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.

Comments

[Vibrani]

Thanks for your great article about Hillary. People have gotten caught up in the euphoria of an illusion with Obama. Just his voting record in Congress should give people one clue about how unimportant his work in government is: he missed 174 votes - far more than Hillary.

[babar77]

Yet again a Hillary supporter is distorting the facts. Yes he missed more votes than Hillary, however that's only because Hillary has been in the Senate longer than he has without running for president. When Obama wasn't campaigning, his missed vote rate was one of the lowest in congress. Once they both started campaigning for president, Hillary and he both started missing the same amount of votes. Whenever a congressman or senator runs for president, they start missing votes because they are on the campaign trail.

Get your facts right, then come back and post.

[Vibrani]

You need to check the facts. They have not missed the same number of votes.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

[TiredReader]

Ugh: "Yes he missed more votes than Hillary," "because Hillary has been in the Senate longer"

So.... just think of how many more votes he would have been able to miss if his time in the U.S. Senate matched hers!

[Vibrani]

Oops - the number has risen since I posted. Obama has now MISSED 182 VOTES IN CONGRESS.

[ACunningham]

Dear Mr. Schlesinger, Democrats do NOT want more BATTLES. That is the Republicans, remember? We have enough battles on our hands: I) Iraq , II) Afghanistan , III) Pakistan , IV) Iran (coming your way) , V) half of the African Continent (coming your way), AND, VI) our very own ECONOMIC mess. So, let's just lay off the WAR MONGERING Anthems, shall we?

[Truthortradition]

I agree with every word in this blog which is why it amazes me that so many people responding to these remarks are supporting Obama over Hillary.
It amazes me that they are so naive to actually think that Obama won't be as polarizing to the Republican oil machine as Hillary.
Don't they know by now that Any star in the Democratic party will be polarizing to the Republican assholes. Any nominee by the Democratic party will be vetted, from one end to the other.
Stop for a minute and Remember, when Hillary was working to save abused children, Obama was snorting coke and chasing women. He writes that truth in his own book. The same book that describes his biological Dad, step dad and granddad as Muslims. America would not support a Mormon for President----what makes you think they will support a man of Muslim heritage for President? Are you dreaming? Wake up NOW.
Right now, the Democrats are falling right into the play book of the Republicans by thinking for a minute Obama would beat McCain. Just wait until the Republican oil machine has launched their assaults against him. Has anyone seen ANY negative stuff coming out of the Republican camp yet about Obama? No, they are biding their time, holding their breath and praying Obama defeats their real enemy, Hillary.
I could create one ad myself that would put Obama at the bottom of the polls. Hillary could do it too------but she is obviously playing nice because she doesn't want to eat one of her own.
Trust me, Republicans won't be so nice.
I hope Democrats wake up and realize that Hillary is by far the best choice----if in fact they want to win. By the way, why did Obama vote in favor of an energy bill that gave more tax breaks to the oil companies?

[ez14livin]

give the voters some credit. to quote our commander in chief (if not of language): fool me once, shame you fool me twice, won't get fooled again...

no amount of swiftboat attacks are going to do any damage to obama because the citizens will see through the BS

who cares that obama has muslim relatives? i'm more worried about xtian nutjobs like huckabee getting anywhere near to the presidency

this country will elect obama 60/40 - there will be a mandate that we (most of us anyway) have seen through the republican lies and CHANGE will happen... along with obama being elected, many repukes will be ousted (such as the shrub hugger norm coleman in MN - go Al Franken!)

the country knows republican's are not nice already. they also have no sense of humor and are only concerned about the rich; which should be reason enough for 90% of the electorate not to vote for them; but 60 percent will still be enough to get the job done

[nellre]

It's no use. Clinton haters are not thinking, their feeling, and logic has no effect on that.

