Hillary's New Conservative Friends
On a hot August night in the Astrodome 16 years ago, Pat Buchanan stood before the Republican National Convention and declared that America was in the throes of a religious and cultural war, with the opposition party pushing an “amoral” agenda of unregulated abortion, rampant homosexuality and unrestricted pornography.
In particular, he singled out the “lawyer-spouse” of the Democratic presidential nominee, gravely warning that Hillary Clinton “believes that 12-year-olds should have the right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery and life on an Indian reservation.”
“Friends,” Buchanan continued, “this is radical feminism. The agenda Clinton and Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat—is change…but it’s not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God’s country.”
Roughly speaking, this is the caricature of Hillary Rodham Clinton—the angry radical feminist bent on destroying every last vestige of traditional American culture—that has prevailed among conservatives for the last decade-and-a-half. It’s why she registered the highest unfavorable ratings of any First Lady in history and why so much ink has been devoted to the question of whether she’s too polarizing to win the presidency.
But something funny has happened as this year’s Democratic race has unfolded: Some of the same right-wing voices who once vilified her as the second coming of Hanoi Jane now seem to see Hillary Clinton as some new Frank Rizzo.
Take Buchanan, who has taken to promoting her on an almost nightly basis on MSNBC as the salvation for working class, culturally conservative “Reagan Democrats,” an electable antidote to Barack Obama, whom Buchanan now skewers as the same kind of nutty leftist he once branded Hillary.
On a recent broadcast, Buchanan emphatically sang Clinton’s praises for the appeal she has shown in states with heavy populations of working-class white ethnic voters—precisely the people at whom his 1992 convention speech was aimed. Then he spouted the Clinton campaign’s spin that, even though their candidate trails in popular votes and delegates and fares markedly worse against John McCain in numerous swing states, Hillary is nonetheless the superior fall candidate because only she can carry the white ethnic vote in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
“If he loses Pennsylvania by anything like the margin he lost Ohio,” Buchanan said of Obama, “Democratic superdelegates and Democrats everywhere are going to say, ‘Look, Reagan Democrats looked at him…They are recoiling and moving away. This guy can lose it all for us when we’ve got it won.’”
He added: “The Democrats have to win the general election, and his vote—African-American, young, liberal professors—they're going to vote Democrat anyhow.”
Others on the right are making the same case.
A decade ago, The National Review’s Rich Lowry branded Hillary “a practitioner of the odious political style of the enlightened Baby Boomer.” But now, with Obama poised to win the Democratic nomination, Lowry is rushing to Clinton’s defense, praising her “a serious person, afflicted, as she put it once, with ‘a responsibility gene.’”
Lowry then lionized Hillary for pressing on even though the cultural elite in her party—the same people that, according to the conservatives’ preferred narrative until recently, she supposedly represented—had abandoned her, leaving her with a coalition of “unglamorous voters who aren’t young or rich or independent, but working-class Democrats without the time or inclination to stand so long at Obama rallies that they faint in the middle of her speeches.”
Or take Howie Carr, a vitriolic conservative radio host and Boston Herald columnist who spent much of the last 15 years portraying Hillary as the mortal enemy of Joe Six-Packs everywhere. “An ashtray-tossing shrew,” he dubbed her back when she was First Lady.
Now? In his most recent column, he portrayed her as something of a champion of the common-sense, law-abiding working man, arguing that her supporters are “those who work with their hands” while Obama’s are “those who don’t work, period.”
“Clinton voters,” he also wrote, “know who caused 9/11 - Arab terrorists. Obama voters know who caused 9/11—Halliburton.”
At least Carr recognizes the irony of all of this.
“Once,” he wrote, “it was the Clintons who were the insurgents, the draft-dodging, pot-smoking, partial birth abortion-backing Ivy League limousine libs. Now, compared to Barack Obama’s radical-chic comrades, Bill ’n’ Hill look like refugees from the local Tuesday-night candlepin-bowling league.”
That is probably as good an explanation as any for the right’s sudden sympathy for Hillary Clinton. Sure, her style has changed through the years and she’s made a concerted effort in the Senate to moderate her image.
