posted on July 19, 2005 05:35:38 AM new
I think so. Especially after reading this article. She's moved to a more moderate position, which I think will appeal to most voters. I think voters are tired of either being way over to the left, or way over to the right. Too many people are being left out. This is a C&P so if some of the lines are off. . .DEAL. LOL!
Bill Herberger, an 80-year-old former American Legion commander, didn't vote for
Hillary Rodham Clinton when she won a Senate seat in 2000.
But when Clinton finished her pitch to save the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station from closure before the federal base-closing commission last month, the Swormville, N.Y., man and hundreds of other veterans, reservists and military family members roared their approval.
"I will tell you that I didn't support her, because I didn't think she'd be supportive on issues like this," Herberger says. "And I will tell you that I will vote for her next time. She's been absolutely marvelous."
The United States has never had a female commander in chief. But while Clinton consistently brushes aside questions about whether she is eyeing a White House run in 2008, the pro-military views and tough talk on defense that have surprised Herberger and others might help the former first lady break one of America's enduring glass ceilings.
Unlike men, women can't stage macho photo ops to underscore their toughness, says Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a non-partisan group devoted to promoting female candidates from both parties. "How does a woman handle questions about these kinds of issues other than through her words?" she says. "These are the kind of exchanges women have in order to balance out the perceptions that they're not tough enough."
In a recent Capitol Hill interview, Clinton described her national security approach as trying to "look at all of these issues from the perspective of what it means for New York's security and America's security. ... I just try to do what I think is right."
Critics say the notion of Clinton accusing the Bush administration of not being tough enough on issues ranging from the war in
Iraq to
North Korea's nuclear threat smacks of a political makeover aimed at burnishing her national security credentials for 2008.
Unlike 21 of her Democratic colleagues at the time, Clinton supported going to war in Iraq and has rejected calls for a timetable to begin bringing U.S. troops home.
She supported Condoleezza Rice's nomination as secretary of State - 12 Democrats voted no - and was one of six Democrats last year opposed to blocking deployment of an untested national missile defense system.
"I think these are absolutely newfound views," says William Black, executive director of the anti-Clinton political action committee Stop Her Now.
"This is someone coming from an administration that had open disdain for the military."
Clinton dismisses such talk. The Sept. 11 attacks, she says, made her grateful to have a "seat at the table and express views about what we need to defend ourselves and defeat the terrorists. That's really my overriding concern. ... We have to have a decisive win."
Senate record
Few senators get the attention focused on a former first lady. But Clinton has been put under an even more powerful microscope since Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was defeated by
President Bush in November and polls began showing her as a front-runner in the 2008 presidential race.
A May USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found for the first time that a majority of Americans - 53% - said they are likely to vote for Clinton if she runs for president in 2008.
Clinton routinely dismisses questions about 2008 and says she is focusing on her 2006 Senate re-election bid. "She doesn't know yet" whether she will run, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, said on CNN's Larry King Live last month.
There is little in the senator's eight years as first lady, or her pre-White House days as a lawyer, from which to draw conclusions on her foreign policy or military views.
Her foreign trips as first lady were ceremonial or devoted to children's and women's issues. She also visited U.S. installations around the world.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines says one issue that has carried over from her White House years is a concern about quality-of-life issues - health care, housing, educational opportunities - for U.S. troops and their families.
In the Senate, Clinton has a fairly consistent record of support for the military - often with some of her GOP colleagues - and moderate foreign policy views. Some examples:
• She is the first New York senator to sit on the Armed Services Committee, where she has focused on improving pay and benefits for troops, both active and reserve. New York has the fourth-largest number of servicemen and women deployed in Iraq. Clinton visited Iraq in February in a much-publicized trip with Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.
• She introduced legislation last week, along with Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to boost the Army by 80,000 soldiers over the next four years.
• She has co-sponsored bills to improve military health benefits with GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jim Talent of Missouri. "I think that generally her work on the (Armed Services) committee has been very strong," Talent says.
• At an April Armed Services Committee hearing, Clinton won headlines after her persistent questioning led Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to admit that North Korea may now be able to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.
"The North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States," she said. "Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can."
• She was nominated by the Pentagon - with which her husband often had contentious relations, particularly on gays in the military - to serve on a blue-ribbon panel studying how to foster better cooperation among the military services.
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, named Clinton to the "Transformation Advisory Group." Clinton returned the favor last month by introducing him at the Armed Services hearing on his nomination to be vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
• A recent study by National Journal showed Clinton's record on defense, foreign policy and economics in 2004 made her the 34th most liberal senator, a year after she ranked ninth in the annual survey.
Clinton says a combination of factors prompted her to make national security a key focus in the Senate: a long-standing interest in military and foreign policy issues, the fact that New York City was attacked on Sept. 11, and New York's "noble tradition of military service" and status as home for a number of defense contractors.
'It just made sense'
"For all those reasons, it just made sense that this would be an area I'd spend time on," she says.
Foreign policy analysts say her strategy also makes for good politics.
"She's stepping out on foreign policy issues, and that's smart. That's a level of leadership that makes sense for her," says David Leavy, a spokesman for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.
