An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Can Hillary Be a Healer?

As they held their private summit in Washington last night, the question that hangs in the air, whether she is on Obama’s ticket or not, is: Can Hillary Clinton rise above a lifetime of experience to help heal the Democratic Party?

As someone who has had to fight all her public life, from the 1992 health care fiasco through her husband’s impeachment and a year and a half of brass-knuckles campaigning, who has had to show voters she is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief, who has had to carry the accumulated anger and resentments of her gender, and now their bitter disappointment, is it humanly possible for one woman, however resilient, to turn away from all that and use her strength to bring peace to a fractured party?

This moment is as much a test for Hillary Clinton as her 2002 vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Back then, none of the potential Democratic candidates could summon the courage to oppose it for fear of appearing weak. They all failed, but how much more pressure did she feel then as a woman in that position and five years later not to admit it was mistake?

As it turned out, the need to appear tough hurt her candidacy, and in the past few weeks, her posture as “a fighter” in the face of impending defeat and in the past few days her refusal to acknowledge the reality of it have damaged her even further.

But now, in these next days, Hillary Clinton has a chance to turn away from all that. As her backers try to blackmail Obama into putting her on the ticket, her statement today that the choice is his alone is a good start.

It would be heartening to see her rise above the politicking of this moment and show the wisdom and leadership her party needs to start repairing the damage that eight years of nasty Bush-Rove politics has done to the country.

Cross-posted from my blog.

  • crat3
    Sen. Clinton should have no burden to be a "healer". A corrupt Democratic Party cannot be "healed."

    Sen. Clinton should be the Democratic presidential nominee. Obama did not clinch the nomination fair and square. De facto Obama surrogate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rigged the nomination for Obama.

    Sen. Clinton's supporters in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan should work for Obama's defeat and vote for McCain. Obama must win atleast three of these states in November. I will volunteer and vote for McCain in a swing state.

    Sen. Clinton won the primaries for all four swing states. She was the best qualified and the strongest presidential candidate to win the general election in a landslide victory hands down. This was trumped by Pelosi's rigged nomination for Obama.

    The key for Obama to win in November lies with Sen. Clinton's supporters in the swing states; for Obama, that key is lost for 2008 but it opens the door to 2012 for Sen. Clinton, when she can reform the Democratic Party..
  • JSpencer
    Crat3, please take a nap, have a stiff drink, run around the house a few times, or do whatever is necessary to vent those bitter, whiny, conspiracy laden feelings. They can't be healthy for you or anyone else who feels that way. A lot can happen between now and 2012, let's concentrate on staying positive (and rational) in 2008. Anyone who is feeling so messed up they would sooner reward the GOP for the past 7 utterly abysmal years, than to vote for a democrat who wasn't their first choice, really is engaging in an extremely immature form of acting out.
  • StockBoySF
    Crat3, go ahead and vote for McCain if he's your guy- that's the beauty of American politics. But if you're doing so because you felt that the Dems primary process was unfair, then you haven't looked at the Republican process. After all McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination before millions of voters even had a chance to vote. Most (if not all) the GOP primary contests were a "winner take all".

    I don't know how many contests McCain won before he reached that magical number, but on the Dem side I'd like to point out that the Dems allowed everyone to vote- and Obama even gave Hillary more delegates because of FL and MI, despite the fact that those states were DISQUALIFIED. Oh, and IF the Dems had a winner take all delegates like the GOP, then Obama would have won 33 contests (not including TX, where he lost the primary, but won the caucus).

    So if your motivation is to vote Republican just to punish the Dems for running what you feel is an unfair primary, then you really have your priorities misplaced since the only thing more "unfair" than the Dem primary process is the Republican primary process.

    But go ahead and vote for McCain if he represents your views on the issues. I wish both McCain and Obama well in the upcoming election.
  • aba23
    Minor correction to the post, Dennis Kucinich voted against the war authorization. I think it's very important to not continue to give the false impression that there was no legitimate or vocal opposition to the war during the buildup in 2002-2003.

    See http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadershi... for the list of 23 senators and 133 representatives who had the judgment to try to put a speedbump between the administration and its unstoppable course to the invasion.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC