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.

January 9th, 2008 | Politics | 3 comments

New Hampshire: Beating the Press
Posted by Kevin

Hillary Clinton is not my first choice for President. She is incrementalist, centrist, and hawkish by nature. I do not believe that any of those are good characteristics for this moment in time. She would make a perfectly good president because she is also smart, tough, and has a decent idea of how to achieve her admittedly limited goals. I think either Obama or Edwards would be better, possibly great, Presidents and so Hillary is a third option for me. But I did so love seeing her win last night. It is a direct repudiation of the mindless, sexist press narrative. And anytime we refuse to let the likes of Chris Matthews and Maureen Down choose our nominee for us we have achieved a small victory.

Clinton tearing up a bit in the middle of a long, hard fought campaign is a nothing story. Edwards — who should be ashamed of himself for his comments — is a nothing story. Almost every male presidential candidate of the last twenty years has done something similar and those events have been treated as the minor stories with perhaps a comment about how the man in question was “humane” or “moved”. This is what the press thought of Clinton’s crying:

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”

Chris Matthews, already perhaps the most sexist mainstream pundit, was at turns gleeful and viciously contemptuous. CNN and MSNBC were almost joyous in their certainty that she was going to lose. The notion that Clinton should be pilloried for a bit if emotion on the campaign trail infuriates me. It shows both the sexism still rampant in the press corps and that childish, unprofessional, personality driven nonsense are all our political press seems to care about. This has been a stellar example of the terrible job our press does in covering politics. With its focus on trivia and personalities, with its mistaking high-school level jealousies and phobias for insight, with its insistence on substituting story lines for reporting, the political press in this country is an enormous threat to the health of our democracy. That so many Democrats rejected them and their preoccupations and biases tonight is a very good sign.

I don’t want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee, but today I am very, very happy she won last night.

UPDATE: Apparently, I may not be the only Democrat sickened by the press coverage.

January 9th, 2008 | Politics, Media | 2 comments