The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton

Posted January 13, 2008 | 12:31 AM (EST)



stumbleupon :The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton   digg: The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton   reddit: The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton   del.icio.us: The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton

I have spent a lot of time defending Hillary Clinton over the last couple of weeks because of the silly nature of the attacks against her. The infamous "crying" episode is the most obvious example of this phenomenon.

When it comes to the absurd personality based coverage of the major media outlets, she can't catch a break. They can't make up their minds whether she laughed or cried too much or too little. The only thing that is guaranteed is that she is guilty of all of the above, no matter what.

Other than being ridiculous, this criticism also misses the real problem with Senator Clinton. There is ample ground on which to criticize the junior Senator from New York. She has surrounded herself with accomodationists and triangulators. Her advisors seem to constantly tell her to give half a loaf to the George Bush and Dick Cheney led Republicans until almost the whole loaf is gone.

Other critics have done a better job of analyzing her advisors and her triangulation better than I can hope to do here. So, I want to focus on the one overwhelming problem with Hillary Clinton.

She claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush's war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.

I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That's a pretty awful record.

Now, it would be one thing if George Bush was a popular president who was hard to defeat politically. But in fact, he is the opposite. He is the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes. And Hillary Clinton kept getting her ass kicked by that guy.

That's the real criticism that should be leveled against Hillary Clinton. Yet I have almost never seen anyone make this point on TV. Part of the reason for that, of course, is because her opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards did no better in their time in the Senate. So, they are embarrassed into an awkward silence on the matter.

The reason I hold Senator Clinton to a higher standard, other than the fact that she has been there longer, is that she had the biggest name recognition and could have led her fellow Democrats -- but chose not to. Instead she chose accommodation and capitulation. That's a record worth criticizing, if anyone ever got around to it.

Watch TYT Here

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
180
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- nancytheragingliberal See Profile I'm a Fan of nancytheragingliberal permalink

Cenk,
Correct, once again. Hillary has no spine. She is all blow and no go. Look at her record. She bends over for W., every chance she gets. She is a shill for the corporations, get huge $$ from them, and does their bidding. Edwards is real and will fight for the American people. Hillary weaves and bobs and never gives a straight answer. Her reputation of holding her finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, before she comments, still stands.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 AM on 01/23/2008
- Garvagh See Profile I'm a Fan of Garvagh permalink

Most politicians in the US are most reluctant to oppose Israel, and the belief by many "defense" planners that permanent US bases in Iraq are needed to protect Israel, has a dampening effect on debate. One reason the so-called "threat" from Iran is so grossly inflated by much of the media, is that it is a means of convincing the American public that the US should do Israel's bidding no matter what that bidding costs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 01/16/2008
- killmenow See Profile I'm a Fan of killmenow permalink

What's really sad is that this guy has to write down and post on HuffintonPost the reality that is on display for everyone to see, yet few are willing to see it. Hillary has all the knowledge of a true leader and Obama talks like a leader, but neither are leaders. America is headed towards electing not a new leader of our country, but a change from a court-appointed King who will not compromise to reality to a new King of Compromise who accepts the corporatacracy as an unchangable reality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 01/16/2008
- spectator27 See Profile I'm a Fan of spectator27 permalink

There aren't enough Democrats for a successful challange. With 1 Sen. disabled and Joe Lieberman, they can't over ride a veto. they have been able to issue supoenas and promises of what will be investigated when they constitute a true majority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 01/15/2008
- jwod See Profile I'm a Fan of jwod permalink

Never led the Senate in "a successful challenge of the President". True. But how do you suppose that could have been done? New math? Somehow a two-thirds majority could miraculously have been created to overide a veto? If her words were so magically convincing that most Republicans would have come running to kiss her feet?
The problem with the Democratic left is that they ignore reality and believe in the effect of mantra, prayer, hope, wish and maybe voodoo. and that words will change hearts. Maybe there's an opportunity for evangelist recruitment there, but please don't base a political campaign on such drivel.
I like the politics of hope but if that's all there is, where's the beef?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 PM on 01/15/2008
- rjcrane See Profile I'm a Fan of rjcrane permalink

Very few Dems in the Senate have stood up to Bush or shown real leadership against Bush but Russ Feingold is not one of these. At least Feingold tried to censure Cheney but got little support from fellow Dem Senators. Even Jim Webb who has been a strong voice in attacking Bush on Iraq has consistently voted to keep funding the war. Others like Reid while having shown leadership in keeping the Senate in session so Bush can't make any bad recess appointments won't show leadership by making the GOP have to conduct a real filibuster to keep blocking bills.

There seems to be something really amiss with Dem leadership and their messaging and I think this has to do with a false sense that the country is evenly divided on most of the major issues when in fact this is not the case. The country is really left on most issues including the war and is just looking for a real leader to make their case.

There really is so much wrong with how government operates I am not sure Dean's book called Broken Government is long enough to do this subject justice.

