The Hillary Clinton "Experience"

Hillary Clinton emphasizes in speeches and television ads her stint as First Lady as part of the "experience" that gives her a leg up on Barack Obama. But her president husband governed not as a traditional Democrat, but as a moderate Republican. Whether he was "reforming" welfare with draconian measures that hurt poor women and children, or deregulating the telecom and other industries, or passing "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that outsourced American jobs to low-wage countries, President Bill Clinton proudly shifted the Democratic Party's weight away from the bread and butter interests of ordinary people and toward the fat cat interests of Wall Street.

In fact, a lot of the populist sentiment we've been hearing from Democratic candidates recently is partly a result of Bill Clinton's Republican economic policies. The calls for taking on corporate power and using government to help lower-income people stand in stark contrast to the Clinton era's "triangulating" against labor unions and capitulating to the Republicans on kitchen table economic issues. Hillary Clinton cannot deny the fact that the Clinton administration was duplicitous in the long-term Republican project that has destroyed a large swathe of the American middle class. Campaign donations from corporate America flowed into Democratic coffers throughout the 1990s but the party lost its soul in the process. George W. Bush, Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay picked up where Bill Clinton left off and the rest is history. After years of uninterrupted laissez-faire policies "stagflation" has reemerged and even Wall Street isn't smiling any more.

In October 2002, Hillary Clinton supported Bush's Iraq war resolution because she feared the political consequences of what might turn out to be a popular war. And she didn't want to be on record voting against the president's prerogative in foreign policy or being soft on "terrorism." During the triumphant signing ceremony of the resolution, John McCain appeared on stage with Bush and Dick Cheney (and Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman) beaming his contorted smile. Bush couldn't contain his smirk as Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell stoically looked on. His face seemed to say: "Man, our donors are gonna make a ton of money!" (About $900 billion to date in fact.) That disgraceful moment might have been the nadir of the American republic. What are voters to make of Hillary Clinton's backpedaling when she argues along with Condi Rice and other warmongers that "we all got the intel wrong?"

Hillary Clinton's colossally poor judgment on a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of innocent people burdens her presidential candidacy. The vote to grant Bush carte blanche to take our nation to war was the most important she ever cast. And she blew it. The 133 House Democrats and 22 Senate Democrats who voted against handing over Congress's war powers to the pseudo-cowboy from Texas (who executed a record 152 people as governor) felt betrayed by the actions of Democrats like Hillary Clinton. (And the hundreds of thousands of us who were in the streets marching against Bush's rush to war were bitterly disappointed). Today, Clinton, like John McCain, is not interested in discussing how the Iraq war began and why we came to fight a war in the cause of destroying weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. That's all just "history" now they tell us. What does Hillary Clinton's judgment on the subject of Iraq tell us about her "experience" and her place within the Democratic Party?

The Democratic Party should think thrice before nominating Hillary Clinton because it would be putting forth a candidate who is trying to "flip-flop" her way out of her support for Bush's war. It could be a repeat of 2004 when John Kerry, the Vietnam War hero who had a string of Purple Hearts, got creamed after promising to manage the war better instead of opposing it outright. And Kerry was running against a little rich kid draft dodger, not an old warhorse from a military family. How can we expect Hillary Clinton, who never served in the military and never earned a medal, to succeed where a decorated combat veteran failed?

Let's review: In 1976, a governor from Georgia ran against Washington and won. In 1980, a governor from California ran against Washington and won. In 1992, a governor from Arkansas ran against Washington and won (a plurality). And in 2000, a governor from Texas campaigned "against Washington" and succeeded (with the help of the Supreme Court). Now Hillary Clinton wants voters to send her back to the White House because she has been a steady fixture of the corrupt and broken Washington system?

Barack Obama's limited "experience" as a Washington insider serves him well. Obama has an immense advantage over Clinton going into the general election. Washington has not "stewed" or "boiled" the life out him yet (as he likes to say) and therefore Obama is the only viable candidate who can credibly run against Washington in 2008. McCain and Clinton are part of the problem; Obama is part of the solution.

Comments

[maddy03]

Hillary's husband seems to get angry and take the stand of don't pick on my wife.

I am concerned if Hillary becomes the Prez, when the going get tough she will go to Bill to stand up for her. Those tears in NH did NOTHING for me. As Prez , she must be able to stand up to those who disagree with her policies.

