I know that a lot of people are disturbed by my antipathy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Some see ugly or subconscious motivations, while others think my criticisms apply equally, or near equally, to the other candidates. Sometime soon I will put together a comprehensive piece explaining why I oppose her campaign so vociferously. I haven’t done so to date because it requires a lot of sourcing and I haven’t had the time to do it properly. I will provide a little preview here:
It’s not personal. Every major criticism I have of Hillary Clinton is equally true for her husband, whose foreign policy was extremely bad, and whose economic policies were mixed, but inappropriate for our times. Yet, most Democrats have a positive impression of the Clinton years and do not make any connection between the rise of terrorist opposition to our policies and the foreign policy decisions (primarily, the forward basing strategy) of the Clinton administration.
There are three main problems with Clintonism in our current situation.
1) A forward basing strategy of eastward NATO expansion, conjoined with expanding military bases into Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and the Arabian peninsula. This has caused blowback without commensurate compensation.
2) Appeasement, capitulation, and triangulation on social issues that weakens the Democratic brand.
3) While good on budgetary issues, the Clintons commitment to free trade has not worked out for working Americans. Hillary acknowledges this, to her credit, but the track record is bad, and her supporters remain the same.
In addition, I think there is good evidence that Clinton, while she can certainly win the presidency, has limited ability to breakthrough the red/blue state divide and help deliver a realigning election. But this is not my main objection to her candidacy.
But more on this later (with links and stuff).
My question is, what is the case for Hillary Clinton? I’ll stipulate that she has personal attributes and a life story that are attractive. But what is the case that the segment of the Democratic Party that she represents is the segment that progressives should empower to not only run the White House, but the DNC, the DSCC, and the DCCC?
I’d love to have a woman running the country…I’d love to have 50 female senators, too. I think we’d have much better policies if that were the case. But that is not reason enough for me to support a candidate that represents the segment of the party that thinks Howard Dean (and by extension, his supporters for heading the DNC) are no more than assholes from Vermont.
1-She has a better chance of winning the election than does Barack Obama. By a slim margin, if his baraka is strong enough (As I am beginning to believe that it is.), but she wins by some percentage points nevertheless.
Why do I say this?
Because the hate quotient regarding minorities is stronger than the hate quotient regarding women in the U.S.
Duh.
2-She has practical., hands-on working knowledge of all the hidden levers and vectors that move this system. She will hit the ground running. Obama’s (probably quite shocking and painful) introduction to the REAL realities of national executive governance would take up well over a year of his term.
If not longer.
Bet on it.
3-She WILL kick right wing ass.
Why?
Because it is fucking PERSONAL with her.
Bet on that as well.
Booman…say that you had been in a very prominant position in Philadelphia politics and a group of opponents ran the same kinds of games on you and your family that were run on the Clintons. And they were eventually successful, after years of constant bullshit attack. You retreated out of necessity to a less vulnerable but still strong position…all the while plotting your comeback…and then you actually made it back to the top of the heap..
OOOOoooooo…those erstwhile opponents would do well to go hide, would they not?
They would if it were me in that position.
And Hillary is one BAD enemy to have.
Enough?
Sure she is (at least publicly) in wrong and untenable positions vis à vis international commerce and military affairs.
Please tell me of ONE pol who is in a practical position to become President who is NOT occupying positions with which you, I and most of the rest of the leftiness bloggers would have serious issues.
And don’t run Edwards at me. He doesn’t have a chance and never did.
Thyat’s MY case, anyway.
Add in Obama as VP…I know, that’s not looking so good right now but y’never know… and you are looking at a VERY good chance of 16 years of Dem dominance.
Case?
That’s mine.
Take it or leave it.
AG
I agree that Hillary will draw nasty Republican fire and therefore the public will rally around her. Just as happened when Bill drew the same nasty attacks in the 90s and the electorate rallied around him. You’re also right that it’s personal with her. Her personal fortunes are about the only thing she shows real energy and passion for. She will do well when the right-wing and media go into attack mode.
However, while Hillary will “win” this future popularity contest with the right-wing pigs she will win it on a personal level while setting back progressivism for a generation. I don’t know why any liberal is excited about this future fight. We are being asked to stand behind Hillary and fight for her honor while at the same time she throws our core beliefs out the window. How are the two even commensurate? How can people have lost the bigger picture where Hillary’s personal coronation and the restoration of the Clinton legacy is more important than our liberal platform? The Democratic party is about to make a huge mistake.
“progressivism” be pushed?
Has it pushed ITSELF back through dogged, dogmatic, mule-headed refusals to compromise?
I think that it has.
I think that what we are seeing here on the leftiness blofs is PRECISELY why there has BEEN no “progressivism” in evidence in the U.S. political scene since…oh, take your pick. Was FDR a progressive? Lots of progressives would say no.
