Thinking Beyond Conventional

Tom Watson, a blogger friend of mine, posted an endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) presidential campaign.

Before addressing the points raised in his post, it is important to state that the field of Democratic candidates is incredibly strong and I would be pleased with a vast majority of them as my party's candidate for president in the general election, including Senator Clinton.

I do believe, however, some are better than others.

Watson, in short, outlines the opposition to Senator Clinton as president from the viewpoints of both left and right.

Hillary Clinton is not a perfect candidate for President, nor is she the guardian of some imagined liberal purity. She's a hard-nosed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and she compromises on a daily basis to maintain that status. The hard right accuses her of being a socialist who wants to create an all-powerful Federal hegemony over individual liberties. Many on the left accuse her being an extension of Cheney-Bush. In reality, she's a progressive Democrat with wide streak of political realism about what can and can't be accomplished within the realm of national policy - a viewpoint that was hard-earned on the national stage, I might add.

Senator Clinton is certainly not "an extension of Cheney-Bush," but she is unquestionably the quintessential Washington insider candidate in what is obviously a "change" election following the disastrous Bush reign. Senator Edwards sees this. Senator Obama sees this.

She uses the phraseology about "change" in her campaign and messaging but insiders are less likely to push for the significant change that, in my estimation, is desperately needed in the post-George W. Bush era. It seems to me that many Hillary supporters connect her candidacy to President Bill Clinton's presidency, but it is a false nostalgic return to the '90s. Bill Clinton came to the White House without any Washington experience as a governor of a southern state. By inauguration day in 2009, Senator Clinton will have spent the vast majority of sixteen straight years in Washington with at least four more to come should she win the presidency, cementing her status as Capitol Hillary.

Briefly, to policy. It is my belief that President Hillary Clinton's administration would mean the following:

• No Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito
• National health care
• A sane foreign policy built upon constant negotiation and real intelligence
• Competent management of the Federal government
• A best-possible-under-the-circumstances exit from Iraq
• No torture and the return of habeas corpus
• A stronger dollar, less deficit spending, and the end of the Bush tax cuts
• A greener national energy policy
• Federal funding for stem cell research

And that's about it. Compare that list to where we are now. Who wouldn't take it, nine from years from now? What more do you hope for? Again, think of what Presidents do, and who they are. They're not preachers or wizards or dreamers.

It is uncertain to me how any other Democratic candidate does not provide the same things listed above, if not, do better. There are differences in healthcare plans. For instance, Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards' plans create public insurance groups, while Senator Hillary Clinton embraces public insurance and uses a combination of the individual mandate and tax credits. (For details, see Ezra Klein, a trusted source of analysis on healthcare policy.)

Between Clinton and Obama, there are differences in foreign policy. She was joined by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in attacking Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) on foreign policy from the right, branding him as "irresponsible" and "naive" when he said he would meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Later, she said she would do the same.

This tactic, however, of using a right-wing frame to attack opponents, was derided in Watson's post, speaking of Senator John Edwards' (D-North Carolina) attempts to point out flaws in Senator Clinton's candidacy.

Former Senator Edwards has appeared desperate and his strategies have permanently damaged his reputation, but there is some truth in his populist message. And I believe that efforts to attack and diminish Senator Clinton just before the primary season have the smell of panic and failure about them, and they provide ammunition to the right-wing machine to exploit next fall.

By that same logic, Senator Clinton's attacks on Obama's experience fit into that same dynamic. Personally, I don't disagree with pointing out flaws in the other candidate, so long as they are truthful. Deriding Senator Obama for "lack of experience" is just utterly false. He served as a legislator in the Illinois State Senate for eight years and for nearly three years in the U.S. Senate. Eleven years as a legislator best Senator Clinton's six years in the U.S. Senate, but according to the punditocracy and the consultant class, only D.C. experience applies.

Senator Clinton favors continuing the archaic embargo on Cuba. Thirteen years ago, the Heritage Foundation argued for its continuance. Senators Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) and Obama take a different approach. Dodd says to do away with it completely, lift travel restrictions and open an American embassy in Havana. Obama argues that the U.S. should lift family-related travel restrictions and increase the financial amounts family could send to those on the island. Senator Clinton supports the status quo.

