- BIG NEWS:
- Health Care
- |
- Dick Cheney
- |
- GOP
- |
- Terrorism
- |
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…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
R1J07PUkA6gwfzCqmTR%2FMYDgnqG0GMgIoB2imeoKVGuqw2j3UZPtPAbdCcvF1G23JJ5Kb5ko5wKUtUo0T7IbOA%3D%3D
2VfODySd8387NZ9vgPB61Or5m4DBadr%2Bw7CkG3JRZaFbOoTMa7svRl9yMr8UX42LjarwXV7jB2yxTGdmc%2FGqeQ%3D%3D
1 of 2
HuffingtonPost Reporters
13rB8NFkogZuvDqVUGsGDf9LWZCVwGn%2F
R6M%2FGL0npVhDlpKexW9GbaCKj6JkGVzo
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 3
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
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 just ran some numbers and numbers are not my first language, so bear with me:
Everyone's talking about how many primaries and caucuses Obama is winning, but if those caucuses and primaries were translated into electoral votes (if Obama and Clinton actually carried each of the states they won in the primaries/caucuses) Clinton would lead 205 to Obama's 179.
But primaries or no, there are some states that are red and always will be (incredible as that may seem). Of the reliably blue states, Clinton leads Obama 134 electoral votes to 71.
Just some scribbles.
I thought primaries used delegate votes, not electoral votes. The Electoral College is a vehicle for US presidential elections, and a flawed and anachronistic one at that. If your use of terminology is flawed, and therefore your grasp of the concepts is off, your numbers are meaningless.
These are nonsense numbers, just like Petraeus statistics and Friedman units. Why is it that so large a part of the US public is as comfortable as it is with pulling numbers out of its collective asses. Has our educational system failed us?
rich, I was simply doing an exercise looking beyond the convention. IF either candidate could carry the states they won in the primary (or caucus), how many 2008 electoral votes would they have. And IF we made a further assumption that neither candidate could carry many deep red states, how many electoral votes would each have in traditionally blue states.
I think I apologized in advance and will do so again because I seem to have ignited your very short fuse. It was an exercise, nothing more -- my numbers were meant to be illustrative. I can assure you, however, that my grasp of the concepts is as good if not better than yours, so you might just as well give that supercilious attitude of yours the day off.
It is ridiculous to assume that Obama will be 'swiftboated' by tired old flip flopper mccain, and that will suddenly sway 30% of American voters to vote for policies that now have a 30% approval rating. Especially given that Obama supporters are a mix of young voters, democrats as well as disillusioned Republicans and Independents like myself who would never vote for Hillary or McCain. Obama merely highlights the fact that Americans are done with the current generation of rusty old insiders who play fight for the voters then back slap each other at the cocktail party after the show. Hillary has supported every major Bush policy and has nothing to show but excuses. Take Bill and go home.
Ridiculous? It's incomprehensively naive to think the nominee is going to get a free pass from the Republican machine.
I mean that literally. I can't comprehend it. Please explain it to me.
What republican machine? Talk about creating a mythic monster to justify Joan of Clinton being the nominee. Talk about nonsense to justify the clinton sleeze. The republican machine that produced giants like Romney and Huckabee? McCain--if its a machine its a pretty darn stupid machine. Plust, if you look at your darling Hill, the ol attack poltics she engages in (designed to rebuff that nasty ol machine) are not so popular--jumped the shark so to speak.....
"You can never go wrong under-estimating the intelligence of the American voters."
They consistently complain about the "do nothing Congress," giving low ratings to the people they re-elect over and over again. Voters complain about Washington working for the corporations and not for the people who send them to Congress. Yet, they are afraid to NOT have the establishment insiders running the government and making decisions for them.
The insiders know the people are sheeple that must be told what, who, when, and why, and continue to follow their self-serving "leaders" like mindless robots, because they know what is best. Anything else is too scary.
Is this a great country, or what???? I love democracy.
In God we trust!
...She has said on many occasions she would have voted differently (on Iraq) had she known that President Bush would misuse his authority and dispatch US troops to Iraq without allowing UN inspectors to complete their job. "
Well, by the time Kyle -Lieberman came around she knew only too well Bush's proclivities, yet she turned around and voted to call the Iranian military a terrorist organization, therby giving Bush a blank check to do what he wants, when he wants in Iran, knowing full well that bombing was on the table.
Explain that one!
She learned from the best...Rem
She is a liar, he is a liar, I for one am have had enough of both of them for this life and a next..and I don't care if this makes her cry, again, would that be # 4 or 5?