Maybe “REprogressives” might be a better term.
Back to an imaginary past.
All’s I know is that right now I want BushCo OUT OF OFFICE.
And I believe that Hillary Clinton has both the best chance to do that and the best chance to do well in office afterwards.
If I am wrong?
Sue me.
Y’pays yer money and y’takes yet chances.
I’m takin’ mine.
AG
“Mule headed refusal to compromise”? Now we’re talking. You’ve identified the rub between you and me. And guess what, I think you are mule headed for thinking that moving to the right is any way to enact a Democratic platform. It’s happens to be wrong in the short term, but even worse, it’s disasterous in the long term.
It’s no wonder that a Hillary supporter, like yourself, sees the problems of the Democratic party the last few years as being one where liberals refused to compromise with the right-wing. Yes, David Broder, Chris Mathews, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary all have the same prescription for the Democratic party–move to the right, triangulate, and prove once and for all that Democrats don’t really believe in their party’s platform.
#1-I am further ‘left” than practically anyone I have ever met. I am in essence a NON-archist.
That means that I do not believe in OR trust any government.
That being said…no matter where I go in the world I am going to have to live under SOME sort of system, and since what I do resides mostly here in the U.S., here I jolly well am.
#2-That said…I think that Hillary Clinton offers the best practical chance of a government that does not completely fuck up the NON-governmental system here. With Obama a close second, mostly in terms of electablility.
Philosophically I am more in tune with Kucinich and Paul in many respects. But they aren’t even a blip on the radar of the big fellas. Just troublesome little pipsqueaks.
So…who have we got again?
Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney and Giuliani.
Hmmm…timne to move?
maybve.
But since I am NOT moving, then I take my best shot at someone who I believe will fuck up the LEAST combined with having a good chance at being elected.
Sorry.
In this horserace it’s Hillary Clinton by a length or so. With Obama closing but not in the lead yet.
So it goes.
Later…
AG
Arthur’s Top 3 Reasons To Vote For Hillary
The fact that she will maintain the status quo so carefully nurtured by her comrades (with only a few select exceptions) doesn’t even get on the radar. Yes, vote for possibly 8 more years of the same old shit.
A generic woman may be less hated than Obama. I’m not so sure about Hillary.
Negative: She and her crew are the same Permanent Government. “I voted for a woman to change things and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.” She’s already as much as said that for the crimes committed under Bush it will be “no harm, no foul,” but a feel-good reunion world tour from the Other Clinton and the Other Bush.
Negative: She may know where the bodies are but so do others. And I expect another attempt to tie some of those bodies to her. If the whole Vincent Foster crap could stay alive in fevered minds of the ultra-right, what will prevent a Rovester going back to New Hampshire in October and discovering, lo and behold, that Clinton’s whole campaign was built on a fraud? Who does America vote for then, a patriot or an election thief?
+++
Which is not to say that anyone on top of the Democratic ticket will be immune to right-wing attacks. But there is a fifteen-year history of dislike of her to weigh her candidacy down.
The Rethugs would rather Clinton than one of their own, but if they think that they can get a McCain or a Rudy or a Mitt in there, they will shed blood.
You all nailed it.
thank you SFHawkguy, boran2, hens teeth, Bob In Pacifica.
What?
Vote for someone who is not going to get elected, thus essentially casting a vote for some creep-bot like Romney?
I’m tired of all that, myself.
Aren’t you?
AG
She loses against McCain in all of the polls taken last month (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html). Do you want McCain?
Yah.
She lost to Obama in NH too.
Polls lie.
ESPECIALLY polls taken 9 months before something actually happens.
AG
But this doesn’t hold water:
She lost in every poll taken in New Hampshire – until the one on election day.
Do you have better evidence? You cite one election which defied all the polls, now you’re telling me to expect lightning to strike twice?
I’d like to see that kind of lightning strike many more times. All the horse race coverage that the polls inspire in the media is sickening. When the pundits get knocked on their asses like they did in New Hampshire it’s a plus for democracy.
wasn’t so hot, either. Think Bruce Babbitt who worked to alter the endangered species and wetlands protections for the benefit of big business.
Yours is the whole point. The Clintons continue to believe that Republican Lite is the way to get elected, and then to act in office by triangulating legislation and transforming our liberal-socialist progress by turning it backward. I really wonder where the Clintons were when Bush proposed to change social security as we have come to know it, as security?
A message to Booman: “I know that a lot of people are disturbed by my antipathy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”
And I know a lot of people who are not! When Hillary decides that she is a Democrat again, and begins to talk like one, I will consider her campaign.
