Why Hillary Clinton Still Matters
In the remaining Democratic presidential primaries, voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless the residents of states like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania still have to decide between the two of them who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.
I have had the good fortune to observe Hillary Clinton's career while living in New York. Up-close, she is an unusually tough, savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining Federal assistance for Ground Zero workers exposed to toxic air. As importantly, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of the FDR-JFK wing of the Democratic Party. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on the Hill.
Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to preemptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. She has said on many occasions she would have voted differently had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job. Today she vows to end the war and is currently trying to prevent the establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq by requiring prior Congressional approval for any such outposts.
Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the first Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Senator Clinton advocated a $70 billion emergency spending and a back-up of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America - namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, the unemployed who require extended jobless benefits and funding for alternative energy and environmental programs. Her opponent, Senator Obama belatedly came out with his own plan a few days ago which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Senator Clinton's proposal.
On a more specific level, Senator Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the sub-prime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry. Senator Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. This is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.
In many ways, Senator Clinton is to the left of Senator Obama. Hillary Clinton has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, Senator Obama's plan is more restrictive and would leave 15 million people uncovered. Lastly, Hillary Clinton is a fighter for change. Senator Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a motivational speaker. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the Fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be swiftboated into oblivion.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I totally agree with your assessment of HRC. The winning ticket would be Clinton/Obama 08.
She is a tough,intelligent, experienced and compassionate leader. Obama has good qualities and inspires a lot of people. I wish he would take VP now and then run in 2016.
Where the hell was her compassion when she supported George Bush's war against Iraq which has now killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?
After 9/11 war was a popular idea, and the invasion celebrated widely. Hillary's support was for inspection of alleged WMDs--a lie told by Bush and endorsed by McCain and Lieberman. Repeatedly Hillary has blasted Bush for sending in military units with no definite purpose. And the military in Iraq is still popular in TN, TX, and other martially oriented states.
The difference is that Hillary is truthful about her rejection of the war and has promised to get the USA out of it. Obama, continues to lie, as he was not in the Senate and therefore could not have voted for it--but supported while in the Illinois legislature.
Obama is the worse possible candidate. He is all talk and no action, his belated ideas on how to improve the country and economy are stolen from speeches delivered by Hillary. He badmouths all opponents and rides a wave of young people who in most cases do not vote.
As a Democrat I would never vote for Obama. McCain is worse, but the difference is that McCain is honest, while Obama is a stranger to truth.
Where was her compassion? Read the article, if U can.
Extreme partisanship plays right into Rove's plan for 2008. McCain's challenge to Obama to own up to his pledge to use public financing is brilliant on several levels. It takes away one of Obama's greatest strengths while boxing him into a self-created corner of either going back on his word or losing his fund-raising advantage.
Hillary is the best chance we have even if you believe all of the Republican spin abut her so called baggage.
or, when Madeline Albright said that 500,000 dead Iraqi children were an acceptable price to pay for Bill's economic sanctions?
Hillary's done a lot for children, that's for sure.
That's not the only issue, don't be so simple-minded.
"Where the hell was her compassion when she supported George Bush's war against Iraq which has now killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children?"
"Hundreds of thousands????" To date, 88,720 civilians have been killed in Iraq, only a percentage of whom were women and children. Do *all* Obama advocates pull figures out of their hineys, or is it just you?
You forgot the part about half the country not being able to stand her.
This isn’t about race or gender, but about effectiveness. The unspoken given is that corporate America and the high income anchors of CNN and NBC/MSNBC don’t want their upper 2% incomes taxed or their advertisers to seek Fox News. Hillary, regardless her Iraq vote or any “baggage” the media has conjured to train Pavlov-style responses from the minions, is the one planetary inhabitant corporate America knows can and will perform what she says she will. They’re fearful of her as evidenced by the CNN/NBC-MSNBC echo chamber supporting claims that the right most fears Obama – a total disinformation campaign designed to thwart Hillary. Whatever you think of Hillary, she is the only candidate the world could bet on to actually, effectively carry out Democratic Party principles.
Yeah-and the other half is VOTING for her!
Look at her popular vote tallies. Impressive!
Those are called Republicans and other sheep who fall for the Right's propoganda.
Ever wonder why the red states endorse Obama? Because they know that if Hillary is the nominee then their Dem candidates running for Congress will get screwed by the uptick in Republican voters going to the polls to vote against her.
Hillary's high negative polling = bad year for other Democrats seeking office in red states.
If she gets the nom, I will vote for her over McCain but I really really hope she doesn't get the nom. I think Democrats have a much better chance of taking both the White House and Congress with Obama as the nominee.
It's not her I can't stand, it's her politics.
Why the heck would Obama take the VP bobby prize when he's running dead even with Clinton The-Ready-
Oh that's right he can't possibly beat the Repubs in the general he doesn't have enough experience. The experienced Clinton who can't dispatch a freshman senator in primaries she was supposed to win in a landslide.
Obama/Warner '08
Plus can you imagine being VP for HRC? Every time you look over your shoulder at a meeting, there's Bill in the wing chair just a few feet away having a budwiser and a slice. "Oh don't bother I'll just sit here and listen..."
And then, in '16, no one could say he didn't have the experience.
How compassionate was Welfare-to-work?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
