"we can’t spend our time focused on alternate realities....it’s time to let go of the fairy tales"

[Pirate Smile]

What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?



In the worst of the Democratic primary campaign in 2008, the angry end of the thing, when I had become a devoted Hillary Clinton supporter and was engaged in bitter arguments with people with whom I often agreed, I used to harbor a secret fear, the twin of my political hope: I worried that Hillary Clinton would win her party’s nomination.

-snip-
The empirical choice between Clinton and Obama was never as direct as those on either side made it out to be; neither was obviously more equipped or more progressive than the other. The maddening part, then and now, is that they were utterly comparable candidates. The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented. These are fictional characters shaped by the predilections, prejudices and short memories of the media and the electorate. They’re not actual politicians between whom we choose here on earth.

If she had won her party’s nomination and then the general election, Hillary Clinton’s presidency would probably not have looked so different from Obama’s. She was, after all, a senator who, for a variety of structural and strategic reasons, often crossed party lines to co-sponsor legislation with Republicans, who voted to go to war in Iraq, who moved to the center on everything from Israel to violent video games. You think Obama’s advisers are bad? Hillary Clinton hired, and then took far too long to get rid of, Mark Penn. And her economic team probably would have looked an awful lot like Obama’s.

-snip-
If Clinton had been elected president, those characterizations would have become only uglier, especially as her tenure was compared with an unrealized and thus unblemished Obama administration. Alternate-universe President Hillary Clinton would have been competing with a dream. But in a funny way, Obama is, too.
We forget, sometimes, that our government was designed to limit the powers of the president. Barack Obama walked into the White House in January 2009 with his own set of structural and strategic challenges: an economy in free fall; a 24-hour cable-news and talk-radio-fed culture eager to blare “crisis!” headlines every 12 minutes, making long-view evaluations of a presidency impossible; and most important, an obstinate Congress. On every major vote, from the stimulus to uncompromised health care reform, Obama needed 60 (not the historically customary 50) to get anything moving, a practical impossibility, thanks both to Republicans, whose stated goal was not to fix things but to keep the president from fixing anything, and to conservative Democrats, who made the party’s majority a false promise to begin with.

There simply was never going to be a liberal messiah whose powers could transcend the limits set by a democracy this packed with regressive obstructionists. That doesn’t mean we can’t hope for, seek and demand better from politicians and presidents. But we can’t spend our time focused on alternate realities in which our country, its systems and its climate are not what they are. With advance apologies for returning to one of 2008’s most infelicitous phrases, it’s time to let go of the fairy tales.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/what-would-hillary-clinton-have-done.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

[Arkana]

1. Well clearly the writer of this article is just a DEE ELL CEE SELLOUT.

I'm gonna stay home and not vote next November so I can teach that Obummer a LESSON!

[Pirate Smile]

2. Of Course!

I thought she did a really good job of a realistic reality-check.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. The core of Obama's advisers from the Clinton Administration...

would have served in Hillary's administration. And her economic team would have been identical.

We often suffer from the "the losing politicians are always more progressive."

The vast majority of Democratic leadership is center to center right, third way, Rockefeller Democrats.This is not by accident, as those who get the nod to run and the help of those in power are not boat rockers.

[Pirate Smile]

9. If a new Administration is looking for people with experience to join their Administration in the

middle of a massive crisis, it is always going to be from the previous Administration from the same party.

Why are "the losing politicians are always more progressive"?

There is a pretty obvious answer to that and it really emphasizes the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It is an answer that usually gets ignored.

70%+ of Republicans identify as either conservatives or very conservative.

38% of Democrats identify as either liberal or very liberal BUT 39% identify as moderate. Here's the real kicker - 18% identify as conservative with 5% identifying as "very conservative" so that = 62% of the Democratic Party.

Democratic politicians tend to be moderate because, in a lot of ways, that is who they are representing.

I do think there is probably a decent chunk of the "moderates" who would actually be "liberals" based on policy beliefs but the term has been so damaged by the RW smear campaign that a lot of people just don't claim it. Democrats also include a lot more moderates because they've been rejected by the Republicans. Where do old-style liberal & moderate Republicans go? They either become Independents or moderate/conservative Democrats.

Our tent is bigger. Their tent has shrunk.

Hard Right Republicans Outnumber Hard Left Democrats

A much higher proportion of Republicans call themselves "very conservative" or "conservative" (71%) than Democrats call themselves "very liberal" or "liberal" (38%). Democrats are as likely to call themselves moderates as liberals.

Additionally conservative Republicans are a bit more likely to call themselves very conservative than liberal Democrats are to identify as very liberal. As a result, hard right Republicans outnumber hard left Democrats by more than 2 to 1, 21% vs. 9%.

Relatively small and equally matched proportions of independents put themselves at the far right and far left of the political spectrum. The plurality of independents (44%) says they are moderate.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

[Ozymanithrax]

20. But should they look for the previous administrations people...

when many of those folk contributed to the problem that the administration is trying to solve?

