Is Clinton The Real Unifier?

I have long been saying that voters are considering presidential hopefuls Obama, Clinton and McCain on a Liberal-Moderate-Conservative scale, in that order, independent of party affiliation. McCain is playing a balancing act, putting his "maverick" image out to the public and courting the conservatives on the inside of the GOP. Obama, on the opposite end, is challenged to maintain his liberal image without seeming too divorced from the bread-and-butter concerns of middle America. This allows Clinton to slide right in between them and frame herself as the true "compromise candidate." It also opens her to attacks on all sides. Liberals slam her for doing what you are supposed to do in a presidential campaign: use your resources to win; conservatives slam her for her obvious departures and disagreements with how Republicans have been running the country for the last 8 years.

Ironically, both Democratic candidates have been friendlier toward McCain than each other. This is changing since it has become obvious that people are tired of the negative campaigning. Obama has repeatedly spoken for unity in November, and yesterday Clinton (finally) said that if Obama gets the nomination she will "work her heart out for him." Admittedly, it is easier for her to say now that she is on her way to being the perceived front runner again. However, the same could be said for Obama, calling for party unity, at a time when he was soaring on public opinion. The Illinois senator has also repeatedly accused Clinton of using GOP tactics against him, and many people believe that the "vast right wing conspiracy" (a term ironically coined by Clinton) is currently conspiring for Clinton.

My first question is: just what are "GOP tactics" and if this "Rove Playbook" exists, I'd like to see a copy of it, because it seems to me it has been pretty effective. Maybe Democrats should take a lesson from the other side of aisle. The last time I was old enough to vote for a Democrat that actually won an election was 16 years ago, or 12 if you count Bill's second term. Since the Rove comparisons have fallen largely on deaf ears, Obama has now begun comparing Clinton's campaign strategy to McCain's, which I think is backwards. Obama has seized on the proposed Gas Tax Holiday that both Clinton and McCain support and he opposes to frame Clinton as a "defector." In reality, I think it was McCain co-opting a Democratic strategy, which is very good for his (illusory) moderate image. I find it an erroneous comparison, in fact, I find the idea that there is any specific and particular way you should run a presidential campaign silly.

I believe the main conceit of liberals is not their ideas, but the attitude that the rest of the world would see it their way if they would just "wake up" or if they were not so "ignorant." Maybe this is the conceit of every broad group of people. Regardless, the liberal vs. conservative dynamic in American politics always falls along these lines. We are told that liberals want change, implying that change would be good for everyone. We are told conservatives fear and abhor change because it will undermine our social structure and destroy "the establishment."

I believe Clinton represents the closest thing to a true bipartisan presidency we can hope for. I've said this before, but allow me to reiterate: Obama wants us to believe he is the "change" candidate and the one who will bring a spirit of cooperation to government, yet he holds the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Clinton represents liberal ideal for individuals, and very moderate ideals for government. Her voting record shows that she is a party-line Democrat, but she has crossed the aisle quite a few times in order to achieve goals she believed were for the best. Obama has made gestures in this area, but has continually withdrawn when it was time to put his name on bipartisan compromises.

The Weekly Standard recently published an article called An Exceedingly Strange New Respect, and while it points out why Clinton is gaining respect from the GOP and conservatives, I believe it also points out the growing respect for her overall. They make a very compelling case for the idea that the 2008 campaign itself has transformed Clinton into what she claims to be based on her past experiences. She's shown toughness, resilience, and tenacity, and moreover, she has demonstrated that she will not be forced to back down by the loud clamor of dissent, something every president faces. I would ask: isn't being respected by the GOP a key factor in encouraging cooperation? When Obama calls for change and unity and makes sweeping promises of compromise and shared responsibility, this is actually (as I have said before) code for: I will encourage bipartisan cooperation in my administration. But would he? Or does he simply believe that by virtue of being President he will be able to strongarm the GOP into submission? They do not like him; the GOP sees Obama as a threat, as a reversal of their efforts, and the end of conservative dominance of government. That's great right? I don't think so. I'm not sure we need another president that half the country hates. I'm not sure we're really ready for the kind of fight Obama will have to fight. There are much more pressing issues facing America than the Red & Blue Divide. Why not go with the candidate who's already purple?

