Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Republicans for Hillary

Watching the primary results last night and hearing the coverage this morning, I find it baffling to admit but I'm glad Hillary pulled an upset last night. I'm glad that she's still in the race.

No, this isn't some endorsement of the Rush Limbaugh strategy of voting for Hillary and interfering with the Democratic primaries. To me, that sort of strategy borders on unethical. It's gutter politics and I don't condone it. If Rush wants to influence the Democratic primaries instead of calling for Republicans to switch sides and vote for Hillary, he should write out a nice big check and send it to the Clinton campaign. At least then he would be putting his money where his mouth is.

I'm not ready to switch party allegiance, but I find myself admiring Hillary's perseverance and determination. I don't know! Suddenly Hillary is the underdog and maybe that's what I find appealing. Just as suddenly Obama has gone from a polished orator to a smug one. No longer the underdog his comments about his winning being inevitable just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There is also the reality that our next president is probably going to be a Democrat. Who would I rather see in the White house (at 3AM!)? Hillary is certainly more conservative than Obama. She has gotten praise for working with members of the senate on both sides of the aisle. She is also praised by Democrats and Republicans alike for her hard work in the Senate. Also no matter how you slice it she does have more experience than Obama.

Obviously Hillary Clinton faces a huge uphill challenge to win the Democratic primary. The reality is her chances of doing so are slim to none. Still, I think Hillary Clinton's campaign is a bit like the movie Rocky. She may lose the fight but will still be considered a champion.

See also...
Republicans for Hillary - Slate.com

15 comments:

just jenn said...

C'mon Lefty. Really???

I think having Hillary in office would make for another "nuttin-gettin-done" 4 years.

I don't want her anywhere near MY phone at 3 a.m. or any other time for that matter.

Lefty said...

jenn - really!

I like Hillary! Now, I think she's too liberal for me, and she does have some 'baggage' issues, but overall I like her.

I like her determination and think she's plucky!

I have concerns about Obama's experience.

I think both are very credible candidates.

just jenn said...

Lefty,

Oh goody! Determined and Plucky. What about polarizing and conceited?

What "experience" does she truly have? Was she ever President before?

Did I miss something?

She can use the experience card if she wins this time around and runs again in 4 years. Until then, she has just as much experience as I do being President (and we all know I would make a kick-ass president).

RadioKeri said...

You totally would make a kick-ass president Jenn.

Lefty said...

And still nobody is voting for me :(

Lefty said...

For Hillary I use the word 'galvanizing'

For experience, it's true that unless you've been President you can't have 'Presidential experience'. Hillary has 7+ years as a U.S. Senator she's serving her second term. Barrack is currently serving his first. True Senator Obama has political experience at the state level, but Hillary's experience as first lady certainly provides exposure and insight into that office. Sure it's not 'Presidential experience' but I'll bet there have been several Vice Presidents that didn't have that sort of understanding of what it takes to be President.

just jenn said...

Keri,

Will you be my running mate?

Lefty,

I cannot agree with you there. Sorry. Just because she is exposed to something on a regular basis doesn't mean she would be good at it herself.

For example: My father is a police officer, has been for almost twenty years... he has been married to my step-mother for about the same amount of time... I don't think she would make a good cop. No matter how much insight (20 years worth) that she has...

So, I don't think 8 years of hanging around in the White House would make anyone a good president.

Just my opinion.

RadioKeri said...

Lefty: Who's voting for you?

You republicans are always looking out for #1 ...

Jenn: Absolutely. Just the kind of job I need. Lots of limos -- not much thinkin'.

Lefty said...

Jenn,

I think your example is apples and oranges, but I agree with you that because she was exposed to it doesn't mean she knows it.

Is Hillary a good candidate? Certainly a lot of Democrats think so, and so do a few Republicans.

Keri - NOBODY is voting for me...not even for the throw-away write-ins!

just jenn said...

Lefty,

My example may make a great fruit bowl but at least I got my point across.

I don't think Hillary is a good candidate. Then again, I am neither a Democrat or Republican.

And don't worry ~ when Keri and I take over the White House we will give you a nice cushy job.

Dr. Momentum said...

Clinton is more bipartisan? Not from what I understand.

Obama has publicly stated he would look to republicans to fill out his cabinet if he were elected.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-says-hed.html

I like Hillary, too. but on bipartisanship I think Obama has reached across the aisle with more success.

If that's what you're looking for in a president, maybe it'll help you get over some of what you perceive as his smugness.

Lefty said...

PRESIDENT??

Dear God! I'm not saying I want Hillary as PRESIDENT!

I am giving her credit, where I think credit is due.

She ran for the senate in NY and everyone called her a carpetbagger and said she was relying on name recognition. Now she is generally regarded as a hard working senator who has fought for the people she represents. Her Republican colleagues have given her credit for reaching across the aisle and for the hard work and dedication she's put into being Senator.

Now, in general I find Obama to be charismatic, 'inspiring', someone who communicates a vision. However, after Clinton's wins in RI,OH, he did come of as smug and conceited, at least to me.

Seriously, I don't chest-beat party ideology and come November I'll vote for whoever I think will best serve the country.

Dr. Momentum said...

President, yes -- that is the election we're having, right?

I figured you were advocating for Hillary because you weren't for Obama and there isn't another choice.

Unless you like smugness and think Bush can pull off a third term somehow.

Oh wait - the Republicans are running someone, right?

Lefty said...

Wow! speaking of smugness...

The motivation for the blog post was probably Rush's call for Republicans to go out and vote for Hillary.

The idea that Republicans supported Hillary because she was the candidate McCain could beat really annoys me. I don't agree with every position Clinton has, but I don't disagree with every position either.

The fact is that all three candidates have at least some points that I agree with and qualities that I like.

And to answer you question the Republicans are running someone. I'm convinced that Sen. McCain is the best choice of the party and the best chance the party has at holding on to the White House. That said in 2000 I passionately supported John McCain. Now, while I'm glad he's the Republican nominee my support isn't guaranteed and Sen. McCain needs to convince me he should be President McCain.

Dr. Momentum said...

I've been smug, but unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of smug, I think I was being insolent.

Honestly, I don't remember ever seeing as much as a smug look on Obama's face. I have seen him looking confident, which I would call one aspect of looking presidential.

Bush is the picture of smugness, and some consider it an element of boyish charm, and approachability.

Then again, maybe you and I perceive smugness differently.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary because I figured if Gore lost, I could live with McCain. But that was before he flip-flopped and because some sort of Bush sycophant.

I think the time for President McCain has passed, an the last 8 years have not been kind to the senator. I worry about his health, his shifting opinions, his near pathological inability to see the depth of the problems the Bush presidency has brought. I'm worried about his shortcomings on the economy. I'm worried about his willingness to flirt with torture.

While Obama (who is already moderate) has already captured the left wing of the party and will not need to swing left, I'm worried about how McCain is going to have to pick up some extreme right cred to shore up the base.

No surprises here, I suppose, but yeah -- if we're going to put McCain in office, why not just have 4 more years of Bush? Bush has more experience.