Why Is Hillary Clinton Running For President?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Democrats | Hillary Clinton — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No one really is sure. And I have harped on this exact point for quite a long time. I don't care how famous a particular candidate is. I don't care how amazing it would be for history if that particular candidate got elected to the Presidency and I certainly don't care how personally pathbreaking such an election might be. Candidates have to have a reason to seek the office they seek, a reason that is entirely independent of their personalities and/or their personal identities. That reason has to do more with the realm of ideas and less with the issue of personalities altogether. And when there is no underlying reason or rationale to a candidacy, that candidacy falls apart pretty quickly.
So it should come as no surprise that Hillary Clinton is running into some strong headwinds these days. I imagine that she still will win the Democratic Presidential nomination; she is well-funded and she has a very good staff working for her. But apart from her fame and identity, she has given no one any reason to vote for her. When he thought about running for the Presidency again in 1988, George McGovern asked--of all people--his old foe, Richard Nixon (the two had become friends) what Nixon thought of a possible McGovern candidacy. Nixon told McGovern that he should only run if he had something to say and if no one else was saying it. "I thought that was damn good advice," recollected McGovern later. And he decided not to make the race.
I wonder if at the end of the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton might realize the wisdom of that advice.
« Poppies in Iraq and Arabs in Afghanistan: Did Barack Obama “Pull a McCain” in his SpeechTuesday Night ? — Comments (6) | Wiiiiide Open. — Comments (33) »
Why Is Hillary Clinton Running For President? 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
including Bill.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
....she's been waiting for this moment for the past 30+ plus. She had to put up with Bill's philandering, she had to put up with living in Arkansas, and now it's HER TURN.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Hillary has an insatiable appetite for power and grandeur- just follow her hitch to the political route taken by Mr. Schlickmeister. Without this "power" the Clintons are utterly irrelevant.
That's easy: Power.
Power is it's own reward to some people. Never, in my entire life, have I seen someone that seems more true of then Hillary.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Really? Any details on how/why they reconciled?
I don't know the details, but it's well known that they actually got along fairly well later in life. There was a report that McGovern cried at Nixon's funeral.
When someone asked about it, he said "You can't go on campainging forever."
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Nixon said: "find something that no one else is saying and then say it." By that point in time (1988), McGovern had tried and failed to establish a small business (a bed-and-breakfast, of all things), which explains why he found Nixon's advice perceptive.
To me it sounds just like: "identify an unserved market segment," or "look for sustainable differentiators." Nixon was simply engaged in Consumer Branding 101.
Elementary marketing like this is fine if you're trying to extend the market for flavored toothpaste or multi-colored thermal insulation.
As a consumer of Presidential candidates, however, what matters far more to me is commitment to an idea. This is something Nixon understood nothing about.
But Reagan did. In 1980 when he was running, he was once asked Pejman's question: "Why do you want to be President?"
Without a moment's hesitation, he said "To win the Cold War."
Now that's a leadership vision, not a brand differentiator. And Reagan had had that goal for decades, even when it was politically unpalatable for the rest of the country. His moment came in 1980.
Nixon's advice is correct if all you want to do is become President. It's the wrong advice if you want to develop a candidacy that people can make a commitment to.
One reason that Hillary's campaign seems so inchoate is not because she doesn't know why she wants to be President. Rather, it's because her people (led by Mark Penn, who doubles as the CEO of PR firm Burson-Marsteller) are micro-segmenting the market. There are dozens of little demographic boxes she's divided the electorate into, and every one of them gets a slightly different message.
There most definitely are things she wants to do as President. Among the ones she's mentioned are: socialize healthcare, introduce trade protectionism, and raise taxes.
It's a long way to November, but we may find that the moment for socialized healthcare has come. (That's not to say it's a good idea, of course.) If she can get herself past the weirdness of Iowa, she would do well to harp on that story to the exclusion of all else.
Nixon didn't say "find something that no one else is saying and then say it." He said that you have to have something to say (step one) and no one else is saying it (step two). The distinction is crucial because Nixon's formulation forces the candidate, independent of what others are saying, to have a rationale for his/her candidacy. Only after the candidate has an independent rationale does he/she look to see whether other candidates are saying what he/she is saying, and saying it better.
Reagan actually followed the Nixon model. He wanted to be President to win the Cold War. No one else was saying what Reagan was saying in 1980 and as a result, there was a clear rationale for his candidacy. And yes, Reagan was the clearly superior candidate for his time thanks to his rationale and thanks to the fact that no one else shared that rationale.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't think that anyone would go through the expense and pain of running for office without a very strong desire for power.
But if she's to win, her campaign needs to get out of the muddle that it seems to be in now and start yelling healthcare, healthcare & healthcare. Because you are right, its the one liberal issue apart from the war that has national traction.
(Yes I'm a liberal, kinda, sorta. Well, a social libertarian-liberal. And a bit of a hawk.)
I agree, MrDodgy. I think we can safely say that none of the current Democrat or Republican candidates are running for any reason besides the desire for power and extraordinarily overdeveloped egos. To believe that you deserve peoples' vote for the presidency requires a very strong sense of self-worth, and that's a good thing.
I am amused by Mrs Clinton's recent criticism of Barack Obama because Obama had said he wanted to be president when he was in kindergarten. I want someone in the White House who believes he has what it takes to be in charge. Self-doubt is rarely a good quality for leaders. Abraham Lincoln being a notable exception, but he was an exceptional president, too.
It is unfortunate that only a very narrow type of person, who also happens to be a professional politician, can be considered for the presidency. I think we may be overlooking some of our best leaders because of these artificial requirements, of which there are many, including, unfortunately, the requirement that they be Christian (defined rather narrowly, too, as Gov. Romney is learning) and pretend to be devout.
One of my favorite presidents, the Gipper, was not a regular churchgoer, but he had to pretend to be and had to over compensate by paying lip service to religiosity.
Decades ago, Roger Mudd was interviewing Teddy Kennedy, as asked him the same question. Kennedy was completely unable to give a coherent answer. It had a definite effect on a potential candidacy, and was referred to at the time as the Mudslide.
I wonder if at the end of the race for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton might realize the wisdom of that advice
No, she won't. As others have said here, it's all about power for her. She's not capable of comprehending the post you wrote in the same way as you or I.
Visit The Scratching Post!
She wants to turn the USA into the USSSA (Union of the Soviet Socialist States of America). Hillary is a communist. All that "village" crap she talks about is pure Marxism.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
No... she is running, because in her mind, she wants two more terms but in HER name this time.
She firmly believes she was the president.
And as someone said recently, she takes all the credit for EVERY "good" thing Clinton did, and none of the responsibility for the failures.
But then again, that is the Clinton mindset.
she thinks she is so smart she can determine what's best for everyone and so tough she can crush anyone who opposes her.
she is convinced that she is entitled to the job, always was, always will be. Bill was just the appetizer (yuck), she's the main course. (double yuck.)
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 12/08/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Man... how many polling firms are there and why do we need to poll on the obvious.
This just in... 75% of likely Americans who attended Hucakbee's church believe Huckabee was a baptist Preacher.
89% of Mitt Romney's kids believe he is their father... Come on. STOP IT!!!
100% of me wish pollsters would go away!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
few minutes with Obama. That is the most sad thing about Fox, you know they are there for the Oprah, not the Obama :(
Molon Labe!
Because he wants to serve his country... Hillary... because she wants to serve herself.
www.fred08.com