Maybe it is because I am a quarter Irish that I have a soft spot for Niall O’Dowd and Irish Central, but more likely it because he, they, and the Irish in general show a soft spot for our girl. Thus I am leading off with the latest opus by Niall, no stranger to these pages.
Hillary Clinton nostalgia grips leading Democrats as Obama fails and fades
by Niall O’Dowd
Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like a lost leader for the Democrats as Obama continues to flail.
There was more bad news for the president yesterday with an opinion poll showing that only 26 per cent of Americans approved of his job on the US economy.
A reader asked me to address this New York Times treatise by Rebecca Traister. I really did not have the intention of posting it here because, as I stated in the thread where the suggestion arose, I dislike arguing in the subjunctive. I prefer demonstrable fact, evidence. There is no evidence that, had HRC been allowed to contest the nomination fairly on the convention floor, won it, and subsequently won the election, she would have governed as Obama has or even faced the fantasized obstacles Traister imagines for her. First of all, it is arguable whether we can call what Obama has been doing “governing.” I will leave that at that. Secondly, given the performance we have seen from HRC as Secretary of State, why would we imagine that she would have approached the presidency any differently? She has consistently held a high approval rating as SOS, well above 60%, currently 66%. Why would that be?
The simple answer is that she is a hard worker. She happens to be a hard worker with a brilliant mind that not only retains and organizes huge amounts of information in logical and innovative ways but also generates imaginative ideas She has revolutionized the State Department and USAID, and other departments and agencies with her QDDR, traveled tirelessly and effectively to reestablish waning friendships and strike up new ones. Experience has taught us that she listens. She listened to the American people on the campaign trail and made plans to resolve our concerns. She listens to people the world over and provides responses and programs to address their needs. She listened to her employees at State and did study the feasibility of granting benefits to domestic partners. Finding it doable, she did it. Right away. She listened to her younger employees who admirably like to bike to work but wanted showers to freshen up before work. Then she had the showers built.
That last may seem a small thing, but to me it stands as a strong example of who Hillary Clinton is and how she operates. To suggest that she would have entered the Oval Office and fumbled and flailed (I like Niall’s word) as we have seen Obama do, is patently ridiculous. Nothing in her performance as First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State indicates that she would have followed Obama’s priority list or handled various crises the way he has (or has not). She was more than prepared in 2008 to walk into that Oval Office and take charge. She is even better prepared now.
So, Rebecca Traister, I beg to disagree. (I hope my reader is pleased.)
What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?
Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBy REBECCA TRAISTER
Published: August 17, 2011
In the worst of the Democratic primary campaign in 2008, the angry end of the thing, when I had become a devoted Hillary Clinton supporter and was engaged in bitter arguments with people with whom I often agreed, I used to harbor a secret fear, the twin of my political hope: I worried that Hillary Clinton would win her party’s nomination.
UPDATE! Matthew Dickinson rings in on Traister and the developing subject.
The One Reason Why Hillary Might Be More Effective Than Obama After 2012
Yesterday the New York Times finally jumped into the Hillary for President debate with this piece by Rebecca Traister. So now I guess it’s a legitimate news story! Citing the Daily Beast article by Leslie Bennetts , which in turns draws heavily on my initial “Run, Hillary, Run” post, Traister – a Clinton supporter in 2008 – tries down to tamp the growing buyer’s remorse she detects among Obama supporters. She writes: “Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists — Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike — to just shut up already.” Traister argues, persuasively in my view, that had Clinton won the presidency in 2008 instead of Obama, there’s no compelling evidence suggesting she would have been any more effective. In this she echoes points made by Jonathan Bernstein in this Salon post. To be sure, Traister admits to her own bouts of buyer’s remorse, but she thinks publicly airing these thoughts is not helpful: “I understand the impulse to indulge in a quick ‘I told you so.’ I would be lying if I said I didn’t think it sometimes. Maybe often. But to say it — much less to bray it — is small, mean, divisive and frankly dishonest. None of us know what would have happened with Hillary Clinton as president, no matter how many rounds of W.W.H.H.D. (What Would Hillary Have Done) we play.”
I am afraid I do not hold Traister’s view in as much esteem as Dickinson does. His POV is interesting, though. Had not considered the lame duck angle since Obama is already so lame.
Still4Hill 
Do the Irish want her to be President of the US or of Ireland?
LikeLike
They would elect her themselves if they could. They wish we would.
LikeLike
“Fails and fades”?! Hey, Niall, tell us how you really feel!
LikeLike
Even Sarah Palin thinks Hillary is more Presidential than Obama.
LikeLike
That really isn’t surprising.
1. She IS!
2. Women see it easily, even the Repubs.
3. She IS!
4, She IS!
Any sober person can see that. Of everything I can say about Sarah Palin, one thing I cannot say is that I have ever seen her drunk on anything with a powdery base.
LikeLike
She’s usually just drunk on celebrity, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.
LikeLike
Well said!
LikeLike
Palin really nails it here. Or should I say puts the screws in?
LikeLike
There is AMPLE evidence that Clinton would have been a better president.
1. Experience matters. Have we not seen how damaging Obama’s lack of experience and judgement is. July 2011 is all one needs to prove this.
2. Unlike Obama, Clinton actually worked while she was a U.S. Senator.
3. Sure, I’ll go here. Her husband would be in the white house. Does anyone in their right mind think Bill Clinton would have been played by the GOP like Obama was in July?
4. There is nothing in her history to suggest she thinks going on TV and acting like a lecturing brat is a good negotiating tactic.
5. No one would have had to get President Hillary Clinton off the golf course when the SEALS where about to take down Bin Laden.
6. A person on the Watergate committee, who advocated for for women and children for 40 years, was an engaged First Lady, then a ball busting U.S. Senator versus a guy who voted “present” 140 times who wrote 2 self adoring bios and got handjobs from the media…gee i wonder who is more suited for the job of President?
7. Clinton is, in fact, tireless. Once again as SoS she’s proven this.
8. Clinton has ballast. People respect her around the world. People once “adored” Obama around the world…then they realized they did not respect him and now he’s openly disregarded.
9. Uh…i don’t think Clinton is stupid enough to give a legally blind Prime Minister a set of DVDs that won’t play in the UK anyway. Seems trivial but it says it all about this flippant attitude of both Obamas.
10. When Clinton walks into a room people know who is in charge. When Obama walks into a room people wonder how the hell he got the job.
LikeLike
THIS comment is an out-of-the-park grand-slam home run!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellent! Take a bow! You nailed it!
LikeLike
Leaving aside the sniping portions about golf and adoring autobiographies (Political autobiographies are always like that and have been going back to the likes of Ben Franklin and Catherine the Great.) you raised some good points, but missed the main issue that I and others have who were a bit more cautious in our support of the current Secretary of State and of those who supported Obama and are now dealing with acute voter’s remorse.
He gets rolled by Congress. He could not marshall a Democratic majority behind a clear strategy to avoid Republicans winning the messaging war on many of his big initiatives, so he lost that majority. Now the Republican majority – which only exists in the House, mind you – owns every debate because the President will not stand firm on issues even when they represent core principles of the party he theoretically represents.
I think that’s the main reason for all the Hillary Clinton as candidate nostalgia. She’s never had a problem standing up to people no matter who they are.
LikeLike
Thanks for chiming in with that. I appreciate the POV!
LikeLike
YES. very very pleased. I know you are able to counter very well. Thank you so much. It’s good to know that her viewpoint is not acceptable from articles like the one written by Matthew Dickenson.
LikeLike
I may have misinterpreted what was written by Matthew Dickenson.
You remain the best to counter people like Traister. Once again, thanks.