Leavy says that if Clinton is considering a run for the presidency, she has to try to inoculate herself against the criticism Kerry received from Republicans.
"It's critical," he says. "The Republicans did a terrific job of painting Kerry as unacceptable and weak. It wasn't fair and it wasn't right, but they really tore his face off."
Newly found views?
Some Republicans contend, however, that Clinton's views on national security and foreign policy are politically crafted, given the animosity that the military often felt toward her husband.
"Her whole involvement in getting on the Armed Services Committee is a calculated political ploy to burnish up her national security and defense credentials," says Black, a Virginia-based political fundraising consultant who heads the anti-Clinton group. "She certainly didn't seem to care a whit about the military before."
Some conservative columnists, such as Mona Charen, have also criticized Clinton for her more moderate comments on domestic issues. "She can sniff the wind with the best of them," Charen wrote in January. In speeches earlier this year, Clinton said abortion often represents a "sad, even tragic choice" and praised religion and prayer as central to her life.
Some GOP analysts say that if Clinton runs for president, voters could have questions about her toughness because she didn't divorce her husband after he admitted having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in 1998.
"She's still going to have a problem in reconciling voters' pity for her plight as first lady with seeing her as a figure with heft on foreign policy and defense issues," GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway says. "That's the nagging underpinning that nobody likes to talk about, the 800-pound gorilla on her back."
Comments such as Conway's make students of women in politics wonder what foreign policy and national security credentials voters will expect from the first female presidential nominee, whether it's Clinton or not.
Former Colorado congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, who ran an exploratory Democratic presidential campaign in 1988 before opting out of the race, says the nation's experience in having two female secretaries of State has helped - but a glass ceiling still exists.
"We've moved the bar," she says of the image of women as leaders in foreign policy in the wake of Madeleine Albright and now Rice serving as secretary of State. "But we still have a ways to go."
Schroeder, who now heads the Association of American Publishers, says she still worries that women are not seen as equals in being able to direct the military.
She noted that while Rice and Albright may have helped the image of women as foreign policy heavyweights, viewers seldom see retired female colonels and generals on television as commentators.
"To me, it's always been fascinating when you look at our presidents," Schroeder says. "Some of them, like Eisenhower, Kennedy and the first President Bush, had military records, but most of them haven't. And no one really said a word about it. But with women, it's, 'Wow, they didn't serve.' "
Clinton says the USA has made tremendous progress in "getting beyond stereotypes and outdated ideas. And I hope we are focusing on individuals, what each has to contribute. For me, I try to do my job as best I can. And that's really who I am. ... Others can judge however they choose."
At this point with Bush's ratings dropping to an all time low, any candidate supported by the Democratic party will be elected. Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold could be very promising candidates.
posted on July 19, 2005 08:43:00 AM new
---So do I. I can just see the vote in the state of Arkansas, the people that really know her best. They can't stand her.
Her husband has been banned from practicing law before the Supreme Court and from practicing law in his own state.
Her policies in school reform in Arkansas turned into a disaster---
Bush came from that toilet, Texas, and he got elected so maybe the horrible state of Arkansas will have nothing to do with her election.
posted on July 19, 2005 08:59:37 AM new
Why can no one ever vote for a politician who actually believes in what they say instead of "changing their position" to cover what the polls/voters want.
"She's becoming more moderate". No she's not. She's simply "pretending" to be more moderate to get elected. After that, who knows what she'd do?
Wouldn't you rather have a politician that believes in what the majority believe or one with their own opinions who only does what the people want because they have to to get elected?
--------------------------------------
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum sonatur.
posted on July 19, 2005 09:07:20 AM new
etexbill - My saying I do hope they nominate her is because she comes with a ton of baggage....from 'their' years as President. I doubt few have forgotten all the corruption in their administration - all the indictments/convictions.....and even as they were leaving the WH....stealing the silverware [etc].
ALL that and her voting record as a far-left liberal are there and will be discussed....no matter how she's trying to 'appear' now.
I support a h. clinton nomination because I believe it's [b]a guaranteed win[b] for whoever the republican candidate is.
And as far as Arkansas goes....we have two Senators who are dems. Pryor and Lincoln. BUT when we retired here all the 'Welcome To Arkansas' road signs had little signs attached at the bottom that said, "Home Of President Bill Clinton"......were FULL of bullet holes.
Made all of us Californian's sit up and take notice. We are a state where you can carry guns with you.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 19, 2005 09:10:36 AM new
Most American men are not confident enough in their Manhood or have not developed high enough in the evolutionary process to vote a Woman for president yet.
posted on July 19, 2005 09:14:21 AM new
And let's not forget this list of pardons to mostly contributors on the final day, including a convicted drug dealer:
http://tinyurl.com/8lwvw
I think the American public has pretty good memories.
posted on July 19, 2005 09:16:53 AM new
Yea....all one has to do here is read just how calm, articulate and un-emotional the women are compared to the men......to see why many don't believe a woman could handle being Commander-In-Chief.....especially a far left democratic woman.