Our tent is bigger, because the Administration and much of the Democratic Party only apples to Conservative and right of center folk to keep hold on power. The feel safe telling liberals get behind them or get the fuck out.

I have no problem with moderates coming into the party. I have a lot of problems with the party abandoning championship of workers and working poor because they've found the wallet of the affluent and wealthy.

[demgrrrll]

22. Good Article. Kick

[treestar]

4. Rec'd

Hillary would have had the same problems. The Tea Party would have been the same. I'd have been defending her as Dem President with the same fervor. Which goes for any other Dem. President. I am not going to risk having Republicans in that office over which Dem. would have done what.

[OHdem10]

5. Could it be that Obama is catching all the pent-up resentment

and anger left over from Bill Clinton(Centrist DLC).

The Third Way simply lack the smoothness of the Clinton
Persona.

NO, I am NOT bashing Bill Clinton. He is a conservative
Democrat and I am a Liberal. Believe it or not I like him.
I am not a Democrat who thinks any Democrat who does not
agree with me has cooties and I must shun them.
No, He was still better than a Conservative Republican.
I think now many more Liberals realize that Bill Clinton
signed Nafta, signed the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, and
ended Welfare as we knew it.. All of these have contributed
along with the Republicans to DRIVING US OVER the CLIFF to
DISASTER. There is such a visceral reaction that when we
see Obama going in similar direction, the reaction is
much stronger. MORE OF US ARE NOW ACUTELY AWARE of
the dangers ahead if he pursues these policies.

Do not yell at me but I believe Hilary is actually more
Liberal than Bill and she would have been tough. BUT
there is one reality: All of them must first pay homage
to Wall Street over Main ST. Until this is changed it
is a waste of time to fret over what might have been.

[Pirate Smile]

14. That's an interesting point and I do think Pres. Obama gets some extra backlash based on

what some people think happened in the Clinton Administration.

[primavera]

33. I certainly hope so

Imho, the author is (sadly, like many here on DU) too quick to patronizingly dismiss as historical revisionism a deliberation on where we've been as a party and where we want to go from here. As you point out, we've been electing conservative Dems for some time now, sacrificing visionary leadership for the more pragmatic, lets-make-a-deal, business model of leadership. That decision on our part has produced positives and negatives. Personally, I think the negative consequences of that decision have outweighed the positives. I could certainly be wrong and I will listen respectfully and eagerly to the views of other Dems who feel differently about it. But that discussion has value and should not be belittled. The political landscape in this country has changed dramatically since Clinton and the DLC acquired the center stage of the Democratic Party. It's only being a responsible voter to ask ourselves periodically how that's working out for us.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. They were the same candidate.

The few 'differences' have been seen to have been temporary rhetorical affectations on Obama's part, no mandates, raise the cap, public option. In the end, they were identical in every way.
Would love to get rid of the fairy tales of religion that lead to Obama's anti equality views.

[COLGATE4]

7. I'm not at all persuaded that Hillary would have been as naive as

Obama has been regarding the possibility of "transformational bipartisanship" that he has adhered to, much to his (and our) disadvantage. Hillary knew and knows full well what shit heads the Rethugs are, from practical and personal experience. In addition, with her experience as a Senator, Hillary may well have been able to better push Reid et al to do more positive things than they have, and could have conceivably better handled/manipulated scumbags like turncoat Lieberman and our infamous Blue Dogs. On balance, I think she would have had a better chance of being successful. However, that's water under the bridge now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. OTOH, she would have invaded Iran two years ago. nt

[Pirate Smile]

15. I appreciated the honest admission in the article that it was something

the author was worried about and a reason she considered supporting Obama. Of course, after everyone gets dug in, honest admissions are much rarer on all sides.

[Beacool]

28. No she wouldn't .

Please stop repeating that fallacy. Her comment was in response to a reporter's question of what she would do IF Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Has Iran attacked Israel? I think not.

:eyes:

[Cosmocat]

23. Her style wuold have been different, but ...

100 percent sure that the Rs would have done the same nonsense, and 99% sure the mushy blue dogs would have been just as mushy.

Not seeing one senator or representative that would have done much different on HCR or finance reform.

I backed BO in part because I, VERY NIAVELY, thought the Rs would have him less than Hillary. I mean, I knew they would be arseholes, but I did not see the Tea Party or the complete hatred for a guy who has been as reasonable as any human being on this planet could be with them.

One thing about politics that I have found to be interesting, is the short memory people have.

In this case, people forget just how much the Rs hated Hillary. For nearly 15 years, they were doing preemptive attacks on her in advance of her run for president. I mean, the haircut crape and holding planes up during the Big Dog's tenure.

They were constantly hacking at her in the early/mid 2000s.

People WANT to think the media takes it easy on BO, because there was some truth to the media having starry eyes with him EARLY in his campaign. BUT, once he became the presumptive winner in the primary, it ALL turned.

Overnight, Fox News, which from the day it was born painted Hillary as the anti-christ embodied, suddenly were all giggly with her. Mudock suddenly was raising money for her. And, BO was suddenly being question for not wearing a gosh darn flag pin and because his pastor was batsnot crazy ...

Hill would not have been like BO constantly TRYING to work with the Rs, but they would have hated her just the same, and pulled the same kind of crape on her that the are with BO, I guess is my point.

[Fearless]

8. +1

[Blasphemer]

26. For me the only wild card would be Bill Clinton's role as advocate

But, back in 2008, I was not particularly invested in the Obama vs. Clinton primary fight. It was obviously going to decide who was going to be the future president and in either case, history would be made but I never expected any striking differences in policy from either. There would obviously be differences - they have different personalities and in Clinton's case, her first spouse would have been a former POTUS who left office with high approval ratings. I don't know that many people look back and wonder "what if" through rose colored glasses. There have been some inflammatory posts in that direction on DU but for the most part, given HRC's tenure as SoS, I don't see much of it. I think that even critiques that are specifically aimed at Obama encompass critiques that are aimed at the party as a whole and I imagine HRC would have gotten the same criticisms.

[bonzotex]

10. good article, thanks! n/t

[bemildred]

11. Ah, this should be good.

:popcorn:

[Pirate Smile]

12. It's been pretty rational so far - just like the article and its author.

But, perhaps, the shit-stirrers had just not arrived yet.

[bemildred]

18. You never know for sure.

Sometimes they sink like a stone, sometimes they take off like a rocket, sometimes they wobble along for a while, especially on the weekends. But when I see certain kinds of language, the odds of it lighting a fuse somewhere improve.

The OP itself is well done I think, though it is not a question I was in much doubt about.

[Pirate Smile]

19. It is a reasonable article that doesn't deem one side saints and the other sinners, one a hero and

the other a villain. Those are the posts that get lit up.

More accurate and less hyperbolic articles get a lot less attention which is actually too bad because they are actually a lot closer to the truth.

[Pirate Smile]

16. kick

[Vattel]

17. Not much daylight between them.

Obama the candidate represented himself as left of Clinton on things like habeas corpus, due process, and executive war powers, but that turned out to be just campaign rhetoric. And of course the big difference between their health care proposals was on whether there should be mandates, and Obama ultimately came around to Clinton's view on that. It is impossible to say whether Clinton would have done better, but they are both way too conservative for me.

[quaker bill]

21. Well written - thanks

[TheKentuckian]

24. I don't think would be that different with Hillary and so I opposed her.

There would be differences though.
Clinton would not go after the teachers like this nor would she be playing the lame and absurd "bipartisan/post-partisan" nonsense but she'd be more prone to avoid any effort to regulate corporation and financial institutions and to be eager to rattle sabers o enter combat.

On the whole, I would imagine she might be better for internal party morale though because while she would use triangulation to reach very similar policy aims it wouldn't be the mealy mouthed and soft headed direct assimilation of positions we oppose and blame for were we are as a nation today.
I also believe she would not go on the attack against core constituencies, even if she personally felt them to be a pain.

The activist would feel better about being on the attack against the opposition and feel less attacked themselves and that would probably be better for morale and cohesion as expectations would be much more tempered.

Clinton may have had even less good policy but the shift in focus, attitude, and approach might have been better for the party.

Being "bipartisan" with the fools that wrecked us is crazy. It sounds good and implies maturity but in a two party system that is based on opposition, it is just bound for failure if the other party won't play.

[paulk]

25. I'm not sure about this -

"she'd be more prone to avoid any effort to regulate corporation and financial institutions"

here's an interesting article from 2008 - it's one of the main reasons I supported Hillary over Obama, actually -

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/133518/373

"Interestingly, she is being attacked by Obama for her votes on trade and labor rights. Her record shows a 100% backing of progressive votes on "Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements." and on General Union Rights and on Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas. Here's her record on Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements. Solidly progressive with the exception of one bill in 2002.

Hillary has a 100% progressive voting record on issues related to corporate subsidies and on housing. She ranks as the number 1 progressive among all senators on these issues."


Going on voting records, Hillary was less of the "corporate whore" many of Obama's supporter's referred to her as and, imho, was far more of a liberal/progressive than Obama.

[Beacool]

29. It was myth that she was more conservative than Obama.

;)

[paulk]

31. no, it was a PR campaign

;-)

[Scurrilous]

27. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Beacool]

30. They would have both face similar problems.

The difference would have been in how they handled these problems. Hillary wouldn't have acquiesced so easily to the nutty members of Congress. I think that after many years in the WH and Congress she forged relationships with members of both parties and would have been better able to deal with a recalcitrant Congress.

I'll always think that we missed an opportunity, she would have been a good president.

:(

[Pirate Smile]

32. kick

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. I have always believed that we'd be having pretty much the same discussions here on DU

I stand by that belief. While I have little doubt that Hillary would have been a good POTUS and that I would have supported her just as strongly as I support President Obama (or any Democratic POTUS), I doubt that many things would be substantially different.