Hillary As An Agent of Change

Is Senator Hillary Clinton ready to serve as president? And, if elected would she be an agent of change or a protector of the status quo?

I have known Hillary Clinton since she first met my friend Bill Clinton at Yale Law School and he fell head over heels in love with her. I had met Bill at Oxford when he was rooming as a Rhodes Scholar with my brother-in-law. Bill brought Hillary to my family home in Los Angeles, where we spent many hours talking about the changes taking place in the US in the 1960s and prospects for progressive reform. Polls show that by virtue of her political experience and her recognized talents, people recognize that Hillary is almost uniquely ready to serve as president and as commander-in-chief, even among those who politically oppose her. But I also have good reasons for believing that were she to be elected, she would be an even more effective and accomplished president than her husband. Because of her abilities and sensibilities, and the likely circumstances of her winning, Hillary would be a strong leader who manages change in the public interest-at home and abroad--in the manner of FDR or Harry Truman. She is, in fact, the true heir to the New Deal tradition of the Democratic Party, but for a new era.

This opinion, I believe, is reality-based, not simply the wishful thinking of an old friend. I have had the opportunity to see her up close as a political actor on the world and national stage and to observe her evolution over decades.

While serving as US Ambassador to Finland in the 1990s, I hosted Hillary for a two-day visit to Helsinki. I organized a meeting of what the Finnish press called "the most powerful women in the country" to talk with her at my official residence. In Finland at the time, the Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, Speaker of the Parliament and head of the National Bank were all women. They came to meet the First Lady along with a few leading women entrepreneurs and business executives, and top editors and authors. For more than two hours, they discussed public policy and politics. The lively discussion ranged from the details of Finnish health policy to the difficulties that women face in the political arena. These women viewed Hillary as an important political figure in her own right. She had no aides to prompt her or hand her cue cards. Afterwards, many of the women told me how impressed they were with her, and that they hoped that one day she would run for president.

On that visit, I also accompanied Hillary to a one-on-one meeting with Martti Ahtisaari, the President of Finland, and an accomplished UN diplomat. The conversation with the president went on for two hours and ranged over complex issues of European security and US foreign policy. It was very much a discussion of equals in intelligence.

Hillary also won over my skeptical staff at the US embassy, many of whom had read the negative US press about her and expected that she would be a kind of shrewish Dragon Lady. In fact, she charmed everyone at the embassy with her openness, her sense of humor, and her natural kindness. She took the time to ask personal questions of my staff, and to thank them for their service -- from the political officers and military attaches to my cook and driver.

"She was not what I had expected," one of my intelligence officers remarked. "She is terrific and incredibly smart." That speaker was a lifelong Republican.

As First Lady, Hillary made visits to other embassies across the globe, and I heard reports from colleagues at posts in Asia and Africa and Europe that mirrored my own observations of her in Finland. She impressed international leaders with her knowledge, ability, and charm, and she learned from these experiences. On her final night in Finland, we took a walk without security along the rocky coast to a café overlooking the harbor. My cell phone rang, and it was President Clinton, checking in with his wife, asking her for advice on a political matter in Washington. I heard her recount to him how much she enjoyed visiting Finland -- a country that combines a dynamic market economy with a societal commitment to equality and community -- and how it seemed to be the kind of decent society that we should strive for back home.

During the 1992 campaign, I had observed first-hand Hillary respond calmly and coolly to challenging and embarrassing political crises, and even to her own political gaffes. After her unfortunate comment about not wanting to be the little woman who stayed at home and baked, my sister who traveled with her at the time gave her our family chocolate chip recipe. She got the message, and had cookies baked and served them to the press corps. Not only does Hillary have an ability to laugh at herself, but she quickly learns from her mistakes. She has a first class temperament -- a hallmark of many great political leaders.

Many political pundits said that she would fall on her face when she ran for the Senate in New York, but she proved them wrong. As a senator, she assembled one of the most talented, effective staffs in the Congress, and she displayed tact and deftness in working with other senators, even across the aisle with Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. As president, she will be ready on day one to work closely with Congressional leaders to move a progressive agenda forward. Her colleagues know her and respect her -- and if she had not chosen to run for President, I am certain that she would have been the next Majority Leader.

