Already, terrified Republicans are ginning up their playbook,
to fight another battle against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“Don’t you remember all the scandals from the Clinton era??”
Hmm. Take a pop quiz regarding the alleged “scandals” following Hillary Clinton
around. Which of these five is not like the others?
- Whitewater
“scandal”
- Travel-gate
- File-gate
- Vince
Foster case
- Cattle
futures “scandal”
The answer is “e”. In the first four cases, Republican
investigators tried to prove Clinton did anything unethical or illegal, and
came up totally empty. In the cattle futures case, it was so obvious that she
had done nothing wrong, that they didn’t even try to investigate. Clinton is
clean as a whistle.
“Her health care plan was a secret plot to impose socialist
bureaucracy on us and take away all our choices! Just ask Harry and Louise!”
These are not only lies, but lies that are almost twenty years old. Hillarycare
was essentially just a plan for get employers to help find coverage for their
employees, just like most of us have already. Obamacare goes much farther than
Hillary did, in many areas, and Obamacare isn’t socialist dictatorship either.
“Clinton is so liberal she practically sleeps with a copy of
the Communist Manifesto under her pillow!” Um, no. Things Clinton has
supported: nuclear power, Israel, resisting the aggressions of Iran, the
invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq war, releasing oil reserves to the market, the
Cuba embargo, increased homeland security measures, putting national security
ahead of human rights, the Patriot Act, a ban on flag burning, giving the
president the benefit of the doubt on executive authority, three strikes and
you’re out for violent offenders, the death penalty, Bush’s No Child Left
Behind plan, and the right to pray in public schools. She also dislikes
same-sex marriage and opposes sex and violence in video games. In the Senate,
she was constantly reaching out to Republicans, working with Newt Gingrich and
Bill Frist on health care, and even hooking up with Republicans at the Senate
Prayer Breakfast. Some liberal.
“She doesn’t know how to be an executive!” Well, four years
ago I would agree. A key goal for an executive is to choose the subordinates
immediately beneath you, and on that score, Clinton did a poor job in 2008,
choosing Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Penn as key leaders of her campaign team.
Both were incompetent and both were gone by April 2008, but by then it was too
late.
However, Clinton has totally redeemed herself in this
regard, during her tenure at State. When she arrived at the State Department,
the Department was arguably in its worst shape in the history of the Republic:
the Department’s foreign-policy functions had been entirely usurped by White
House advisers and the Pentagon. Secretary Powell was forced to do Bush’s dirty
work at the UN and was eventually fired after squabbling too many times with
Cheney and Rumsfeld. Secretary Rice was treated with open contempt by Rumsfeld.
Morale at State was at an all-time low.
Clinton turned the State Department around. She improved
morale, launched reforms, got the Department involved in social media, and persuaded
Defense Secretary Gates to help her to get better budgets for State; meanwhile
her demonic travel schedule helped her to restore America’s reputation and
helped the President to manage a number of international brush-fires. She is
arguably the best Secretary of State we’ve had since Dean Acheson. And it is
absolutely an executive job, a very challenging one.
“America isn’t ready for a female president!” Well, some
people aren’t ready, of course. But a lot of the people who would never vote
for a female candidate will never vote for the Democratic candidate regardless
of who it is, so the Democrats wouldn’t lose much in picking a woman. And
meanwhile, there are a lot of motivated women out there, women who remember the
way Clinton was treated as First Lady and as presidential candidate, and who
remember the Republican efforts in 2012 to ridicule the notion that women have
a legitimate need to be able to manage their own lives and get access to health
care on their own terms.
Also, for decades the national bias against women in
national leadership has stemmed in part from the desire to elect leaders who
can put on a strong image in staring down global adversaries such as the Soviets
and al-Qa’ida. But in recent decades America got a good look at women such as
Hillary and Madeleine Albright playing creditable roles in national security,
and the most testosterone-laden officials such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and Bolton leading America into quicksand, LBJ-style. Plenty of
people decided that comparatively speaking, women haven’t done too badly. Clinton
in particular has shown up well, performing superbly on the Senate Armed
Services committee and staring down the Chinese as Secretary of State. In any
case, national security issues are less likely to be major drivers for policy
in the next decade or so, as America looks more inward to figure out its
internal economic and social problems.
