Making sense on Hillary
Matt Yglesias, as he usually does, cuts through the muck and makes some real sense discussing Hillary Clinton's 'liberal' credentials.
He quite wisely points out that Clinton, well, isn't that liberal. Rather, she's been a moderate for all of her life and even was a Republican prior to college. The reason people think she's a communist in centrist's clothing is because of one of the most effective smear campaigns in the history of politics. During her husband's first term in office, she was given the responsibility of heading up health care reform. She delivered a rather unusual plan which still relied heavily on the exisiting health care and insurance infrastructure, but did offer - in some cases - limited choices. Republicans ran an effective public relations campaign which derailed the plan and labeled her a liberal willing to give government the ability to make all of your personal health care choices. Granted the latter was an out-an-out lie, but folks were stuck with that impression of her.
But if you dig beyond that singular argument, you find a more moderate record ... particularly in her successful tenure as a U.S. Senator. She has become known as one of the key Democrats for Republicans to work with when seeking a bipartisan proposal. She's shrewd enough to get what she wants out of the bill, but also let those on the other side of the aisle get something too. She's one of the more hawkish Democratic senators out there and is a pivotal force in the moderate DLC.
The problem is, as Yglesias notes, the perception that Hillary is too liberal. She's spent much of her life living as a moderate, but it's hard to sell that when you have folks like Tracey Schmitt saying things like 'the fact that the centrist organization of the Democrat Party would anoint Hillary Clinton anything, exemplifies just how far left the Democrats have gone.' All of the swing voters nod there head and go 'yep, she did want to socialize health care' and then I pull out my hair.
I like Hillary. I'd be inclined to support her in 2008 if she does run for president, though I have become a strong fan of Wesley Clark and I've always loved John Edwards. But I don't know if she can win, particularly if she runs against someone like Rudy Guiliani or John McCain ... two moderate Republicans (of course, neither one of them may survive the GOP primary seeing how much control the Religious Right and neo-conservatives have right now).
UPDATE: Carl Cannon at The Washington Monthly says Hillary can win.
He quite wisely points out that Clinton, well, isn't that liberal. Rather, she's been a moderate for all of her life and even was a Republican prior to college. The reason people think she's a communist in centrist's clothing is because of one of the most effective smear campaigns in the history of politics. During her husband's first term in office, she was given the responsibility of heading up health care reform. She delivered a rather unusual plan which still relied heavily on the exisiting health care and insurance infrastructure, but did offer - in some cases - limited choices. Republicans ran an effective public relations campaign which derailed the plan and labeled her a liberal willing to give government the ability to make all of your personal health care choices. Granted the latter was an out-an-out lie, but folks were stuck with that impression of her.
But if you dig beyond that singular argument, you find a more moderate record ... particularly in her successful tenure as a U.S. Senator. She has become known as one of the key Democrats for Republicans to work with when seeking a bipartisan proposal. She's shrewd enough to get what she wants out of the bill, but also let those on the other side of the aisle get something too. She's one of the more hawkish Democratic senators out there and is a pivotal force in the moderate DLC.
The problem is, as Yglesias notes, the perception that Hillary is too liberal. She's spent much of her life living as a moderate, but it's hard to sell that when you have folks like Tracey Schmitt saying things like 'the fact that the centrist organization of the Democrat Party would anoint Hillary Clinton anything, exemplifies just how far left the Democrats have gone.' All of the swing voters nod there head and go 'yep, she did want to socialize health care' and then I pull out my hair.
I like Hillary. I'd be inclined to support her in 2008 if she does run for president, though I have become a strong fan of Wesley Clark and I've always loved John Edwards. But I don't know if she can win, particularly if she runs against someone like Rudy Guiliani or John McCain ... two moderate Republicans (of course, neither one of them may survive the GOP primary seeing how much control the Religious Right and neo-conservatives have right now).
UPDATE: Carl Cannon at The Washington Monthly says Hillary can win.
posted by Jmac at 4:07 PM
6 Comments:
Hillary in 2008!!
Ugh. I've have to endure years more of unfunny jokes about my name. I'm so tired of it.
But anyway, yes, I have been debating much with myself about whether I could stomach voting for her, and so far it's leaning toward "no."
Are you anti-Hillary because of her moderate views or because of the perception that she couldn't win?
Because of her moderate views. (And latent facism. That GTA stuff is some bullshit.)
But, as it should be noted, if you oppose her call for stricter parental controls and/or ratings ... then the implication is that you're all for violence in video games being marketed toward children.
That's at tricky line to walk.
I'm not for it, but 1) I don't think it warps kids' brains, 2) I think it's up to parents to decide what their kids watch/play, and 3) though I think the current ratings are a little stupid (in much the same way as the MPAA ones are), they're working okay. I'm also pretty hardcore on that whole "leave my art the hell alone, idiot politicians" thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home