RJ Crane
topplebush.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 01/15/2008
- PolNut See Profile I'm a Fan of PolNut permalink

"The reason I hold Senator Clinton ...is that she had the biggest name ¦That's a record worth criticizing, if anyone ever got around to it."
If anything, Sen. Obama should be gauged according to the standards used for Popes and Saints. This man claims that he does not make political statements just to please the public, and is a great and unifying leader; he then acts in the most disingenuous, politically egregious way. He is a Saint until you remember that he is not the "Washington Outsider" that he claims to be, who is moved by the country"s plight rather than self-aggrandizement " he is a sitting Senator for heavenssake!.
Edwards is even more interesting. He is this fire-breathing Preacher person, harping on the 2 Americas and hiding behind his wife for the most part. It was great to hear that the Trial Lawyers who all but sponsored his candidature, are all magnanimous Robin Hoods, there to balance the scale on behalf of millions of hapless have-nots, who are being exploited by their moneyed and unscrupulous exploiters, their employers. I am in that line, but I swear, I could never have carried it off with a straight and indignant face like Ms. Edwards on Hardball!
Next to these two, Hillary Clinton is Mother Teresa. I am a very cynical observer of politics, therefore, my take is somewhat different from yours. Ms. Clinton covets George W."s job " she was also fooled by his WMD nonsense and bought into it " perhaps that is why she dislikes him intensely. And what is most important, since she plans on becoming his successor, she has absolutely no interest in curtailing the awesome powers he has garnerd for himself. Why on earth would a President like to be hobbled? However, without question she is the most qualified person in the field and as a Democrat, deserves our votes, no matter what we feel about her. You don"t have to love the President, you have to admire her/him "that"s all that counts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 AM on 01/15/2008
- janmB See Profile I'm a Fan of janmB permalink

BLAME HILLARY because the MEDIA and bloggers are less than kind ? That's a NEW ONE !!
MEN in the USA who have any speaking or writing powers have been bashing Hillary because they don't want a woman president.
My opinion the reason women came out and voted for her in NH and didn't say so in the POLLS is fairly simple to figure out. Some women didn't openly support other women when the VOTE a century ago was fought for. Women are still insecure today and don't want other's to say they are supporting Hillary just because she's a woman. So they are silent or they lie and then vote for her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 AM on 01/15/2008
- Tennwoman See Profile I'm a Fan of Tennwoman permalink

Thank you, Cenk. You have captured exactly the argument against Hillary that I made today, to a woman who insisted I was a traitor to my gender for not supporting Clinton's campaign. I would like nothing better than to see a woman elected president, but that woman is not Hillary, for the very reasons you mention. Her experience should have dictated that she take the lead in confronting Bush, yet she has been almost complacent in her dealings with Bush and the GOP. In my opinion, she has refrained from standing up to them because she was too concerned with lining up allies, from both sides of the aisle, for her White House run.
I take the election of POTUS most seriously. I have no obligation to vote for a female candidate merely because I am a woman, any more than I would be obligated to vote for Obama if I were Black, or Huckabee if I were a Southern Baptist, or Thompson, because we share a birthplace. My only obligation is to vote for a leader who will lead our country out of the Bush/Cheney muck and mire that has stifled our constitutional freedoms, run up debt for which my great grandchildren will be responsible, and diminished respect for America in the rest of the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 AM on 01/15/2008
- amorando See Profile I'm a Fan of amorando permalink

OK, Sir, who among the front running candidates has opposed GW Bush and his neocon war? Has Obama?
The people that have clearly done so, in my mind were Gravel and Kucinich, but where are they in the contest?
It is easy for those not in the congress at the time of the Iraq resolution, to say they didn't support it, but who in the congress did not. Biden, Edwards, Dodd? Few didn't, including Feinberg of Wisconsin.
Take a look at congressional votes on Viet Nam. Who opposed that ill concieved 12 year war? The senator from Oregon was one of the few. Our public doesn't seem to select any of these people for leadership. So why pick on Sen Clinton???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 01/15/2008
- Knowwell See Profile I'm a Fan of Knowwell permalink

Cenk, I am a fan of yours; but your point is wrong here...it is wrong to hold Clinton to a higher standard than Obama, when both must play in the same game. Both have been in the Senate under the new Dem majority; neither lead a Bush shut down. The logical conclusion of your argument is that Clinton has greater name recognition therefore she should get the nomination cuz if properly used she could be more effective.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:26 PM on 01/14/2008
- kurtz66 See Profile I'm a Fan of kurtz66 permalink

I agree with you completely. Though I would dearly love to see a woman in the White House, I can't support her for the reasons you sited.

Barack Obama abstained from voting for/or against the war -- something I find more disturbing that Edwards change of heart. I cheered when Kucinich, when asked why he didn't vote for the war, said it was because he read the resolution, did the homework. Too bad someone who feel strongly about the big issues is branded a loon so easily. But Obama could defeat McCain on theI who can help us undo the insanity of the last 8 years. I fear Hillary Clinton is too moderate to do so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 PM on 01/14/2008
- FOXYLADY See Profile I'm a Fan of FOXYLADY permalink

WHY DOES THIS WRITER CRITICIZE ONLY HILLARY. AREN'T THERE MANY MANY MORE SENATORS WHO DID AS SHE DID? SHOULD SHE AND THE OTHERS KEPT THE MONEY NEEDED TO SUPPORT AND AID OUR MILITARY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN FROM THEM? IT'S THE FORKING REPUKE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAVE FOULED UP IRAQ AND JUST ABOUT EVERY THING THEY HAVE HANDLED...CHECK OUT THE ECONOMY?? USUALLY IN WAR THE ECONOMY IMPROVES..CHECK OUT WWII...BUT NOW, WITH GD BUSH AT THE HELM WE ARE IN DEBT TO EVERY FORKING ASIAN COUNTRY, MOSTLY CHINA....GIVE THE WOMAN A BREAK!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 01/14/2008
- jennajk31 See Profile I'm a Fan of jennajk31 permalink

The only candidate running who will actually stand up and fight is Mike Gravel. He has repeatedly drawn attention to the democratic candidates for being complicit with the Bush administration's handling of Iraq. Gravel has proved his leadership abilities in the Senate by taking action to stop the Vietnam War and end the draft. Gravel is the only democratic candidate of true substance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3UCeT0YYE

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 PM on 01/14/2008
- jbowen43 See Profile I'm a Fan of jbowen43 permalink

A column like this makes a helluva lot more sense that the goofy stuff on the TV trying to call Mrs. Clinton a racist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 PM on 01/14/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Cenk Uygur›