I have not been impressed with Senator Obama and my biggest fear is if he should secure the nomination, he will be defeated by McCain in November.
Of course being a "Yellow Dog" Democrat, it would not surprise me at all, we Democrats do have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As a retired blue collar and Union member as well as a veteran, I can tell you that many of the working class and veterans and military families communities of our country are not as impressed with Senator Obama as the so called "educated" members of our party.
It will be interesting to see how Senator Obama does in Texas, Ohio and then in April in Pennsylvania. I do hope this process does not drag on to Denver and it is resolved within the next couple of months.
I remember the split of the party in 1980 when Kennedy took on Carter. Although I supported Kennedy at the time, today I regret that decision. Much of the animosity that it generated in the Democratic party at that time might have been responsible for electing Ronald Reagan.
Hopefully we don't experience a similar split this coming November. Senator Obama has stated that he thinks Clinton supporters would support him if he receives the nomination, but is not so sure his supporters would support Clinton if she secures the nomination.
I don't agree with Senator Obama and his comments to that effect does nothing to make Clinton supporters want to campaign for him. That tone will have to change if he does secure the nomination.
We are all not "Yellow Dog" Democrats!
This may mean we need a better-educated voting public. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Most educated people I know, including myself, are not impressed with him either. "He hires great speechwriters" is not on my list of presidential qualifications.
Mr. Schlesinger delivers another panegyric for Hillary, sweeping aside her boatloads of "swiftable" history -- his politicized paucity of honest appraisal of her opponent, Obama, excusable only because his "good words" (Gk, eulogy) for Hillary pronounce the beginning of the end of her progression to the presidency, unless, like Huckabee, she has majored in miracles.
We know in our hearts, it's a little late for Hillary to get religion when all she wants is the White House. Church is merely God's house.
Great comment.
I guess one has to do whatever it take to win, including those so call tears before each primary.
Quite pathetic.
It absolutely amazes me how the party hacks are all coming together. We are not what we had hopefully thought we were as Democrats. From Mark Sheilds turning up everywhere possible to say that Hillary will pull this out to all of the blogs on HuffPo. Politics is politics and I am sad to hypothesize that the Democratic hacks and lifers will work and advocate for the chosen one. So you have to ask yourself what is more important to these people. Time to leave them all and thanks god to MoveOn for taking a non party stand which they are being attacked for. Either Barack wins or the Democratic Party is a thing of the past.
Half of the Democrats voted against the Iraq war. None of the Hillary apologists ever mention that. Why did Hillary go with the Republicans? Why did she again give Bush another pass for Iran? Why did she vote for the Patriot Act? Why did she vote to make it harder for middle Americans to file bankruptcy? That great experience on the Armed Services Committee did not bring about any raising of flags from Hillary on Halliburton and Blackwater and their shady dealings. That seasoned experience on the board of Wal-mart as it was at the forefront of depressed wages, discrimination, marginable healthcare for all is never mentioned during the parroted '35 years of experience' slogan. The media seems to give Hillary a pass on all of this.
If you consider the House, the majority of Congressional Dems voted against the war.
Good analysis of the differences between Obama and Clinton.
She's extraordinary, and that is a quality that has been lost amid the Obamamania.
Too bad, since she has so much to offer our country.
Thanks for the article!
Don't know why she didn't see this comming.
Now that it has happened, she doesn't have a chance.
What it comes down to is Obama is not hampered with images of Bill dragging our Nation into gridlock.
If it wasn't for Bill Clinton, George Bush would not have been awarded the presidentcy.
I for one will never forget this circus clowns performance during the last years of his administration. I can't get past that immage.
Too bad Hiilary, she could have done this on your own without Bill.
Thank you for setting the record straight on the Iraq Resolution. Please do me a favor and contact Hillary's advisors and suggest that in upcoming debates (and any comments made on subject to the public/media) Hillary directly quote from the resolution itself, to wit:
In the resolution, Bush agreed to, quote:
"work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq." met. . ."
On 3/7/03 the U.N. inspectors reported there was no evidence of a WMD program and requested more time to complete their work. Bush dismissed their report and began the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Bush did not abide by his own resolution to work with the U.N. to meet the challenge of Iraq and broke his word to our own representatives in Congress and the Senate.
That's all she has to say --and repeat that quotation directly from the resolution whenever the subject comes up again. She voted for Bush to work with the U.N. He did not. Period.
And since the resolution was binding and Bush broke its terms, does that mean the preemptive war was illegal? And if it was illegal, he should be thrown in jail!
Wait... are saying that Hillary didn't know that by voting for it, she was voting for war. Because, I remember that day, I remember people beating their chests and talking about how fast we would take out Saddam and bring freedom to the people, and kill the "terrorists".
