| rdfs:comment
| - by user AYD I have been reading a lot lately about how Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. Those that support her suggest that she is an intelligent, articulate, and effective voice in Washington. Those who oppose her see her as an aggressive, overbearing political opportunist. As a side note, I would just note that the primary critics of Senator Clinton are white men. I suspect that there is a feeling that the good Senator from New York threatens the white male establishment. __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
|
| abstract
| - by user AYD I have been reading a lot lately about how Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. Those that support her suggest that she is an intelligent, articulate, and effective voice in Washington. Those who oppose her see her as an aggressive, overbearing political opportunist. As a side note, I would just note that the primary critics of Senator Clinton are white men. I suspect that there is a feeling that the good Senator from New York threatens the white male establishment. As a contrast to Senator Clinton, Senator John Kerry was greeted with a very different moniker. He was viewed as a flip flopper. Whether true or not (and it was not particularly true) Kerry's views on Iraq, social security, health care, and education were understood to be constantly changing. Again as an aside, I have never understood why it is a bad thing if a politician changes their mind. In some instances it should be a sign of strength. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfutter once said, "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late." The attacks on Senators Kerry and Clinton suggest to me a fundamental problem with how Democrats are perceived by the public and the media. Kerry is viewed as a flip flopper because people didn't think his views were strong enough. Clinton is viewed as polarizing because her views are too strong. This despite the fact that Kerry's views tended to be pretty consistent and Hillary is seen by some as shifting her views on issues like a Woman's right to choose and the Iraq war. Just like the ability to change ones mind should be viewed as a strength and not a weakness, in the current political climate, being polarizing might be a plus. We live in a polarized time. There is a thirst on the left for someone to stand up and just say what they think and not back down. There is a thirst on the left for someone not to back away from the Democratic or even "liberal" tag. And while Democrats would stand up and cheer at such a candidacy, I also think that the ever so important independent vote would respect it. The 2006 midterm elections are drawing to a close. Soon the Democratic free for all will begin. Will it be Clinton, Obama, Clark, Gore, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold, I don't know. But whoever it is I say be polarizing. Make is your strength. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and dare them to come after you for it. __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)