Topic: Hillary Clinton
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
April 23, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Monday Eye Openers: With Romney as the presumptive nominee, talk turns to VPs; Buffet Rule struck down
Each Monday we will feature several important stories in the political world — ones that either just occurred, are defining moments, or are key markers on the horizon. Our blog is UW Election Eye, and we call these Monday Eye Openers.
Who will be #2?
With Mitt Romney as the presumptive Republican nominee, the hunt is on for who he will choose as his trusty sidekick. According to the Public Policy Polling, the running mate who would help Romney the most is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Romney’s previous foe, Rick Santorum.
Missing from this list is Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Many have speculated that the addition of this up-and-coming Latino would boost Romney in the polls. However, Public Policy Polling found that Rubio would not be an ace in the hole for Team Romney. With just Obama and Romney, Obama leads Romney 68-30 among Hispanics. Add Rubio on the ticket, and Obama still leads 67-32. Also missing is Ohio Sen. Rob Portman. A Buzzfeed survey of Republican National Committee members showed a clear preference for Portman. One member went so far as to say, “He was born to be the guy standing next to the guy.”
April 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Is it possible that Hillary Clinton will be named the vice-presidential nominee on President Barack Obama’s ticket for the 2012 election? A certain Tumblr site and Clinton’s response raises the questions of her potential role on the Democratic ticket.
Texts from Hillary is a Tumblr that has gone viral over the past week. Yesterday, Clinton herself made a submission to the site and even met with the co-founders, Adam Smith and Stacy Lambe. This morning they posted that they wouldn’t be adding any new content, saying that the concept “has gone as far as it can go.”
I think Texts from Hillary reflects a renewed popularity that she hasn’t enjoyed since the 2008 race — and one with a younger Tumblr-happy demographic that flocked to the Obama campaign at that time. Clinton’s relevancy is rising. I’ve already noticed an uptick in Tweets and Facebook posts about her and the site in my own social media feeds.
The Secretary of State job was seen by some as a “bone” that was given to Hillary after her failed campaign against Obama, but the Tumblr does more than raise the profile and poke fun at the glamor of the position. It also speaks to the power of the post and the choices that Clinton has made as Secretary of State — such as her historic speech on International Human Rights Day in Geneva – that resonate with the younger generation. I think this sets her up well as a potential Vice Presidential candidate for Obama in his 2012 re-election campaign.
While the creation of the Tumblr itself may not have been part of the strategy for Clinton, the move to submit to the site and meet with the creators at the State Department seems a calculated one by the Clinton team.
So sup Hillz? W@ gives? U want in?
This post was produced in partnership with Flip the Media.
April 11, 2012 at 6:30 AM
At some point in politics, people get nostalgic. They let all the potential possibilities take hold and wonder what would have happened had things gone just a bit differently.
After the 2008 presidential elections, nostalgia took a while to kick in.
Rebecca Traister of The New York Times said what was on at least some disillusioned Americans’ minds. Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2008, she claimed that Clinton supporters “would have to apologize to the world for robbing it of an imagined Barack Obama presidency.” But things seem to have changed. “Three years after that intense and acrimonious time,” she continued, “some on the left are engaging in an inverse fantasy. Almost unbelievably, they are now daydreaming of how much better a Hillary Clinton administration might have represented them.”
Concerning the 2012 elections, the questions of what could have been are cropping up much faster.
March 17, 2012 at 6:26 AM
If Lehigh and Norfolk State can do it in the NCAA tournament, can Rick Santorum upend the Republican presidential contest?
For sports fans, this time of the year is known as March Madness. That’s the popular name ascribed to the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, in which small schools, serious underdogs, sometimes defeat bigger, far wealthier, steeped-in-tradition programs.
It happened four times yesterday.
Two teams that are #15 seeds (among the lowest in the tournament), Norfolk State and Lehigh, upset #2 seeds and hoop icons Missouri and Duke, respectively. In the history of the NCAA men’s tourney, only four #15 seeds had beaten #2 seeds. It happened twice yesterday.
Further, a #13 seed, Ohio University, upset one of the legendary sports programs in the nation, University of Michigan. And a #12 seed, University of South Florida, knocked off a #5, Temple.
