Why Not Hillary

The question came up this weekend with my mother, who has been cheering on a Hillary run for the presidency since late 2004.  Mom was thrilled to tell me that my sister has finally -- after almost 17 years of indifferent political abstinence -- registered to vote, solely so that my sister can vote for Hillary.

I guess the Senator has done something good, then.

Nevertheless, I don't support Senator Clinton's campaign for president, and am unenthusiastic about voting for her in the extreme, for the following reasons.

1.  Clinton is paranoid and confrontational, choosing the cover-up over the full disclosure in each and every instance of investigation into her personal and professional lives.  We've already lived through two presidential terms in which her paranoid style hurt the nation's political life, and I'm deeply unhappy at the idea that we might get another.

2.  Clinton chases after the middle ground in craven and unattractive ways.  I'm still disgusted with a speech Clinton gave last year to the US Chamber of Congress, criticizing young people for their poor work ethic thanks to today's entitlement culture, only to backtrack within days when she told a graduating college class that she had been mistaken.

Not only was the original speech crappy as spoken performance, it previewed how the Senator would attempt to attract so-called "values voters" during the primary season.  Which is to say, through cheap shots at meaningless targets, using poor rhetorical skills, followed by subsequent "clarifications" that only serve to highlight her lack of convictions.

3.  Clinton's political record does not impress me.  During the first Clinton administration, she was repeatedly and persistently strident,* condescending, and tone-deaf.  As Senator, she's done a fine enough job of working with Republican senators to bring aid and relief to New York State, but I see little corollary to the work she would need to do as President.  Senators by self-definition (if not in reality) are a collegial group.  The presidency, and its relationship to Congress, is a different matter altogether.

I'm not especially worked up about the Senator's vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.  Everyone was doing it, and I'm not at all surprised that such a centrist Democrat as Clinton, one with a long political history in the South and one with an overt concern to appear hawkish, would cast a yes vote.  I do think the Senator's inability to own up, frankly and simply, to her thinking and to her mistakes (with regard to the intelligence briefings and their obvious flaws) is a much bigger problem.  The Senator's inability to own up to mistakes is pathological, and one of the most certain things we know about her.

[*My mom called sexist the minute I used this word with her over the weekend.  She says I abuse the Senator for traits I would find attractive in a man.  I honestly don't know what to say about that.  I don't perceive my dislike of Clinton to be based on sexism, but of course, the whole point would be that my sexism is operating subconsciously.  And I'm also not sure if it matters, when it comes time for me to vote.  Your thoughts?]

4.  Fairly or unfairly, I consider another Clinton presidency in light of the first Clinton presidency.  And as the years have passed, I've realized the depths of my dismay at the first Clinton presidency.  WJ Clinton presided over one of the longest economic booms in post-war times, but I believe this was largely a matter of luck.  President Clinton's foreign policy was for the most part inept and ineffective (his failure to respond decisively or usefully after the Al Queda attacks on his watch has had particularly tragic repercussions, but his dithering on the Balkans War was another black mark) and his domestic policy achievements more or less vanish after 1993.

I realize the 1996 Welfare Reform Act earns modest praise from most policy-makers today, but I remain unconvinced that the benefits were worth the costs.  And in retrospect, President Clinton's failure to capitalize on the good economic times during his watch by enacting long-term economic policies to benefit the poor and working classes has to stand as one of the great missed opportunities in my lifetime so far.

Yes, I do remember that the Clinton Presidency was ham-strung by a Republican-controlled Congress.  It hardly helps Senator Clinton's campaign when you consider that the Democrats' loss of Congressional control in 1994 was helped along in large part by her abject failures during the 1993 Health Care initiative.

5.  Have I mentioned how much I remember the first Clinton presidency as one marked by paranoia, a persistent attitude of self-pity and defensiveness by people who never figured out how to win a partisan war, or even fight an especially effective campaign?  And how little enthusiasm I feel for more of the same?

6.  Finally, although I'm not 100% committed to this argument (because it seems too bean-counter calculating and therefore likely to be wrong), I think nominating Senator Clinton would be the biggest gift the Democratic party gave the Republicans since I don't even know when.

Right now, the Republican party shows every sign of nominating someone -- whomever it might be -- who has little-to-no ability to excite the core constituencies of the Republican party.  Meanwhile, I think it's fair to say that the Democrats will keep their primary voting blocs -- and be able to count on their strong support next November -- no matter who gets nominated.

Here I pause to say that I don't agree with my mother.  I don't think the core constituencies of the Democratic party are less likely to vote for Clinton or Obama because of sexism or racism.  I don't think Democrats are going to stay home rather than vote for a woman or an African-American.  I think we can count on high Democratic turn-out next November.

I am pretty sure, though, that there's one thing the Democrats could do to motivate Republican voters faster than you can say "put another gay-bashing initiative on the ballot," and that's to nominate Hillary Clinton for president.

If Hillary Clinton were an otherwise out-of-the-park candidate, I wouldn't care about that.  Let the best person win with the highest overall turn-out and become President.  But I think Clinton is so far from the best person for the job, I'm genuinely aghast and flabbergasted that she's leading by such a large margin in all the polls.

