The Meaning of Hillary: Just What Sort of a President Would She Be?
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
My co-blogger Edward Copeland posted on Andrew Sullivan’s response to David Brooks on Hillary Clinton yesterday. His impassioned conclusion: STOP HILLARY NOW!
Here are my thoughts, intended as an update to Edward’s post but now a post on their own, which I now post here at TMV:
For blogospheric reaction to Sullivan’s excellent post, and the David Brooks love-in-with-Hillary, bash-the-Netroots, up-with-the-”center” column to which he was responding, see Memeorandum. In particular, see the ever-acute Steve Benen: “I wonder if Brooks has actually heard Clinton’s stump speech, or caught any of her appearances on the Sunday morning shows a few days ago, or taken a look at her voting record this year. Clinton isn’t stiff-arming the netroots; she’s delivering on most of what the movement wants to hear.”
I would (will?) support her in the general election, but Hillary isn’t my Democratic pick. I prefer Edwards and Obama (and, yes, of course, Gore). She’s too much like her husband, too much of a triangulator, too cozy with the right, too much about personal ambition and naked self-interest, not committed enough to the liberal, progressive values that lie at the heart of the Democratic Party and my own political philosophy.
And yet I think Steve is right. Although Hillary is a lot like Bill, 2007 isn’t 1991. The Netroots are a force in the Democratic Party and genuinely progressive values more mainstream than ever before. As Matt Yglesias, quoted by Steve, puts it: “‘The left’ has only been empowered to a pretty minor degree, but the ‘centrist’ wing of the party is… way further left on the merits than where it was in the late 1990s or the early years of the twentieth century. That, in turn, is largely a reflection of a renewed vibrancy on the left that’s both pressured elected officials and expanded the boundaries of conversation. When the centrist strand in Democratic thinking came to represent school uniforms, promises to balance the budget each and every year of the Gore administration, and backing the invasion of Iraq that was one thing. If, instead, we’re going to get universal health care, action to halt global warming, and diplomatic engagement with rival powers in the Middle East, that’s a very different thing.”
There is — and I have — a legitimate, credible concern that Hillary would, in some important respects, be too much like Bush, but Hillary would not be like Bush at all on most of the truly important issues: global warming; health care; Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East generally; the war on terror; taxes and pro-corporate spending; social issues like abortion and stem-cell research; and many others. As well, she is smart enough to understand just how profoundly important the Netroots are, just how central progressive values are to her party, as well as to the country as a whole. She would not (and politically could not) abandon them in order to implement some neo-DLC agenda, some delusional Brooksian centrism that appeals to the less bloodthirsty elements of the GOP.
Hillary isn’t my pick, but — and I may differ with some of my liberal and progressive friends on this — she wouldn’t be that bad. In fact, on some of the issues that matter most to us, her apparent ability to unite her party behind her and to reach out to moderate Republicans — whatever moderates are left — could end up working to her, and our, benefit.
**********
Addendum: From John Dickerson at Slate — “How To Stop Hillary: Six Strategies For Her Democratic Rivals.”
Hillary is well ahead in the polls, but she’s “not invincible”. Her rivals may soon go on the attack — much more of an attack than they’ve mounted so far.
13 Responses to “The Meaning of Hillary: Just What Sort of a President Would She Be?”
My wife and I had this conversation just last night.
The Wife: So you won’t vote for Hillary?
Me: No.
The Wife: You’d vote for a Republican out of the current crop over her?
Me: Yup.
The Wife: What if it was her versus John McCain?
Me: Well, I probably would have to think long and hard about that… and I do like J.Mac. I just don’t like his stance on the war. I’d probably vote for John McCain.
The Wife: Really?!
Me: Yup. Look hon, I really don’t like Hillary. She’s too fake, too calculated. The only time that I would likely reconsider voting for her would be if George W. Bush amended the Constitution and was able to run for a third term. THEN I would vote for Hillary.
The End.
Run Right, then Lurch Left
How pathetic, this hysterical Hillary hatred is.
pajamapundit, you are equally pathetic. If you think she’s fake and calculated, it obviously means she’s not. On what do you base this impression on. You are just mimicking things you’ve been hearing about her for years and haven’t actually come to that conclusion yourself at all. Try to think for yourself for once. The ones you believe are genuine are the ones who are the calculating frauds. Obama is a good example.
She’s far above the other losers running amongst the Democrats. In fact if she isn’t the nominee, I fully intend to vote GOP. I absolutely despise the left.
LL, I respect your opinion and do not wish to engage in name-calling.
However, I will answer your question – despite the fact that I’m sure it will incite more of the same negativity from you.
I think that Hillary Clinton is a master politician. She knows what to say, how to say it, and when to say it (hence the aforementioned calculative persona). I also think that she is fake based on the appearances at which I have seen her. Take this past weekend for example. Hillary did all of the Sunday morning shows (for her stamina, I must give her credit) and on each one I FELT like she was being fake. The (seemingly) fake smiles. The (seemingly) fake laughter. These are MY impressions LL and if you don’t agree, that’s fine.