She chose to serve on the Senate military committee. One four star officer with whom I worked on NATO peacekeeping had to testify before the committee and also meet privately with her. He told me afterwards that she was direct, had a mastery of complex issues, and was the opposite of patronizing or defensive about military issues. Her views on defense and foreign policy are progressive as well as nuanced and thoughtful. She does not play to the crowd with cheap rhetoric. She has promised to bring US troops out of Iraq, but having a grasp of the challenges involved she will do it in a way that does not make a bad situation worse. And she will do it with the close consultation and cooperation of the military. She understands the importance of American moral leadership, and how much "Brand America" has been tarnished by the rash and radical policies of the Bush administration. She knows first hand how the administration has ignored the counsel of professionals in the Pentagon, State Department and CIA. She would restore competence to the US government, and begin to repair our damaged standing in the world. She understands, as President Bush does not, that the leader of the US is also a kind of president of the world, and has responsibility to lead but not to try to dominate. She does not need a Henry Kissinger or other eminence grises to tell her what to think about the world. She has a depth of experience and a detailed understanding of international affairs. She will assemble a talented and progressive team to manage US national security and work with other nations to construct a new New Deal for the age of globalization. That is her vision.

As for change at home, her commitment to progressive values should never be held in doubt. Since she was a student at Wellesley protesting the Vietnam War and then as an activist law student at Yale when I first met her, she has been a progressive. In New Haven, she worked at Yale medical school on issues of early childhood education and health care, and she is committed to bringing universal health care to the US. She is not an ideologue about the means, but she is unswerving about the goal, and she knows that other countries have found various ways to achieve this end and that we can too. Her interest and commitment to children and their welfare is signified by her lifelong support for her friend Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, and for the issues that Edelman has championed.

All of her adult life she has displayed a passionate regard for how government can expand opportunity for all of our citizens by leveling the playing field for those not blessed with wealthy parents. As First Lady in Arkansas, she made educational reform her priority. President Carter appointed her to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, and she fought to expand its provision of legal services for poor Americans. She has fought for her beliefs, and when she has lost she has gotten back up and continued the struggle, altering tactics if necessary to achieve practical results. Hillary is a hard-headed, reality-based, practical progressive -- and it is no accident that the Radical Right opposes her and has tried to bring her down. They know that she will not fold under pressure of attack, and that she cannot be bought off by special interests.

Unlike her husband -- the most gifted natural politician of my generation -- Hillary has not always wanted to be President or even Senator. In fact, it was Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York who suggested that she run for the Senate, not her husband or some political advisor. She has grown in to her political persona. Hillary wants to be President for the change that she can bring in the lives of our citizens and in the actions of our country -- for the opportunity to make a better, fairer and more decent American society and global community -- not just for the position and power that the job brings. Of this, I am dead certain.

And she knows from her years alongside her husband that as President she cannot be a leader of change by herself. It is myth and misunderstanding that a president alone can change a nation for the better (although, as we have learned, a bad president can do great damage). Hillary understands that only with allies in Congress and in statehouses and city halls across the nation can she drive forward a progressive agenda. And she understands that she will need to inspire and empower citizen groups to push for reform. FDR did not make the New Deal by himself. He led a national government that responded with passion and strength to workers and citizens who raised their voices for progressive change. If Hillary is elected President, and if as is likely a solidly Democratic Congress is elected, she will have helped to change the political atmosphere of the country, to create hope for the possibility of progressive change -- and she will be in a position to lead that change. It will be an historic moment of great consequence to the nation, and I have no doubt that she will be equal to the task. I cannot think of another American politician who would be better prepared. Strengthened by her bond with the Americans who elect her, Hillary would also reach out to the reasonable Republicans within the Congress who can be partners -- precisely in order to enact a reform agenda.

History sometimes provides opportunities for nations and for leaders -- but the outcome is not predetermined. I have spent forty years in progressive movements and democratic governments, first as a student activist then as an official in state and local government, and later as a federal official and US diplomat. I would not stake my reputation on supporting just another politician. I know Hillary, I trust her and I am certain that she is one person who will be the leader that our time demands.

Derek Shearer served as US Ambassador to Finland in the Clinton administration. He has worked in state and local government in California, and been active in progressive politics for four decades. He is currently Chevalier Professor of Diplomacy at Occidental College in Los Angeles.

Comments

[DatelessNerd]

Time and time again, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she would rather be President than be right.

And that is why she should never be President.

[coop]

Listen Derek, Think about it this way.
Half the Democrats don't want her, all the Republicans despise her, and most of the Independents won't vote for her. Call me crazy, but that sounds like she'll get what, 25% of the national vote?

Even if all the Democrats bite their tongues and vote for her if she gets the nomination, there won't be a massive rush to vote, and she'll lose to a Republican because they will be united.

Just about any other Democratic candidate would be preferred to Hillary and people would get behind them. I know so many people want to make history with the first woman President, but that's not a good enough reason.

Why push someone on us who is so divisive and has no chance of winning? Hillary isn't going to be president, just face it. If she really cared about this country she'd get out of the race and support someone who can win and be a good president too. If she stays in, and Obama and Edwards lose to her, say hello to president Huckabee or Giuliani.

[texanna]

While she may have been an activist once and might still have some Progressive ideals, she's taken a lot of money from too many of the corporations that have a stranglehold on our government and the country. I can't believe that the money isn't going to talk louder than the long-ago activism and Progressive ideals. There's also that pesky vote on the resolution that Shrub took as a "go" sign from Congress. I mean, seriously, she must've been the only one in the country that thought Shrub would only use force as a last resort. He can't pronounce diplomacy and hasn't the foggiest idea of who the other world leaders are, so that just wasn't going to happen. No, he was going to go straight to war -- which he did! And the recent Kyle-Lieberman vote. I think Shrub said it best,"Fool me once, fool me, fool, uh, well, you can't fool me all the time." To vote for that one, you would have to buy the BS that the Army has put out about the IED's ALL being supplied by Iran (an assertion that they never did substantiate at those show and tells they would have for the press) AND believe that Shrub wouldn't go straight to war -- AGAIN! These things are really keeping me from being enthusiastic about Hillary.

[mcearlgrey]

Waitaminit ... STOP THE PRESSES ... you're telling us a *woman* spoke ably and knowledgeably about "complex issues"? Get right outta town!

I know dozens of women who can hold court on political issues who I'd rather see in the White House than Mrs. Clinton.

Also, as for her "unswerving" commitment to "progressive causes," 30 seconds on Google is all it takes to eviscerate this bullshit claim. She was a Goldwater girl. Not a problem in itself, Barry Goldwater was a hero and patriot, but he was also a radical libertarian who wanted to dismantle the entire social safety net. It's a logical impossibility for someone who supported Goldwater to be the "true heir" to the New Deal Democrats, unless she's just an enormous liar who has her friends tell enormous lies in the press.

[ECJLA]

You are in denial. As recounted in an article at http://www.counterpunch.com a few weeks ago, following law school and after flunking the DC bar Hillary turned down an offer to be chief counsel to the Children's Defense Fund, moved to Arkansas and joined the Rose law firm, which serves only corporate clients. Her first cases involved overturning a progressive law benefiting consumers pushed through the state legislature by ACORN, the nation's foremost community organizers, by successfully arguing on behalf of an Arkansas utility client that the law constituted a "taking" of the utility's property without due process; and then defending another corporate client against the claims of an injured worker. She has never looked back. In the phrase Garry Treudeau coined years ago, Hillary Clinton did not just "sell out", she "bought in". There is nothing in her character (which is tested in times of trouble, such as when one flunks the bar the first time) or record since to suggest that she would be anything but a status quo neo-Republican in the awful event she is nominated and elected.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, Califoria

[dnels14]

GREAT ARTILCE ..I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE!!!!

NOW. OBIEDEN? SOON HIS PACEMAKER BATTERIES-JUST LIKE JOHN MCAINS ARE GOING TO CORRODE..I JUST HAD TO SAY GUYS..

GO HILLARY 2008 AND BEYOND..

[factanonverba]

She is not a progressive Liberal. She is a centrist Democrat with ties to corporate America. Half of your post is dedicated to how intelligent and hard-working she is. We are not disputing that. She has a degree from Wellesley College and a law degree from Yale plus 25 years of public and private sector work. And you're right, she is able to work with her Republican colleagues in the Senate but I hardly see that as a plus. Senator Feinstein too has shown "bipartisanship" but I don't really applaud surrender. Her vote on Iran was calculated and her whole stance on Iraq reprehensible. And because she was a progressive in the 1960s and 70s certainly does not mean she is one now. She is a free trader, a Wall Street centrist, a corporate interest beholder. On social issues, she may score better with progressive Liberals than she does on economic issues but that still belies the fact that Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd and Obama still outflank her. They tout her "experienc­e." My answer to that is look where "experience" has gotten us, so I'm willing to try "inexperie­nce." We really couldn't fare any worse, could we?

[gtt]

Mr. Shearer, your good friend is no agent for change. Votes for Kyle/Lieberman, Iraq war, and her associations with Walmart and Murdock make me nervous. I was a fan of Hillary years ago... but now I just think of her as the "Goldwater Girl" that she once was. I suspect that she is an agent... but for what or whom ? Certainly not for progressive democrats. Vote John Edwards, and get a real agent for change!

[HansB]

As a foreigner very much concerned with the coming US elections - the whole world is - I'm sorry to see these comments. Of course Clinton's vote for the war and for Kyl-Lieberman are troubling, and I can well understand that many prefer other candidates - as do I. But let's not get too negative. The Dems have a terrific field of candidates. Every single one of them would make a good president - as opposed to the Republicans who haven't been able to find a single credible candidate in the entire US of A. However much Clinton is linked to AIPAC and lobbyists, she still represents a sea change from Republican administration. So do all the other Democratic candidates, of course, and more so for many of them. Still, don't spit in the soup, as they say in France. You may find you want to eat it after all.

[globalcitizenlinda]

Do you really belive that any one believes that Hillary is an agent of change? You must have a very low opinion of the American people.

If Hillary was an agent of change, she would have been at the fore-front of opposing any attempt to even create a belief that attacking Iran would be a possibility - she did not. In fact she used the same argument that threat of force is the best diplomacy for Iran.

If Hillary was an agent of change she would realize that her candidacy among all democratic party candidates poses the greatest threat to this country not realizing a change in party in the White House, congress and senate. She would instead support the other candidates who will at least increase the possibility of widening the majority.

If Hillary was an agent of change, she would not take huge political contributions from the companies that are helping to perpetuate the Iraq war and engage in money-making schemes as contractors.

If Hillary was an agent of change, she would not have taken huge contributions from lobbyist of insurance and pharmacuetical companies that are opposing changes in health care

[avergejoe]

You are not her only fan.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/11/23/president_bush_supports_hillary_clinton?page=full&comments=true

President Bush Supports Hillary Clinton?

In an interview on Tuesday featuring the first couple and Charles Gibson, the president said of Mrs. Clinton "No question, there is no questio n that Sen. Clinton understands pressure better than any of the candidates, you know, in the race because she lived in the White House and sees it first — could see it first-hand­."

By saying that she “understands the klieg lights,” Bush lent credence to Hillary’s campaign assertion that she could “hit the ground running” if she were elected president.

This is not the first time Bush has rescued the Clintons. After they left the White House, both the former president and the new senator had low ratings in the polls. Beset by scandal — the White House gifts, the pardons-for-sale, the payments to Hillary’s brothers for pardons, the Hasidic vote-for-pardon scandal, and Bill’s nolo contender plea to obstructing justice — Bill and Hillary were sucking wind.

Not only did Bush help the Clintons in positive ways, but he let his justice department drop the investigations of the pardons, the gifts, the payments to Hillary’s brothers and the Hasidic vote scandal with no prosecution or plea dealings.

Then Bush let Clinton off the hook another time when the former president’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was caught smuggling classified documents relating to 9/11 and the war on terror out of the National Archives in his pockets and socks. The Bush Justice Department accepted a plea deal with Berger which did not require him to say what documents he had taken and why he had swiped them.

President Bush has done quite enough to aid Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States. Without his generosity to Bill and his refusal to prosecute matters that could embarrass the Clintons, he bears a great deal of responsibility already for Hillary’s rise to front runner status in the Democratic primary.

[Evolin]

Thank you Mr.Shearer­.
I have not met Hillary Clinton but she is the one I trust to put the constitution back in effect again, fix the errors and misteps of the last seven years.
I know full well the importance of good health care as I cared for my spouse at home for many years who had Alzheimer disease. He died at home. As a nurse I was able to do that with also a good health insurance program.
Now my daughter has breast cancer and she pays COBRA - her company has refused her disability for now even though the cancer has metastasized to her bones.
So I know personally how much a health program is needed.
I also trust her to do that more skillfully­/completel­y/effectiv­ely than the other candidates.
I will continue to support her in any way I can.
This is a very important election with the country so messed up and a lingering costly war.
She is my hope for a better time.

[rwt1138]

This was a very well thought out essay, and you make many good points. However, I cannot get past the fact that Hillary is firmly in the grip of AIPAC, goaded George Bush into this disastrous course with Iran in 2005, and doesn't really seem to stand for anything.

I really hope that she doesn't get the Democratic nomination; I would prefer any of the other candidates. I think has a high potential to be more of the same things we are tired of in the Bush administration.

I sense I may not have much choice; should she get the Democratic nomination, the only candidates that would trump her for my vote are Gore, Bloomberg and Paul; none seem likely at this point.

I would like to believe Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for president. That she would be an advocate for strong civil liberties, proper regulation of industry and finance, and reasonable foreign policy. Alas, at this point, I remain unconvinced.

[grailknight]

Hil as an angent of change? Guffaw!says I. Hil represents a continum of revolving dynasties, something the Founders despised.
Leadership? Guffaw!says I. Where was her leadership as she gave the Bush tandem carte blanche on Iraq? Where was her leadership on Iran?
Whatever her talents are, she has demonstrated on the stump to be every bit as opaque as the Bushes.

[KatherineSF]

Sorry, Derek.

She supported this unending, immoral war when she KNEW there were serious questions about the validity of the "Intelligence" and the reasons given. She will be more of the same, and she will perpetuate the inept forgeign policies that got us into this mess in the first place. It's nice you feel you have to defend your friend, but our future is at stake.

We need a serious change (bordering on a revolution) in this country. And Hillary ain't the one to bring it.