WaPo analyzes HRC as SecState and as Methodist

Posted on November 26, 2012 by markinaustin

HRC

Most 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 | 7 Comments »

Wanting a Re-Do on the 2008 Primary?

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Kevin S. Willis

A recent CNN.com article (yes, for people paying attention, I went there from our own sidebar, “All News in Moderation”) article speculates that, knowing what they know now, Democrats might opt for Hillary over Obama, and in essence attributes Obama’s primary victory to his camp’s ability to game the system, as it were:

With the nation’s economy — and arguably its politics — in shambles, it is not very surprising to find in a recent Bloomberg poll that 34% of respondents think it would have been better for the country if Hillary Clinton hadn’t lost the battle for the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama. A CNN poll released last week put Clinton’s favorability rating at a tremendous 69%.

Perhaps no one is questioning the 2008 results more than Democratic politicians who must face the voters next year. Right now, it looks like President Obama, rather than offering coattails to those below him on the ticket, may instead be serving up an anchor. This is ironic, when you look back at what actually happened during the Democrats’ 2008 primary, and at who made Obama the party’s nominee.

Filed under: hillary clinton, Obama | Tagged: | 7 Comments »