[chabwerakmt]

Schlesinger you are a hack. The bs talking point of Obama being "all hat and no cattle" is easily overturned if you simply listened to one of the policy speeches/papers he gave early on in the campaign (when he was considered too much of a wonk) or just recently or on his website. Please do a little research or get HRC's people to write you better lines. If you are going to critique him, critique him on something real and truthful. HRC voted for the war in Iraq. She voted on the Iran Resolution under the same pretenses of voting for the AUMF. Those are indisputable. Those are real and truthful. So when people say that she voted out of political calculation, therefore is insincere that is an honest speculation. When people say that because she voted for the war (which has leeched billions of dollars from US domestic programs and killed thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens) based on trust of Bush' assertions then that indicates she has poor judgement because she was conned by an idiot, that is a legitimate concern. But Obama is a motivational speaker? At this level of discourse it's not even worth talking to HRC supporters.

[cseper]

The Clintons have been swiftboated with your help

You see a pattern here where none exists. You ask why Bill used Jesse Jackson's name, and not the names of the other white candidates who recently won in South Carolina, and immediately jumped to the conclustion he was race-baiting. How about looking a little deeper, such as the fact that Jesse Jackson was the only other serious African American candidate to run in the South Carolina primary (actually a caucus in 1988).

You can't look objectively at the numbers and deny that Jackson's and Obama's victories were the result of their receiving an overwhelming majority of African American votes, and that African-American voters were a large majority of the total Democratic primary voters. It is disingenuous to suggest that Bill Clinton was not making a very valid observation about how difficult the state is to win if a strong African American candidate is on the ballot.

These accusations of race baiting, fueled by a complicit media including you, and encouraged by the Obama campaign, are nothing more than an attempt to swiftboat the Clinton campaign. To win, Obama had to ensure that he would be the overwhelming favorite among black voters, but Clinton presented a possible roadblock to that strategy. So in typical Rove-like fashion, they attacked his strongest asset, his popularity in the African American community, and made it into a liability. Thanks for becoming either a knowing accomplice or a clueless contributor to that strategy.

[denicast]

The thing is that it was an unnecessary observation unless you wanted to put out the race card. The poll numbers for a long time had Hillary Clinton ahead in SC, but when african-american voters realized that Obama could win in an all white state they took another look at him. I think it is very disrespectful to think that AAs will vote for anyone just because of the color of their skin. The Clintons were loved by African-americans, so they are able to look beyond race.
Could it be that they saw those comments by the Clintons as disrespectful to their community who has stood behind them?

The Clintons make their own choices. No one told them to praise LBJ more than JFK and MLK, or dismiss both Jesse Jackson and Obama as flash-in-the-pan candidates. Like it or not they made a sly appeal to those who wouldn't vote for a black as president.

[riverhouse]

As NYers, we must have been looking at two different Hillary Clintons. I've not seen the liberal Hillary. I've only seen the neocon Hillary who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, the tax cuts for the wealthy, the deregulation bills, the agribusiness bills, the giveaway foreign aid bill for Israel. I've not seen any major legislation with her name on it. She's done nothing but put forth vanity days and thank yous before the Senate. Her health care proposal is nothing but a sap to the insurance companies, what with mandatory payments taken from participants paychecks whether they can afford the outrageous prices or not. I'm not voting for Hillary. I'm moving into the 21st century and leaving all that old divisive, scheming, secretive '90s Clinton era where it belongs - in the past.

[shanghaislim]

Wow! The "HATE" just grows by the day?

My dear democratic party is starting to eerily resemble the Right Wing Talking Heads more and more each day?

The talking but not listening. The strict sticking to the "talking points" given to them by the media without basis in fact.

We are truly doomed (at this rate)

[Wulfstan]

It doesn't really matter, all this chatter, it is just a game show. The Presidency will be filled by a stooge of the Pentagon and the military either
way, since they consume over half the Federal budget to the citizenry's detriment.

[shanghaislim]

Yep. I have said this before, too.

Status Quo will be nearly impossible to change.

Bush/Cheney really screwed us good!

[LAcarlito]

Mr Schlesinger: On Clinton's mortgage plan, Obama has called it "moral hazard" as Clinton thinks she can interrupt the free market with freezing and halting market forces. Obama and most people with knowledge of the private markets know this is a joke and not feasible.