But what has changed is that, for the first time ever, a young African-American has emerged as the likely Democratic presidential nominee. And, while the breadth and depth of Obama’s coalition should be sufficient to defy caricature, the popular image of his bandwagon has it overstuffed with idealistic and awe-struck college students and black voters. To reactionaries like Buchanan, it’s as if George McGovern and Malcolm X have joined forces.
And just like that, the old feminist doesn’t look so bad to them.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.9
- 43.3
- Obama +3.6
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 52.6
- 34.4
- +18.2
- McCain
- 51.2
- 34.2
- +17.0
Who knows how much of these encomiums are being thrown out there to influence undecided primary voters; as if Democratic primary voters read the National Review.
What is certain is that Pat Buchanan would seem to fit more closely with Obama and Clinton, on paper, due to their "anti-Nafta" stand, their "concern" for manufacturing jobs, and their "worry" for the US middle class. Of course, neither candidate is going to reverse Nafta, nor bring Ohio more manufacturing jobs, nor ease the payroll tax burden (i.e. SS, Medicare, Medicaid) on the middle class, should they happen to get elected.
Seems odd someone would disavow candidate X over candidate Y just because they don't agree with the other groups supporting candidate X.
Zach E. (not verified) says:
"Seems odd someone would disavow candidate X over candidate Y just because they don't agree with the other groups supporting candidate X."
--------------
Actually, I can see full well why Buchanon is looking at it the way he is. There is a difference, albeit possibly minimal, in the historical stances of the two leading dem candidates. Obama, in all his state and US Senate history has leaned clearly to the far, far left and has a very limited history of being able to reach out across the aisle to find common ground on major issues. Both McCain and Clinton have a more centrist leaning history and have show great skills in working across the aisle. This is very important, or at least it is to this moderate democratic voter (me), when our choices this year may be between a potentially a far, far left liberal democrat and a "maverick" repub, both of them sitting senators with no administrative background. So for me, I can see the reasoning behind Buchanon's seeming to "back" Clinton over Obama - he's simply stating facts, Clinton IS the truly less liberal of the two dems. And I, as a moderate dem will vote for McCain over Obama if the dem candidate turns out to be him over Clinton.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were never all that radically left. That was an image created by conservative Republicans during the 1990's. The Clintons have long been centrist Democrats, and liberals were frequently critical of Bill Clinton during his presidency for his friendliness to corporate interests, support for welfare reform, etc. I that helps explains the enthusiasm of Left/Liberal voters for Obama. Maybe it explains why conservatives like Pat Buchanan now like Hillary. (But in fairness to Buchanan, I think we also need to distinguish between Buchanan's high flowing right wing rhetoric at the Republican convention 16 years ago and how he views things today.) Personally, I think Hillary Clinton has much more to offer as a future president than Barack Obama does. She's got my vote.
Many Republicans have made the decision that Hillary will be easier to beat in the general election than Obama.
That is what is driving people like Buchanon.
Conservative pundits now "like Hillary?" Sure, because they think she will be easier to attack in the presidential campaign. I wouldn't read much more into this than the typical strategizing of the far-right--but I wouldn't read less into either. We've ignored this type of strategy in the past, and have allowed it to work.
Maybe Pat Buchanan is running (an admitedly ineffective) game on the Democrats. In other words, he is "supporting" Hillary because he feels that she will be easier to take down in the future. Whereas Obama will be dificult to take down. Also, Obama would love to bring far left changes into the country while touting them as "moderate" while Hillary would not.
I'm just saying, Pat Buchanan is wiley.
Although two things are still true:
#1.) No one voting for a Democrat is going to pay Buchanan any mind.
#2.) Buchanan's main concern is bringing the Paleocon viewpoints back to mainstream Republican thought and "saving" the country the way he thinks it needs to be "saved."
Or maybe these guys have signed on to "Bush & Clinton Forever"?
Pat Buchanan and Sean Hannity, like two good Irish-Catholic Americans, are rightfully scared to death for a hate-mongering,racist like Obama (guilty by twenty-year association with pastor Wright)to have a shot at the Presidency. Thank God they get it, even if the rest of mainstream America doesn't get it or doesn't possess their decency. Buchanan and Hannity love this country, which is more than I can say for the rest of the talking heads. They all need to be on a slow boat to China, literally. Lou Dobbs gets a pass on this one, too. As a real lover of America, he sees what a loose cannon Obama is, and wants no part of Obama's annihilation of the United States of America.
I laugh at you uninformed people who say that the republicans are only voting for Hillary cause she will lose to McCain in a General Election.
It's actually the other way around. Obama will lose to McCain in a General Election and here's why.
Hillary can still offer change.
Obama cannot offer experience.
Going into the presidency, the president will have 2 Wars, an economic recession, untouched national disasters (Katrina), and poor views from the rest of the world to fix.
To fix these things, you need a little more than just talks of Hope and Change. Obama is too far left to reach the moderate Democrats much less across the aisle. Obama will have a much harder time fixing anything based on his liberal views than Hillary.
A very large percent of Hillary supporters will support McCain over Obama in a General Election. McCain is a (maverick Democrat). He's a very moderate Republican, it's why Conservatives hate him. And seeing that both Hillary and Obama are virtually tied in popular vote (only 80,000 between them if you count Florida and Michigan), I just don't see Obama winning the GE this year if he is the nominee.
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass/index.html
The rise of the superclass
Are Bill Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, the pope and Osama bin Laden part of a new global power elite that may make traditional governments obsolete? By Laura Miller - Salon.com - 3/14/08
============================================================
April 15, 2008, show us the TAX RECORDS, Clinton Library donor lists for the $500mil raised in 7 years (connected to the Lincoln Bedroom guest list or teas?) -- and, the White House Hillary records. The Clinton operative enconced as the head of the National Archives released them last January. Instead of focusing on Barack Obama's race, etc. -- THIS IS WHAT AMERICANS AND THE MEDIA INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON. Conservative Republicans are manipulating the Democratic Nomination Process to get EITHER Hillary Clinton (DLC) or John McCain. The former "Goldwater Girl" is not Bill. Further, Bill will get to globetrot and do DEALS on an elite tier thanks to the Clinton White House and their business interests.
WHERE ARE OUR JOUNALISTS?
Independents will never vote for Hillary. They will, however, vote for McCain. Those who believe that some of Hillary's supporters will vote McCain over Obama should remember the counterbalancing (and perhaps prevailing) effect of all the Obama Independents voting for McCain instead of Hillary.
I do watched Pat Buchanan on MSNBC every night and find his views on the democratic candidates very bias. On the 14Th of this month, Pat was on Dan Abrams show with other analysts who had an oppossing views to what he was saying concerning Sen. Obama. The African American lady was trying to tell Pat why the statement of Geraldine on Obama Candidacy was inappropriate, he got offended and told the lady to shot-off. Remarks of such, as a political pundit, are considered offensive and inappropriate. But for Pat, I do understand where he was coming from. Pat was one of the strongest supporters and members of the Kkk, therefore, his views on Sen. Obama and the poor African American lady, did not move me. People like Pat, are the ones who got Rev. Wright to say all those crazy stuffs about white people, even though, I do not agree with the Rev, but you can sense the same level of anger in Pat when ever he is responding Sen. Obama on any issues.
The only difference between Buchannan and Rush Limbaugh is that Rush is very up-front about what he's doing. Rush encouraged his listeners to vote for Hillary in Texas because he and the rest of the conservative media know that she has more baggage that the GOP can attack her on than Obama. They know that 46% of Americans have said that they would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances. They know that Obama has a better chance against McCain.
Look, no matter how many of the conservative talking heads lionize Hillary, you can bet your bottom dollar that ALL of them will be on McCain's side in the general election. Since they all will be supporting Big Mac in the general, isn't it in their best interests NOW to try to secure the most defeatable Democratic candidate they can?
The logic is simple. I have to admire Rush for at least admitting what he's doing - the rest of them are trying to do it on the sly. But don't think for one second that ANY of these conservative commentators will be on board the Hillary For Prez bandwagon once the general election starts.
The scary thing is how many people don't see through this.
Sir,
Frankly, your calling Pat Buchanan a reactionary says much about you than it does about Mr. Buchanan. It says that you are intolerant, bigoted, and disdainful of conservatives.
I don't agree with Pat Buchanan on many things, but I am not going to call him names. That's the tactic of a 5 year old, not an adult journalist.
Shame on you.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's minister, advisor and close friend on America: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority...."We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."We started the AIDS virus . . . And Obama refuses to denounce him. As a matter of fact this man was with Obama for the announcement of his presidential campaign. No wonder Michelle is proud of America- this guy baptized their kids. The media may love Obama but the voters won't. HRC needs a big win in PA or it's lights out
The Clintons passed
NAFTA
GAAT
Defence of Marriage Act
Welfare Reform
The Telecommunications Reform Act (eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups. No wonder Murdock likes them.)
The Iraq Liberation Act(Which Bush's Neo Con friends championed. Clinton bombed Iraq a lot too.)
But failed to pass ..
Health Care Reform
Campaign Finance Reform
Wow how did she not beat McCain for the Republican nomination.
He is not speaking to the Democrats, he is speaking to the Republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama in the primaries. And as one of them I can tell you NOW that after learning more about Obama I will not be voting for him. I only wish the press had shown him for what he really is before the vote in Iowa. I can not support a man who had gone to a vitriolic hate filled church for 20 years. I NEVER doubted he was a christen, now I just wondered just WHAT kind of christen he is.
This observation is true. Hillary IS getting the traditional Democratic vote -- the "Scoop Jackson Democrats," who did indeed often become "Reagan Democrats." Obama's campaign, on the other hand, is Henry Wallace (yes, HENRY, not George) - George McGovern - Jane Fonda -- Ramsey Clark - Howard Dean - Michael Moore -- Ned Lamont: those who believe that America is the cause of the world's problems. Compared to these, Hillary does indeed look sensible. Who would YOU expect to be tough on our enemies? Hillary, who IS tough, or Mr. Obama, who can't wait to meet - without pre-conditions, no less -- with one enemy after another? The answer is a no-brainer.
If you love socialism and infringement on the Constitution vote for Hillary Clinton.
This former nerdy girl, a once rabid Goldwater supporter, is power crazy. That's all it is and ever will be with the Clintons. Power and Control. Go ahead - vote her. Don't gripe when you're standing in line for hours to see a doctor because of her nifty,inefficient healthcare plan. Don't gripe when she starts garnishing your wages to pay for it. The woman is an elitist.
Good grief! Will we ever be free of these two? Are they grooming Chelsea in the wings?
I would have no problem with Hillary as the Republican nominee, were John McCain not running. Hillary is tough, and she is not at all a leftist, nor is she a right-wing nut. She is the American Margaret Thatcher, and I greatly respect her. If John McCain were not running, Hillary would have had my vote.
Pat Buchanan,
With the greatest respect....
I am a Right leaning, Bush voting, capitalist, University of Chicago graduate, Milton Friedman loving, white male, hunter.
Please take a minute… you are caught in some bad logic.
What is currently being offered (by Ferraro, Hannity, and yourself) is opinion (not a fact) of a current social trend.
Historical number of black Senators? 5
Historical number of black Presidents? 0
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Let me re-phrase with historical accuracy.
"Inspite of Obama not being white, he is in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be in this position particularly with regards to whom he is and our nations political history. Maybe the body politic is ready to move beyond their barriers to race."
Are there voters who like Obama because he has color? Yes.
Does that make Obama's color an asset over being white? No.
History clearly shows that being white is an asset over having color.
To say that George W is the President because of his father is historically accurate.
George W Bush had a father who was a President.
To say that Hillary is a potential President because of her husband is historically accurate.
Hillary had a husband who was a President.
To say that Obama could be President because of his color (or is lucky to be who he is with regards to his color) is historically inaccurate.
To make (non-disparaging) remarks regarding race that are historically inaccurate in an effort to discount a candidate is not racist... but it is politically motivated and illogical.