Thank you for bringing this up – I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought that the Clinton environmental record was one of opportunity after opportunity squandered, until the very end when he tried to redeem himself by declaring a bunch of wilderness areas. We could have moved the ball so much further down the field. š
Yet another reason I’m with Booman in not seeing Hillary’s promise of the restoration of the Clinton years to be something I’m enthused about, if I have an alternative. And this year I have two.
Assholes from Vermont. Sitting up here in VT that “hurts my feelings” boo-boo-boo all the way to the White House.
I’ve been writing, waiting for Hillary’s campaign to implode. If it does not and she takes the nomination, Dems will loose the White House. If she’s ahead after Feb 5th, some 1700 – 2000 delegates at stake, I can see Bloomberg throwing his hat in the race. Bank on it.
There. is. no. case. for. Hillary or Bill. Period.
Gary Hart wrote a good essay that I linked to in another post
The Democratic Crossroads: Stay with the Known or Accept a New Generation of Leadership.
My arguments Against:
My beef with the Clintons: She will not have my vote.
They have offended. So don’t be surprised that should Hillary be the nominee, do not expect to get Afro-Americans votes. We have loooong memories and we’ll stay home.
To win the nomination, the Clintons will divide the party, bloody Obama and loose the White House.
3. The economy/recession/financial calamity will be the no:1 issue and the Clintons will remind us of the 90s. But the real Clinton – Rubin contribution will be reviewed and shown as contributing to the debacle.
That hairy – fairy new economy, the internet, dot.com bubble led to the Feds printing money that led to the housing bubble. The GOP 527s will be on top of it..
4. I’d rather look ahead. And I loathe hving to turn off the radio or tv every time she’s on.
Greenspan lowered interest rates after the Asian financial crisis the led to the worst excesses of the dot com era. Your right about that Idredit. But lets make sure Bush and Greenspan get credit for the housing bubble. Two tax cuts and record low interest rates led to that. We are going to really pay for this stupidity. The only good thing about it is Bush and his party will get credit for their idiotic policies.
I wish we could have a nominee that would use the public sector to do good, take pride in it and run on it. But we don’t. We will after the coming storm. Now we need to go with who can win. I kinda don’t think its Hillary.
On the bright side the crazed wingnut at my work got escorted off site today. Sweeeeeeeet maybe there is justice in this world. We are still counting heads but everyone seems to have survived. Wahooooo!
re economy. Yes, Greenspan and Bush will also be tapped with blame for the housing bubble. Greenspan’s star has fallen When the dot.com bubble went bust in 1999-2000, Greenspan lowered rates, printed dollars to lessen the recession. these funds went to housing, ninja mortgages became the driver of the economy.
Think the housing crisis is over. New homes now at 40 cents on the dollar and add the foreclosure inventories prices expected to go lower over the next 2 years.
I root for Obama. But OTH, I do not wish the presidency for him. The economy will get ugly, ugly and will consume the next president into 2012.
Just as an aside, I think I ought to keep a tracker of the Racist Shit Camp Clinton Will Sling to win the nomination or screw Obama for beating them.
Today it’s Andrew Cuomo’s shuck and jive.
Oops! Did I say that
out loud? No offense, of course.I know the Clinton machine lives to fight, but this racist shit is more than I can stand. I voted for that man, volunteered for him. But you know, you can’t trade on your dignity. I don’t care that Bill knows every word to “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” I don’t care how many times he can say “amen” in a Black church. My dignity is not for sale.
KNOWINGLY race baiting is worse than the rantings of unreconstructed racists. Ron Brown MADE that man. He knows better, and it doesn’t matter to him. It is all about Billary, and I have had enough.
If that lying cretin wins, I swear to you, I will not vote for her. I will vote Green or leave it blank. Yeah, I’m one person…but still.
There are some lines you do not cross. Ever. And maybe I’m not the only one who feels that way…
Racist, from the wife of what was known or called the first Black President, Bill Clinton, during his Presidency.
Am I the only one who visibly cringes each time I hear him called that?
No!
I didn’t call him that. Lots of people don’t. It’s insulting, quite frankly.
Bill Clinton may as well have called Obama “boy” by denigrating him, calling him a “kid.”
And the “Muslim” smears.
And the “But republicans might call him a DRUG DEALER…Ooops, I didn’t mean to call him a DRUG DEALER and I’ll resign for calling him a DRUG DEALER.
And the “It took a president to get it done,” line. She said what she meant the first time…not before she remembered to spin. Even yesterday’s NYT’s editorial said
Obama is smart enough to stay above the fray and not complain about the tripe he’s dealt with, and will deal with. Good on him.
But I call bullshit. And don’t expect me to vote for it.
Just making a point, and I don’t expect you to vote anyway.