Obama knows all you can do is give a "safety net" to those that have been harmed by this crisis, but the market is the market. Trying to prevent fraud going forward is THE most important thing that needs to be done ASAP.

Clearing the market so that home prices fall to an equilibrium where incomes and prices meet is what has to happen for housing to get healthy again. Everything Clinton proposes slows that process down. This is her usual "I think I know more than the market" approach because it polls well. No thanks.

You can have Hillary and her "experienc­e." On housing and so many issues, I go with Obama. Why do you think such a smart man on economic matters like Paul Volcker, endorsed Obama?

[Wulfstan]

Yes, the cattle futures genius can solve the mortgage meltdown all by herself. Another Clinton failure in the making.

[Lemeritus]

Stand down, Wulfstan! She invested $1,000 in cattle futures in 1978 (you can do the research; it isn't heavy lifting). There may be some controversy in that her very modest investment allowed an initial transaction worth $12,000 without a margin cushion -- but it isn't unheard of and the Chicago Mercantile found no wrong doing. She made a reasonable profit after the usual ups and downs, then walked away. Can you just put that talking point back in the Right Wing portemanteau? Or, as Leonard Cohen would say, "Let's sing another song, boys. This one has grown old and bitter."

[TheKiddy]

LACarlito asks: "Why do you think such a smart man on economic matters like Paul Volcker, endorsed Obama?"

Because Obama is moderate to conservative in his economic policy proposals. Thirty of the top progressive economists in the country endorsed John Edwards (you never heard about it very likely because of the media gray-out on Edwards' campaign). Hillary's proposals come closer to Edwards' pretty much across the board. So, while Obama has a liberal voting record, his approaches to economics and health care and even to Social Security tend to echo a far more conservative economic voice.

[CrimsonTom]

Paul Volcker's actions specifically led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. He was appointed by Jimmy Carter.

Thanks for making Senator Clinton's plan seem that much more reasonable.

"Moral hazard?" If you didn't go to law school or work in the insurance industry, this one is not going to resonate.

[LAcarlito]

Sometimes you do need recessions to cleanse the system of excesses. We need the government to provide a safety net through these times. You may fault Volcker for how he managed the Fed, but his way was the right way.

This current thinking that the government can prevent recessions forever is a fraud that the American people have bought in to. CNBC and the MSM sells it every day and it is why we have this sub prime crisis. The little guy gets stuck in these bubbles (first the stock market, now homes) while Wall Street get bailed out. Corporate America will sell the crap to you, and trust me, they won't be stuck holding the bag.

You keep thinking we can have a managed economy and Volcker was and is wrong. It is the American people who are paying for this economy where we think that we can take RISK and have NO PAIN. What Hillary is saying polls well and may fool you. But it won't work.

[jeanniem]

LAcarlio does not demonstrate an understanding of "moral hazard" as Obama uses the term. From Wiki "Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, an individual with insurance against automobile theft may be less vigilant about locking his car, because the negative consequences of automobile theft are (partially) borne by the insurance company."

Failure to appreciate moral hazard is at the crux of the mortgage crisis, on both ends of the transaction, and throughout the financial food chain.

[LAcarlito]

Thanks for the definition. You are proving my point that risks are being removed from the market and therefore encouraging more risks to be taken down the line (later on). This is Obama's point. It is my point.

Anyone who is trying to stop the market in housing from playing out naturally is creating moral hazard as you are sheltering a party who made a bad bet from losing. People who put nothing down (or virtually nothing) on homes had the odds against them from day one. That is a bet that is a loser most of the time. Is it the government's job to rescue these bets?

Again read your definition, "a party is NOT bearing the consequences of its actions" (risk taking). Need I go on...

[CSE]

Hillary was duped on Iraq. Where was she right after she realized she was duped and the Bush administration was going into Iraq - before troops were actually sent in? Is that the question that needs to be asked as you and others try to cover for her "2002 Iraq vote"?