It was quite a day. Personally, I’m a huge Michigan fan — but I found myself caught up in rooting for the underdog Ohio U. Watching David knock off Goliath is something special.
There are favorites and underdogs in politics, too. And right now, the underdog has got a shot in the Republican Party presidential primary. It’s a long, long, long shot — but it’s still a chance. And when there is a chance, sometimes things happen. Like in 2008.
March 15, 2012 at 5:45 AM
The Republican Party presidential contest descended into schoolyard name-calling this week.
It began when Newt Gingrich on Sunday blasted Mitt Romney as “probably the weakest Republican frontrunner since Leonard Wood in 1920” — a classic I’m-the-smartest-on-the-playground insult for which Gingrich has no political peer. Romney responded the next day with his best blue-blood neener-neener: he pointed to his greater than 3-to-1 lead in delegates over the Georgian, and said, “If I’m a weak frontrunner, what does that make Newt Gingrich?”
On Tuesday morning before primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, Romney blustered that his closest competitor, Rick Santorum, was at the “desperate end” of his campaign. Santorum won both primaries that evening, and Wednesday morning a Santorum adviser lobbed his best your-mama comeback. He invoked a Romney vacation in which the candidate did something unusual, and said the Santorum campaign wasn’t about to listen to the “value judgment of a guy who strapped his own dog on the top of a car and went hurling down the highway.”
A double-dog dare is next, I’m sure.
This is not helping the GOP. Or any else, for that matter.
March 12, 2012 at 6:30 AM
On the morning of March 5 after I got dressed, I looked at fellow UW Election Eye contributor Ilona Idlis and said, “This totally looks like something a politician would wear, doesn’t it?”
That statement later became eerie as we geared up to cover Rep. Ron Paul’s rally in Sandpoint, Idaho. Photographic evidence below:
I call it the “All-American” look – blue denim jeans, a plaid button-up shirt, and a cozy red sweater. We were both sporting black boots as well.
Fashion is a serious consideration for candidates: one doesn’t want to look too formal, or too casual. It’s hard to go wrong at a rally in the “All-American” piece. I was a bit surprised by Paul’s copycat outfit because he’s not often spotted without a suit and tie.
Coverage focuses more on fashion when women are in the race. In 2008, Sarah Palin faced a scandal when the RNC splurged more than $150,000 on her outfits. Beyond costs, there’s style; women don’t have the fallback suit-and-tie. The fashion police have praised Michele Bachmann for her fresh professional and feminine style, but have scorned Hillary Clinton for her requisite pantsuit as not feminine enough.
Men can have trademark looks too. Exhibit A is Rick Santorum: I’ve not seen so many sweater vests since I last went through my dad’s closet or saw Chandler on “Friends.” Santorum even sported one in the campaign video he sent to the Ada County caucus in Boise on Super Tuesday.
Pundits had a field day with Al Gore and his consultant, Women’s Studies scholar and author Naomi Wolf, in the 2000 election. As a part of her recommendations many speculated that she provided fashion advice and changed his suit colors to earth tones, even though the campaign and others have noted her role was to advise Gore on women’s issues and concerns.
While it’s a side note to the real political goings-on — policies, speeches, campaigns, and debates — wearing the wrong thing could impact a candidate’s message to voters. Who could forget that American flag lapel pin debate in 2008?
At this point in the Republican Party presidential race, those still standing will be rolling up their sleeves — figuratively and literally — for the next round of primaries.
February 27, 2012 at 6:30 AM
This Saturday, Republicans across Washington state will cast votes for their presidential nominee. It will be their big moment. In 2008 it was mine.
I began the year as a high school senior, and I looked forward to doing something I had been longing to do since taking U.S. History in 8th grade: to vote in a presidential election. When I learned about the slate of candidates, I was certain I would be voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton — first in the Democratic primary and then in the general election.
I could not wait to be a part of history and support someone I felt so strongly about.
I was teethed on a love for Hillary Clinton. I of course did not understand all her complexities, but as a little girl I looked up to this strong woman leader. My childhood fascination with her developed over time into a respectful admiration. When she began campaigning to be the Democratic presidential nominee in the 2008 election, I was proud to fully support her.
I did not have much time to volunteer myself towards her campaign but I told friends why I thought she was the best for the job. I said she was a sophisticated politician with experience and clear goals for what she wanted to do in the White House. I also found it exciting to think I could be a part of electing the first woman U.S. president.
