The Many Faces of Hillary

In the June 6, 2005 issue of The Nation, GREG SARGENT offers his take on Hillary Clinton's potential as a 2008 presidential candidate. His perspective is clouded by wishful thinking and the inability to understand fly-over country, so typical of the ideologues on the secularist left.

Sargent considers Hill's smoke and mirrors move to the middle on certain issues, such as abortion, to be brilliant. He writes:
The political beauty of this, as NewDonkey.com's Ed Kilgore has observed, is that it makes a subtle play for Republican moderates by forcing right-wing ideologues to reveal themselves as the true extremists, as foes of the common-sense goal of lowering rates of unwanted pregnancies. "When Democrats speak this way about abortion," says one senior Hillary adviser, "it drives a wedge between sensible Republicans, who want to reduce the amount of abortions, and the right-wing crazies, whose main goal is to stop people from having sex."

A senior Hillary adviser thinks moderate Dems appeal to Red Staters because the Republicans are "right-wing crazies, whose main goal is to stop people from having sex." If this is the view of a SENIOR Hill adviser, if this is the type of thinking that is directing Hill, all hope of her winning over those of us in the heartland is lost. It shows a tremendous underestimation of the intellectual capacities of those outside the urban circles where the liberal elite romp.

Sargent touts her "pragmatic" approach to issues, assuming this will appeal to that large group of voters who are put off by the Michael Moore/MoveOn/Howard Dean/Hollywood extremists. It amazes me that he believes these voters will not discover the truth. This is not only a fatal mistake, but a particularly inexcusable one.

Hillary cannot run away from her voting record in the Senate. Kerry tried to do it and failed miserably. What makes Dems think Hill can succeed in hiding behind a facade of moderation? Didn't the 2004 election teach them anything?

The Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, gave Hill's Senate performance a "liberal quotient" of 95 percent. The same group placed John Edwards at 60 percent and a composite of Dem senators at 85 percent. A candidate cannot run away from the voting record. Republicans successfully painted Kerry as the insincere flip-flopper-in-chief because he attempted to pander to middle America by putting on a moderate mask.

Hillary is doing the same thing.

Sargent seems to characterize her "act" as a good thing, standing in awe of her ability to transform herself when the need arises. Referring to a speech she made to a roomful of upstate New York farmers, he writes:
These were hard-bitten people who were fully prepared to believe that the Senator from Chappaqua is who her caricaturists say she is. When Clinton strode into that room, she was an entirely different Hillary from the one who'd addressed Democrats only hours earlier. Anyone accustomed to seeing Clinton on TV--where she sometimes seems stiff and insincere--would have been flabbergasted by her sudden transformation. She instantly, and effortlessly, became Homespun Hillary. Her vowels grew flatter, more rural-sounding. "Little" became "li'l." "Get" became "git." Entire pronouns vanished, as in: "Heard there are some places in California selling gas for three dollars a gall'n." She poked fun at city folk. Speaking about how farmers could make money supplying the specialty produce that New York restaurants need, she mimicked a demand made to her by city restaurateurs: "We need all those little funny things you don't know what they are when they put 'em on your plate."

In the address Hill made to Dems "only hours earlier," Sargent details how extreme and rapid her transformations are. Referring to the Hillary that showed up at a fund-raiser in Albany, he quotes:
"It's not just about turning the clock back on the 1990s.... They want to turn the clock back on most of the twentieth century. They want to turn the clock all the way back beyond Franklin Roosevelt. Back beyond Teddy Roosevelt. That's why they're trying to undo Social Security. Make no mistake about it.

"What I see happening in Washington," Clinton continued, "is a concerted effort by the Administration and the leadership in Congress to really create absolute power. They want to control the judiciary so they can have all three branches of government. I really don't care what party you are--that's not in the American tradition.... Right now young men and women are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for the America we revere. And that is a country where nobody has all the answers--and nobody should have all the power.... We all need to stand up for what made America great--what created a wonderful set of values that we revere, that we exported and tried to really inculcate in people around the world!"

Sargent doesn't seem to understand that what he does is expose Hillary's acting prowess. He thinks this talent is a good thing and could lead her to the White House.

I believe it will be her undoing.