The Men Who Made Me Love Hillary

I have the reputation of being something of a Hillary-hater. It's understandable: the PAC I founded, Democratic Courage, ran the first anti-Hillary ad of the primaries. But for all my very public opposition to Hillary's presidential candidacy, the vice presidential picks being floated by Obama are making Hillary - or a Hillary-like candidate - look increasingly attractive for the number two slot. Because for all of Hillary's faults, she has a toughness and a willingness to play offense sorely needed in a campaign in which the man at the top of the ticket has so far responded to attacks on his character, his patriotism, and his policies primarily by whining about the attacks themselves.

That's not a mistake Hillary often makes. While Hillary has in the past displayed a troubling, self-defeating willingness to cave to Republican pressure on her policy positions, she hardly ever does that when it comes to defending her character and love of country. She and her advisors have James Carville and Paul Begala's most basic lesson of political summer school wired into their DNA: "It's hard for your opponent to say bad things about you when your fist is in his mouth."

That's Politics 101 for the former Bush advisors now running the McCain campaign, but it's something Obama has forgotten, at least temporarily. As a result, it's Obama who has been coughing up fingernails for the past few months - as well as losing support in the polls and control of the national agenda.

Unfortunately, the coterie of cautious centrists being touted by the Obama campaign as short-listers for the vice presidential nod are hardly up to the task of taking on the Republican attack machine. Instead, many of them have spent their entire careers stuck in the same fetal crouch from which Obama has recently conducted his campaign: afraid to stand up and fight for a progressive agenda or themselves, responding to Republican attacks on their policies by abandoning their principles, and wary of ever going on the attack.

Start with the likely-veep-du-jour, Indiana senator Evan Bayh. As chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council from 2001 to 2005, Bayh pushed the DLC's signature idea: that Democrats could win only by parroting Republican ideas and avoiding any stands for progressive values, or, more broadly, avoiding fights with Republicans. As I discuss in my book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, this idea was spectacularly and obviously wrong: not only do voters share progressive values on most issues, it's absurd to advocate that they follow the polls even when public opinion shifts. Only about six percent of voters' decisions are made on the basis of issues; in contrast, voters do make up their minds to a far greater extent by evaluating candidates' "integrity" and "strong leadership," qualities that are hard to project if candidates slavishly follow the polls, abandon their principles, and avoid tough fights. The DLC, Bayh-supported strategy led Democrats to abandon their core values for political expediency, but has also frequently made them look weak and ridiculous as Republicans mock them for those repeated craven surrenders.

But Bayh only presided over the Democratic Leadership Council; Sam Nunn founded it. For Nunn, the Council was the vehicle through which he pursued his lifelong ambition: to move the Democratic Party firmly rightward. Here's how George Stephanopolous described Nunn in his memoir All Too Human:

Nunn had headed Clinton's Georgia campaign, but with friends like him we didn't need enemies. As a matter of policy, he supported the military ban on homosexuals, but he was also peeved by Clinton's failure to name him secretary of state and happy to throw some pebbles in the path of his former House counterpart, Les Aspin. All through our first week, Nunn held our first bill - the Family and Medical Leave Act - hostage until he got his way on gays in the military. The gay community was convinced Nunn was a homophobe, a view the president and I decided we agreed with after an interminable negotiating session in the cabinet room with Nunn and his fellow Democrats on the Armed Services Committee.

This was not Nunn's only effort to sabotage Clinton's presidency for being, in his right wing eyes, too liberal. He also joined five other senators in opposing Clinton's first budget, the marquee element of the president's economic recovery strategy. Then, in 1995 he joined just two other Democrats in supporting Newt Gingrich's Contract with America budget. He was a faithless senator and would be a faithless vice president.

