NY Times Reveals Clinton's Political Style

[gerald hewitt]

This current New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us...rssnyt&emc=rss sheds more light on the shifting mandates of Hillary and what she is willing to sacrafice and compromise in order to obtain what she wants/thinks is important.
For me it begins to show her as a candidate for president who is strong on certain issues but also playing both ends against the middle for her own political gain.

In Mrs. Clinton’s complex relationship with Wal-Mart , there are echoes of the familiar themes that have defined much of her career: the trailblazing women, unafraid of challenging the men around her; the idealist pushing for complicated, at times expensive reforms; and the political pragmatist, willing to accept policies she did not agree with to achieve her ends.

What do you guys think?
Gerald

[tnopud42]

I think Hillary is a realist. She understands how politics works both in the U.S. and in Washington D.C. I don't believe she is any worse or any better than most politicians today. I know she is the anti-Christ to Republicans, but that's just the nature of the game. I probably would vote for her, but I have real concerns whether she could win a general election because she is so polarizing. She brings a lot of baggage, but with enough digging, people can find skeletons in most anyone's closet. She just seems to have more being in the public's eye for so long.

[mikesilvia]

If you want Socialism and 8 more years of Clinton/Clinton in the White House vote for Hillary. I wish the Democrats could offer someone that actually worked their way to the top instead of simple being married to the #1 Democrat. Personally, I think Lieberman, Edwards and Biden got to where they are based on their abilities. I think Hillary is where she is because she was married to Bill and Obama is where he is because he is black. 90% of people I know that like Obama can't tell me anything about him. They say, "I like his ideas," and I say, "like what?" and they they, "Well he is young and full of ideas."

[gerald hewitt]

A token woman on a 'good ole boys' corporate board shows her to be a realist? It shows that she accepts the political landscape status quo! I will not use my vote to have my candidate swim in the mud like everyone else, and Mike, in some ways I share your inability to see Obama as a candidate with viability (except this part..." Obama is where he is because he is black.") His interview with Stephanopolous showed me an inexperienced wanna-be chief executive more suited to serve another term in the senate for Illinois and show the electorate what causes he can champion and actually accomplish for the groups he says he will stand up for.

[tnopud42]

So better she not be on the board at all? If that is the case then any woman entering a boardroom should assume they are a token?

[gerald hewitt]

The reason she was on the board had much more to do with Bill and the fact that Walmart is based in Arkansas so that the board could use her to gain favorable status with the Governor's office. She did not affect change save for the token change that the rest of the board would allow. She had the opportunity to show her political gumption and speak up for the workers on issues of healthcare and minimum wage. She did not. Doing so would have shown her to have shared vision with people who very much needed her to speak for them. She navigated through the muck and did nothing. Is that the kind of president you want?

[tnopud42]

As the article states, she was not the first choice and had the other individual been chosen, this discussion would be moot.

But she was on the board and hence your comment "She did not affect change save for the token change that the rest of the board would allow." So basically you say her hands were tied by a board of men and your argument with her is that she didn't champion causes she knew she would lose?

[gerald hewitt]

She could have used her voice and had the courage to take a stand for the people she purports to represnt on that board. Who does she really speak for? Safe politicos and fat cats who continue to exploit lesser advantaged folks for montary gain?
So are you saying she should only stand up for things she knows she would win in the political arena? That is exactly my point...

[tnopud42]

You stated she was a token representaive in a "good ole' boys" network. Her very presence was only because Walton's wife wanted a woman on the board. Now is she a "token' or not? If so, little could be expected of her. If not, then she chose what to fight for. Did she choose the right fights, that's subjective. But one of your very argument against her - health care - she attempted to rectify as First Lady and was shot down on that. So again you can't have it both ways. You can't criticize her for not doing enough and then attack her for doing too much (i.e. health care).

As for her political stance, is there any politician that has not "fine tuned" their positions over a 20 year period. The saint of the Republican party - Reagan - even changed parties. Every politician is beholding to someone.

[mikesilvia]

Personally, I thin a Clinton President/ Obama Vice President may be a ticket that can't lose, no matter how much I would hate them in the White House. That would set up Clinton for 8 years and groom Obama for the 2016 elections. Just my thought. On the other side, I think a Romney President / Rudi VP ticket could be solid as well.