Clinton: What’s Not To Like?
Posted by
tgirsch
In the wake of Clinton’s NH victory, some progressives are asking those of us who aren’t so hot on Clinton what’s not to like about her. (We know why conservatives don’t like her. In this context, the question centers around why a lot of progressives aren’t keen on her).
Publius at Obsidian Wings takes a shot at answering that question:
Here then is a brief rundown of those policy disagreements.
First, and most fundamentally, I think her actions on the national security front disqualify her. The Dems should not reward radio silence on Iraq, torture, etc. during the years it mattered with a presidential nomination. Period. It doesn’t make her a monster, or even a bad person. But it should at least mean you don’t get to be president. If you make an insincere political gamble, you have to pay that bill if you lose. Kerry paid it, and Edwards did too.
Second, and relatedly, I have fears about her national security judgment going forward. Specifically, I fear that she’s so afraid of looking liberal that she either won’t attempt bold change (e.g., Cuba, Israel/Palestine), or will be bullied into doing something foolish (Iran). Her past positions are strong evidence of what she’ll do in the future – see, e.g., Kyl-Lieberman – and it’s not good.
Third, on domestic policy, I think she’s got all the right stuff – she’s brilliant and has great policy proposals. But the fear is that those proposals will just collect dust in the White House policy shop. I’ve seen nothing since 1994 that indicates the slightest willingness to take political risk for something she believes in. She’s too cautious and scared (just like Kerry).
…snip…
Fourth, I detest her administration-in-waiting. Well, it’s not so much I detest it (it will be better than Bush’s), but I think the country would do better with a fresh start. I’m not really talking about the Secretary of State, but the next tier down – i.e., the players who will run the executive branch on the micro-DC level. Edwards’s remark the other day was abhorrent, but he is right that a Clinton administration would be extremely K Street friendly. DC is full of exiled Clintonites. They’ve been biding their time in DC law firms and consulting shops getting wealthy. If Clinton wins, they’ll simply move their offices across town and re-assume control of the government’s purse. They’ve had a full decade to become more entwined with K Street interests, and they’ve probably gained a few pounds, both literally and figuratively in the Thomas Nast sense. For this reason, a Clinton victory won’t exactly be Andrew Jackson’s inauguration when a new social order stormed the capital. There will be a lot more “new boss/old boss” than you might imagine.
[Bold mine.]
It’s a good read, and I largely agree (although I think he’s too quick to lump Edwards in with Clinton), especially with the first three points.
There is much to agree with in this post and I suppose that I must initially offer the obligatory (I am not a Clinton supporter) as most posters seem inclined to do before I offer a defense of her. I went to one of those websites where you answer a series of questions and based on your responses they tell you the order of the candidates that most nearly match your preferences in order of importance. My list was - Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
Until recently I thought I would cast a ‘heart’ vote for Kucinich as a way of telling the party to move in a more progressive direction. We both vote in New Jersey so our state won’t be coming up for awhile. In the recent past, we have found that the nomination was usually wrapped up before we got a chance to vote in the primary.
We have both changed our minds and it is due to a number of factors:
1. Hillary has been by far the strongest all around performer in the debates that we have seen. This includes the infamous one hosted by Williams/Russert where she was tripped up in the latter part by the question on drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants. (BTW - Obama was flummoxed on the same question in a subsequent debate).
She is clear, articulate and almost always answers the questions posed. She has demonstrated strength of analysis based on deep knowledge in many categories. Anyone who doubts the fact that she was set up as a target by the GE/NBC lost boys should visit Bob Sommerby’s Daily Howler website.
2. We cannot abide the media choosing our next nominee. The misogynistic and or anti-Clinton attacks on her by Matthews and Dowd to name just two have us fed up.
3. There is no possible rational reason to expect that either Obama or Edwards will be any more successful in bringing about radical change than Clinton will be. In fact Barack seems as centrist and corporate as Clinton (witness his relationship with Lieberman and his willingness to use corporate rightwing talking points in addressing the phony social security question). Edwards while the strongest on the anti-corporate lobbyist front will be faced with tremendous institutional opposition that he has yet to demonstrate the ability to fight. This is also true of Clinton but she has been there and fought for children’s health care as well as health care which the insurance companies scuttled in the previous Clinton administration. All change in this country needs to be incremental and she has shown an ability to get things done in the Senate, which cannot be said for either of the two challengers.
4. The Clinton years (at a minimum economically) were very good for this country. My wife and I could afford to retire now if the same kind of growth occurred during the Bush years as during the Clinton terms. Unfortunately, I will be working deep into my sixties. There is a strong coterie of the same people who drove those economic policies.
5. Her foreign policy knowledge matches or exceeds that of anyone but Joe Biden who has dropped out of the race. (He would make an excellent Sec of State) - see debate performances. The AUMF was a big MISTAKE as is her apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that as such. I think this is as much driven by the need to prove that as a woman she has the ’strength’ to be commander-in-chief.
I believe that had she been President we would never have gotten into the Iraq mess. She is a conciliator and negotiator at heart, which will be necessary to recover from the arrogant imperialism of the Bush gang. Further, I believe that she and Bill Clinton will invest a significant amount of time/effort into moving the Israeli-Palestinian issue along. They have been interested in the past and I think will be accepted as honest brokers. This is a perfect match for WJC’s interests and abilities.
Let me end by saying that I will viorously support whomever the nominee is but if the situation is still in doubt when the NJ primary comes around, my wife and I will gladly cast our ballots for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Thanks for letting me post. I don’t often do this.
Comment 1/9/2008
“I’ve seen nothing since 1994 that indicates the slightest willingness to take political risk for something she believes in. She’s too cautious and scared (just like Kerry).”
She is smart enough to know that the American people would never elect her if she ran as who she is; that is, an ultra liberal. She needs to talk to the center even though she would govern from the far left. I think you libs would be pleased with her as liberal-in-chief. You should support her. She’s one of you.
Comment 1/10/2008
Its funny, Morris, but I’ve never talked with a Liberal who thinks Hillary Clinton is even remotely liberal or progressive. Only the most Conservative of my friends believe that. The former Goldwater Girl has tried to stay as close to the center (even if it means crossing over to the right on issues like Iraq and Iran) as she can.
The Republican party has moved so far to the extreme right over the past 25 years that what used to be considered a moderate (or Rockefeller) Republican is now viewed as a raving Socialist.
Some years ago, my wife picked me up at the train station and, as we were driving home, I looked over to the left and saw that the gas gauge’s needle was virtually on empty. I told her we need to stop at the next gas station. She laughed and said that the needle was actually above the halfway mark and it was only my skewed perspective, sitting way over to the right of it, that made it look empty.
It is only the wingnuts on the extreme Right, with their radically skewed perspective, who could possibly characterize her (and anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun) an ultra liberal (an endangered species in recent decades, unfortunately).
Sheeeeesh…
Comment 1/10/2008