Virginia governor Tim Kaine is, in many ways, the product of Sam Nunn and the DLC's successes. Although the DLC's political theories were largely concocted as a ploy to convince Democrats to move rightward regardless of what that did to Democrats' electoral fortunes, they were successful in persuading large numbers of Democrats to adopt them because of a very savvy marketing plan: instead of selling their corporate-friendly centrist ideas on the merits, the DLC pushed them in the one way guaranteed to get the attention of politicians and partisans of any ideological stripe by arguing that centrist policies would help Democrats get elected. It was a smart move. On this field of debate, they had no opposition. There was no progressive equivalent to the DLC - a group making a systematic case that progressive policies are not only a good idea for the country, but the only agenda Democrats could ride to victory (ironically, though Hillary nominally holds a senior position in the DLC, she's never been totally of the DLC, frequently arguing against their policies while she was in the White House and Senate). However bogus the DLC arguments were, they were able to gain currency because no one was effectively making a counterargument in political rather than policy terms. In the battle for a politician's heart, political expediency (or the perception of it) usually trumps morals.

And in the battle for Tim Kaine's heart, false perceptions of expediency certainly won out. Despite running for governor in 2005 as a principled candidate driven by his deep Catholic faith, Kaine has become something of a poll-and-cash zombie, easily intimidated by whichever special interest is screaming the loudest or throwing the most cash around Richmond.

It's why, despite touting his faith as the reason for his opposition to the death penalty (a position I disagree with), he's denied clemency to prisoners and authorized executions to go ahead. It's why he greased the wheels for Dominion Power's ultra-polluting new coal fired power plant in southwest Virginia and lined up with right wing groups to support Virginia's reactionary "right to work" labor laws, which put major legal burdens in the way of workers organizing unions.

Kaine's fear of confrontation is so great that when he had the opportunity to articulate a compelling case for his party and their policies at the national level, he failed utterly, which you would think might be a disqualifier (or at least a serious impediment) to even being considered for the vice presidential slot. His 2006 official Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union was widely panned for its vagueness, for his nervous tentativeness, and his unwillingness to offer much in the way of criticism of Bush and the Republicans.

He hasn't provided much evidence that he would respond to Republican napalm by doing anything other than echoing Republican talking points or articulating the vaguest apple pie bromides, certainly not going on the offense. And like Bayh and Nunn, Kaine's pick would seriously divide the party - leaving environmentalists and union members furious at Obama for choosing someone who's so frequently fought their progressive agenda, rather than fighting alongside them. Indeed, these Democrats have spent so much time poking key Democratic constituencies in the eye that it's not hard to envision one of them provoking delegates to try and elect someone else, resulting in a nasty floor fight that would make Democrats look divided (though might be worth it if it led to a better vice presidential candidate).

In contrast, choosing Hillary would, almost by definition, unite the Democratic Party. Almost half of Democrats voted for her in the primaries. Adding that support to Obama's support - rather than leaving Hillaryites seething, resentful and marginalized could bring a lot of donors, activists, and voters who've so far been sitting on the sideline.
Of course, Obama may decide for personal or political reasons that he just doesn't want to work with Hillary, which is his prerogative.

But he's got to choose someone with a splash of Hillary's toughness (and maybe more): Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, General Wesley Clark, Delaware senator Joe Biden, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, and even Montana governor Brian Schweitzer have all shown courage in standing up for themselves, their policies, and the Democratic Party (as has Obama's "most effective surrogate," John Kerry). Democrats will be basically enthusiastic about any of those choices, avoiding the risk of completely undermining Obama's efforts to paint himself as a "uniter."

There is no more important test of a presidential candidate than his choice for vice president. With Obama flailing under McCain's constant attacks, he desperately needs a vice president with backbone, principles, and a little bit of flair. It may be Hillary, it may be Reed, but, please God, just don't let it be from the DLC.

Comments

[max08]

STOP IT, JUST STOP IT! Choosing a president on the basis of who can endure the opposite party's attack machine is like choosing a class president based on who survives the gang in the schoolyard. The stupid gang in the schoolyard.

This is so 20th C. This is so old-persony.

[LeanLeftAmerica]

I Support Obama with or without Hillary. Everyone who believes in Obama should make that pledge.

I don't expect to like every decission Obama makes. And I don't know who is the better VP choice. If it were obvious, there would be concensus here.