I never said that I “hate” Mrs. Clinton – I only said that I wouldn’t vote for her.
Also, I would note that the other Democrats who are running are FAR from losers. Take Bill Richardson or Joe Biden for example: both of them have more international relations experience in their index finger than Senator Clinton has in her entire body.
Finally, I would say that if you would like to engage people in meaningful debate, calling them “pathetic” or “losers” will usually turn people away from you. If you truly believe in your candidate, you probably want people listening to you, not trying to block you out.
Respectfully submitted -
the Pajama Pundit
Hillary may not be my first choice, but I do respect her strength and toughness in dealing with the opposition. Gore lacks this and showed it in 2000- though he is an admirable man in many other ways. Obama is too much of an untested commodity and Edwards’ appeal is based too much on populism and traditional liberal ideology. I do think a lot of Biden, but he is getting no traction on the campaign trail, and Richardson, for all of his achievements, has not been impressive during the debates.
Bill Clinton is still a big asset to the party and can help the Democrats greatly in their quest to regain the WH. You can’t compare him with Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in clout or the ability to fill a room of campaign donors.
Mrs Clinton and her husband are showing Democrats the way to regain the WH. Can we really survive another Republican administration like this one?
I’m also totally against Clinton. First, I think its rediculous that someone in the immediate family of a former president could even be up for the job. I had thought we were past feudal succession.
Second, I agree she’s fake. I’ve heard her at various venues and she’s noticably different at each one. Her answers are the canned poll approved sayings that shut reporters up without actually having said anything. Plus in all the times I’ve heard her talk she hasn’t said one thing that I found inspiring.
Third, this unbelievable partisanship started in the 90′s with the GOP talk radio crowd going after Bill Clinton with a ferocity I found entirely undeserved. Bush has been a nightmare of division and partisanship, and if we have another Clinton in the White House, its never going to end. There are other viable candidates for the job, Hillary just brings too much baggage with her.
Sam, I completely agree with you.
Way back in June, I blogged about why I’ll never vote for Hillary.
Wait for Jeb Bush to run someday, Sam. [scowl]
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, innumerable others on the lower tiers (Dodds, Bayhs, etc.) are forming a hereditary aristocracy — complete with hangers-on known as staffers and lobbyists and the major party apparatchniki.
And Washington, DC, is not only far too large and far too powerful, it’s far too opulent. (No wonder it’s also far too corrupt and far too decadent sometimes.)
And after Jeb I think Chelsea will be old enough to run.
… and after Chelsea, we’ll have a dual-ticket candidacy in Jenna & Barbara …
Hillary is not my favorite Democratic candidate, either. But I would vote for her over any of the Republican contenders if that’s the way the general election turns out. Every one of the realistic Republican candidates is running as the new Bush while saying that’s not what they are. Do any of them have any stands that differ from those of GWB significantly? Moderately? If they do I’m not aware of them. Guiliani says he does but promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who disagree with him and would continue the policies of the current Administration.
DLS says “Run Right, then Lurch Left”. Yes, that’s exactly what the major Republican candidates are doing. Promise the extremely right wing base of the Republican Party whatever they want then do a wink-wink, nudge-nudge with them while they lie to the independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats during the general election. No matter what Hillary is campaigning like, I still regard her as less hypocritical than the Republicans.
‘Feudal succession’ does not apply to Hillary, since she has earned her own political creds as a Senator.
Bill didn’t go to committee meetings with her!
She had to do her own homework, and no one can claim she has slept on the job. In fact, Republicans hate her because they fear the fact that she is capable, and could have a successful presidency. A successful Democratic presidency is the last thing they want and the first thing they fear.
If she is fake, it’s because, I think, she has a vision of what it takes to be a successful president, and part of that involves working with all sectors. Pleasing just one wing of the Democrats might win friends in that group, but it won’t win support from the country as a whole.
Not progressive enough? If you look around, the country as a whole is not progressive enough, and large chunks of it are so not-progressive that they are reactionary. Bush’s presidency was a lesson in what happens when the WH forgets everyone but one group and is the president only for one sector instead of being a presiden for the whole country.
Insisting on getting the whole pie is a guaranteed way of losing it all after 4 years.
Our immigration mess is what happens when an all-or-nothing attitude takes over.
I think Hillary is the one who understans that, and she is looking further down the road than the primaries or just the election. She is looking to have a successful Presidency as a Democrat to pave the way for other Democrats to follow.
It’s the difference between going for broke all at once and risk losing everyting and , instead, developing a sustainanable direction on which long term successes can be built.
If the Democrats refect her, they’ll be cutting off their noses to spite their faces, IMO.
Having said that there’s much about her I don’t like, either. But I think she represents the kind of long-term vision that the Democrats need. If Obama had her skills, I’d vote for him in a flash, but he doesn’t, yet. In four years, though, it might be another story. and Hillary is the one to pave the road for him.