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

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[live by the golden rule]

The problem is that there have been too few Democrats in the Senate. She could lead and create more heat and division but she can't get the votes without the Republicans, who are stonewalling on the war and many other important issues.
She actually has gotten some legislation passed with bipartisan support, but you'd never hear about it in the press. You can find a little on her campaign website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/
along with detailed policy proposals. I recommend reading through the campaign websites of all of the candidates as it's the only way you can get information about what they are proposing, while the press parses tears, interprets every sentence in the most inflammatory way it can, and recites poll numbers that are likely to change tomorrow.

[Highse]

A very good column. In addition to his points, based on her congressional record, including Obama's near similar senate voting record, neither one of those candidates will pull out of Iraq, if elected. Hillary is already lying on the campaign trail by offering a carrot stick in a bailout package for the troubled housing, subprime lending crisis. Obama is offering "tax cuts" and a host of spending programs, respecting a Fed with a "trillion dollar" deficit. Who is to be believed, respecting the aforementioned campaign fantasies? Both are corporatists and will further the corporate agenda, which continues to erode the American middle-class. Edwards or Kucinich are more viable candidates, although Edwards had a spotty record himself while in the Senate, respecting Iraq. People need to be more perceptive and realistic as to what is happening to this nation and realize which candidates have their best interests at heart. Hillary's voting record in Congress is atrocious and so is Obama's, respecting Iraq. Their economic agenda is simply not realistic.

Respecting the republicans, they shouldn't even be sniffed at. They have nearly destroyed this nation economically, nearly killed necessary entitlement programs benefiting the elderly, disabled and generally disadvantaged and generally supervised the corporatist's outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries for cheap labor, enhancing money and power for businesses and destroying the American middle-class.

If the people cannot perceive, and apparently they cannot so far in this election year, they will further incur the abusive policies and decision-making that has affective the economy of this nation and the delicate imbalance of relations in the Middle East, including the horrific conditions in terms of human life and welfare in Iraq. For me, Kucinich is the obvious choice as the democratic nominee w/Edwards as a viable alternative.

[Bartxx2]

Uygur defers to other critics on HRC's triangulation.
Molly Ivins spelled it out Jan 20, 2006 in her column "Why Hillary Won't Save Us." You can find the piece at http://www.alternet.org/story/31109/ and at other places.
It's an education. It's the essence of HRC in 867 words.

[lisakaz]

Exactly, Cenk. I never cared much about the crying thing one way or the other. It's the triangulation AND the lack of a substantive challenge. How can she defend this if she is supposed to know better and be in a visible position to lead a revolt? Is she really representing We the People? I don't think so.

We have a better chance of making Obama or Edwards fight for our democracy versus Hillary Clinton. I would argue it is because of these triangulators and her corporate backers that she won't confront Bu$h, meaning she won't change nearly enough as president.

[yooper2]

I can't found any fault with this posting!

[RandomStu]

Senk wrote...
> 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.

Note that the above analysis shows no more depth than one would find in discussing a football game, a horserace, or a high-school popularity contest. That is, it's entirely a matter of creating us-vs-them sides, and seeing who can beat up who, who can win.

It's possible to look at the issues that a president would face, how we could expect a candidate to deal with those issues, how those actions would affect US and world citizens. We could look into why we'd expect Hillary to do this or that (about the war, taxes, government services etc), and have an intelligent conversation about why we support this or that stance on particular issues.

The focus in this article is entirely on personality, on cultish us-vs-them group-think. Intelligent analysis of any meaningful issue is entirely absent.

Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog

[isis]

Great post. Add to that list that if she is so much older and more experienced she should be above the childish attacks on Obama.

[mdargo]

It was 10 years ago this week ....
FROM DRUDGE: Oral history: The Monica Lewinsky scandal ten years on
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3185449.ece

[NoMoreDrama]

I think it speaks volumes of Hillary's hedging. She claims to be the victim of a vast conspiracy for so many years, and when she's in a position to investigate this fairytale, she does nothing. She's had so many opportunities to illuminate the press on all the issues that she really holds so dear...and nothing. She's had 35 years to demonstrate her credentials, and when it comes down to a tough race, where everyone wants to hear her stance on the issues, she attacks Obama. Apparently her credentials aren't as impressive as she claims. Otherwise, she wouldn't be digging up every bit of DNA that she can get on Obama. Real progressive Hillary.

[Technician]

If accomodation and capitulation characterized Miss Hilliarie's Senate time, wouldn't her performance as President be these two things on steroids? No thanks. I'll pass on Hilliary.

[Highse]

Good column. The senator in congress who consistently attempted to address this pathetic president's policy and legislative agenda was Russ Feingold and in the House, Dennis Kucinich. I don't know the reason why Russ elected not to run, for he would have gotten my vote. However, of those Dems who are running, Dennis would be the logical choice. Yet, he has been marginalized by the media and the voters generally are too dumb to realize the distinction.

[Goldie9]

Good post, Cenk -- I like Hillary, but she's not my first choice for prez... many Americans already know exactly what they're getting if they put the Clintons back in the White House in '09: more blowin' with the political winds and focus groups!

[cynara]

For all her complaints about news coverage, the "personality based coverage" serves Hillary well. Attacks like "Iron my shirt" give her sympathy, and the ridiculous anlysis of her wet eyed moment may win over some supporters. If her non-leadership, hawk record was actually examined by progressives, she probably wouldn't be the front runner.

There are many real charges one can make against Barak Obama, that he's voted for the war budget since joining Congress, that he did not lead the fight against telephone company immunity, or the Kyle-Leiberman bill. But Hillary supporters make none of these arguments, since she has done even worse on all of the above issues. Neither side will critize the other on the real issues, since any real examination of their leadership (or lack there of) in the Senate, will make them both look bad.

[hopeless277]

She is an accomplice to the biggest crime of modern history, the complete looting of the nation. It's one thing to come to the scene after the crime, but she sat there and LET IT HAPPEN. To say she did not know what was going on makes her an idiot. To say that she agreed with it makes her an accomplice. To say that there was nothing she could do to change it makes her a loser. Regardless of what she thought of said, SHE DID NOTHING while tens of thousands of innocent people were murdered. As did Obama. Edwards is the only candidate that can possibly lead this country to a new day. A day without corporate masters or forced slavery to credit card companies. It's heart-breaking that neither of the Deomcratic front-runners have any substance whatsoever. Vote Edwards.

[Kungfublood]

She hasn't even challenged the massive vote fraud that handed her the election! ..oh