I have searched the internet for exactly what she had done as First Lady. Check the net yourselves. YOU decide just how much experience does she have?

Sigh......

[lefthalfback]

"But her president husband governed not as a traditional Democrat, but as a moderate Republican."

Please, please enlighten us on how Obama will unite Republicans and Democrats behind a common purpose (and consequently usher in a golden era of "new politics") by positioning himself far to the left of DLC politics? I understand the hope of individuals like Joseph Palermo to tug the executive and the legislature far from the center. Of course, any Democratic president should expect such an effort to be subject to substantial resistance, which cannot be overcome simply by appeals to unity, hope, or belief. Joseph Palermo can have an Obama who heals the country's partisan divisions, or he can have an Obama who throws the Democratic Party train in reverse from its centrist trajectory of the '90s. I fail to see how he can have both.

(Note: I concede that Hillary Clinton is a "divisive" figure who polarizes Republicans and the readers of this blog alike. I simply wish to point out how Joseph Palermo and others seem to inject their view of an Obama presidency with a political stance that seems flatly inconsistent to the ostensible pst-partisan characteristics by which he has so effectively distinguished himself from Senator Clinton.)

[bellecloche]

Great post, Mr. Palermo.

[bauersox]

I think Clinton's vote about the war is a non-issue. Clearly, with the facts -- and "non facts" -- that were on the table, most people would have voted -- and indeed did vote -- for the war. For some outsider, part-time legislator -- who did not have access to the briefing -- to second guess those who did is hubristic and ludicrous. For you to harp on it, shows you to be sadly locked in a time warp. The fact is that both candidates now want to get us out of the war. If the war is your big issue, perhaps what you need to be addressing -- instead of punishing America for something that happened eight years ago -- is which candidate can now extricate us from it most handily. Some of us don't believe that the still relatively inexperienced Obama is that person.

[timm0]

Uh, this war vote isn't like an approval for assignment of an ambassador to Sweden - which is a non-issue. If the mistakes and egregious errors in judgment leading to the Iraq occupation are a non-issue to you, then all I can say is, "wow... you've got an astonishingly resilient moral firewall."

[Justtellthetruth]

Please look at her vote in the context of her other behavior; She CAMPAINGED for war against Iran with Lieberman and AIPAC, She CAMPAIGNED for the Israeli war against Lebanon, even after it was CLEAR that it was a pointless bloodbath that would never acheive a single one of its stated objectives, and she CHIDED Obama along with the Bush administration for suggesting going after al qeada leaders in Pakistan border regions without pakistani permission, right up until it was announced that predator drones and special forces were sent in (after Obamas comment) the border regions to kill al qeada leaders without Pakistans permission.
She has backed the bush administation on every on of their most ridiculous moves and rhetoric and does not have the sense to see that she has LOST every time.

[Macready]

sorry bauersox . . . 23 Senators voted against the illegal invasion of Iraq . . one was a Republican, the anti-war movement knew the chimp was lying, so did the French, the Canadians, the Germans, the New Zealanders . . . hillary like bill is caught in the strangle hold of triangulation like the good DLCers they are . . . hillary still hasn't accepted responsibility for the her vote . . she still blames the chimp; she underscored her vote for the Iraq invasion by her support of kyl/lieberman .. . . one would have thought she had learned from her previous mistake but no . . . not mz hillary . .. . she shows very poor judgement and cannot stand alone . . . if not for bill she wouldn't be running for prez . . . she is the wrong person for the job . . . she is status quo . . . she can't even change her campaign tactics . .. so how can she possibly bring about the changes America so desperately needs both in foreign and domestic policies . . .

[1dogs2]

And the ones who bothered to educate themselves voted against the war. You are mistaken that it's a non-issue. It remains the most important issue because, as some -- including Senator Obama (and I) -- foresaw, there would be no good solution from the moment our troops invaded. We are now in the position of choosing the least awful solution. We are not locked in a time warp; we are looking into the future to assess who is most likely not to compound the present disaster through their response to Iranian provocation. Clinton's claim to superior "experience" certainly didn't do us any good with respect to the single most disastrous foreign policy decision in our history.

[slow2]

Thanks Joseph for this clear and concise observation.

Reading these words and then listening to Clinton and the rabid Clinton supporters is like day and night. The Clintons and the Democratic machine should be held accountable for that "experience" that has cost lives and money. To think that Hillary Clinton somehow deserves the nomination of the Democratic party so that she can perpetuate these atrocities is worse than stupid.