Given a choice of who I'd rather work for.....it would be a man - hands down. They're not as emotional as women normally are.
posted on July 19, 2005 09:23:12 AM new
"Bush came from that toilet, Texas, and he got elected so maybe the horrible state of Arkansas will have nothing to do with her election."
Watch it mingotree. The only state that was an independent nation before entering the Union and retained the right to break into 5 states (and we still can).
posted on July 19, 2005 09:38:05 AM new
Linda..you do a disservice to women by stereotyping them as a lot of out of control hormonal hot heads.. Surely a woman of your obvious intelligence and savvy must realize that all men are not always in control of their emotions at all times either..that they can be weak, strong, raging bullies or timid twits or all of the above.
But as long as women view themselves as second class citizens and not equal to men.. there will be no reason for men to give them the respect they deserve... by the way.. there have been some great Women leaders..or is it just American women that you feel are hormonally off balance?
posted on July 19, 2005 09:45:16 AM new
Calm down now maggie.
I called it like I see it. It's a proven fact that women act on an emotional basis and men on a less emotion basis. They use more logic....critical thinkers. Not saying that there aren't some who don't fit the mold....but truth is truth. It's just one of the wonderful differences between men and women...how they compliment each other, imo.
I was responding to your insult to men in general, on why they wouldn't vote for a woman President.....and do believe 'women lib' type women do believe they are equal in all ways to men. I just happened to disagree with that notion. I honor and respect our differences.
And IF you'd read any of my previous posts....you'd have seen that I would vote for a woman for President....again I was just mentioning why I believe a lot wouldn't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 19, 2005 09:50 AM ]
posted on July 19, 2005 09:57:09 AM new
replaymedia - Why can no one ever vote for a politician who actually believes in what they say instead of "changing their position" to cover what the polls/voters want.
They DID....they re-elected this President.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 19, 2005 10:19:33 AM new
Men are sooooo unemotional That's why when you win an argument they post death wishes
Yes, men are so unemotional....just read the news...woman dumps man, man comes back kills her and their kids and anyone else, all because the wimp was too scared to be alone.
No emotion there
Over and over you read about men beating and slaughtering women...someone in here even advocates killing them for not "swallowing".
No emotion there
Yes, there are women who are too emotional ...and many many men who have proven they are, too (nothing like a testosterone surge to start a war).
Too say women are more emotional than men is another backward argument by sexist minds who rarely think things through.
Since many many OTHER countries have had women leaders it just shows how backwards SOME Americans can be.
It shows a total lack of knowledge of history and the women who built America.
posted on July 19, 2005 10:28:33 AM new
The Green-Eyed Monster Arises:
--Yea....all one has to do here is read just how calm, articulate and un-emotional the women are compared to the men......to see why many don't believe a woman could handle being Commander-In-Chief.....especially a far left democratic woman.--
How many women posting here have a resume' resembling a U.S. Senator.
Does anyone REALLY believe a person would vote based on anything they read(or mis-read) in here??
I agree, LindaK , that not too many of your posts are calm, articulate or un-emotional but don't paint ALL women with your brush.
posted on July 19, 2005 10:45:08 AM new"She's becoming more moderate". No she's not. She's simply "pretending" to be more moderate to get elected. After that, who knows what she'd do?
And how is the different than any other nominee making promises before they are elected?
We all know what Bush promised in 2000:
"I will restore honor and integrity to the White House"
No decision on Yucca Mountain until research results are available
Free trade
"I'm a compassionate conservative"
"Leave no child behind"
"I'm a uniter, not a divider" "President of all the people, not just those who voted for me"
"A reformer with results"
"It's the people's money, not the government's"
Election reform
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
[ edited by logansdad on Jul 19, 2005 10:48 AM ]
posted on July 19, 2005 10:53:57 AM new
Here is a link that shows poll results over the past couple of months between several different scenarios between potential Republican and Democratic candidates in 2008
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 19, 2005 11:14:35 AM newTex.. guess you haven't read my nickname here yet, have you? It's the black widow..LOL
I'm still working on number 4, but will put you on my short list..LOL..run..run very fast!
Linda, I understand that we (men and women) have our differences, but I do not believe that one sex is more logical thinking than the other. Where has it been proven that men are more logical and less emotional thinkers..Probably studies done by men..just think how fast Men react with physical force..a woman will take the time to think things out before reacting..
You brought up a good point about preferring to work for a man rather than a woman..I used to think that too...until I realized that the reason I thought that way was because the woman I worked for were more difficult to please, they were more exacting..and a sweet smile and a flirtatious nature didn't mean diddly to them...whereas with my male bosses... well, let's just say..they were easy..
All that critical, logical thinking was so easily distracted...LOL
Ron, I agree with you.. women who believe they are not equal to men will not vote for a woman president.
Could you please explain what you mean by wanting true equality? And just what women would be giving up? Thanks Maggie
posted on July 19, 2005 11:30:37 AM new
maggie - Lots of different studies on brain matter differences between men and women. Men have more gray, women have more white.
I'd ask that you do your own research on different studies between the behaviors between men and women. There was a more recent one done [still on-going] by Stanford University. I've read them and have no desire to hunt for them only to have them discounted as always happens here. Not wasting my time doing that for others anymore. sorry
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
