials stated that any increase was out of the question now that Hillary Clinton has more dollar reserves than China.
January 25 The U.S. Congress has begun hearings on a change of the 2008 Election Day from November to May. Proponents of such a change pointed out that the November date would mean an interminable wait since the candidates for both parties would be determined in February
Homer Hewitt
Report thisBy DennisD, January 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
She’ll probably win the nomination because she’ll collect the biggest pile of campaign kickback money, no other reason. That’s the way our political system works. She’ll then lose the election because she stands for nothing and most people can see it.
Report thisWe’ll then enter another four years minimum of Republican hell. So be careful what you wish for Marie.
By David, January 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary, like most in Washington, is a complete whore for Israel. She will be a cheerleader for the next war on behalf of Israel. The coming war against Iran.
Report thisBy Skruff, January 25, 2007 at 3:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Is this the same Hillary who pushed her husband to pardon the FALN terrorists who bombed the Mobil Oil Building and Fraunces Tavern? Who supported the Bush on his reckless incursion into Iraq? Who would walk down 42nd Street in her all-together, and Blow Elliot Spitzer for a photo op?
Funny, I don’t see the Hillary in the above article.
repeat after me “Crash and burn” and “Gary Hart”
Report thisBy vincent misiano, January 25, 2007 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I despair that hillary will be the 2008 democratic candidate. apparently washington notorious revolving door syndrome includes presidents. of 43, 11 have been related to another president. the political gene pool in the america is surely larger than this and if for no other reason should disqualify her.
Report thisher claim on the office is principally her celebrity and her ability to raise money. as a new yorker, I resent her landing in NY to claim a senate seat. as a progressive in a progressive state, I resent her political caution and transparent calculation.
I concede that she has been a modestly successful senator but she offers no tonic to the loathesome politics of the last 6 years. she will have commited enemies waiting should she ever land in the white house again and that will keep our divided nation from healing for yet another term.
By KISS, January 25, 2007 at 1:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Shoe leather and a skirt aren’t going to make Hillary a president. The baggage she carries will keep her from succeeding the ultimate prize. Just another snake-oil saleswoman, flim-flamming her way with chameleonistic charm.
Report thisDimmos better find someone who is trustworthy and honest, if they are going to succeed. This latest victory was for conservative honest, hopefully, democrats. No time for social engineering pie-in-the-sky dimmos. New York should bless and keep her...we won’t.
By Stephen Smoliar, January 25, 2007 at 10:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is certainly a lot of smart money on Hillary. One of the earliest and compelling arguments I heard was on Book TV, when Mark Halperin and John Harris discussed and answered questions about their book, THE WAY TO WIN, at Politics and Prose. (They made a case that Hillary had the best chance of being the winner in 2008.) However, if she wants people to ask her anything, then I hope she gets a LOT of questions about her relationship with AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affair Committee):
http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/01/reading -news-from-and-about-israel.html
The smart money also tends to bet that just about all of the mess we are in can be traced back to the Middle East; and Hillary owes it to all of us to let us know whether or not her thoughts about the Middle East are, in her words, “somebody else’s script!”
Report this