In October 2000, then-Democratic candidate for Senate in New York, Clinton supported government-funded research on a missile defense system. President Bush's determined pursuit of the missile defense system has angered Russia, further straining our relationship with our former Cold War adversary. It would be of interest to me to know where the Senator from New York stands on this issue, now over seven years later.

At the presidential debate in Philadelphia, Senator Clinton could not find one position to take with regards to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's attempt to give the undocumented driver's licenses. Senator Edwards' video aptly points out, with a little help from Senator Dodd at the debate, Senator Clinton changing her position and denying things she just said only seconds after saying it.

The New York Times blog, The Caucus, later reported that Senator Clinton expressed support for Governor Spitzer's plan.

Mrs. Clinton's statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy.

Senator Clinton (and Senator Obama, unfortunately) supports the construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Since her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Senator Clinton supported the legislation through 2006. The head of the largest gay rights advocacy group in New York called on all gays and lesbians not to donate to her re-election campaign last cycle. She, now, does not support DOMA despite years of speaking against same-sex marriage. Senator Clinton favors civil unions left up to the states.

"Senator Clinton believes that each state should make its own decisions regarding marriage or civil unions, but once a state legalizes such relationships, these relationships should receive full federal recognition and benefits," Ethan Geto, senior national adviser to Senator Clinton on LGBT Issues, explained in an e-mail to The Advocate. "As several states have legalized gay marriage or civil unions, Senator Clinton has come to believe that the restrictions imposed by DOMA on federal government recognition of same-sex relationships are unfair."

Senator Obama opposed DOMA in 1996 and believes it should be repealed but supports civil unions over marriage citing religious "entanglement" with the word "marriage." Senator Edwards supports repealing half of the DOMA language. When it comes to marriage, the former North Carolina senator says he's "not there yet."

In 1994, then-First Lady Clinton stated support for "three strikes" laws and more prisons, though to her credit, earlier this year, she did speak in favor of keeping non-violent drug offenders out of prison and correcting the sentencing gap between crack and powdered cocaine.

Senator Clinton stated that the U.S. should not torture at the New Hampshire presidential debate on September 27. According to The Politico's Ben Smith, this was a change from previous statements:

"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said at the time, in a telephone interview with this reporter, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board that there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

She said then that the "ticking time bomb" scenario would be a narrow exception to her opposition to torture.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said.

In October, Senator Clinton spoke with the Washington Post, which only published a partial quote making it seem like she was wavering on torture. Clinton's campaign released the full quote.

Well I think I've been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing, we're getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say "No torture -- abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed," and then try to make sure we implement that. [emphasis added]

This "we don't know" dodge is dangerous because we already know the administration is waterboarding. And waterboarding is, in fact, torture. It should never be done. Under any circumstances. Ever. Period.

Senator Clinton sought to criminalize flag desecration despite opposing a constitutional amendment that would have achieved just the same. The previous post on this blog is a video from The American President where Michael Douglas defends the actions of his girlfriend from over a decade before he ever met her when she participated in a protest where an American flag was burned. He said, "Show me that. Defend that and then you can talk about the land of the free." Senator Clinton cannot and would not give that speech.

Arianna Huffington wrote at the time:

"It seems in line with her stance on so many issues -- trying to strike right in the middle and triangulate, by not supporting the amendment because that would upset the base too much and at the same time supporting a legislative proposal that will appeal to the center," she said of Mrs. Clinton. "It's a truly tragic way of leading."

Tragic, indeed.

Cross-posted at MattOrtega.com

Comments

[JDKJJK]

Anyone would be an improvement over W, but that does not mean the most qualified individual will win. If that was the case W would be running a taco stand in Texas, and even at that he would have to bailed out by his influential friends.
I do not believe HRC is qualified to be president, let's face it if her husband were not the former president she would be last or next to last in the polls. If legislative experience is what counts then Biden or Dodd should be the picks. But alas they have neither the money or name recognition of HRC (Nee: L. Waalace)

[usna73]

Obama/Webb in 08. Only the future really matters.

[lafrance]

Clinton takes such pains to stand in the middle and yet, doesn't know what being in the middle means. She thinks it means yes and no. for and against. What the middle always meant to me, and I guess to most people, is a moderate stand. Not overly one way or another. However, if she does veer into an one way or another tact, it is usually right. Like being a war monger.
She really does not have any idea of where she stands on any issue. her stands are what the polls say.
The problem for clinton is that she embraces all the bad stuff about her husband in politics like triangulating, Clintonspeak (doublespeak) being evasive, blurring, pandering, ect. But, has none of his strengths to carry it off.
You add this to her own problems with judgment and respecting the opinions of others, calculation and her secretive and stubborn nature and it is a recipe for a very bad choice for president. Especially now when we need fresh air, judgment and measured reason and thought.
As you so rightly pointed out, and so many have ignored, especially the press, is that Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton.
He has also successfully worked on health care in Illinois.

[amhcw]

First we denounce campaigning via headlines. Then we denounce trying to explain the headlines. The latter is what we do to Hillary--and then call it triangulation and "middle" straddling. What on earth is wrong with trying to ferret out the exact point! I am being pulled back into her camp--just by such unfair tactics against her.

[esl]

I too fell in love with Obama at the Democratic Convention in 2004, but he has disappointed me ever since. When he made deals with McCain he showed his immaturity. He has a lot to learn. By the way, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were all Washington insiders. What is so evil about someone who knows how a system works from the inside? Every time I hear that phrase "Washington Insider" I turn off the speaker. Will we replace the insider with inexperienced people who don't know how to bring people together to get a bill passed? Aren't some people aware that without the help of lobbyists and insiders we would not have gotten the "Clean Air Bill" passed under a Democrat Congress and Bush,Sr. in the White House? Edward's and Obama's talk against Washington insiders is a ploy. They are smart enough to know that is takes cooperation with all groups inside Washington to get legislation passed; that's the way our founding fathers set it up. Using the phrase "Washington insiders" like it is something undesirable just shows their cunning immaturity.

[Boadicea]

You've nailed it.

I think we have to decide which issue/s are the most important to us, and vote those. For me, an enlightened foreign policy is most important, so I'll vote for Obama in the primary. The thought of more of the same sort of chest-pounding we've been engaging in for decades is beyond depressing.

[Desiderata]

The Hillary Twist

Come on Dems, let's do the (Hillary) twist.
Come on Dems, let's do the (Hillary) twist.
Twista-twi­sta-twista­-twista,
Through the cloud of bliss.

Do you remember what she said last summer?
Do you remember what she said last fall?
Twisting with her, you got to just get dumber.
So let's twist with her to the Inaugoral Ball.

So round and round and round and round we go again.
That is why we can never know just where she'll go, again.

So let's (Hillary) twist again through another year.

[mawrm]

With the choice out there, it's simply bewildering that folks are gravitating to candidate as flawed as Hillary Clinton. The family monarchial voting habit is what got W in office and now we seem set to coronate HRC. And given how much folks complain about W, why in the hell do they then support someone using the same trick (running on family name) to get elected?

[DavidJames]

Matt,

The Democratic candidates are indeed strong. Their positions on the issues are also very different from the Republican candidates.

The web site below provides a comparison of the presidential candidates, rating them according to a quiz that you fill out.

http://glassbooth.org/

It appears to be a nonprofit organization without an ax to grind.

From this site's comparison of the candidates' positions on the issues it is surprisingly clear that there are a very substantial differences between any Democratic and any Republican candidate.

Relative to the Republican candidates, differences between the Democratic candidates are relatively small.

Regards

[Quaoar]

"it is important to state that the field of Democratic candidates is incredibly strong..."

It certainly is not. There are many eligible Democrats who would make better Presidents than anyone in the race.

I think that many Democrats may be avoiding 2008 because Bush fucked the country up so much that the succeeding president would face an impossible task of fixing the country and would be condemned to be a one-termer.