Clinton has a very liberal background. Back in the '60s and '70s, she would have been in the front row of every Obama rally chanting, "Yes we can, yes we can." But the Woodstock era politics largely failed. What is really different now, forty years later? We're still fighting other people's wars. We're still detaining political prisoners without trial or representation. We're still killing the environment. We're still allowing radical religious governments to dictate our foreign policy. We're still in bed with the oil companies and the drug companies and the huge mega corporations that drive our economy. Senator Clinton lived through all of that, and her politics have been tempered by it. She has slowly slid closer to the middle and has dedicated her efforts to areas where a difference can still be made. She has embraced modern politics and modern ideas of compromise, and understands that sometimes you have to pick your battles. She is not seeking to upset the balance, only to refocus. What's wrong with that? Not radical enough? Do we really need another radical in the Oval Office? Obama is the Anti-Bush, which is precisely what makes him such an attractive option, but I don't believe the reality of an Obama presidency would deliver on his huge campaign promises. Clinton has not made any of these sweeping claims. Her most radical promise is a plan to provide health care for every American, which Obama has the audacity to call a bad idea.

Clinton represents a very interesting dichotomy. On the one side, her social programs are almost Communist, but she has presented a very conservative stance on war and foreign relations, citing US military might as her method of restoring America's preeminence worldwide. She has been widely attacked for what is being spun as a nuclear threat to Iran, when if truth, that is exactly what we would do if Iran launched an attack on Israel, which they have repeatedly made overtures toward. Clinton is not trigger happy, and I very much doubt she would authorize a full scale nuclear assault on Iran, unless they used nuclear weapons first. Moreover, using the very real threat of US military superiority is a valid and often used tactic, and one that is embraced by both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton sees an America that prioritizes itself, and its citizens. She wants to see every American have health care, better jobs, and stronger families. She also wants to see an America that takes its responsibility to the world seriously, instead of treating the world like its playground. If we have to puff up our feathers and pound our chests and strut around a little bit to get that done, she is willing to do so, and Americans like that. Support for Iraq is very low, and everyone knows it is a terrible situation for everyone involved. This does not mean other threats are not real, or that we should not get involved. Clinton understand this as well, although she may not fully understand Iraq. She does understand we need to get out, and we need to do so in an orderly fashion, and at the end of the day, that is what matters.

Clinton is making friends on the other side of the aisle, drawing support from the GOP, and solidifying her middle class base. This sparks all kinds of controversy, and opens the door for her to be cast as a secret Republican or worse. I find it unspeakably odd that we spend so much time wistfully imagining a united America, where we all get along and every politician's first priority is the good of all, and yet we reject politicians who are moderates. We want these uber-liberal politicians to create a common ground when they have as little common ground with the average American as the uber-conservative.

The Presidency is like a turn-based video game where competing sides "get their turn," and Democrats feel that their turn was stolen from them in 2000, and again in 2004, although they cannot deny the reality that Bush actually won in '04. Regardless, the Democrats now have an even greater sense that the Presidency is rightfully theirs this time around. I believe that Bill Clinton announced Hillary's candidacy in 1992 when he declared you get "two for the price of one," and later threw the entire force of the White House behind her 2000 Senate run. This is the source of the disparity between Hillary and the Democratic party, the largely unspoken accusation that focusing on Hillary's senate campaign compromised the necessary focus to get Al Gore elected. Because of the political and media firestorm created by the Gore-Bush race, we have forgotten that Gore had already greatly distanced himself from Bill long before the 2000 campaign, and it was seen as a career move for Gore, to keep his nose clean so to speak. He cannot fully blame the Clintons. You can't have your cake and eat it too, step back from the President when it is politically expedient, then expect him to prioritize you when it's convenient. It's certainly not very consistent with the loyalty model the Clintons expect. Hillary's sense of entitlement to the Presidency is completely in line with the Democratic party's own attitudes, but Al Gore casts a long shadow. However, I believe party leadership is also cognizant of the risk of alienating the Clinton machine, and while this has been held up as a reason to dislike Hillary even more, it also represents a very real network of political power and capability that could be put back into direct control of the White House, something the DNC greatly desires. Obama lacks this kind of extended network, which would require a good deal more effort on the part of party leadership to ensure smooth transition to solid Democratic control.

So, like her or not, Clinton is forming a large base of support, has shown extreme potency, and is now even attracting fans inside the GOP. What's bad about that? Isn't it the real goal? To draw everyone together? Or do we mean, we'll draw Democrats together? Perhaps what the party fears is the return of the New Democrats to power. The critics of the New Democrats, and Bill Clinton who was the DLC Chair until his 1992 presidential campaign, cite the perceived failures of NAFTA as the reason the New Dems are wrong. I find this erroneous as well, and would point to the overall success of Bill's presidency as the proof. People fear "dynasty building" as well, the idea that a second Clinton is in some way building a presidential dynasty comparable to the Bush regime. This logic completely ignores the fact that Clinton politics and Bush politics are very different creatures, draws another false comparison. The deeper you look into it, the more it looks like the Democratic party actually fears change, the realignment of the party toward the middle. And yet, isn't that exactly what we need? Isn't the endless tug of war in Congress and the White House tired yet? A centrist president is exactly what we need.