Comments

[Sarah]

I think I'll have to bookmark this one. I haven't taken the time to enumerate why Hilary is the wrong choice, except the last one, the gift to the Republicans. But I agree with your points. (With a little Clintonian backtracking of my own, I did like Bill far more than you seemed to).

I don't want Hilary for one term. I want a nice competent Democrat able to hold the job for two terms.

[Ariella]

I do think that the use of the word "strident" is sexist. If she was a man, you wouldn't use that term; it is distinctly applicable to a woman and is meant to denigrate a woman. If she was a guy, she'd be described as "advocating loudly" or some such BS.

Aside from that, I am a hard-core democrat and very liberal, as are my husband and in-laws, and we are all in agreement that Clinton is the wrong person for the job. First, I worry that she is a polarizing agent and that many democrats won't vote for her because of her paranoia and un-openness about her professional and private life.

Second, she really has no experience in foreign policy. Like it or not, we're engaged in a war right now and I would feel more comfortable with someone who has foreign policy experience to guide us through the END of that war.

Third, she panders to whatever at which she speaks. You illustrated it above, but I think another concern with that is that the Republicans will be able to paint her as a "waffler," much like they did with Kerry. I am no fan of Ron Paul, especially his pro-life agenda, but I am so impressed with his ability to take a view, stick with it, and ONLY change it if/when he finds something new. I think that almost ALL the democrats are doing themselves no favors at all by not picking view and sticking with it.

Another thing that bothers me about both Clinton and Obama is that neither of them took up the reins on the SCHIP thing. I don't know how you feel about it, but I feel like there is almost no "cause" out there more sympathetic than uninsured children getting healthcare. The kids can't help whether their parents make a lot of money, or whether they can afford healthcare, and I think it would have been really good for the dems to attempt to overturn Bush's veto. It would have sent a clear message that this so-called "compassionate" conservatism is nothing but a ruse, and that the dems aren't going to take it anymore. Instead, they looked like kicked dogs who weren't brave enough to get up and fight for themselves.

You know, I am the "youth" demographic they want to vote. I am intensely interested in politics, as are most of my friends. Most of us feel that the democrats just don't have a viable candidate right now, and it worries us because we don't want 8 more years of Republican.

As for whether Clinton "lucked" into that period of economic prosperity, I completely disagree with you. Even if you are correct, however, Bush's "tax cuts" and other economic "policies" have done nothing but piss that surplus down the toilet.

[dawn]

This is the one that gets it for me, "I think nominating Senator Clinton would be the biggest gift the Democratic party gave the Republicans since I don't even know when."

I don't think she can win. I really don't. So to me voting for her is a moot point -- I think her nomination will hand the presidency back over to the Republicans. She is too divisive a figure. Too many people simply DON'T LIKE HER. I want the nomination to go to someone who can actually win the election (and more and more I'm thinking that's Obama).

[Denise]

I do think there is a huge sexist element in the public's dislike of Hillary Clinton. As you pointed out, though, there are lots of non-sexist reasons to dislike or distrust her. So as reluctant as I am to use "a woman can't win" as a self-fulfilling prophecy ("a woman can't win, therefore we shouldn't nominate a woman, guaranteeing a woman will never win"), I think it is likely that this particular woman will galvanize the Republicans, swing voters, and many Democrats against her.

I think the safest choice for the Democrats would be Obama, but I'm starting to think the right choice would be Edwards.

I don't know who the safe choice for the Republicans would be. They seem intent on choosing someone that half their base will reject.

[Leggy]

I agree with 90% of what you wrote, but like Sarah, I have a more favorable impression of WJC's presidency than you. I TOTALLY agree re: her nomination would be a gift horse to the Republicans. And your line re: The Senator's inability to own up to mistakes is pathological, and one of the most certain things we know about her.
Doesn't that sound an awful lot like our current President? The last thing we need is 4 more years of a stubborn my-way-or-the-highway leader, even if I agree with her on the issues WAY more than I agree with the current president.

[K]

Brilliantly put.

I agree with almost all of them.

And I would add that I think Hillary will take money from ANYONE who offers it...

I think she is ahead because she has the most money.

Sometimes I wonder if Republicans aren't donating???

[Elizabeth]

Yeah, even though welfare reform turned out not to be the unmitigated disaster that many of us feared, I haven't forgiven WJC on that one. My bottom line was that he was willing to sacrifice millions of poor kids and their parents in order to guarantee his reelection (which was not in that much doubt) but he couldn't keep his pants zipped for the same reason.

And I'm still waiting for HRC to admit that the health care fiasco wasn't just because the insurance industry was out to get her (which it was) but also because of her political stupidity.

But yeah, I think strident is a sexist word here.

[Lisa V]

I have never wanted her to be president. I read how she basically derailed the whole health care reform during WJC admin. She was difficult to deal with and put her ego above the good of the country. That said, I would prefer her over any Republican.

Number one reason I wouldn't vote for
her though, she can't win.

Obama, Obama, Obama!

[stefan]

I like Brad Delong's take on HRC (he has in the Treasury at the time):

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

On the other hand, I think HRC can and most likely will win against any Republican in 2008.

