Friday Clinton-Blogging

I think it's completely fair for Clinton fans to argue that Hillary Clinton has the strongest record on women's issues of the major candidates in the race and to decide that that's a good reason to support her. On the other hand, nobody should walk away from this conversation with the idea that the image of Clinton as the least-liberal candidate overall is the result of some kind of smear campaign waged against her by male bloggers.

She and her husband have consistently and self-consciously identified themselves as members of a centrist or third way wing of the Democratic Party over a period of years. That's not an accusation to be leveled against them, that identification was at the core of the Clinton political strategy in Arkansas, throughout the Clinton presidency, and through Clinton's term in the Senate right up until the moment when she found herself challenged in a primary election by two candidates running to her left, when she began to fudge a bit. She's part of the DLC leadership team, her husband helped found the organization, her chief political strategist is the DLC's pollster, etc., etc., etc.

I know good people (my girlfriend, for example) with career-long associations with the centrist wing of the party but they, like Hillary Clinton, are less liberal overall than your average Democrat. That's the whole idea of the enterprise. They're progressive, they're on the left, but less so than others. It would hardly be unprecedented for the Democrats to nominate a candidate DLC Democrat -- one was president from 1992-2000 -- and I'm not nearly as hostile to the New Democrat approach as some people I know but that is, in fact, Clinton's approach. The view that Clinton's leadership on women's issues outweighs other things is perfectly legitimate (I don't think telling people to be less interested in what they're interested in, and more interested in what I'm interested in makes sense) as is the view that a centrist approach is what's best for the country. Less legitimate is deciding that Clinton's twenty previous years as someone who's positioned herself as less liberal than your average Democrat never happened.

Comments

(I don't think telling people to be less interested in what they're interested in, and more interested in what I'm interested in makes sense)

That's why I won't vote For Hillary Clinton. She isn't quite a republican, but on every issue I care about she may as well be. She's good on plenty of issues I don't vote one. I just wish someone would apply this logic to all the people who shout "PURITY TROL!1!!1" at the slightest hint that you won't automatically back a democratic candidate. They could nominate a candidate everyone likes, but they're determined to nominate someone that 10% of the party base won't show up to vote for. I'm sure that's going to be the fault of people like me when she loses the general election, and not the fault of all those people who insulted us because we don't care about the same issues they do. To me, Hillary's censorship, pro-war record, and complete contempt for the middle, lower, and working classes in this country far outweighs any good she's done on women's issues.

Posted by soullite | July 20, 2007 8:11 AM

Hillary has also been very determined about avoiding any form of opposition to the Iraq War which could be used against her if she chose to keep the war going after she became President. In the present political climate, this costs her among Democrats -- it's the opposite of opportunist, and apparently represents a deep principle she's willing to sacrifice for.

But if you disagree with her on this principle, and if the Iraq War is the most important issue for you, the prospect of a Hillary presidency is very unattractive.

Posted by John Emerson | July 20, 2007 8:48 AM

Less legitimate is deciding that Clinton's twenty previous years as someone who's positioned herself as less liberal than your average Democrat never happened.

But this worked for Dean, Gore, and Edwards. They were centrist guys who took a left-of-center postion on one or two issues and then the blogosphere snowballed them into the second coming of FDR.

Posted by apm | July 20, 2007 8:54 AM

I never accused Hillary of being an opportunist, it's apparent she has very deep fervent beliefs. Those beliefs involve doing whatever business tells her to do (truly, she seems to believe that business always knows best); a dedication to preserving her class's privileges; the belief that pop-culture is evil; and the belief that war should be waged regardless of the publics approval; and finally, the believe that the President should be a god on earth with no limitations on their power.

I just won't not vote for Hillary, I won't be voting for any other Democrats either. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I may vote for him because he's shown an extreme tendency to cater to public opinion. Between him and Hillary, he is clearly the most likely to end the war, because he is the most willing to bow to democracy and the will of the public. The idea of voting for a Republican leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and means putting many of the other issues I care about on hold for 4-8 years. But in the end, so be it. Ending the war is more important for the nation's health than the other issues I care about.

