September 27, 2005
Vote Hillary '08: Women's Commandment-In-Chief?
Michael Dukakis' former campaign manager weighs in, this supposedly Geena Davis-laden week, with the observation that "Hillary Clinton leads every public poll for the Democratic nomination for president -- and her candidacy will be the most important test of women's equality in my generation, precisely because so many Americans aren't ready for a woman president yet. But while I would argue that women have a special obligation to support her for just that reason, unfortunately, it doesn't mean that women are necessarily better leaders."
Her meaning, more plainly stated, is that the risk to women's interests (as women) averted by voting for Hillary, simply because she is a woman, is more serious than the risk to their interests, as citizens, indulged by voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman...
That's a heavy roll of the dice to take because "so many" of us are somehow (how?) unprepared for a female president -- all the more so when Estrich reveals in the same article that "the number of Americans who think that their neighbors" are "ready" for Madam President stands by poll at "two-thirds."
Consequently, although gender does not correlate to leadership, women are bound to the superceding duty to vote Hillary in '08 because the majority of Americans prepared to vote for a female nominee is a mere 66%. In Congress, this percentage is high enough to overturn a Presidential veto. For Estrich this flush numerical inequity is a mark of how far we have to go toward women's equality.
In fact, large numbers of Americans themselves admit that they'd personally vote for a female candidate -- to the tune of 75% -- but Estrich divines from this number that roughly one in ten respondents lied to their pollsters to look PC. A richer field for mining hypotheses is the matter of why voting for Elizabeth Dole in the Republican primaries of last election cycle was not a sexual imperative or even a feminine prerogative. Odd that Estrich (whose Election Law class I attended, and vastly enjoyed) skips over that possibility, and weirder still that Hillary Clinton continues to cause rational people to think that the question of whether she makes for an acceptable president has anything to do with that of whether women make for acceptable presidents.
Posted by James G. Poulos at 01:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 09, 2005
Battle of the miscreant hubbies '06 - the forthcoming saga of Bill versus Al?
Jeanine Pirro may just be the only politician in America who stands to lose by talking family life in a Senate race against Hillary Clinton. We already know about Mr. Clinton, but Pirro, the hard-charging DA from the Westchester suburbs who announced her Senate Candidacy yesterday, is married to the purportedly mobbed up husband, Al, who has served ime for tax evasion.
Still, many New York Republicans were jubilant yesterday at Pirro's announcement, and by my account rightfully so -- it was a broadside to Senator White House, who was, of course, never interested in being the junior Senator from New York but always (come on!) believed the White House is hers for the taking. (A lot more below the fold.)
And the plan contemplated a near-unimpeded re-election in ’06, followed by more Clintonian centrism and a lurch toward the White House in ‘08. But as Dick Morris points out today, Mrs. Clinton now faces a real fight, one that, at a minimum, will leave her bruised as she heads into the ’07 primaries. Depending on the mileage her last name has in NY, Hil may have to suck up to her left base in order to defeat Pirro: minorities, labor, the pro-choice lobby, etc., etc. – and doing so will expose her double-talk. But the issues might not be the most intriguing story of the race; the Bill vs. Al sub-plot might be. It remains to be seen whether the local media will pay much attention, and while I realize T.H. Kerry never debated Laura Bush, voters notice spouses, and there’s something satisfying about seeing Bill Clinton matched, in whatever fashion, with Al Pirro, isn’t there?
Addendum - My cousin, Kieran Lalor, takes another angle on the Pirro story, with a gut reaction that's more cynical, savvy, or both. Says KML (posted with permission):
"Gut feeling / prediction"
Hillary and Pirro are in cahoots. What does Hillary gain by running again for Senate and then running for president as a Senator?
She gains nothing by being reelected but risks everything.
No sitting Senator has run won the presidency since 1960. No Northeast liberal has won it since 1960 and compared to Hill, JFK is the Gipper. Plus, it is worth noting that no woman has ever been president.
Is Hillary so great she can buck all of these trends? No, but she doesn't have to. What she can do is raise oodles of cash in a faux race with Pirro, bow out next summer and get credit for not running for a Senate term she does not intend to fulfill. Notice, Pirro's biggest criticism of Hill so far is that she is abusing NY as stepping stone. In fact she said yesterday in her opening salvo that New York welcomed Hillary with open arms 4 years ago. Does that sound like a pit bull Republican who wants to bludgeon her opponent? When Hillary drops out, the biggest criticism from Pirro is moot.
With the credential of former Senator she can run for the presidency full-time. No longer a Senator she won't be forced to make the deciding votes on wedge issues the way the John Kerry was.
With all of the Senate $$$$ saved by not campaigning in the final hyper-expensive months of 2006, Hill announces for the presidency and raiseseven more cash from excited libs.
Her war chest will be so mighty she will face no credible candidate in the Dem primary and gets coroneted the nominee unbloodied by a Senate campaign or a tough primary.
She only needs to win every state that the hapless John Kerry did plus one more. She'll pour tons of dough into Arkansas and dispatch Bill and his southern charm to woo Arkansas and bam she is president.
Pirro, for going easy, gets Hillary to drop out of the race too late for another Dem to beat Pirro. Pirro gets a lot of anti-Hillary money during the make believe race between the two Westchester gals with a lot in common including albatross husbands and social liberalism.
Pirro will have buckets of anti-Hillary money, with only the burden of having to beat second tier, late-comer Democrat. Pirro goes from D.A. to the Senate and Hillary goes from the Senate to the White House. Both women avoid mudslinging over their husband's indiscretions and both make huge political leaps. It’s win win for the Westchester Two.
Posted by bill at 08:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
