Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktMost of you know that before her current stint as SecState I was not a fan. I had serious reservations about her as an unelected person with the sway of an elected one in the West Wing and I truly despised her health care plan upon reading through the 1200+ pages in 1993. That episode, and hearing her defend it, and her insistence that M.D.s play no part in the design, marked her as hopelessly arrogant, even reckless, IMHO.
Further, I remain convinced from the evidence that surfaced for me on Frontline, and from what I know commonly occurred with S&Ls in the southwest in the late 80s and early 90s, that she had indeed participated in fraud on behalf of her client. I have discussed this here and probably linked at other times. Suffice to repeat, I was not a fan, and would not have voted for her for POTUS under any circumstance.
She showed restraint and the ability to enter coalitions in the Senate, and I gave her points for progressing in that way, but my strong reservations remained.
The linked attempt to explain her, written with an uncritical eye, I think, probably contains much truth, and I do respect the job she has done as SecState.
The article suggests she will always want the power to actually do the UMC’s social gospel. It hints that this might lead her to run for POTUS. I, for one, think if the article has any truth to it, that she should get on with the Gates Foundation, an effective and focused charity. I think, if the article has any truth to it, she would do well using her skills in that way.
There are many Americans suitable to become POTUS. True, I have argued that former SecsState, SecsDef, NSAdvisors, flag officers with broad foreign theater experience, persons like Huntsman who had multiple experiences as a key ambassador and as a governor, and probably former CIA Directors, have a better chance at first term success than typical senators or governors or lawyers, or doctors, or businesspersons. That is b/c FP is the first concern of the POTUS. Thus HRC is among the group I nominally consider most qualified.
Qualified, but also disqualified, to pervert a phrase from probate law.
I cannot buy off on HRC for POTUS. I have not forgotten either her arrogance, when she thought she had a free hand, or what I believe to have been her criminal misconduct as an attorney. Let her be a force for social justice as she sees it. Let her career be golden. Just don’t try to do it in the White House.
Please?
Filed under: 2013 and beyond, hillary clinton |
All Things in Moderation 
I could not make the link read out as a simple title. If any of you can, have at it. My preferred title was “HRC”, so perhaps that was the problem.
LikeLike
I also believe that Clinton did a good job as Senator as well, but it was a useful restraint to be one of 100 vs the chief executive who sets the ethical example for the entire administration.
LikeLike
Interesting story. Much will depend on whether HRC imagines more personal fulfillment in being the first female POTUS or in changing the world for the better.
LikeLike
Brian, that is the point stated more clearly than I did, given my prejudice.
If the article has truly identified what moves her, she can achieve so much more in the focused environment of an NGO. OTOH, if the article has truly identified what moves her, that alone could be dangerous in a POTUS, if elevated above, say, the concern for national security, or if conflated with it.
LikeLike
The takeaway I got from the article was that HRC unabashedly believes in government as a power for good.
LikeLike
Hmm. We’re diametrically opposed on this one, Mark. I voted for Hillary in the primaries as I believed that she would be a steady hand. Obama I thought could go higher, but also could be a wipeout. His inability to form working relationships with key people on the Hill has been damaging. I voted for Obama twice and stand by those votes.
I think the experiences she had in the first Clinton term humbled her. She was an effective senator for NY and would have been able to reach out to both parties as president. She earned the nod for veep.
Obama accurately calculated that he didn’t need her to win (and you’d better believe she would have gotten veep otherwise) and was worried about baggage. Fair enough. I was delighted when she was nominated for Secretary of State and think she’s been the star of the Obama cabinet.
I do hope she’ll run in 4 years. I would contribute and volunteer on her behalf.
BB
LikeLike
While I wasn’t worried about her being unelected and being unduly influential, I agree that her healthcare “plan” was atrocious. Folks who compare the ACA to Clintoncare are comparing apples and hand grenades. Dodged a bullet on that one.
Based mostly on that, I would not vote for her, and unlike the contest between Mitt Romney and Obama, even though I’d already know the Republican would take my state, I’d vote for the Republican, just to add my vote to the vote against her. Again, based almost exclusively on how she approached healthcare reform. Humbled or not. But, chances are, if the Republicans fielded a Chris Christie, I’d be voting Republican in that contest, anyway.
“and from what I know commonly occurred with S&Ls in the southwest in the late 80s and early 90s, that she had indeed participated in fraud on behalf of her client.”
Me, as well, although I would argue that most of that was, in fact, business as usual. That is, the ethics she displayed would have been pretty typical of someone in her position. Not that that gives her a pass, only that it doesn’t make her some evil Svengali corrupting otherwise innocent land development deals in Arkansas or bringing angelic bankers over to the dark side. Ergo, she was at a party, they were all doing coke, so she did a line or two as well, because that’s what everybody was doing. 😉
More concerned about how she’d govern, and it’s that whole healthcare reform fiasco for me. In any case, I think she’d have a very hard row to hoe, on the way to the Whitehouse. In discrediting and lampooning her, I suspect Republican pundits and many on the right would do themselves no favors, and alienate a lot of independent women and seniors and others, making inappropriate comments based on gender and age and physical attractiveness (not to mention, speculating on Hillary’s sexual preferences and bringing up Clinton’s philandering). Even so, I don’t think that would be enough to get Hillary into the Whitehouse.
But if she ran again, I think she might well get the nomination.
LikeLike