Anyone who has been complicit in the silence as the Bush administration has raped constitutional protections and pissed away lives and treasure on his bumbling misadventure in Iraq should be sent home without pay, without pension and with tar and feathers applied freely to their stinking bodies.

Her suggestions for moratoriums on foreclosures and freezing interest rates makes the government responsible for carrying the cost of such a moratorium and making up the difference between a market interest rate and a frozen interest rate. Otherwise - the financial institutions will end up out of business faster that if we do nothing.

Why do we protect the people who were ignorant enough to take on such mortgages and those who sold them out - while the people who suffer the peripheral damage even though they didn't fall for the fool's gambit are left hanging.

The ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for congressional debate over the lending crisis is for those of being adversely affected by the ignorance of others and through no fault of their own.

I do understand though that we will have to wait for the NFL Spygate and Roger Clemens issues to be resolved first.

[andersp3]

hillary is more of the same Washington, bought by special interests.
I don't want bill back, doing what he has been doing, in the WH.
I don't trust Hillary.
I don't vote dynasty.
She will lose against McCain... that is why the GOP wants the match.
Obama will win against McCain.
I will vote for Obama... but will not vote for 'the clintons'.

[Hufffan]

anderp3...­I agree. My vote for Obama is like a "Two-fer-one". For the "new way" and against the "old way".

[Truthortradition]

andersp3, You talk just like a Republican when you say you will vote for Obama but you will not vote for the bad Clinton. You talk just like a good Republican in sheep's clothing when you say obama would surely defeat McCain---------yet in your previous posts, you say McCain is "NOT BAD." Like I said, you are a good Republican trying to convince all us dumb Democrats to vote for Obama. Your loathing for Clinton is typical.
I hope Hillary wins hands down.

[denicast]

I will vote for the Bad Clinton and suggest others do the same if she gets the nomination.

[drjay79]

Senator Clinton is smart and a hard worker, that is true. She is qualified to be president. HOWEVER She is married to Bill.
She always is hiding something (where are the tax returns?)
Senator Obama is a stronger candidate against Senator McCain, he will win she may not.

[PeachPost]

Who's hiding what? Mr. Resko's trial is just getting started...­what does Obama have to say about that? "It was a bone-headed thing to do..."
(Will he use the same excuse over failed foreign policy?) Secondly, why do you think Republicans are voting for Obama? Because they know he will bow down to McCain. They have investigated Hillary Clinton to the Nth degree and found nothing. Not so with Mr. Obama. Republicans are good at spin. I think they are just waiting until Obama gets the nomination, then they'll make him look like a drug taking slum lord sleaze bag.

[dwmulenex]

voted for Iraq war in 2002. Either a liar who knew full well it was a war vote, or too stupid, to know it was a war vote. Her solutions? Spend money we don't have, save poeple from themselves and their decisions with government bailouts.

Does Hillary matter? Yes. She is the past who cannot change, except in what she says to alter and deny what she's actually done, which isn't much for 35 years except campaign.

If Hill's your gal, go to rehab, and find some change you can believe in.

[rwferr]

Find some change you can believe in? We have and its Hillary! Not the fake change of Obama. A guy who is going to "Bring Washington Together". LOL. Who exactly is he gonna bring together? The most liberal member of the Senate, a Black President? Yea the republicans are gonna fall all over themselves to get things done with Obama in the spirit of bipartisanship. God just typing it is so funny it brings tears to my eyes.

[claudiam]

She is more of the same. Just look at how Bill handled himself over the weekend. I am tired of our country being so divided. Hillary will only continue to trend.

[agedparent]

"The most liberal member of the Senate" -- What??? I remember the Wrong Wing saying that about Sen. Kerry in 2004. And what about Ted Kennedy? He's held that title since God was a teenager and I haven't seen anyone take it away from him.

Good grief. I can understand enthusiasm for Sen. Clinton (I'm supporting her too), but please don't back it up with some lies from the Republican National Committee.

[fedupwithpolitics]

Sure, Hillary will battle--for the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the pentagon, and "free trade."

[PhyloSeFiser]

Senator Edward Kennedy has been a strong advocate for universal health care for his whole career. He knows both Hillary and Barack very well.

