Hillary, Social Conservative (Sort Of)

National Review Online: Senator Clinton’s Sister Souljah Moment

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Rich Lowry.

---

When Hillary Rodham gave the commencement address at Wellesley College in 1969, extolling the virtues of “human liberation” on behalf of a restless generation of left-wing youth, did she have any idea one day she’d be the champion of old white beer-drinking Democrats everywhere?

Oh, what tangled webs we weave. And what strange transformations are wrought by presidential primaries. Candidates are often driven by their constituencies and the logic of their campaigns into unexpected places. In 2000, John McCain - hitherto basically an orthodox conservative - ended up a populist reformer alienated from his party. In 2004, Howard Dean - hitherto a wonkish moderate - ended up an antiwar fire-breather. And in 2008, Hillary Clinton - part of the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic party - is representing the Democrats’ culturally conservative wing (such as it is).

It’s only as compared to Barack Obama, of course, that Clinton looks like a curmudgeonly traditionalist. Only he could have given her such wide openings to defend small-town mores and (gingerly) chastise a black nationalist preacher. It’s not policy differences on cultural issues that divide Obama and Clinton, but differing sensibilities.

A push-pull dynamic has redefined Hillary. As the mainstream media, the left-wing blogs and latte liberals have turned on her, she has held all the more tightly to her down-scale constituency and reacted against her critics. She has lashed out against MoveOn.org and husband Bill has dissed “upscale culture liberals.” She has defied the precious rules of liberal politics, referring to Osama bin Laden in a TV ad, threatening to “obliterate” Iran and - even worse - sitting down with Bill O’Reilly for a cordial interview. The same people who spent a decade defending her and her husband howl betrayal.

Every politician becomes a function of his constituency, a particular peril this year. Both Republican and Democratic primary races have been exercises in electoral tribalism: the evangelicals have voted for the evangelical, the Mormons for the Mormon, the southerners for the southerners, the blacks for the black, the youth for the young guy, the old white people for the old white people. The easiest way for Hillary to grow her support has been to get even more of her - older, poorer, less educated - white voters.

Why should she get them? Both she and Obama went to Ivy League law schools. The difference is that Obama left Harvard Law School for community organizing in Chicago and then a political career on the South Side. It’s as if Bill and Hillary Clinton had departed Yale Law School and headed straight to San Francisco to clamber up the slippery pole of progressive politics. That way lies Nancy Pelosi.

Instead, they went to Arkansas and had to win over Bubba voters to survive. Democrats successful at the national level come from the south because it forces them into sympathy with parts of America not represented in the liberal, coastal bubble. Hillary obviously doesn’t have the natural popular touch that Bill does, but she’s sending him to every small town in America on her behalf.

Then, there’s the matter of experience. Hillary’s years in politics benefit her not because she’s used to answering that proverbial red phone, but because it has roughed her up, making her - like the Velveteen rabbit - more real for her voters. The soaring idealism in Hillary was long compromised away (by her) or kicked out of her (by her critics), giving her a battered grounding in realism that Obama lacks.

All of this has made her a stronger candidate. Operating on the Bill Clinton model, a Democratic candidate needs a “Sister Souljah moment,” distancing him from the fringes of the party. Hillary Clinton’s Sister Souljah moment has been running against Obama, pushing herself to the center in relation to him and forging a bond with voters Democrats need in a general election. Oddly, she may be a more electable candidate now when the odds are against her winning the nomination than when she seemed a lock. Tangled webs, indeed.

[truthyness]

There is too much at stake to elect an unknown.

[zendigity]

There is too much at stake to elect an unknown-truthyness

What a ret@rded thing to say...
First, Obama isn''t unknown; just turn your eyes away from FauxNews for a moment and do a little honest investigating.
More importantly though, who''s the real Hillary Clinton? She seems to create a new personality every time she speaks to a different audience.
Obama has kept with the same message from the begininning, despite the ignorant people like yourself who''d rather worry about whether or not he''s wearing a lapel pin than what he has to say about his policies.