To make (non-disparaging) illogical remarks regarding race in an effort to make race a central theme that discourages people from voting for a candidate is racist.
The irony is that this tactic uses a political liability (Obama's color) against him without taking responsibility... this "is" very Clinton.
Please don’t help the Clintons.
I am very open to voting for McCain.
I am very closed to voting against Obama.
Respectfully Submitted
Conservatives have been pushing since 2004 for the Democrats to nominate Hillary in 2008. William Safire led the charge with an NYT column right after the 2004 election. All this conservative advocacy of her candidacy should by itself give the Democratic Party pause. The right wing has a very pragmatic agenda here: if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, then the Republicans are certain to retain the White House. The Republican attack machine will dismember Clinton, who is already unpopular for her reprehensible personal character and the shameful campaign she has (incompetently) run. Forget about all her bragging that she has already weathered the worst of that the right wing can dish out: you haven't seen anything until you see what happens when she runs for president in a general election. Luckily, that will not happen. Hillary is a sure loser in November, and that is why conservatives so eagerly embrace her candidacy.
So, is Pat Buchanan going to head up "Anti-semites for Hillary"?
The far right suddenly supporting Hillary for ONE CLEAR REASON... She will be easier for their true candidate (presumable McCain at this point) to beat! I don't believe for a minute that they are really going to vote for her!
"On a recent broadcast, Buchanan emphatically sung Clinton’s praises for the appeal she has shown". I'm sorry, but "sung" is not past tense. Who taught this guy English?
The Republican party is rooting for Senator Clinton because they know they can beat her in the fall. She went into this election with high negatives and has only driven them up among moderates and independents while campaigning. Nothing will ignite and unite the Republican party as successfully as her candidacy. The same voices singing her praises now are itching to open up a Pandora's box of old and new issues and unleash them on her if she gets the nomination.
I personally take heart whenever the right wing give their false support to Billary. They really know who to play the political game. After all, they stole the election in '00 and reelected a draft dodger over a decorated, veteran in '04. They know that Hillary's nomination will 1) invigorate and unify the Republican base. 2) Alienate the youth and black vote. (Two groups that Hillary will never get back.)
Anyone who is the least bit observant would have noticed how they attempted to eviserate Clinton in the 90's and would seriously question their support.
The only people not smart enough to understand their mularkey are Hillary's base, downscale "Archie Bunker" whites and older, angry women.
Anyone who heard his '92 speech at the convention knows that Buchanan is a reactionary. I believe the joke at the time was that it had been translated from the original German. (For you Hillary supporters who might not understand, that's a Nazi reference.)
I personally take heart whenever the right wing give their false support to Billary. They really know who to play the political game. After all, they stole the election in '00 and reelected a draft dodger over a decorated, veteran in '04. They know that Hillary's nomination will 1) invigorate and unify the Republican base. 2) Alienate the youth and black vote. (Two groups that Hillary will never get back.)
Anyone who is the least bit observant would have noticed how they attempted to eviserate Clinton in the 90's and would seriously question their support.
The only people not smart enough to understand their mularkey are Hillary's base, downscale "Archie Bunker" whites and older, angry women.
Anyone who heard his '92 speech at the convention knows that Buchanan is a reactionary. I believe the joke at the time was that it had been translated from the original German. (For you Hillary supporters who might not understand, that's a Nazi reference.)
This is no more than a realization by the right-wing-nut-job section that there chances against Hillary are far greater than their chances against Obama.
So, they sing her praises, in hopes of swaying less informed voters towards her in the primary. Thankfully she hasn't a prayer of winning the nomination so they'll return to all-hate-all-the-time directed at whomever the Democrats nominate. That whomever will be Obama, barring some unforseen complete meltdown of his campaign.
This is no more than a realization by the right-wing-nut-job section that there chances against Hillary are far greater than their chances against Obama.
So, they sing her praises, in hopes of swaying less informed voters towards her in the primary. Thankfully she hasn't a prayer of winning the nomination so they'll return to all-hate-all-the-time directed at whomever the Democrats nominate. That whomever will be Obama, barring some unforseen complete meltdown of his campaign.