This is Kennedy talking about a false negative flier that the Clinton campaign has been circulating in Wisconsin.

I am “really shocked and very surprised that Senator Clinton would put that pamphlet out. We have two candidates who want to get health care – Senator Clinton and Barack Obama. My belief is that Barack Obama has the ability to bring together the kind of coalition to get this done.”

Senator Kennedy also said, “The passion of my life in the U.S. Senate now for 38 years has been for universal comprehensive healthcare…It’s a defining aspect of our country to me and I firmly believe that Barack Obama is the person to get universal comprehensive healthcare. If he were not the person I would not have supported him. If I did not believe he would get universal, comprehensive, all-inclusive health care, I would not have been on his side. I am absolutely convinced that he is the one that can get it and will get it.”

So put that in your pipe and smoke it Schlesinger. Sorry, but I don't have much patience for this kind of sophistry.

[CrimsonTom]

Why has the esteemed gentleman from Massachusetts failed to realize this dream? In '93, he had a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House, and the Clintons pushing for universal healthcare.

[denicast]

Because Hillary completely mishandled the entire process of getting health care reform off the ground.

[standforpeace]

Resolve. Next time I'm asked to vote for a bill entitled, "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" I will assume that the name of the bill provides an important clue to its purpose.

Why are so many antiwar voters giving Hillary Clinton a free pass on her vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her continuing refusal to even admit that that is what she did, much less express any contrition. Yes, George Bush pulled the trigger and is most responsible for this mess. However, those members of Congress who voted for that resolution loaded the gun and put it in his hand.

Americans have already sent a strong signal that this preemptive war is a-okay with us with the reelection of George Bush and the refusal to start well-earned impeachment proceedings. At long last, Democrats have a good chance to send a different kind of message to the elites in our party. We will not reward unrepentent war mongerers with our party's nomination.

[pahpah25]

the saddest part of the iraq war vote....is that senators, like most americans, could not conceive of the monumental lies told by bush et al.....it really is mind-blowing that an american president would deliberately decieve the country and take the country to an invasion and occupation of another soveriegn country...­.for reasons known only to him..it is evil , personifie­d....much like the germans of WW2 era.

[riverhouse]

GWB didn't deceive millions of Americans, including Barack Obama and little me, who saw the lies, the nonsense, and complete folly of invading Iraq and setting the Sunni and Shia at each other's throats. Anyone who knew history, could read and absorb fundamental facts, knew this war promotion was a scam and a disaster of long term consequences. HRC bought it hook, line, sinker. Either she's stupid or she's a neocon herself. Take your pick. Neither makes her fit to be president. She never spoke out against the obscene torture taking place, the upsurption of our civil rights by the premise of an imperial presidency. Her own lies and secrecy, coupled with Bill's, tells you that she will wallow like a pig in mud with the newly self bestowed presidential powers. We've got to change the direction of this country or we're doomed.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Barak Obama Fronts Wall Street's Infrastructure

Swindle - What Change Really Means

By Bruce Marshall

17/02/08

Do not be fooled! Barak Obama's call for National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) does not signal the return of the Democratic Party to the values of FDR and a revival of the Constitutional prerogative to 'promote the general welfare', but would rather provide more welfare for Wall Street and worse. Obama's plan is nothing more than the direct means of instituting the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) plan called for in 2005, which in essence is a revival of Mussolini's methods of corporatist control of the state in a politically correct post modern fashion.

(more)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19370.htm

[xzano]

BI-RACIAL, BARAK OBAMA, AMEN ! Thank goodness you posted this for all the lemmings, made stupid by the MSM.(Main Steam Media) I found out this info in the article you posted on my own. It's called DUE DILLIGENCE,I have time to study & all I do is research. Especially this election, it is the most important one there will ever be if HRC does not win, end of story, America ends here. I am tired of blogging & Calling C-SPAN.I am glad I have no family & no one to worry about. If you have people in your life you care about, not to mention your childrens future, VOTE HILLARY !