This was not the popular position for my demographic.
Young voters were engaging in droves to support Barack Obama, and I quickly began to get lobbied by my friends to change my mind. People called me a young feminist, as if that were a bad thing. It’s not, of course. They’d bring up things Obama said and argue that he was the politician for our generation while Clinton was one from previous years.
One of my friends told me early on that there was no way Clinton would win, and convinced me to go to the Obama rally at Key Arena in Seattle. It was happening the day before the Democratic caucuses in early February, and my friends jested that maybe it would finally get me to vote the “right way” like the rest of my peers.
Maybe my friends saw the Obama rally as an intervention moment for me.
We arrived at Key Arena at 9 a.m. and I remember expecting to see more people. Within the
next hour though, the crowd arrived and began to snake through the entire Seattle Center.
People spoke of how Governor Christine Gregoire had endorsed Obama, saying he was a “charismatic and skilled leader that could bring the country together.” The governor noted her admiration for Clinton, but clearly her love did not run as deep as mine.
But then the Obama address was, well, mesmerizing. He arrived late after taking the time to meet with the crowd of thousands outside before he came into the arena. In his speech he touched topics that mattered to me as a young voter — job creation, economic growth and health care reform — and I left feeling motivated in a new way.
I was now confused about how to vote in the caucuses. That night Clinton was hosting an event in Seattle, a rally at Pier 30 on the waterfront. I desperately wanted to go, but no one wanted to go with me. I’ll say that again: none of my friends wanted to go.
That evening, I assessed why I was a Clinton supporter. Much of my rationale had been rooted in seeing her as a more experienced politician whom I felt would be better as president, but after seeing Obama’s presence on stage, it became a toss up. He made me feel that he valued the youth more, and I felt myself sliding into his camp.
The next day I went to the caucus with my mom. I convinced her that morning to vote Obama with me. We both caucused for Obama and I even persuaded a few other individuals at our caucus to vote Obama as well.
I was called a bandwagon fan for voting Obama that day, but I never felt that I was switching sides. I changed my vote from Clinton but retained all my respect for her. I simply became convinced that Clinton would not win and wanted to ensure the second-best for me got the support he needed.
In August, Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. In her speech she said “Whether you voted for me or you voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as one single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team. And none of us can afford to sit on the sidelines.”
I watched with tears in my eyes, aware of my mixture of sadness and respect. But if Clinton was moving forward then I would too. When she came out in full support of Obama and began campaigning on his behalf, I smiled and hung a “Hope” banner as well.
I came to understand why people were so infatuated with Obama. Will.i.am wrote a song based on his “Yes We Can” speech, the New York Times endorsed him, and then Leonardo DiCaprio came out in support of him. Say what you will about the former and latter, but all three of these were significant to me as a young voter.
Upon entering the University of Washington, I joined the Young Democrats and helped
register voters on campus. I had an Obama sign in my dorm-room window and marched across the campus with hundreds of my peers when he won that November.
But I never fell out of love with Hillary. Even now, I’m a Hillary supporter; I smile instinctively when I see her on TV, defend her in a crowded room and even when some see her as a polarizing figure. I feel I’ve never faltered.
In fact, Clinton is just reaching her professional prime. As Secretary of State, her approval ratings hover around two-thirds in support, an all time high for her. She’s a leader both in the country and abroad, and a few even tried to encourage her to run against Obama in 2012 — yes this year.
There could only be one president, but there can be two leaders for my generation.
February 22, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Name recognition is big in politics. Amid a field of candidates for various offices, having voters know your name is key.
That’s why we still have the ultimate old school campaign technology: yard signs. They show support, yes, but more importantly they get a candidate’s name in the head of anyone who passes by. And in local races, name recognition, put simply, equals more votes. Think about Washington Congressman Jim McDermott — after more than 20 years in office, the guy’s got name recognition he banks on each election. Half of Seattle can probably spell his name in their sleep and check the box next to it.
At this point in the presidential race, most people know the names of the four Republican candidates: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul. Mitt, Rick, Newt, and Ron: the GOP’s 2012 Final Four.
All this got me to thinking, what do we average voters call the candidates and why?