Hillary Clinton for President in 2008?

“Hillary Clinton is the right candidate. The nation is in deep need for a mother figure who will lead the people out of a violent world and back into caring for the poor and the disabled, mostly caring for our children, our future.”
Daphne Ziman
quoted in LA Times of February 16, 2007

I read the above quote today by Daphna Ziman, the official fund raiser for Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles. I almost gasped out loud when reading it. Is this bald-faced political rhetoric? Does anybody really believe those would be the Hillary Clinton priorities/preoccupations as she sat in the crosshairs of international strife and worry as President of the United States? Is this to be taken seriously?
I never had much time for Hillary Clinton when her husband Bill was president, as he was the people’s choice, not her. And ever since her husband made himself risible in the Monica Lewinsky mess of his last term, I simply wanted the Bill and Hillary show to end. I was done with them back in 1999.
And then came the election of 2000 and 2004. Al Gore? George W. Bush? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Are these the best people we have for the chief executive of the country? Seven long years of another Bush, a man who has shown himself – largely because of his Iraq War – to be a leader of poor political judgment and skill. I regret my vote for George W. Bush like I never regretted a vote before.
And now shall we endure another round of the Bill and Hillary circus in Washington D.C. in the 2008 presidential election? I would think most persons would see this as a move backwards, not forwards. One would think Hillary would find herself in a bind. The Far Left of American politics found among university campus faculty and radical chic Hollywood actors and singers which populate anti-war marches will find Clinton most likely not liberal enough, but they are a marginal force in American politics. The more mainstream liberal wing of the Democratic Party might see Hillary as their own and speak glowingly of her over café lattes in Oakland or Santa Monica coffee bars on the Left Coast, or in Boston or Manhattan over organic salads in restaurants in bluest of “blue America.” Clearly professional Democratic Party activists like Terry McAuliffe will love Hillary, as a byproduct of their love affair with her husband, Bill, when we was president; that is where I think Hillary finds her strongest support, within the Democratic Party establishment – the politicos. She will be able to raise money well and will have all the “right” contacts.
But it are the moderates and swing voters who make or break presidential elections. Would Hillary find much support outside of the “true believers”? Would many moderate Republicans like myself ever contemplate voting for Hillary Clinton? I suspect not. I hope not. But I could be wrong. As a homosexual and entertainment mogul – can you get more “blue state” than that? – no less than David Geffen claimed the following last month in New York about Hillary: “She can’t win, and she’s an incredibly polarizing figure. And ambition is just not a good enough reason.” Hence the irony of Hillary Clinton: she never would be well known enough to run for president if it were not for husband, but her husband is the reason she will not win the election of 2008.
They say at least a large section of the Democratic Party base wants Hillary Clinton for President of the United States in 2008. If their dreams were to come true and over two Hillary Clinton terms, either a Bush or a Clinton will have occupied the White House for 28 straight years! What a sobering and dispiriting idea! I will hope that America has more sense than that.
I can’t imagine people going ga-ga for Hillary. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps this will be a “Charlie’s Angels” moment for me.
A “Charlie’s Angels” Moment…
In 1995 I first encountered in the movie theaters trailers for the upcoming movie “Charlie’s Angeles” starring Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lisa Liu. I remembered the cheesey TV sitcom of that same name from the 1970s and it seemed hardly a good enough idea the first time around. “Why would anybody want to remake that story”? From what I could see from the trailer, it seemed a loud, stupid, bimbo-fest – a vapid and mindless action film. Such movies are, after all, not in short supply from Hollywood. “What a stupid idea!” I thought. “The movie will flop!”
But the movie was a huge box office success. This was a shock to my system, and I was forced to re-evaluate if I really knew my own country – if indeed I had my finger on the pulse of America. Had I grown out of touch?
This morning I read the pronouncement by Daphne Ziman and scratched my head in disbelief. Will my gut instinct prove correct? Or will this be another “Charlie’s Angeles” moment?

CHARLIE’S ANGELS AS CULTURAL BAROMETER

Earned like a gazillion dollars at the box office and a successful sequel, much to my surprise and incredulity.