Still more on Hillary
Following up on the last post, I’d like to make a point about Hillary that is of the sort I usually avoid.
Hillary’s greatest strength — by far — is her connection with the first Clinton administration. There’s a strong argument to be made that if we just had Bill and Bob Rubin and the old foreign policy team running things again, everything would be a-okay. Hillary’s support comes largely from people who buy this argument. I buy this argument myself up to a certain point. But you can’t really call it change.
Pundits have suggested that Bill Clinton is a a political albatross around Hillary’s neck. In fact, the opposite is true: Bill Clinton is the only reason Hillary is a viable presidential candidate in the first place. Edwards and Obama are both talented retail politicians. Going back over all the presidential campaigns I know of, nearly every Democratic nominee has been a talented retail politician (Bill Clinton, JFK), an old party warhorse (Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Humphrey), or a state governor (Clinton, Dukakis, Carter).
The only one of these three categories Hillary can fit into is “old party warhorse” and she only fits if you consider her time as first lady in Washington and Little Rock to be the equivalent of elected or appointed office. And there’s no way you can make that argument without admitting that her election would be a restoration of the Clinton dynasty.
It’s one thing for a candidate to say “I’ve been a Senator for 30 years but I’ll bring change as president”, it’s quite another to say “I was co-president for two terms and if you give me a third, I’ll bring change.” In fact, it’s a testimony to the popularity of the first Clinton administration that, even in an election where voters say they want change, they’re still thinking about bringing back Billary for another go-round.
I think the debate made clear that Hillary doesn’t have anything more in terms of positions or political skills than Obama or Edwards, and she has a number of negatives (deserved or not). The Luntz after-debate focus group on Fox showed that it’s incredibly difficult for her to try to distinguish herself on the change message.
Also, when the Clinton campaign attacks, they do so in a way that’s just plain dirty. Here are two examples:
1. Attacking Obama on his position that mandatory minimum sentencing takes away flexibility from judges. That’s the right position, and it’s incredibly disingenuous for Clinton to attack him on it.
2. Attacking Obama’s right-to-life position with a mailer that distorts his record.
But when people say they want change, don’t they mean a few different things? And can’t Hillary bring at least some of those.
I think that when people claim they want change, many mean change from the way things are right now - right now under Bush, right now with Iraq, right now with destruction of the environment, right now with school issues such as NCLB. (Of course, there were many who wanted change from the way things were in the 1990s, who supported Newt’s “Contract With America.”) Others who say they want change want a change in the way Washington is currently run - campaign finance reform, limits on lobbyists’ influence, limits on the influence of the old guard of the parties who seem to suppress the newer politicians and newer initiatives, most likely because that threatens their roles and their gravy train (think James Carville, Rahm Emmanuel or a host of others). Some of us want both of these types of changes.
But change for the sake of change itself is not necessarily good. ( See above-referenced Contract, and it’s rogues’ list of sponsors.) Or Bush - he’s made some big changes. So when people are saying they want change, aren’t they really saying, at least right now, that they are supporting principles and actions that are different from what this Administration and the conservatives have brought in recent years? If so, is there any reason to doubt that any of the three front runners (and even Richardson) will bring that? Then the question is how much change people really want. Some of us want big, fat, can’t-fit-it-through-the-doorway change. Some just want an end to the war. That’s where the differences between the candidates will make a difference - which candidate will bring the enormous change that some of us want to see.
I think there’s a feeling, though, that the Clintons had their chance to tackle things like health care and they failed. And I think that’s a very legitimate feeling.
The main thing is that the contrast is so sharp here. Literally a return to a previous administration versus new leadership.
That’s just wrong Exile…that sentiment is falling right into the republican hands. Remember - they HATE Clinton with a passion, and of all of the candidates there, it’s the REPUBLICANS that can’t see the Hillary beyond the Bill, and that’s one of the reasons I like her.
She has earned her stripes. Her entire life has been spent working for change and working for politicos from the local level to the White House. If she was applying for a job with that kind of experience, any employer would be crazy NOT to hire her.
You’re falling for the ploy - hook, line and sinker bud.
I don’t think it’s a Republican ploy at all. People will vote for a Clinton restoration in a heartbeat in the general election. I don’t like to talk about electability, but if I did, I’d say the surest way to win is to frame the election as Clinton III. But that doesn’t mean that’s what I want for the country. (I’m still somewhat undecided…)
Most of Hillary’s experience comes from her time in the Clinton administration. That’s a fact.
I think the Democrats will win regardless.
I’m glad to see Clinton supporters here, though! We’ve taken a lot of flak in the past for saying nice things about her. There’s a lot of hostility towards her among our readers for reasons I don’t quite understand.
When Hillary talks about change I think it is an entirely different definition of change when compared to Obama or Edwards.
And definitions are so important and the Clintons seem to have a love of playing with definitions for all they are worth. Remember Bill….”I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
I listened to Hillary during the debate and I’m convinced her idea of change is nothing like my idea of change. She seems to think that every bit of legislation she ever worked on was an example of change. Sorry, but I don’t buy that.
As time goes by, I like and respect Bill less and less. With Hillary, the problem is that for all her years in the spotlight, I still don’t know who she is or what she really stands for.
You’re looking for someone to reinvent the wheel in Washington. If you think that voting for someone with no experience is going to represent “change” you’re in for a big surprise.
This country is in WAY too vulnerable a place to take chances.
So how are you defining “experience”? Both Edwrads and Obama have plenty.
Obama was a grassroots organizer in Chicago! Anyone with experience in that field gets it. Empowering people to fight against an entrenched political machine while having few if almost no tangible resources is pretty damn impressive.
And as for Edwards, he’s the only one of the three who has actually won against corporations using the very legal system they use to protect them.
Being married to someone in a powerful position isn’t quite the same as coming up on your own. Hosting luncheons isn’t the same as being responsible for outcomes.
I don’t buy the “no one else has experience” line either, especially as it applies to Obama. Community organizers are heroes!
Are you kidding me? Hillary is a lawyer and worked on Watergate hearings and was an early leader in Marion Wright Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund. She was on the cover of either Time or Newsweek as a young lady for being the woman to watch. She was the more brilliant student over Bill and most thought she would run for president before him. This is no lady in the wings.
I’m not a supporter of Hillary but give the woman some credit. She’s been a major bipartisan player during her tenure as a Senator as well.
I think she was an integral part of the Clinton administration. She transcended the role of first lady.
I think this discussion illustrates the point I was trying make, though: that if you throw out Hillary’s time in the White House, then she is no more experienced than the others. If you accept that she was a key player in the Clinton admin (which I believe) then her candidacy is Clinton III. I have no problem with anyone voting for Clinton III, but I probably won’t myself.
She is more accomplished in some ways prior to her time as First Lady. Take a look at the bio I linked to below.
I looked at it and it seemed similar to Obama’s to me.
It’s similar but I think her foreign policy grasp is much broader. Here’s Joseph C. Wilson from The Huffington Post 12/21/07:
Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama’s shocking dearth of international experience: “Fresh doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America.” It also reported: “Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.”
* Email
* Print
These basic facts, coming from a major foreign newspaper, are a sobering counterpoint to a gushing Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having “an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities.” Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat like myself, who have spent a career toiling in the vineyards of national security, it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama’s supposed “intuitive sense” is no different from George W. Bush’s “instincts” and “gut feeling” describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before.
Oh I’m not saying she doesn’t have any experience, or that she’s not smart. But it’s not the same as what O and E did on their own.
It’s she and her camp that continually imply no one else does, and that’s just not right.
I agree her camp needs some changes but Hillary comes from a modest background. She is not like the wealthy Bush family in terms of her childhood. Sure, Edwards and Obama are both self-made as well, but Hillary did this too at a time when most women didn’t go to college. Hillary has also been a lifelong educational and health care advocate.
Don’t let the spin of the Republicans taint your views of Hillary.
Bro, she ain’t that old. I was going to college at the same time. There were plenty of women going to college in the 70″s.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
More men were enrolled in college until the 1980s according to this chart.
You missed the point. Being a woman in college in the seventies was no great shakes.
LOL. My point is that she, Edwards and Obama are all self-made. I like all 3 of them I just didn’t think Hillary was getting a fair hearing here.
Here’s Hillary’s bio:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html
OK, out of respect I read it.
And?
“..leader in Marion Wright Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund. ”
Being a student intern is hardly “being a leader.”
And during the time she was “on the staff” for the impeachment she was all of 26 years old just out of law school. Do you know what that means? At best she was a legal researcher, more likely she was some congressman’s go-fer.
That exaggerated resume is exactly what turns people off about Clinton.
I’d have more respect for her is she just said, “While in college I got to intern here and there and I learned a lot.”
She was supposedly in charge of setting the legal arguments for the case against Nixon, hardly an intern or go-fer.
She testified as early as 1972 for children’s issues in Boston and she later was a legal advisor for Edelman’s Children’s Defense Fund. On education I believe she has been a lifelong true leader.
Are you seriously arguing that a law school newbie was “…in charge of setting legal arguments…”?
You’re only making it worse for her…
Hillary’s main duty on our staff has been described by as “establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment.”
From freerepublic.com
Well, there you go again…
First, they are not the same thing. Setting procedures and being in charge are quite different. One is clerical, the other strategic. No offense but you keep doing this. Saying one thing that means another. You’re hurting your own arguments.
Second, sorry folks, but freerepublic.com is a blog, not a credible source of information. Which means the first contention that as a newbie HRC was so empowered is dubious at best, and perhaps intentionally disingenous. Can you quote a credible source that Clinton played a critical role in the impeachment process? [Which by the way never occurred, let's remember Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment. So at best it would have been an academic excercise.]
The bottom line is that she doesn’t have the leadership abilities necessary for the job. It’s one thing to broker deals, its another to lead people, especially in difficult circumstances.
Her reactions today only tend to reinforce the point.
Think about this, does this claim make sense?
If Mrs. Clinton were so critical to the Nixon hearings don’t you think she would have been touting that as an achievement? How can it be that her role has been so overlooked?
enough said.
So, who do you guys like on the Republican ticket?
In terms of who would be the easiest to crush or who would be the least terrifying as a (hopefully hypothetical) president? Huckabee and Romney are the easiest to crush, McCain is probably the least terrifying. Though sometimes I think he and Romney might be equally terrifying. I go back and forth.
Truthfully, I can’t imagine any of those jackasses actually becoming president.
I agree with you 150 % on all points made. Did you intentionally leave Rudy out of the mix? He says he’s not out. Thompson is making similar remarks, but the writing is on the wall. Romney is sounding very defeated, and McCain overly confident. Huckabee remains the wild card.
Rudy is the most terrifying and about in the middle in terms of easiness to beat. But I think he has no chance in the primary.
Imagine President Huckabee.
When 40% of the country belives in creationism, 55% believe the US was founded as a “Christian nation” and that socialized medicine is the first step toward taking our guns away, its a very real possiblity.
If it’s Clinton v. Huckabee, you better get used to banjo music.
You have got to be kidding me. Hillary would absolutely crush him. He would raise no money at all.
Seriously, Huckabee has no chance in the general.
Huckabee comes across as nice enough to the uninformed voter. Let’s not forget that most people are not political junkies.
.
It’s all about the benjamins. The business class won’t support this guy, he’ll raise no money, and that’ll be that.
But at least Kevin Spacey will get an Oscar when he plays him int he movie. Those guys must have been separated at birth.
Conventional wisdom says yes, it is about the money - but leading money guy Romney didn’;t exactly walk away in Iowa.
We will see.
Maybe it is the Republicans turn to have a fractured convention.
Conventional wisdom and money.
You’re right. But hey, JE did pretty well considering he took no corporate money, was outspent by HRC and still performed better.
You gotta know the corporations will fund any Republican,especially a conservative who belives in making the tax cuts permanent, over HRC.
You’re buying Iowa Publius! Fact is, there is NO qualified Republican candidate. None, zero, zip, nada, nuttin.
Banjo schmanjo.
I’m not buying Iowa, I’m buying America.
Have you been to America west of Ohio lately? We took the big drive this summer and spent time there. Until you get to the California coast it’s all about guns and abortion.
To quote Clint Eastwood in in “The Unforgiven”, “Qualified? Qualified ain’t got nothing to do with it.”
I think with the concept of change sweeping the presidential campaigns, Hillary is the big loser simply for the fact that the idea of a ruling dynasty has come and gone. People had enough of the Bush family and probably don’t want another round of Clinton.
“Simply for the fact idea of a ruling dynasty has come and gone”
Isn’t it more about results than dynasty’s. I think American’s love dynasty’s. But results matter.
Just wait til the Romney dynasty takes hold. With more than one first lady, there’s no telling where it might all end.
JE and BO are self made.
HRC married right.
Hillary is an extremely bright and accomplished woman. She would have had high aspirations no matter who she married. This just gave her a better platform and an easier route.
I have mixed feelings about her, but I do believe she’s a serious candidate in her own right with her own history of successes. Although it’s not always the best or most accurate source, Wikipedia has a good bio. Many of the issues she fought for or worked on are those cherished by progressives - civil rights, health care, poverty.
That’s such a copout statement. The woman can stand on her own. It’s 2008, not 1972.
Thank you louis and jiminy! HRC is self-made as well as JE and BO. Just because she married a gregarious political dynamo doesn’t mean she isn’t accomplished.
I doubt she’ll be the nominee though because she has the same liability as Gore and Kerry, which is deer-in-the-headlights stiffness when “on.” The biggest heartbreak for me in the Gore/Bush fiasco other than his losing the Supreme Court decision was when I saw him and his daughter playing football in the yard ala JFK. He was posing for the cameras for sure but he also finally, FINALLY let his guard down and was playful and human. But it was too late.
And I have travelled by car to almost every state in the continental U.S. and it’s not all “guns and abortion” as someone stated.
Seen the latest republican polls about what’s important to them?
Depends on which Republicans you mean. Northeast Republicans are similar to Democrats on social issues.
dennis kucinich is self made. the guy scrubbed floors in school (starting in elementary) to pay catholic school tuition for he and his siblings.
Kucinich was on Bill Moyers Journal Friday night.
Kucinich was interesting. You can go to the PBS web site and play it if you missed it.
Ron Paul was on also.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
i saw that, and probably to the chagrin of my fiancee and brother (although they warmed up because of dk’s quirky charm), i forced my household to see it. ron paul was on leno last night also.