I mean vote any particular way, not that I don’t expect you to vote at all.
What is that supposed to mean? That I will vote Obama or that I don’t vote?
I’m sorry, but the Feminist Hero Hillary tripe makes me want to vomit, and I can’t believe you have fallen for it. She was Ms. Inevitable, and the minute she sees someone is not going to just roll over for her and not accept what is her due, she plays victim? Are you kidding me? And right on cue comes Gloria Steinem…of all the issues she could raise on NYT’s op-ed page, and she spouts this crap that basically said, Damn, America! Even a Black man would get this before Hillary? But racism and sexism should be uprooted together, of course.
She AND Gloria Steinem can take a long walk off a short pier…right after she tells me about all the poll taxes her mom had to pay.
And I will say good evening.
did you see my correction, I didn’t mean to imply that you would not vote, but that I don’t “expect” you to do anything on way or the other. I have no expectations about you, or anyone else. This was generated by your statement, “don’t expect me to vote for her”
I don’t especially like the inference you made that I “fell for it.”…I have never disliked her and I don’t now…I am just discussing this. Also I am not one to follow the herd in any case, so I feel free to make up my own mind.
Of course, when Barack Obama wins, I won’t have to.
re: #3…we’re already there:
clinton represents, quite clearly, a continuation of the status quo, albeit with a smiley face instead of a smirk.
lTMF’sA
recession/depression began in October 2007. see my comment upthread re new housing prices at 40 cents on the dollar.
Robert Parry had a good article yesterday on the legacy of the Clinton years and why Obamania may be a good thing.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/010808.html
Here’s an excerpt:
for those who don’t think Obama is a progressive.
Endorsements today:
Over at the Orange Palace Ned Lamont posts Why I’m Supporting Barack Obama
“forward looking progressive”
via Huffpost: John Kerry kicks Clinton
via TPM: Congressional nods for Obama
“South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson will endorse Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president, two sources tell CNN.
Rep. George Miller of California will also back Obama’s presidential bid. Miller is a top advisor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
She voted for war in Iraq.
She voted for Kyl/Lieberman in Iran.
She keeps voting to fund the wars.
What makes any of you think that will change with her in the White House, especially with all the Bush powers taken from the rest of the government?
Obama and Edwards are somewhat better than Clinton on that, but none of them have said “Hey this unitary executive thing? Yeah, as President, I’m putting a stop to that.”
You’ll excuse me if I believe the only thing that will change is who is screwing us over.
she leads the formation of the Hawks. In the NH debate, the bombs were released on Pakistan. Many forgot Sudan and Bosnia.
Today, Kerry endorsed Obama, gave him his e-mail list of 3 million supporters. Many may wonder why? Clinton is not a team player. Never has been. She sides with the Bush family. If she becomes president, she’ll give Bush a free pass on all the investigations that are likely to run past 2009.
Who remembers this?:
Not a complaint, but I’m so tired of talking about HRC. So very tired.
That’s bizarre. They’re different people, so I just don’t get it.
Attacking this a little differently, the advisers to both Obama and Clinton are very ‘Clintonian’ both in outlook and experience. Of course, that doesn’t mean Obama/Clinton would return us to the 90s foreign policy, they are both fine minds with strong egos who will direct their advisers rather than being directed by them.
By this time next year our economy will really be in the toilet and no amount of happy talk from our Commander in Chief will be able to gloss over that fact. The number 1 issue per exit polling in New Hampshire: it’s the Economy (stupid) and I don’t think it will stop being the number one issue.
If our ongoing experiments in Empire take a significant turn for the worse, I don’t see how Republicans would benefit from that. McCain may be the last man standing and we know he’s up for another 100 years in Iraq.
I don’t think there are enough Hillary HatersTM to get a Republican to win this time.
We might even manage to elect Kuchinich. Go Dennis!
I don’t really see much difference in the record of the three top candidates although Clintons is the most liberal of the three. I’m not seeing much difference in their proposals for the future.
I want somone who is capable and competent and I’m just not that into the cumbayah – why can’t we all just get along bipartisanship crap. Someones gonna get bloody and with Clinton it’s not gonna be us.
This is hard for me because I simply will never forgive Bill Clinton for immiserating poor black women with children in order to try to appease Republicans and a segment of working class America that resented welfare. The “welfare reform” was simply wrong — as wrong as Iraq in its way, but hitting less of us. If you don’t know that, it is partly because one aspect of “reform” was to defund studies to find out what happened to the victims.
That wasn’t Hillary, but if there was any issue on which she should have constrained Bill, that was it given her past “friendship” with Marian Wright Edelman at the Children’s Defense Fund, her “It takes a village…” line, etc.
So I start from there in looking at Clinton and find her wanting in principles and compassion.