Surely there are enough citizen activists and informed voters to combat the Clinton machine and defeat it. We'll soon find out how the voters in TX et al will cope with the lies and distortions of Billary.

Your blog should help in bringing truth to this crucial campaign.

[jhamm1]

Furthermore, the entire basis upon which to conclude that Hillary Clinton has "experience" lies exclusively with the fact that she has been engaged in politics for a longer duration than Barack Obama, and speaks little or no indications as to how much she's actually accomplished, which in reality is very litte, as exemplified by all the legislation she proposed that failed to ellicit so much as a cosponsor within her own party. Furthermore, her ridiculous insinuations that she has spent an entire career "based on change" again is certifiable balogne, considering her attempts to reform healthcare in 1993 failed miserably, largely on account of her inability to work with others, and thus proceeding to alienate her former allies, such as Bill Bradley.

[PoliticalEnnui]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Most of Hillary's "experience" has been as an observer on the margins and playing Madame DeFarge behind the scenes. Very little of what she has done on the international stage has been in an official capacity and most of the "accomplishments" she cites seem to involve...wait for it...making inspiring speeches. Speaking out about women's rights in China is still a matter of rhetoric vs. action.
And let us not forget that the real deciding issue this year won't be foreign policy, but domestic. She won't reframe it that way, though. There is no forthcoming "It's the economy, stupid!" because Obama's community activism makes hers look like checkbook charity.

[Shantee]

Exactly. The Clinton machine has been brilliant in exploiting the less educated and the dumbing down of Americans.

[bauersox]

I would love to know where the statistic about Obama's supporters being "better educated" comes from. Because the conduct of the Obama people who post here certainly does not reflect that. Perhaps it is a result of the dumbing-down of our education system generally. Quite a few of the pro-Obama posters rely on invective. Many can hardly put two words together. And as for the so-called reasoning behind their opinions, when they talk about "dreams" and "inspiration" they might as well be talking about astrology, because the level of ratiocination behind both is similar.

[1dogs2]

The statistics come from polls. As for ill-informed invective, have you checked out the comments from rabid Clinton supporters? Their inability to internalize facts that do not fit their preconceived opinions? Their inability to respond rationally to fact-based, closely reasoned arguments? You are among them if you are unable to understand that the fundamental changes that Obama supporters hope for may be achieved through his capacity to engage a substantial majority of voters (NOT 50.01%) in the political process -- not just on election day, but as a continuing obligation -- and not otherwise.

[1dogs2]

Which is among the least attractive of the Republican methods of operating that the Clintons have adopted. Let's hear it for inadequate education! Let's hear it for persuading ill-educated folks to vote against their own interests!

[Macready]

BRAVO! Excellent blog . .. . thank you Joseph . . . hillary has been part of the problem . . . she has excluded herself from the solution because she still refuses to take responsibility for her vote . . . and then there was kyl/lieberman . .. and she voted against a bill to ban landmines and cluster bombs . . . for all her so called "experience" hillary has been a follower who repeatedly shows not only bad judgement but unvaulted ambition . . .

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton is a soviet style bureaucrat on domestic policy and a right wing lunatic on foreign relations. This is an excellent combination with old time uneducated democrats. Her groups are united not by anything positive but by fear. They are not the brighest group of democrats and are therefore very easy prey for Clinton's fear mongering. In both Texas and Ohio the Clintons have planted the idea in their heads that Obama is a muslim and that he is not patriotic etc and it is working for them. The question is: Who wants a democrat party based on such gutter politics?

[bauersox]

This post by Contessa is exactly what I mean about how the most vociferous Obama supporters are actually morons, parading themselves as "educated" and "bright." Anybody who writes that Hillary Clinton is a "soviet style bureaucrat" clearly needs to eat more fish and open a book once in a while.

[rlynnt]

Actually, anyone who can't see the resemblance between the Clintons' secrecy fetish and their demonizing of anyone who disagrees with them and Soviet style politics probably needs to brush up a little on their history. Plus, Hillary's continued insistence that she's a fighter tells you that she really hasn't learned anything from her mistakes. This country is sick of fighting. We're ready to move on to more effective ways of solving our problems.

[timm0]

OK, perfessor... what books will help us better understand the situation?