Wake up, you''re being led down the same path that got Bush to the election.

Please try having some knowledge before you try having an opinion.

[serrano338]

OBAMA/WRIGHT 08
YES WE CON!

[xlib]

zendignity-have you been watching the coverage on FOX or are you just repeating the party line? Get a grip and open your mind. Your empty suit is nothing more than that. The next JFK he''s not.
As for the madame being conservative on ANYTHING-most Republicans don''t partake of the koolaid. She is a socialist, plain and simple. She may have been a Goldwater girl back in the day when I was a bleeding heart lib but she''s a socialist, redistribution of wealth commie.

[fredgrad2000]

Ahhh, more FOX News BS; FOX is far more even-handed than MSNBC; which is so far to the left that they make their disdain for Hillary (who won''t just step aside and let the "anointed one" ascend) even more blatently obvious than their anti-GOP, anti-conservative bias.

The simple fact of this entire election is that this country is not a popular vote country. Looking at the demographics of the nation, Obama should be the stronger Dem candidate. Though not nearly these days as much due to Wright and Ayers, etc. and the fact that when it finally comes time to decide who is a bi-partisan uniter and who is a far left liberal who always takes the party line; McCain will wipe the floor on that score with Obama - its not an accident that virtually every major bi-partisan initiative of the last decade bears McCain''s name - Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Feingold (which of course was pushed by the strapped for cash dems and now is exploited by them in the form of George Soros and his minions at MoveOn and Media Matters). But back to the point, in the electoral college, Hillary is far stronger than Obama - I believe Hillary wins both PA and OH, and thus the election; whereas Obama could actually lose both to McCain; not saying he will, but could. And HE would need to WIN both to take the White House as McCain will wipe the floor with him in FL.

[aldon61]

There is no doubt that McCain will take Florida. FREDGRAD2000:Obama should do well in Pennsylvania and most of the east coast and the west coast, it''s a toss up in Ohio. Where Obama could make some inroads is in the midwest and west. I think he puts Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri into play, along with Colorado and New Mexico. Without a VP being known right now, it''s hard to guess the impact a good regional choice would have in the general.

[magnetrack]

Maybe CBS would like to mention that Clinton leads Obama by 12 in the SurveyUSA poll today--you know,the guys who''ve been consistently right.

[it_oldtimer]

Well said, linymo!

Hillary has shown herself to be both utterly ruthless in her pursuit of personal power, and a world-class flip-flopper, always pandering shamelessly to the latest polls.

She obviously has no real values of her own; she''s just another "Me Too!" type of politician.

[rational_1]

There is too much at stake to elect an unknown.
Posted by truthyness at 12:07 PM : May 05, 2008

Ya, I agree! I really don''t know that much about Hillary - seems like she always tries to say what I want to hear. Makes me suspicious about what she really thinks, so she''s pretty well an unknown to me. We can''t risk electing her.

[tbweb]

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a letter rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a summertime gas-tax holiday.

McCain/Clinton ''08 all the way! against Obama

[tbweb]

SAY NO TO AN ILLEGAL CLINTON 3rd TERM!!

Sen. Clinton claims she is ready to be President on Day 1. How is this possible? Because during her husbands 2 terms as President Hillary claims she played a major role, the U.S. got 2 for the price of 1, a Co-Presidency if you will. The Clintons can''t have it both ways, if Hillary is claiming Presidential experience over her rival Sen. Obama then a third Clinton term is illegal as noted below!!

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 22

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Avoid abuse of too much power and corruption by one family!

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton?? 20 years in a row! America needs a break from BUSH/CLINTON! No more BUSH/CLINTON.

SAY NO TO AN ILLEGAL CLINTON 3rd TERM!!

[bluestardad]

THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE NAZI INVASION OF POLAND IN 1939 AND THE BUSHIT NEOCON INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003!

START WAR CRIMES TRIALS NOW!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[Syndicate]

bluestardad: The difference is huge. Grow a brain and try using it. No war crimes have been committed. With dumb *** Americans like you we need George Bush to protect us.