Can someone articulate the affirmative case for electing Hillary Clinton president for me? Not the negative case, the affirmative one. Other than electability, I mean. As the late Mayor Daley once said, regardless of how it looks now someone will be elected. In other words definitionally when two unelectable candidates face off, one of them will indeed be elected which means that he or she wasn’t that unelectable after all.
Because then we can stop hearing a bunch of talk about glass ceilings? Also, given what electing a Black Man ™ has done for race relations in America, imagine what electing a woman will do for relations between the sexes!
The only reason I can see for voting for her is concern that the Republican candidate would be worse.
That’s why I asked for an affirmative case. That isn’t an affirmative case.
I’m guessing there’s a proportion of the electorate that identifies as being a Democrat that would ipso facto see any Democratic candidate being better than any Republican candidate. I’m further guessing that Sec. Clinton’s primary election strategy will be to promote that view.
Because she’d find a place in her Administration for Wesley Clark. Hey, what could go wrong with interment camps for “disloyal” Americans?
I suppose if the GOP has a ticker of Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton one could consider a desperate vote for Clinton hoping to delay world war–not cancel it, merely delay it. By a few months anyway.
Would the next SCOTUS choice count as an affirmative case? I can see that as an argument for a generic Democrat, but not specifically for Hillary. I expect a lot of nonsense about how she is experienced and prepared, but the subtext will be that Ginsburg and Scalia will croak soon and you don’t want another Scalia or Thomas, let alone two of them.
Steve
Would the next SCOTUS choice count as an affirmative case?
I think so, but as you say, that’s a generic argument. Unless one believes Hillary in particular will appoint someone especially attuned to one’s favored point of view.
I think steve just invented the next great game of political “GOTCHA” – ask Presidential candidates to give a list of which judges they would nominate to the court. Don’t tell me decorum and practical matters dictate otherwise, as decorum and practicality fled the nation about fifty years ago. This would be funny as Hell as the media digs into the background of the judges in question.
It isn’t that hard. I could probably name the potential candidates. Just list whoever clerked for Souter, Ginsburg, or Breyer a quarter century ago who graduated from Harvard or Yale law schools.
Look younger Dave. I predict they go after a 45ish Asian with solid liberal credentials. That will fill in a diversity quota and the conservatives, after already alienating Hispanics again, will not want to go after an Asian.
Steve
It’ll still be somebody who clerked for Souter, Ginsburg, or Breyer. The other members of the progressive bloc of the court haven’t been on the job long enough to have clerks who’ve done anything but be clerks.
@steve, Democrats don’t nominate young, that’s historically been a Republican trick:
Thomas: 43
Roberts: 50
Scalia: 50
Kennedy: 51
Alito: 55
average = 49.8
Kagan: 50
Sotomayer: 55
Bryer: 56
Ginsburg: 60
average = 55.25
Hillary would most likely select Justice Merrick B. Garland, age 62, Clerked for Brennan, Harvard Law, nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bill Clinton, to be awarded for services rendered to Democrats in a crucial Circuit for federal power.
I am kind of thinking Mary Yu, on the Washington Supreme Court. Chinese father, Mexican mother and she is openly gay. How can you beat that, and she is 58 so fits your theory. Has a theology degree and worked for the Chicago Archdiocese. However, if they go young, look at Edmond Chang. Of course neither of these went to Yale or Harvard, so probably won’t happen.
No Democratic president, least of all Hillary Clinton, will nominate a graduate of Mundelein of Loyola.
Dave,
The affirmative case for electing Hillary is obvious – Bill as first
Lady…I mean firstphilanderer…I mean first husband. Think of the, uh, stimulus that will provide late night talk shows and SNL!Other than that I can’t think of anything except for she’s not
… as bad as whatever GoP candidate gets elected.
I’d offer in her favor that HRC, as a person, is PROBABLY more of a policy wonk than any Republican candidate is likely to be, and much more likely to employ PWs in her administration. By “wonks” I mean people who understand and care about the minutia of Federal programs, who understand the economics and human costs of making changes and who make sensible recommendations to elected officials — “staffers” if you approve of them, “bureaucrats” if you don’t. People with an interest in good government and the nuts and bolts of making government work.
Let me suggest gently that Republicans tend not to be such people.
Let me suggest gently that Hillary Clinton is not such a person, either. If you believe she is, please support the claim using her actions as Secretary of State, senator, or head of her husband’s healthcare reform action group as a reference.
Hillary Clinton is a smart, democratic, politically savvy woman — my affirmative case for her candidacy. The operative words in that sentence are “smart,” “democrat,” “political,” and “woman.” For me, though, those pluses can’t override her unmemorable, uninspiring, oftentimes distasteful resume as a public servant, lowered even further by the sheer number of unattractive traits and untidy behavior exhibited during and after her government service positions, exposing a ruthless, overly-ambitious, unethical, vaguely cold, impersonal person campaigning with a phony, fixed smile on her face.
It remains to be seen how the over-crowded republican field develops and matures during the campaign season. However, there are more than a few with impressive accomplishments and administrative skills in their legislative portfolios, as well as far fewer scandals and character flaws exposed in their private and public lives. Also, unlike some here, I don’t completely discount nor unthinkingly consider my voting preference simply based on a candidate’s party affiliation — the rationale offered up unfortunately by too many close-minded, partisan voters. Consequently, there’s at least one democratic candidate (not HRC) and probably 3-4 republican ones who interest me at the moment.
Jan
Plus, she committed securities fraud, but who’s quibbling.
I was assured that there would be Democratic majorities out as far as the eye can see, but maybe, they meant a blind man’s eye.
Dear white progressives: Stop telling black people how to vote
If a substantial portion of your coalition dislikes you, you might want to rethink your strategy, but as with everything else, they do not know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground.