Home > Perspective

Centrist?

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 3/11/2005 12:09:11 PM

Hillary Clinton is trying to redefine herself as a "centrist."  Howard Fineman wrote a slavishly sycophantic Clinton-worship piece for Newsweek and MSNBC.  Fineman wrote of her husband: "The former president has become the family’s favorite hunting trophy, a symbol of their (and the GOP’s) successful, decades-long rise to power."  He also touts the former president as "the most successful Democratic office-seeker since FDR."  Writing about the putatively-warm relationship between the Bushes and the Clintons, Fineman said: "More important, from their point of view, it gives the Clinton Clan an aura of non-partisanship at a time when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief task is to emphasize her own centrist political roots."  What a crock!

"Hillary Clinton is a far left-wing radical liberal.  She actively campaigned for a ’health care reform’ bill that was no less than Socialized Medicine, of a type more draconian than that seen in France and the UK."

Hillary Clinton is a far left-wing radical liberal.  She actively campaigned for a "health care reform" bill that was no less than Socialized Medicine, of a type more draconian than that seen in France and the UK.  For example, her plan had criminal penalties for people who would go outside the system and pay their own doctors for health care.  It also made it a crime for the doctor to practice medicine outside the system.  Doctors would have been told what field of medicine into which they could go.  Doctors were also subject to involuntary assignment to parts of the country that, in the government’s view, required doctors.  To call this plan extremely socialist is an understatement of epic proportions.  It’s so far to the left that it’s fascist or even communist in its roots.

Until John Kerry lost in 2004, Hillary was an extreme leftist.  Now that the Democrats are trying to coronate her the 2008 nominee in 2005, 3 1/2 years before the next election, she is rushing to the center, just as her husband did in 1992.  But, failing a third party candidate capable of securing 20% of the vote, the GOP could run an actual elephant, selected at random from a zoo, and still retain the White House.  The people are too smart to believe a self-serving disingenuous position switch, designed to pander to the center.

Furthermore, Hillary’s attempt to move to the center on abortion, which was wishywashy to begin with, caused an uproar among the extreme leftists in the Democratic base.  Here is the Senator’s Hobson’s choice:  If Hillary moves enough to the center to obtain votes now going to the GOP, she will alienate her base and lose as the base either stays home or moves its votes to Ralph Nader.  In fact, if she moves enough to the center to try to flip a red state or two, she will certainly push Nader above the approximately 6% critical mass he needs to cause her to lose borderline blue states like Hawaii, Washington and Wisconsin.

"It does not help matters that Hillary is serving in an obstructionist Senate, where her minority leader is making threats as if he is the leader of a commanding majority."

It does not help matters that Hillary is serving in an obstructionist Senate, where her minority leader is making threats as if he is the leader of a commanding majority (eg. "Take private accounts off the table or Social Security Reform is off the table.").  If the Senate stands in the way of this reform, which is gaining momentum, especially among the young people who tend to vote Democratic, they may galvanize the under-40 vote -- for the GOP!

The only way that Hillary can make a run at the presidency and keep a straight face is to paint herself as a centrist.  Her husband managed to convince a significant minority of people in 1992 and 1996 of this fantasy. However, without Ross Perot, we would most likely be in the beginning of the seventh successive term of Republican White House occupancy.  Doing a bit of reverse prediction, Bush 41 would have been re-elected, and President John McCain and VP Jeb Bush would have ended two successful terms, and we would be in the infancy of Jeb Bush’s presidency.  But I digress.

"Hillary does not have the centrist pedigree that her husband manufactured for himself.  For example, she has no history of centrist activity prior to 2004."

Hillary does not have the centrist pedigree that her husband manufactured for himself.  For example, she has no history of centrist activity prior to 2004.  The people are not stupid and will see through her pandering.  Hillary has to run for re-election to the Senate in 2006, and although late-starting, the New York GOP machine is gearing up to put up a tough competitor for that seat.  If they are serious, and they succeed in their efforts, the end result could be that Hillary is ejected from the Senate.  Should that happen, her presidential ambitions will be scrapped and John Kerry will step in for another ultra-liberal shot at Washington.

This analysis has so far not considered the Northern Liberal factor.  Mondale flopped.  Dukakis flopped.  Kerry flopped.  The last three Democratic presidents to win elections all came from the South: Johnson (Texas), Carter (Georgia), and Bill Clinton (Arkansas).  Liberals from the North simply cannot win Presidential elections given the country’s present demographics.  Hillary also does not have the luxury of acting "southern."  Unlike her husband, Hillary was born in a rich suburb of Chicago, went to snooty liberal schools, and then met Bill.  She chose to make her Senatorial run in New York, a coldly calculated decision that alienated Arkansans.  She is another Northeastern Liberal.  The people know it.

Summing up, Hillary is as much a "centrist" as Castro.  Howard Fineman’s article is sycophantic and innacurate.