“America doesn’t want a Clinton dynasty!” Um, yeah. I
guarantee you that the whackaloons who peddle this argument will be the same
guys who screamed “Don’t count the votes!” in Florida in 2000, to get Bush II
into the White House, and who are touting Bush III as the best man for 2016.
So, there’s that.
“The Democrats have other choices!” Well, sort of. Biden was
born in 1942; if he ran twice for president and won, he would leave office at
age 82. O’Malley and Warner are pretty unremarkable and uninspiring. Andrew Cuomo has angered a lot of Democrats
by cozying up to Republicans in New York; some see him as Lieberman II. Brian
Schweitzer would be a superb choice to go out and re-plant the Democratic flag
in southern and western states, but he makes more sense as a vice-presidential
candidate. Antonio Villaraigosa has serious ethical baggage.
The Democrats have other women in the pipeline, but none can
really compete with Clinton. Elizabeth Warren is a law professor and an expert
in one field, finance; four years in the Senate were enough to get Obama into
the White House, but trying that a second time might be pushing it. Sebelius is
absolutely brilliant but she is also the dullest speaker since Elmer Fudd. Gillibrand
has nothing that Clinton doesn’t have. Jennifer Granholm would be president
already if she hadn’t been born in Canada – crap!
It’s hard for a party to win three presidential elections in
a row. In the last century it’s only been done three times: in 1928 because the
Republicans ran an ugly smear campaign against their Catholic opponent, and during
the Roosevelt revolution, and at the tail-end of the Reagan revolution in 1988,
which again involved an unprecedented effort by the Republicans to smear their
opponent. In 2012 Obama, an incumbent running against an unlikeable opponent
with a weak strategy and a lot of baggage, still only won by 4 points, and in
2016 the Republicans may wise up, pick a better candidate, and maybe even rein
in the influence of the tea-party wingnuts who crippled the GOP in 2012. So in
2016 we could have a real horse race.
And while we’re assuming that the Republican nominee will be
someone with serious baggage (Christie), a thin resume (Rubio), or a toxic name
(Bush), or someone who’s far-right views have already gotten harsh scrutiny
from the electorate (Ryan, Huckabee, Palin, Perry, Santorum), the Republicans
have four years to figure out a strategy for the one thing all Republicans
agree on: they want to win the next one, bad. So, more than ever, 2016 would be
a good year for the Democrats to put forward their obvious top pick.
Another reason to pick Clinton: the Democrats need a
fighter. The last time the Democrats had an honest-to-God fighter running the
party, was Lyndon Johnson. The Blue Team needs someone who will call a liar a
liar, who will throw an elbow when they get crowded in the paint, who will
defend democracy from the people trying to wreck the system, who are willing to
compromise but only up to a point and only with people who negotiate in good
faith. Obama and Kerry were not fighters. Harry Reid, not a fighter, or Hoyer
or Durbin. The Democrats need wartime consiglieres like Schumer and Pelosi. And
Clinton. People who don’t have their lunch money in their hands as soon as they
see hungry linebackers march into the cafeteria.
And another reason: Bill Clinton. Bill steered Obama’s
campaign out of torpedo water with a single speech at the convention in the 2012
race. Imagine him making speeches like that every day in the 2016 campaign, for
his wife. Imagine the fundraising power he brings. As we remember from the 2008 race, both
Clintons want very badly to go back to the White House. Hillary’s disavowals of
interest in another campaign are distinctly less than Shermanesque, and she has
not said or done anything that would jeopardize her future options.
Here’s another indicator that she might run. Clinton wrote
her memoir, “Living History”, in 2003. A lot has happened to her since then.
Currently she is thinking of writing another memoir. But not about her 2008
race, which would be a really entertaining read, but could very well end her
presidential ambitions right there. She wants to write about her time at State,
the perfect vehicle for launching a White House bid. Retirees can be frank
about their failures, and burn bridges by dishing out the blame; candidates who
are still in the running want to talk about their successes and unite all their
old allies. By skipping right from “Living History” to her State tenure, she
not only skips over the 2008 loss, but also tricky stuff like her Iraq vote as
Senator.
No comments:
Post a Comment