Posted by soullite | July 20, 2007 8:57 AM

There's a big difference between making alliances with people of different political views versus making an alliance with people who will shoot you in the back while you are in the midst of political combat with the Republicans.

The DLCers think its fine to pose as the champion of the common citizen --while at the same time sending 3500+ of those common citizens off to die in an unnecessary war in order to pick up a few $Million in campaign donations from people like Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham.

Bill Clinton would have been nothing if not for his talent for opportunistic betrayals. In 1992, he pulled ahead of people like Bob Kerrey not by showing superior virtue but by showing a willingness to sellout to wealthy donors while conning the rank and file.

Millions of Democrats gave their money and worked for months as volunteers to put Clinton in office. In return, He gave the Republicans control of the 3 branchs of government for years simply for the charms of Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 8:59 AM

Soullite, what I meant was that there's really no hope that Clinton might turn out less militarist than she seems. By keeping to her hard line, in electoral terms she's making a sacrifice in order to fee herself to be as militaristic as she feels she needs to be. No one can say (as supporters often say about their candidates) "Oh, she's just saying that, she doesn't really mean it."

Posted by John Emerson | July 20, 2007 9:19 AM

Yes, Hillary is the least liberal candidate. But to start talking about her as if she is a hardcore republican (see comments above) seems delusional to me.

I think she is a good candidate and would be a good president. She's not my first choice, but I would have no trouble supporting her if nominated. In fact, she's probably my second choice behind Obama because none of the others are very appealing.

Despite what the curreent polls say, I think she would do better in the general election than Edwards. Its a gut feeling, based on the way he comes across.

Posted by Jim W | July 20, 2007 9:29 AM

There's a difference between "centrist Democrat" and "DLC Democrat" and there are reasons to specifically worry about DLC Democrats. HRC as the nominee is worrisome; better her in the Executive than a Republican, but still worrisome.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 20, 2007 9:46 AM

Posted by Jim W | July 20, 2007 9:29 AM:"Yes, Hillary is the least liberal candidate. But to start talking about her as if she is a hardcore republican (see comments above) seems delusional to me."

I agree. However when you come to the Clintons, you have to recognise what "triangulation" really means. It means that they will do or say anything to get into office. They believe nothing. They stand for nothing. Bill even executed a brain damaged felon to remain "viable". There is a wonderful SNL (I think) sketch where "Hillary" says that people shouldn't vote for Obama because he *believes* things. He might go to Iraq and decide it was a war worth fighting. Whereas she opposed the war before she supported it and as long as Americans didn't want it any more she'd make sure they got out.

Not that this is a bad thing. The Neo-Cons believe lots of things. So does Patrick Buchanan. So does Alan Keyes. Perhaps even Jessie Jackson does. Believing things is by no means a positive factor in politics. The question is whether the Clintons fake their opportunism or whether they really do believe things deep down. Either way a Republican she ain't. Unless of course the voters want to elect a Republican.

Posted by HeiGou | July 20, 2007 9:47 AM

MY is right that Clinton is a centrist, but her record as Senator also puts her pretty squarely in the Democratic camp. On the idea of "women's issues," inasmuch as one of those issues is improved female access to political power, Clinton by definition can be "good on women's issues" n a way that no other candidate could.

She would be miles and miles better than a Republican president in at least three ways:
-she won't stock the courts and executive agencies with religious fanatics, union-busters and global-warming denialists
-she won't outright reject diplomacy and cultivating positive world opinion
-she won't reflexively veto legislation that emerges from a Democratic Congress
Any Republican nominee would pursue exactly the opposite agenda.

If those three broad areas are irrelevant to you, then there's not much I can do to suggest that a vote for Hillary is better than not voting or voting for Romney. But as we've seen, the content of the executive agencies, the willingness to interact cooperatively with world leaders, and the willingness to interact cooperatively with a progressive Congressional majority are non-negligible things.

Posted by SDM | July 20, 2007 10:04 AM

No one, AFAICT, is claiming that HRC is so bad that one should vote for a Republcan. But if she's elected, she will further entrench DLC and DLC-friendly people in the institutional pool of DC Democrats. That will limit the sort of actions that future Democratic Administrations will think to take. Does anyone really believe that the neocons aren't a specifically bad group to have influence over American conservatives?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 20, 2007 10:19 AM

Clearly, Hillary Clinton is the most conservative of the three major candidates for the Democratic nomination. There can be no real dispute about this. This is not as a result of any particular political calculation; her position seems to have been arrived at honestly and reflects her basic values. In fact, they reflect my basic values too. I'm probably more of a centerist than the average MY reader. So what? Any of the three leading Democrats would represent an unbelievable improvement on the administration we have now, and seemed to be vastly smarter, more competent, and more honest than anyone running on the Republican side. I would be more than satisfied to vote for any of them.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | July 20, 2007 10:24 AM

No one, AFAICT, is claiming that HRC is so bad that one should vote for a Republcan.
Well, there's this:
I just won't not vote for Hillary, I won't be voting for any other Democrats either. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I may vote for him

I'm not trying to defend "DLCitude" or convince anybody that Hillary is (a) awesome or (b) the right person to vote for in the primary; I don't think MY is trying to do that either. I'm offering a modest, and likely ineffective, response specifically to soullite's point that voting for HRC in the general election is on balance a bad thing.

Posted by SDM | July 20, 2007 10:32 AM

Hillary will do nothing domestically because she won't want to anger voters for 2012.

Obama will do nothing domestically because he thinks transcending partisanship is important and Republican lawmakers will eat him for lunch.

Edwards will do nothing domestically because he doesn't really believe all the liberal causes he's been espousing and has just adopted them like his newfound opposition to the Iraq war as a form of reverse triangulation.

In short, whether any of these people are DLC dems or true progressives is largely irrelevant.

Who is most likely to get us out of Iraq or least likely to invade Iran, now those things matter.

Posted by Ron | July 20, 2007 10:52 AM

My vote in the primary will reflect my choice. But, in the 08 contest I will vote for the Democratic Party's nominee. I guess the purists have every right to be offende by HRC's twists and turns. I have had to compromise often and understand how difficult it is to be sensitive to the conflicting demands of voters.Do this and you rile the Hispanics, do that and the Black vote is turned off, then the Nascar dads and on and on. After reading comments for over two years now I ask myself: why would a sane person ever offer himself/herself up for election. I mean really, there are so many people out there who have all the answers: let them govern our complex democracy.

Posted by Alan | July 20, 2007 11:01 AM

To me this isn't really about who I vote for in 2008. It's about what to expect if Hillary is elected. What she seems to be promising is a more competent war, in Iraq and maybe in Iran. To me that's a big enough negative to cancel the various good things about her.

Frankly, I also wouldn't trust Hillary to roll back all the new powers Bush has granted himself. Her record (and Bill's) on civil liberties, privacy, and due process has been mediocre to poor.

There's some point at which the lesser evil is too evil. Electing Hillary would amount to nullifying the efforts of people who brought the Democrats back to life after Bill Clinton almost killed them.

Posted by John Emerson | July 20, 2007 11:03 AM

Well, Hillary has done one interesting thing for women's issues.

She has managed to make her male supporters adopt the mentality of the battered wife -- one who is lost in dependency, who argues that the drunken abusive spouse is really not all that bad, one who ignores the massive amount of evidence that the relationship is unhealthy, dangerous and will end badly.

Hillary certainly has the light touch with her supporters. Must come from all those years of living with Bill -- of seething with rage only to collapse into helpless sobbing whenever he said "Honey, I'm really sorry." Time after time.
Bait and switch. Bait and switch.

Posted by Don Williams | July 20, 2007 11:06 AM

Do this and you rile the Hispanics, do that and the Black vote is turned off, then the Nascar dads and on and on.