There is not.

He has a tough decission to make. Let him make it (with your support).

I Support Obama with or without Hillary.

[Pherdnut]

I didn't realize Obama's campaign had actually publicly released a short-list. Why do we keep confusing punditry fantasies for reality?

[Freesia2]

You know, if you think about it, it's really pretty amazing that we've managed to get over 40 Presidents elected when you consider that they had to do it without Hillary by their side.

George Washington couldn't believe his good fortune that he got to take the oath without her help. Abraham Lincoln thought the Civil War was a walk in the park after the strain of getting through an election without Hillary. FDR won 4 terms and I hear everytime he got the vote he was truly amazed that he'd pulled it off one more time without Hillary - talk about luck. Jack Kennedy almost threw in the towel when he realized how hard it would be to win without her. Lyndon did what he could and somehow they soldiered on. And there were so many more. The list of those brave men is truly inspiring.

But somehow they managed to struggle through. And I think it's a real testiment to the American spirit that so many people have dared to campaign without her. I don't know how they did it. I get a lump in my throat.

[JimR]

Please, I beg of you, stop this insanity. This is an absolutely terrible idea. It would be political suicide for Obama to put Hillary on the ticket.

Let's face it - the vast majority of Democrats, while all are not exactly thrilled with Obama, are going to vote for him. Sure, you've got your crazed PUMAs who will work against him. But nothing short of Obama's head on a platter, making Hillary the nominee and drafting a Constitutional Amendment apologizing for perceived harsh treatment of her will appease them.

What you need to be thinking about is moderates and independents. Those are the votes Obama will need.

Put HIllary on the ticket, you lose some Obama supporters, you automatically lose many moderates and independents who don't like her, and you energize the Republican base like no one can, including McCain.

This is insanity.

[SaddieMcCall]

Hillary can't even generate the support of her own "18 million supporters" - they are not even willing to pay $2 to pay off her debts. Seems like many of her supporters were from Operation Chaos. I've even seen cars where I live with the Operation Chaos bumper stickers. Hillary is not able to lead, govern. She had no control over her campaign. After the Edwards scandal, one should also ask, do we really want Bill around again?

[TommyMcCarthy]

Well, since you ask, you betcha
tm

[FiveFortyOne]

You guys are silly. It's a good thing you're not campaign managers. If you look deeper inside the national polls that show Barack Obama maintaining the same lead he had last month (which national poll shows he's "losing support"?) you'll see a majority of voters saying John McCain "attacked unfairly." Obama knows what he's doing. He doesn't need your advice, just your support.

[Tommygun264]

The only problem with HRC is she's still gunning (figure of speech) for Obama more than she is McSame and her hubby is still acting like a petulant child. Obama needs a VP who will back HIM up, not McSame.

[SaddieMcCall]

It's interesting how Hillary is unwilling to go after McCain.

[dreffein]

I think that Obama would do very well with HRC on his ticket. Her fire and passion will humanize the Obama campaign and her policy wonk credentials are impeccable. Finally, she adds connections with many groups that could broaden Obama's base. She is probably one of the only VP picks that could actually pick up votes.

[standard]

Not so fast!

Yes, Obama needs a hard-hitting VP on the ticket, like Biden, Dodd, McCaskill, Clark or Sebelius. But, "[C]hoosing Hillary would, almost by definition, unite the Democratic Party"? That's so wrong, it's unreal!

Mrs. Clinton is a self-absorbed, old-line Washington politician with DLC values filled (as Richard Belzer put it) with voracious guile. She embodies the past and galvanizes the Right. Her presence on the ticket would undermine the Party's message of change. It would reverse the inroads Sen. Obama has made with millions of independents and moderate Republicans. And if the ticket somehow won (thank you, Bob Barr), she'd be positioned to undermine an Obama Presidency with impunity: VP's can't be fired.

If Obama picks Mrs. Clinton, all bets are off--and that encompasses millions of dollars and millions of votes. The Party needs to keep Mrs. Clinton in the Senate and off the ticket every bit as much as it needs to jettison Joe Lieberman. Otherwise, "unity" will become a distant memory.

[vonny]

What unity?????

[LarBear]

vonny....

You know how G W Bush is open to discussion, then says, well it's settled, we do it my way..........

Obama's idea of Unity is simple... Everyone falls in line behind Obama...

We now have Republicans... Democrats... And, a new Party called Obamacrats... Where have you been hiding...
Perhaps after the Election, actual Democrats will form what we have needed for a long time... A viable, more middle of the Road, between extreme Left and Right, Liberal/ Conservative, Party... Where we Conserve what is best about America, her working people and Liberate us from a Corporate influenced Congress... Not anti Big Business, just anti Corporate Greed, disguised as Capitalist...

Imagine rules that any Corporation going Bankrupt first reclaimed money from CEO/ Management who brought about the Bankruptcy, before working people were involved... No dumping years of Negotiated Pension and rewarding Management for undermining employees... Begin to split huge Banking/Loan Institutes apart so no more bailouts, because one Entity is "to big to fail"...
While we're at it how about 2 New Political Parties... Idea, so NO two Party Corrupted System could ever Dominate American Politics again, either... Maybe actually set up a Nationwide Independent Party, where actual Independents stood an even chance of getting Elected... Rules made by the Corrupt Dominant Two Party's for Elections, would have to be changed first though...
The USA might be saved from her Inner Enemies! POGO: WE have met the Enemy and IT is US!

[pattio66]

"She embodies the past and galvanizes the Right." Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself...

[LisaJeanM]

You all seem not to be noticing the bleeding obvious which is that H il lary probably has no interest in being O's VP. You really picture her as his Second? (Absurd!) And is this an example of a *progressive's* sense of perception? (Or should I say lack thereof?) I see H il lary far more likely to go back to the Senate or possibly (possibly) accept a prominent cabinet position. Certainly there will be a lot of future time spent kicking the cr^p out of her husband.

And may I ask a question of the **Progressives** here? As a non-partisan I find this term 'progressive' rather uniquely annoying. I keep hearing that term ad nauseum around these boards. A fairly smug, (dare I say 'elitist') word to describe oneself...??

[reliant1]

`I ain't no progressive..I'm a gun collecting, corn growing, cow killing, life long Dem.

I be smug and elite.

And she would be a fool to take the VP slot - not that it will be offered. She has enough to worry about - her Senate seat will be in play. If her internal polling shows it'll be a real fight - she'll take a cabinet post. Either way - Bill will be a shadow of his former self when she gets done with him.

[AJ39]

Well said.

After BO won the Primary, I did not think Hillary would be a good choice for VP. Too much baggage. But as the Obama campaign has progressed (or not) I think he needs her for the reasons you mention and more and for the snooze factor of the candidates being top-ranked now.

In addition to her hard work and guts, she has strengths where BO needs them: Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Other toss up states, too, but he probably can carry many of the others. He's got to carry Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida - long shot - would sure help.

BO wouldn't, would he, choose someone with no foreign policy creds?

[vonny]

I don't thin BO will be worrying about a VP......Just today, courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News, we confirmed that Barack aka Barry Soetoro Obama was a citizen of Kenya since 1963. Barack has yet to stipulate when he renounced or relinquished that citizenship. That will be a distracting issue in the upcoming campaign. Americans don"t want to elect a Kenyan as President. It is that simple.

The republicans are loaded for bear.

[FACINGREALIT]

Vonny, your rumors will not work. Obama was born in Hawaii - even if your 'alleged' citizenship theory were true - there are many Americans that hold dual citizenship and the criteria for a president is that he is a naturalized citizen which Obama is - born in the USA. Now McCain was 'born' in Panama - owever, it was ruled that he is an American citizen by the mere nature of his parents citizenship. Although technically - he doesn't fit the naturalized (born in the USA) requirement.

So get over yourself - you can believe if your rumors had any possible 'roots' the Clintons would have already named that tree!