LikeLike
Dickinson gives her some credit, and I disagree. Actually, I think she is out of her depth. NYT probably offered her the space due to her book subject and sales, but I believe they would have been better off giving the space to Dickinson. He should not, with his background and reputation, be the one looking at her op-ed in the NYT and figuring the topic has arrived. She wrote it like it was a back-to-school assignment for English composition class – under duress – just had to get that homework done.
LikeLike
So you think the Times went looking for a former Hillary supporter to make this argument and found this lady.
LikeLike
If they did, they missed big-time. I could have given them a list. Personally, I think they missed by not giving this space to Dickinson. The public needs to hear the educated men who supported her and still do.
They need to know that her base was not:
1. Entirely female;
2. “Uneducated;”
3. Entirely white (hire D.K. Jamal, for example);
4. Uncertain in their support.
Traister certainly comes off as a shaky supporter. Too much fear, anxiety, trepidation in her “support.” None of the fierceness I see among my very certain and reasoned Hillary friends. There are plenty of very sure-minded folks out there with plenty of hard evidence.
LikeLike
There are plenty of “shaky supporters” who were just as hesitant to back her for any number of reasons that had nothing to do with swooning over Obama’s speeches. I didn’t like all of the “what if’s” in the article, but it was nice to hear from someone who had a few reservations.
LikeLike
Hillary Clinton presidential election a good candidate she will win 2012
LikeLike
Some more hitjobs coming in. He won’t tolerate any good reviews of Hillary. His hard-core base use non-logic to make excuses for him.
This one work smarter but the hint is there:-
Buyer’s Remorse written by Amanda Marcotte in Slate Magazine
Stay alert.
LikeLike
It makes one wonder what they’re so afraid of. These are just a few op-eds. What’s out there that has their defenses up or are they really upset by a handful of pro-Hillary articles? They can’t be that stuck in ’08, can they?
LikeLike
No. They’re scared of ’12. They had ’08 all tied up – nothing to fear. Now everyone knows the Emperor has no clothes. They really have nothing to run him on. His campaign is in neutral.
LikeLike
That should be one less reason to go after imaginary candidates. As of right now, Hillary Clinton is not running for president. With no Democrat challenging him for the nomination and with the Republicans locked in a primary with something like eleven contenders and counting, Barack Obama should not be campaigning against anyone. It deminishes the office. Now, I think the Secretary of Education pointing out Texas’ abysmal education stats is not a problem, but the Obama vs. Perry back and forth through the media was ridiculous.
LikeLike
Then the question remains, what are they afraid of?
LikeLike
Not to mention it’s not a good idea for him to thrash someone who has higher approval ratings.
LikeLike
Which would be… practically everybody! My cat has a higher approval rating among the mice!
LikeLike
I don’t know if you all saw this, but former PA Gov. Ed Rendell believes Hillary will run in 2016. He thinks once her hectic SoS tenure is over (he knows how exhausting the job is) and she’s doing something less stressful, she’ll decide she wants to try for the WH once again.
LikeLike
I did see that. Can the country survive 5.5 more years of Obama is the question.
LikeLike
Thought I would link Uppity Woman’s take on all this. Spot on!
http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/president-hillary-clinton-speaks-to-america-while-figurehead-in-chief-packs-for-marthas-vineyard/#comment-167979
LikeLike
Also sharing The Widdershins review of recent articles.
http://thewiddershins2.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/widdershins-lounge-is-hillary-2012-still-such-a-long-shot-plus-elizabeth-warren-news/#comment-38793
LikeLike
Yeah, maybe Hillary shouldn’t run. I have no desire to see PUMA rage loosed upon everyone after it’s had a chance to distill for four years. An issues-based primary would benefit the country greatly, but I’m not sure that’s what this would be.
LikeLike
Wow! That certainly makes a lot of assumptions. PUMAs have long been angry , but what makes you think a Hillary run would unleash rage? PUMAs have always been issue-based. We do not, as the Obama forces did when they attacked us – in some cases assaulted – on the trail, call names or slogans. There was an Obama flash mob just this week at a Hillary FB group where all they did was scream exhortations in CAPS and call people names. We argued logically with them, but they were on the name-calling attack. When they refused to calm down, we had to ban the worst offenders.