Lies! Hillary Clinton voted for the war. You should get a better candidate, because the one your chasing is with the Republicans!
Yeah...the
This is Bush's and the GOP's war, not Hillary's war, and she wasn't the only Democrate who voted - your logic is a little bent out of shape.
Battlers don't cry!
Hillary needs her pet crutch called Bill!
Battlers DO cry; Inhuman, unfeeling monsters are the ones who never cry.Get a grip. As far as her crutch Bill; you must never have been married or you would understand the deep bond of partnership marriage brings.Sto
I'll tell you why Hillary Clinton still matters. One of the centerpieces of her campaign is her health care proposal - and the centerpiece of that proposal is her "mandate" that all Americans must purchase health care insurance. Under her plan it'll be a law that you must have coverage. But if you read her actual proposal, it has no such mandate. I wonder if that's because she knows such a mandate may get her the Democratic nomination, but it's political suicide in the general election? I wonder if she can just envision John McCain going out every day saying "Hillary intends to garnish your wages to pay for insurance you don't want"? So maybe she left that little detail out of her plan so she can change course in the general election and run without that part. But then she'd be running on Obama's plan, which she criticized in the primaries. But then we'd know she lied during the primaries - but that won't matter because she'd already have the nomination.
I'll tell you why Hillary Clinton matters - she's the standard bearer for the term "Clintonian Politics". She's the last best hope for continued polarization, lying, cheating, underhanded, bribery, power consolidation, triangluation, carrot and stick manipulation, vaccuous politics. If your goal is more of that kind of politics, Hillary is your girl.
Disability insurance and retirement insurance and old age medical insurance are mandates--they're called Social Security and Medicare. I don't see supporters of those committing political suicide. Quite the opposite, actually.
HERE'S YOUR ANSWER FROM BARACK OBAMA TONIGHT:
"Dont Tell Me Words Dont Matter" - part of speech delivered at Wisconsin Democratic Founders Dinner
http://www
Day-um. Tell 'em.
If Obama wins the nomination, a McCain victory will be the result. Obama is largely unvetted by the media and this self-anointed agent of change carries plenty of baggage from his years in the state legislature, particularly his long-standing relationship with Chicago slumlord, Tony Rezko. So far the media has given Obama a pass. McCain won't and doesn't have to, nor does he have to worry about offending the black supporters because they won't vote for McCain anyway. And the NBC and MSNBC and CNN crowds will be whipped into shape by the corporate heads who want McCain over Obama. McCain will try to lower corporate tax rates, as well he should. You'll see. Obama Barama will be the fallen rock star. No more free passes for him. It will all come out, and many of those afraid of rising taxes will return to the Republican side. He will be painted as an extreme liberal which he is, and that will sink him.
More than Mrs. Clinton's credentials, the morality and legality of her run are at question. Certainly the framers of our Constitution did not intend for one or two families to "rule" for prolonged periods, to have the ability to create favorable laws, tax breaks and financial rewards for themeselves. While technically able to run, Mrs. Clinton shouldn't have. She's serving her ego, not her country. We've had enough of Mr. Bush, with his loose interpretations of the law, and it is time to restore legal, moral, reputable, committed service to our government.
"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."
I can't say that the above rationalization is any more flattering to Clinton than the interpretation you're trying to deny. If Hillary Clinton really thought the above was what she was voting for when she voiced her assent, she is clearly incompetent to hold responsibility of any kind, let alone the to hold the presidency.
The entire universe knew precisely what George Bush was going to do with that resolution, and what the consequence of passing it were going to be. If Hillary Clinton was in the dark, she's the only one who was.
And whatever she might be, Hillary Clinton is no fool, as she keeps informing us. So, the rationalisation she's is peddling is insultingly preposterous.
I agree that Clinton is a savvy politician. Through a lot of hard work, she won over upstate voters, and she has won the affection of many hardcore Republican Senators. She and her husband have a lot of supporters amongst party insiders. But these are things that in most cases, hurts the country. It was the same political savvy that caused Clinton to vote for the war, for both Patriot Acts, and for the first bankruptcy bill. It is what caused Tony Blair to vote against his own people and support Bush. It is what caused Schumer to singlehandedly put Mukasey in office. What the people want is politicians to do what is right. One black Congressman went on the radio to claim that his backing of Clinton was moral because he was following the dictates of loyalty. His first loyalty is to the people. Now Edwards is shopping himself and meeting with both candidates and trading. These politicians have to put these things aside and act acccording to reason and according to conscience.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