[LarBear]

Challenge to Obama supporters...
Hillary's supporters truly see her as a symbol of Fighting to make our Nation better... Is she, like ALL of us, flawed... YES! Washington Insider? YES! Which equates to Political Experience on National/ International Level... Have Clinton's fought to make Life better for ALL in USA/ World... YES! Have mistakes been made? YES! However, Primarily, flaws and all, she's a Fighter...
Obama said self-deprecating: "It's become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign -- that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions"...
Obama supporters refer to him as "THE ONE"... NO FLAWS! Even when he does 180 flips, Obama supporters rationalize that..... Trust Him.... He knows what he's doing....He has to get elected... ALL, rationalized, mentally justified, in supporters minds... Clearly he's become, Flawless Celebrity, in supporters minds... Sigh.... That's exzactly how some Bush supporters still honestly percieve him...
Anyone disagreeing with adulation of THE ONE in those supporters minds/words, becomes: Racist, REPUG, McSame supporters, Repuke, etc...
Obama, Constitutional Scholar, potential President, voted YES to Immunity to Constitutional Law BREAKING Telecom's... Voted YES, for Bush to continue Broad Spectrum SPYING on Citizens... Voted YES to give HIMSELF that same OK... (McCain too)... McCain didn't even VOTE...
That should disqualify OBAMA and McCain in every Citizen mind in Protecting our Constitution...

[reliant1]

Perhaps it's all the 'fighting', maybe it's her obvious pleasure in the 'fight'.

Fighting seems to be plan A. She occasionally wins some, but she's lost a lot more. Built up alot of negatives in the process.

Some of her supporters refer to as the 'chief' and light candles for her...

She's a mythological icon to a small swathe of supporters....sigh.

She is a politician, as is O. Neither are perfect. Both have flaws. Each has a vision for how to move forward. Fighting with congress for every piece of legislation is not the best way. The legislation fails to pass or is so amended as to be unrecognizable.

We don't need a fighting politician right now.

We need a 'no drama' politician who control his staff, his message and understands the art of compromise.

You defeat your point when you say "truly her supporters see her as a symbol..." as if her symbolism has more cache.

I haven't drunk the kool aid. I just believe he's right for this point in our history and has a better chance of getting more done - with a whole lot less fighting.


And the celeb thing - just what offends you about O saying it's not about him and he's just a symbol of Americans hope?

But as you said..."all supporters rationalize".

It's good to recognize that in yourself and in others.

[ESerafina42]

Some things are WORTH fighting for, like, oh, the Constitution.

[LarBear]

reliant1... YOU ASKED: " And the celeb thing - just what offends you about O saying it's not about him and he's just a symbol of Americans hope?"

Because Hope for Change is an Illusion... Change bringing Hope of more change, makes sense... But Hope changes nothing!
OBAMA's "that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin" is very much about tooting his own horn... There was a Concert afterwards... Were 200,000 there because of him?

Why would anyone, seeking change, Vote for a Candidate (Obama) who is a Constitutional Scholar, who put his hand upon the Bible and swore an Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution, then Voted YES on the FISA Amendment???

He Voted YES, against his previous pledge, and gave Immunity to those Telecom's who chose to violate the Constitution, because there was money in their pocket for doing so...

He Voted YES, to allow the Bush Administration to continue the UN-Constitutional Spying Bush began pre 9-11...

He KNOWINGLY Voted YES, giving Himself (or McCain), or whomever is Voted into the Office of President, the OK to continue Broad Spectrum SPYING on USA Citizens...

That is NOT Change! That is a continuation of Bush into Obama... Bush is now setting up Domestic Sattelite Spying on Americans... Congress is not sure they can trust Bush in that Spying... Why NOT??? Obama, the Republican's, and the Obamacrat's, do... Must be some actual Democrats resisting???

Thank You, Glad you asked...

[TommyMcCarthy]

Heck of a post...

I'd like very much to see Obama inaugurated in January........

Logically he should make it no matter what....