LikeLike
“There was an Obama flash mob just this week at a Hillary FB group where all they did was scream exhortations in CAPS and call people names.”
That’s part of why I think it would be ugly. She isn’t running as of August 19 – she’s still an Obama appointee, in fact – and Obamanauts and Hillarites are already clashing.
LikeLike
Not afraid of ugly and not afraid of obots on kool-aid. The founders fought for the country – some were my ancestors. I can fight, too. Lately, some of the more moderate OBOES where I work grudgingly allow me into their circles to admit that I was right. Imagine that!
LikeLike
Ok. Moderates know when they’re wrong.
LikeLike
And they vote.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t think I want to this time around. If I’m not working the election for my town, or manage to get myself involved in a campaign, my state might just have to go Democrat without me. I’ve got nine more years before my opinion counts anyway.
LikeLike
So wait… Hillary shouldn’t run because the OBAMA people get ugly? I do not understand that line of reasoning.
LikeLike
Both sides get ugly. Not all Hillarites are as tolerant and understanding as you are. Some get damn mean. Same goes for Obamanauts (or Obeos, liked that one too). Party infighting is repels more moderate thinkers, hence the tea folks tanking poll numbers post debt ceiling circus.
I’m torn as to whether your girl should challenge right now. The Democratic party needs to get a spine and a firm grip on its core principles, especially in the post Citizens United world of unlimited corporate influence on elections. I think a primary challenge would help greatly in that regard, however, I think the screaming match between the Hillary-supporting boomers and the Obama-supporting … uhhh, supporters … would only rip up the party and pave the way for a President Romney or a President Perry. As I said, I’m torn, but I’m confident that she knows better than I do what’s good for her and for the country. This is an idiot trying to predict the moves of a genius here. Also nothing is going on in DC right now, so there are no new problems for Obama. Once the craziness starts up again with the Super Congress and a budget battle coming down the pike, I think that will make a difference. If the tea people roll him again on the budget or this Super Congress thing, I think even Dennis Kucinich could beat him.
LikeLike
Hillary’s base is very broad, and it’s true that we often disagree with each other. I see it in the Facebook groups all the time. But we were not the ones screaming. Plenty of us were screamed at – and that continues from The Oboe’s diehards. We talked. We didn’t scream. We actually had talking points and still do. That’s part of why I started blogging – to collect the talking points.
But we never retaliated in kind. We never shouted back. Obama’s supporters invaded personal space (like Rick Lazio did to Hillary) and yelled. And they were not yelling platform planks, plans, or policy, they yelled insults. Called names. There was no constructive message in what they screamed. We did not do that, so please don’t say that we would.
As for a challenge – I still have a gut feeling that somehow that is not going to be necessary. I don’t know how or why.
LikeLike
If he let’s himself get trod upon again, he may very well have a “Cronkite moment” of his own.
LikeLike
I know that I know what it is – but remind me what a Cronkite moment is, please?
LikeLike
After Cronkite made some statements about the Vietnam War, President Johnson realised he couldn’t be re-elected and chose not to run.
LikeLike
Thank you. Unfortunately, there are no Cronkites left. They are all bought and paid for.
LikeLike
The trigger need not be statements from a titan of journalism (which are pretty thin on the ground these days). It could be a statement from the CBC, or labor unions, or someone in the Democratic leadership. Cronkite’s words were LBJ’s trigger moment.
LikeLike
Good point! Maybe it will come from the CBC!
LikeLike
Hillary needs to be released of campaign debt. She is a moderate who crosses both isles and does not apologize to placate certain constituents, e.g. Iraq war. She explains her positions, actually works to build alliances, and appeals to republicans and democrats. She does not float on hope and change. She is a very real change agent.
Hillary Clinton should be an Independent and run as an Independent and win.
LikeLike
Correct. She is always on terra firma. Rooted to the earth. And from that base she does the doable.
LikeLike
Age quod agis vs. “Yes, we can” turned “Perhaps we might.”
LikeLike
I thought the new slogan was no we didn’t
LikeLike
Hahaha!!! Actually, and I do mean actually, I think it’s “We have to do better.” That and, “You have to contact your representatives….” Sarah Palin asked “What does he do?” It’s a good question!
LikeLike
As much as I’m still seething with anger at the party for shoving Obama down our throats and as much as I wish that Hillary challenged Obama for the nomination; It will not happen.
Hillary is too loyal to the party (although they don’t deserve it) and remembers too well what happened when Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980.
Alas, we are stuck with Obama for the duration. Come 2012 I’ll be voting third party. I will not vote for a Republican and I have zero intention of voting for Obama.
LikeLike
I am counting t on her loyalty to the country, not to the party, She has changed parties in the past. I also don’t think the Dims are totally stupid and blind.
LikeLike
The Republicans had Reagan in 1980. The Republican field this time around is so rag tag and so toxic to moderate voices that I’m not sure they could take advantage of a fractured Democratic party in the wake of a credible challenge from a candidate with a solid plan of action.
LikeLike
I just heard a young woman from libya. How can you not have hope?
LikeLike
Who? Me? I was just saying how much more favorable the politics of today is for a primary challenge than it was in 1980.
LikeLike
I hear what you say, but no one in the Democratic party will seriously challenge Obama. He is the first biracial president and the challenger would be called a racist and considered toxic.
LikeLike
That’s the narrative they’ve created around him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazine/06wwln-essay-t.html
LikeLike
I think last week’s statements by Maxine Waters are very telling. If there were a candidate with a proven record of helping minorities and some supporters in the CBC, I think the racism argument would be a tougher sell.
LikeLike
And you can count on her real feelings being exponentially stronger than she would ever say on TV.
LikeLike
Well, as she was talking about giving the President some more time a woman in the audience yelled “How long?”
LikeLike
You can bet she’s getting an earful.
LikeLike
I still think that most AAs will support Obama no matter how low he may be in the polls. They are personally invested in his success and won’t desert him.
LikeLike
I don’t know. The audience seemed pretty agitated and that kind of loyalty only goes so far.
LikeLike
It’s hard to remain “personally invested” when you can’t find work or pay your bills. If he gets a large percentage of the African American vote, it will be because the Republicans were unappealing. I mean, Rick Perry, according to his book, questions some civil rights laws and aspects of the 14th amendment. Just imagine what women would feel like if there was the same vague comments flying around about the 19th amendment.
I don’t think you will see the kind of turnout in the African American communty that there was in ’08 and the same will be true of the youth vote. They’ve been let down by this fellow, so why should they go out of their way for him.
LikeLike
I agree. Voter apathy is our odd American response to poor elective choices.
LikeLike
Part of that voter apathy I’m anticipating has to do with the fact that the majority if the Republican field is populated by wingnuts. Most of their candidates are much farther out on the conservative and/or libertarian fringe than the average American voter. If there were some moderate candidate who could win the nomination, maybe those disaffected voters would have somewhere to turn, but this looks like a bad year for moderate voices among Republicans.
LikeLike
I like Huntsman. He’s moderate and calling the TPers on their craziness.
LikeLike
Yeah, and he’s got how much of a chance?
LikeLike
I like him too, but I can’t him winning the nomination. I would say he’d make a good democratic challenger, but I don’t think he’s got what it takes to take on Obama.
LikeLike
Well, it ticks me off that the one time we had a chance for someone who could have prioritized and addressed the problems we decided to go for smoke and mirrors. There was never anything there. Don’t get me started.
LikeLike
*shrugs* Nothing can be done about the past, the present looks pretty bleak, and the future’s not looking too much better.
LikeLike