Steven Stark notes that Hillary Clinton is being held to a standard no serious Presidential candidate has ever been held to before.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Steven Stark notes that Hillary Clinton is being held to a standard no serious Presidential candidate has ever been held to before.
{ 12 comments }
But is she being held to a standard someone running for Presidential re-election wouldn’t be?
Hillary Clinton isn’t running as a New York Senator. She’s running as someone that has executive experience because of the key role she had to play in her husband’s Administration.
She’s not running as a Senator, she’s running as someone seeking a third term in the White House.
Actually Kevin, she is running as a New York Senator AND as someone who was an important player (although not the President) in a previous administration because she is in fact both of those things.
It is of course not the case that a participant in an administration who is not the President is running for a ‘third term’ from a constitutional sense, although they may very well be doing so from a policy sense. For example, George H.W. Bush did this successfully in 1988 and Al Gore failed in 2000.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Avaaz.org – Petition in support of Tibet
“The debate is over. It’s time for action.”
“The election is over, it’s time to unite.”
Typical authoritarians, showing their true colors.
Not that these comments are unworthy of discussion, but I do note that they have nothing to do with the linked article, which is about the heavy pressure for her to quit the race, which no one in a position remotely like hers has ever been so pressured to do before. She actually has a very credible shot at winning the nomination, even if she’s the underdog.
Still, to continue the discussion: I really don’t think anyone seriously believes she would be a credible candidate for President if she hadn’t won election and re-election as Senator. You don’t, do you Kev?
I agree with the article. It’s really too close to call at this point. It’s true her negativity could damage the party — which is my view is a good thing, both major parties should be set on fire at this point — but that is a separate issue, as are Hillary’s delusions of having been co-president.
Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..The Assassination Smear 2
I meant “third term,” as you mention, in a policy sense. She’s running on the idea that as a “key player” in the White House for eight years she’s qualified for the office.
I disagree that’s she’s running as a New York Senator. The “Phone at 3AM” stuff, and the sniper lie, is all crafted to make it appear she has Presidential experience beyond her fellow Senators. She’s running on those eight years alone, in my view. Since she’s seeking a real first term to compliment her “spiritual” previous two terms, I think it’s fair she’s getting hit harder than your average Presidential candidate. Neither Obama nor McCain is claiming they had a key role in the White House during any Administration and making that claim a central component to their campaign.
I don’t consider her a credible candidate for New York Senator so the President thing is a nonstarter.
As for the article: I can’t get it to load.
The calls for Hillary’s withdrawal seem to be rooted in Obama-ism. She’s clearly not done yet. But it’s nice to see that she won’t cut and run when things get tough.
Ryan
RyanR’s last blog post..China into Aircraft Business
New York voters apparently disagree with your assessment that she’s not really a credible Seantor, Kevin.
The good citizens of New York provide another fine reason not to live there.
Dean,
To get to the point of your post, I think that candidates are often called upon to withdraw. I seen to recall that happening plenty of times in the past.
Of course this case is somewhat different as the contest isn’t clearly decided, but it is also unarguable that the contest won’t be decided easily or smoothly absent a withdrawal from one of the players, and hence there is a serious motivation for those calling for her withdrawal even before the contest is ‘won.’
I also recall many people wishing that Al Gore had followed the example of Nixon in not contesting the Presidential election. There were many that called upon him to withdraw even before every possibility was exhausted for the good of the country (others of course disagreed.) It seems to me that the situation with Hillary is very similar, with the good of the Democratic party substituting for the good of the country.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Avaaz.org – Petition in support of Tibet
I think the article misses the point.
It will be deeply damaging to the Democratic party if Obama wins the popular vote but Clinton is the nominee. One could argue that it should not be a problem, but it will be about race and a party that operates through a coalition of widely divergent interests cannot offend one of the major groups without consequences. If the tenor of the democratic candidate “debate” continues as it has for the past couple of weeks, it won’t matter if Clinton could win the popular vote.
I am not surprised that those who have vested interest in party matters are trying to prevent this (maybe looming) problem.
Comments on this entry are closed.