Politics is about picking your friends. Her unwillingness to tell the NASCAR dads to fuck off and move if they don't like America is the precise problem that worries me. Lots of bad things one can say about the North (or the West or the Southwest), but it's not all bad, and people there are allowed to vote, too.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 20, 2007 11:16 AM

One of the lamest of Goldstein's comments is this one pointing out that Clinton is:

A long-time student of progressive social change, writing about Saul Alinksky when Barack Obama was still in elementary school.

This is like saying that Ronald Reagan was the head of a labor union before Michael Moore was even born. True enough. But it hardly prevented a much older, vigorously anti-labor President Reagan.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 20, 2007 11:48 AM

SomecallmeTim: Politics is about power and those who pursue are not the nicest people in the world or the friendly types. Given the abuse they take on the way up I wonder at how they manage to remain sane.

Posted by Alan | July 20, 2007 1:44 PM

Sorry John emerson, I shouldn't snapped at you like that. This is just an emotional thing to me. I hated growing up and seeing the party of my grandparents turned into a wholly owned subsidiary of american industry. I know Hillary is going to do that. That's why I don't think she'll end the war. It makes too many of her friends wealthier than they already are.

Posted by Soullite | July 20, 2007 4:05 PM

People like Alan are what I mean when I say people who scream PURITY TROLL!!!!!. I just more or less stated that in a contest between Hillary clinton and Mitt Romney that I'm going to vote for Mitt Romney, yet somehow that makes me a Democratic Purist. I want the war over, and I don't give a good god damn about the issues Alan must prefer, so that makes me an evil extremist. Despite the fact that I'm clearly planning to vote for someone who I don't agree with on 99.9999999999999% of the issues, because he's shown a strong weakness for being intimidated by public pressure and will likely end the war because of that. There is simply no logical case to be made that I'm a "purist", he's just pissed that I don't give the same issues the same weight as he does.

Posted by Soullite | July 20, 2007 4:07 PM

SDM, did you not follow my logical chain? Mitt Romney is an opportunistic waffler. At some point during his first term, he will look at polls and conclude that it's in his best interest to end the war, and because he is an opportunist and a flip-flopper, he will do so. He is too ambitious, and wants too desperately to be popular not to end the war.

Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative. She believes that the War must continue forever, even if that means reducing the troops there by 50k to try and fool her political base. But she will really do whatever the other neoconservatives want her to do. She will not bow to the will of the public, because she does not believe in democracy. She will claim an intention to withdraw, and then seize on any event she can to claim we need to stay another 6-12 months. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. That will be the HRC Presidency.

It's not about ideology at all. It's about achieving a specific result. Hillary is the only candidate that will make me turn to only ONE Republican, due to his personal vulnerabilities. GHay rights will occur, regardless of who is president, on societies timetable. Abortion will likely get gutted regardless of who is President, and Hillary won't waste any capital on defending a liberal issue. She'll save it all up for

Posted by Soullite | July 20, 2007 4:15 PM

her endless protraction of this war.

Posted by Soullite | July 20, 2007 4:17 PM

Soullite, I found this phrase interesting:

"...she will really do whatever the other neoconservatives want her to do."

I see this sort of rhetoric a lot when people talk about her. Are you claiming that Hillary doesn't actually believe in the policies she would be enacting? That she's just a sock puppet for, I don't know, Nefarious Corporate Interests or some such?

Posted by AlanC9 | July 20, 2007 5:39 PM

Alan. No, I believe she believes in what she would be "enacting" completely and utterly. She truly believes that what's good for corporate America is good for Real America. That's why she's so damned scary and evil. If she were a self-serving hack, she'd have proposed complete withdrawal already and had the Democratic nomination completely sewn up.

She isn't a corporate puppet. She's uber-wealthy, born and raised. The daughter of a congressman, who went ivy league. It isn't that she's a shill for corporate interests, it's that corporate interests ARE her interests.

Posted by soullite | July 20, 2007 6:46 PM