Unfortunately he still has the headwind of racial predudice to contend with

It would be ironic if he were forced to make the most progressive choice for VP (Biden or Clinton),in part for that reason.

In any event Mr Hurowitz, has done all of us a good turn by reminding us of Bayh and Kaine's histories....and why they are both unacceptable
tm

[havisham]

He also has his high-profile "move" to the center to deal with. Even more than racism, the calculated and/or craven positions he has taken up after the primary have done more harm to his campaign,blurring the line between him and mccain. Hurowitz comes close here to saying that we can't have two spineless centrists on the same ticket and expect to win.

[Lemeritus]

I would hesitate to use the word "craven". havisham. That is a crushing description. And yet, I've felt pressed under many boulders of "compromise", more politic -- IMHO --than wise.

The two observations that reverberate for me are these:
1. Rachel Maddow's remark that, given the choice between a real Republican and a faux Republican, Americans will choose the real one every time. Many of the people who post here regularly cling to the word "compromise" like a rabbit's foot against defeat; others of us see defeat in the word itself every time we move our agenda into the well-worn wagon ruts laid down by the Republicans.
2. Peter Gabel's admonition that: "A real left needs to do the opposite of defending the empty center, which is perpetually self-erasing and actually blocks the development of a progressive movement. Instead, we must try to emerge into public visibility -- visibility to one another."

Obama's stubborn stasis in the polls seem to indicate he's not successfully courting the marginal Republicans, nor convincing the "empty center", or even shoring up support within his own base. Many believe his compromises are signs of genius but, like you, havisham, I'm not so sure. His choice of vice president will signal the constituency most important to him.

[sharonh]

"But for all my very public opposition to Hillary's presidential candidacy, the vice presidential picks being floated by Obama are making Hillary - or a Hillary-like candidate - look increasingly attractive for the number two slot. Because for all of Hillary's faults, she has a toughness and a willingness to play offense sorely needed in a campaign in which the man at the top of the ticket has so far responded to attacks on his character, his patriotism, and his policies primarily by whining about the attacks themselves. That's not a mistake Hillary often makes. "

It sounds like maybe you are realizing you should have supported her for the number one slot from the beginning.

[Fabienne]

Too late for that, isn't it? C'est dommage.

[engineer68]

And it is a good thing that it is to late for Hillary. I voted for her in the NY primary, but with all the problems the next President is going to inherit, I am glad she is going to be spared the grief. Everything would be her fault because she is a woman, or weak, or because of her husband, etc.

[Glenn Hurowitz - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm glad I supported Edwards and then Obama. If Obama starts to stand up for himself, he has enormous potential to build a more powerful progressive movement and Democratic Party for the long run in the way few others do.

[Yasmine]

PLease do not forget that forso many years we have been told again and again by Reps that America is a right of center country.............meaning that the LEFT has no chance.
Also it has been established that elections are won in the middle................so Moderation is necessary.
Last but not least, OBAMA said he wanted to be a UNITER and as such he HAS to BE a CENTRIST right now.
Let us give the Dems a VETO -Proof majority and pass into LAW some of the ISSUES the Left claims they are for even if it is a Moderate Centrist President OBAMA.
the ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT and getting the JOB done.........
DO NOT BE TOO PICKY now...........we can do that after the election.

[FACINGREALIT]

Your argument for Hillary lacks validity as you fail to realize and recognize that she was rejected by the majority of the Democratic party. What is also neglected is the number of republicans that voted for Hillary in anticipation of her being the nominee so as to mobilize their base.

Hillary brings a fighting spirit - true - however, we've been fighting for 7.6 years to no avail. Fighting as brought us two wars, failed economic policies, distrust around the world, and many more enemies than friends. Hillary is also a part of the most litigated White House in history, polarizing, and hated by every republican known to man. To say we can only win with a Clinton is silly politics at its best and I hope to have further discussions when Obama is president and Hillary is not his VP. As you stated you chose Edwards first and if memory serves me well - he wasn't an attack dog, yet you feel Obama must be, as such - I question your judgment on this matter.