I also really really dislike the emergence of the dynastic family political machine at the Presidential level in the last two decades, and I see no reason to vote for its continuance. The problem with HRC is that she can win for the wrong reasons (and I don't mean that she's a woman).

[stefan]

I like Brad Delong's take on HRC (he has in the Treasury at the time):

My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president.

On the other hand, I think HRC can and most likely will win against any Republican in 2008.

I also really really dislike the emergence of the dynastic family political machine at the Presidential level in the last two decades, and I see no reason to vote for its continuance. The problem with HRC is that she can win for the wrong reasons (and I don't mean that she's a woman).

[julie]

I have no idea yet who most deserves my support. I go back and forth on Hillary because I'm concerned that I am guilty of the very thing your mother accused you of.

I'm also not sure what to hope for. In the last two elections, Democrats focused on the candidate who appeared most likely to appeal to a broad base. That worked out well. So maybe we should be a little more idealistic this time?

[aizheng]

肺癌 肝癌 胃癌 食道癌 宫颈癌

[Jackie]

I agree with many of your points. Her record and public speeches show a much more centrist/hawkish candidate than I am willing to vote for (though I will always vote Democratic in the election). I'm not interested in furthering the party's recent trend of running away from the ideas and terms that the party has always stood for (like the brouhaha over "liberal").

As far as sexism goes, I think sexism has been woven into her public portrayal for so long it's almost impossible to extricate it when considering her as a candidate or public persona.

[erinberry]

I agree with previous posters that there is a lot of sexism behind the hatred of Hillary.

That said, I'm not a fan of hers. She lost me when she voted for the war (and did not denounce that vote later once all the falsehoods about the so-called evidence came out). I think she's an opportunist.

Still, I'd vote for her ahead of any Republican.

[lisa]

Haven't had a chance to read all the comments, but entirely agree with you on every point, and a couple more, since I worked in children's rights (her legal expertise) and I did have the opportunity to meet her before Bill was elected, and I know people who have worked with her-she is single minded about serving her own ego. And yes, I'm guessing Karl Rove is working to get her nominated. ~lmc

[lisa]

Oh, and sorry-but your mom is right about the use of "strident." Doesn't change any of the other facts though. ~lmc

[Susan]

My five-year-old daughter is a HUGE Hillary fan (which means, really, that she likes the fact that there is a girl running for president). All these excellent discussions are making me realize I should probably be more critical of her emerging politics--although I live in red state with a late primary, so my democratic vote is truly meaningless in the presidential elections. By the time of our primary, the Democratic nominee will be chosen, and by the general election, there's no chance the Dem nominee will get any of my state's electoral votes. So I've been slow to figure out a real priority in the Clinton-Obama-Edwards trio, since whatever I decide will make no difference.

[landismom]

I saw five of the major Democratic candidates speak in person last month, and I came away from it feeling like I'd be happy voting for either Edwards or Obama, but not Hillary. I'll vote for her, if she's the Democratic nominee, but I won't be happy about it.

I wish Ron Paul would run as an Independent. We're due for a Ross Perot-like spoiler on the right.

[kern]

That. What you just said. I am a centrist Republican and am just sick of Bush myself and would consider voting Dem for the first time in my life but not for Hilary. I would rather see someone like Pelosi (who is adept at playing the political game) as the candidate. I do think that if Hilary is nominated the Republicans will enjoy a big win. I suspect that Guliani will be the Republican candidate-his personal life is a mess but people remember how he behaved during 9-11. He gave the appearance of being The Man in Charge, whether he was or not, and that is v. appealing.

I wish there was a True Moderate out there somewhere.

[maggie]

Thank you for a thoughtful well-reasoned post. I am so on the fence.

[Shannon]

Sadly, I agree with most of your points. Especially the last, which is saddest of all.

I just don't know who to support. I like all the far-left guys but they won't get elected. I want to support someone electable, who I don't hate. I just don't know who that is.

Obama? Is he electable? Maybe?

[MicheleS]

I don't like her either. My 3 year olds will be in middle school before we get a Republican out of the White House. Why, oh why is she all we have? It's baffling!!!

[cityprof]

I'm another person who agrees with all of your points about Hillary. Plus, to quote an earlier commenter, I "JUST DON'T LIKE HER." I find her slippery and dishonest, and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I feel particularly pained about this as a New Yorker--turning the 2008 election into a Rudy v. Hillary race is the worst thing that could happen to this country in our current circumstances. Personally I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket on the Democratic side, as I think the two of them might have a chance of winning AND a chance of effecting substantive change.

P.S. I've really been enjoying your blog.

[Elizabeth]

This is so interesting. I think my feelings about HRC resonate most closely with Leggy's. I am very dismayed that she is the front-runner candidate. I am also not thrilled with Barack Obama. I think that the way the game is structured, all the truly interesting and principled candidates get weeded out long before they can gain the momentum to become serious contenders. Kucinich, for example. He's the butt of jokes. But why? His policy proposals are well-reasoned, bold and principled. I'm not necessarily holding *him* up in particular as the ideal candidate, but I wish someone *like him* had at least a fighting chance.