Hillary is not a "liberal" -- that has come to mean "big government," you see. She is a progressive -- a "modern" progressive, no less. What in the world would an "old-fashioned progressive" be for, I wonder?
Her short answer was no, but after giving a brief history of the word going back to the 19th Century (individual freedom, being against big power) she added that it had come to be identified with "big government" in the past "30-40 years." She prefers the term "modern progressive." She said it had a more "American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century," an apparent reference to the "Progressive Party" founded by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 when he split from his own Republican Party. "Liberal" is now un-American.
This was all a very devilish answer, and I mean that as a compliment whether or not she wears Prada. Here's why:
It was in his 1996 State of the Union speech, 15 months after Republicans regained the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades, that Bill Clinton proclaimed "The era of big government is over."
It was smart of Bill to crib the Republican message back then (it got him re-elected), and Hillary signaled in the YouTube debate that she'll do the same in '08.
You can't change who you are by changing what you call yourself. And no sentient person can listen to Hillary and not claim she doesn't stand for big government. So do all the other Democrats, of course. And don't get me started on the Republicans. They talk a good "small government" game, but they haven't exactly ruled that way. The era of proclaiming the "the era of big government is over" should be over.
Boy, do I sound bitter or what?
Comments
Its funny how this current crop of Neoconservatives sound an awful lot like the liberals of old
Neocons are in favor of foreign entanglements
Neocons like big government
Neocons like government intrusion into peoples lives
Neocons like nation building
Neocons are in favor of open borders and globalization
Oh - and Neocons are all about fiscal irresponsbility and deficit spending.
Its funny how "liberal" Hillary's positions on most issues do not differ greatly than the republican mainstream candidates like Guiliani, McCain and Romney
In fact you might even make the case that Guiliani and Romney are to the left of Hillary
Republicans should be pleased that Hillary is currently crushing the field of Democratic candidates. If she wins the nomination, any Republican's chances for victory increase enormously. She is basically a stalking horse for would-be conservative leaders. Even if she wins, it's not so bad for them because her policies are so far to the right.
Should Hillary achieve victory:
-We would stay in Iraq indefinitely, despite her half-hearted attempts at double talk to the contrary.
-US foreign policies would continue on much as they have for the past 50+ years.
-Corporate interests would only increase in power; Hillary is more pro-big business than ANY candidate, Republican or Democrat.
-Our civil rights would continue to erode, and fewer checks would be placed on Presidential authority. Hillary is a huge supporter of Executive power.
Democrats would be giving up their best chance of changing their country's outlook and direction by making Hillary Clinton the Presidential nominee. Unfortunately, it would seem as though most voters are not ready for anything more than superficial change--from one gender to another.
Exactly right Manfred. Hillary is a Neocon in a "democratic" costume.
She is pro globalization and open borders, She is pro Nafta and communist china's MFN status. Her coprorate ties and particularly to Mao-mart are troubling.
A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the neoconservatism of the Bush administration.
I can't think of any scenario that I could vote for Hillary
One more thing I have to say about big government - at least democrats don't make any secret they are for it, republicrits lie to you that they are against it and increase it anyway. Its funny (and conveniently overlooked by the right) that the only two presidents in recent histopry that actually succeeded in reducing government payrolls were Carter and Clinton.
I lied, one more thing
Conservative columnist and humorist PJ O'Roarke says 'Republicans campaign that government is the problem, get elected and proceed to prove it"
I noticed that most political pundits gave the most recent Democratic debate--the "You Tube Debate"--to Hillary on the basis of appearance.
Their entire approach was centered on who wore the best clothes, who had the best hair, who seemed the most "presidential," dropped the most names, made the most eye-contact, etc.
The only thing they said about the candidates policies was that they didn't matter much. In the long run, voters will select the person they most identify with, or the person they most identify as being calm and reasonable. Passion is equated with lunacy.
Hillary calmly explains why we should continue down the path to our own destruction, and people are mesmerized.
"Of course we can't negotiate with those who disagree with us."
"If we only give trickle-down theories more time..."
"The President MUST be free from checks to power."
"Free trade agreements only make our economy stronger."
Do we ever learn that America's citizens come before America's hegemony?
Thats the really sad thing, politics have become all about style and no substance. Look at the two Democratic front runners for example Hillary as you have already pointed out Manfred, and Obama - sure he is a "fresh face" and that certainly has an appeal on its face value, when you listen to what he has to say and there is nothing substantive there at all.
On the republican side its all about pithy bumper sticker slogans that are most often intellectually dishonest and frames everything in black and white arguments, never mind all the shades of grey in between.
The real tragedy is that the truly substantive candidates like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich for example are virtually ignored by the mainstream press.
"
AJ, this is totally serious, What on Earth do you do for a living that has kept you so poor through so many administrations?
Seriously, if you have been struggling since Reagan was elected, I suspect there's more to it than whoever happens to be in the Oval Office.