Hillary Hires Religious Strategist

[Pangloss]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121306/faithguru.html

 

Reading between the lines a bit, it's important to note that this isn't a defensive move. Strider's role won't be to help her avoid false moves or mis-steps (or even making sure the one-ring gets to Mordor). His job is to help promote her candidacy in religious circles. It's called "faith-based outreach", and it's going to be very important in 2008.

 

With Hillary it's extra-important, because not only does she need it to appeal to moderate conservatives, but she also needs it to help her with African-American "base" voters in the primaries if Obama commits.

[bascule]

Hmmm...

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 

Abortion:

• Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
  
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
  
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
  

 

Gay Rights:

• Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
  
• Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
  
• Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
  
• Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
  

 

She's doomed in that circle

[the tree]

She's doomed in that circle

Is the entire circle of religious types antichoice homophobes then?

[Sisyphus]

Is the entire circle of religious types antichoice homophobes then?

 

No, just the subgroup for whom having a "religious advisor" will matter.

[Pangloss]

Yes, at the moment I'm having a hard time seeing any inroads to that particular area of politics for Hillary. Bascule's summary is pretty apt; her voting record is clear. (Notably unlike that of Obama, who some observers, like George Will, feel is actually the more liberal of the two.)

 

But she's pretty savvy; the real goals here may be more subtle. Note the point I made above about reaching out to the African-American community.

[bascule]

Notably unlike that of Obama, who some observers, like George Will, feel is actually the more liberal of the two.

 

http://ontheissues.org agrees:

 

Hillary Clinton:

They define Hillary Clinton as a "Moderate Liberal Populist"

 

Barack Obama:

They define Barack Obama as a "Populist-Leaning Liberal"

 

But she's pretty savvy; the real goals here may be more subtle. Note the point I made above about reaching out to the African-American community.

 

Again, I predict failure in that circle. How could she possibly take the black vote from a black man who, sans lack of experience (especially executive experience, which Clinton also lacks) has all the makings of a viable Presidential candidate?

 

What I really think Obama has the potential to do, which Hillary Clinton does not, is connect with moderate conservative voters. While he may be slightly more liberal, he seems much more adept at reaching out to the other side, whereas Hillary Clinton is viewed as something of a harpy (by conservatives and liberals like, myself included)

[Pangloss]

I think your assessment is accurate on those counts.

 

Interesting graphs. I haven't been by that site in ages. Speaking for myself, that's not really enough of a difference to chastise one or elevate the other, but I suppose it's enough of a difference for George Will to pontificate about. (chuckle)

 

(BTW, you use Firefox, right? Does OnTheIssues still sneak ads past Firefox popup blockage? That used to be one of the only sites that could do that, back when I first used FF, but I haven't been by there in a while. I'm using IE7 at the moment (on the road at the moment, using someone else's computer) and it seems to be stopping them, although they seem to appear briefly in a new window before the blocker nabs 'em.)

[bascule]

At least when I'm forum whoring, I still use Opera, at least on my PCs. I'm Firefox-only on Mac (except for testing web designs in Safari)

 

I don't even use Adblock. I guess it's built into my brain.