Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

How Clinton’s Actions On FISA Undermine Her Campaign
Posted by Kevin

Clinton apparently skipped all the FISA votes yesterday. In and of itself, thats not such a big deal, as her vote just would not have tipped any of the outcomes. But it is a symbol of a larger failing that undermines her very rationale for her run for the Presidency. Clinton emphasizes her years of very real experience fighting for causes she believe sin. According to her, that experience, that ability to get things done, means that she will be able to accomplish far more than Obama will once in the White House. She knows how to get things done.

Except she didn’t get FISA done. She did not lead at any point in this fight, and her years of experience did not help Dodd or Feinstein so much as slow the FISA train down. She did not persuade Harry Reid to lead with the good bill out of Judiciary; she did not put together a coalition to block the bill or even remove any of its worst provisions. She did not, in fact, deliver change or even lay the foundations for change to come later. Either she is incapable of doing so or she does not believe that the FISA bill was a bad bill.

Some may claim that this is not entirely fair, that the FISA bill was always going to pass in its present form. Even if that was true — and intelligent people like Dodd and Feinstein disagreed with that defeatism — it still does little to absolve Clinton. You can lose badly or you cna lose well. Even if Clinton could not have stopped it this time, by rallying Senators to the correct position she would have made it easier for the House negotiators to keep their good bill intact in conference. By aggressively attacking the logical underpinnings of the bill, such as they are, she would have helped shift the tone of the debate, made it easier for the House negotiators in conference, and laid the groundwork for repealing all of this nonsense.

Some may point out that Obama did not lead on this issue either. That is generally true, though he was there for the votes and I think his rhetoric has been stronger and better than Clinton’s. However, Obama offers a different reason for voting for him: his election will create a wave of popular support for progressive change and he knows how to use that wave to accomplish his goals. Unlike Clinton, his theory depends upon that wave. Clinton claims that she already knows how to get things done. Which brings us back to FISA.

If she could not do the kinds of things talked about in this post, then it calls into question her contention that her experience will make her more useful in the White House. If she, a front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination and a the head of a machine known for its tenacity and long memory, could not alter the course of the FISA debate, then what extra ability will her experience bring to the White House that is not already inherent in the office? And if she choose not to try and alter the course of the bill, what does that say about the kinds of change she will choose to implement once she obtains the Presidency?

The fact that I have to ask either question is condemnation of her reasoning for why she would be a better President than Obama.

February 13th, 2008 General, Politics | 4 comments