Obviously, Hillary Clinton wants to be a Senator. She said to Anderson Cooper after the last presidential debate, of which she was an audience member, rather than a participant: "Keep Senators in the Senate." Clinton finally got the street cred she was lacking. Even Mark Patinkin, one of her most strident detractors has grudging praise for her in his article, "I was wrong about Hillary Clinton":
Later, I didn’t love it when she left her duties as First Lady to run for the U.S. Senate. But looking back, that, too, took resolve, and the strength to challenge tradition. She could also have sought an easier Senate seat, perhaps waiting for an opportunity in Arkansas where she would have been a slam-dunk. Instead, Clinton ran in New York, the toughest of political arenas — and against the formidable Rudy Giuliani, no less. He dropped out for health reasons, but she didn’t know that when she signed up.
As for myself and others saying that she didn’t rise on her own, merely following her husband to Arkansas and the White House, well, she earned that Senate seat. And perhaps more relevant today, she dominated a field of a dozen veteran male Democrats to almost win a major party nomination. No woman in either party has come close to that. And she did it through almost superhuman discipline and energy as a candidate. [SOURCE]
Patinkin also asserts, "...she must be looking at Sarah Palin thinking, 'How is this happening?'...[Hillary] has truly earned the scars and credentials of a potential woman president. Sarah Palin has not." While the politically trendy point is the comparison to Palin, and Clinton's somewhat erratic response to her (waffling from seeming praise to her recent potent disavowal of Palin, "I would like to see a woman in the White House who I agree with,") the salient point is that Hillary Clinton has finally established herself as a respected statesman.
Yes, I called her "statesman" on purpose. While Clinton herself never said it, I also believe the sentiment reflected by Amy Poehler on Saturday Night Live, playing HRC in a skit, "I didn't want a woman to be President. I wanted to be President." In the 20-20 vision of hindsight, Hillary as a feminist icon, which she has undoubtedly become, seems one of the greatest ironies of this election cycle. Sarah Palin, a snapshot of the feminist of the 90's on the outside -- traditional married mother of five, one of which is severely handicapped, with a successful career in a traditionally male profession -- draws the same sneers that Hillary -- the nutcraker-- drew in the primaries. The painful irony must be that they sneer "slut" at Palin and they sneered "shrew" at Hillary. And the painful truth it reflects is that women are still twice or even three times more put upon to "prove themselves" in politics. I see Clinton's largely ambivalent response to Sarah Palin as a metaphor for that very problem: condemn her too much, and she's trashing a female politician and undermining the larger feminist cause; give her praise, liberal god forbid, you're a secret Republican. I've seen the same subtle smear attempts used in connecting Hillary to McCain, which is non-news. Both Clinton and McCain have stated on national television that they are friends and partners in the Senate, and while they disagree on some key issues, they remain cautious allies. What's wrong with that? Hillary said, and McCain echoed, during the primaries, that if it was Hillary vs. McCain in November, it would be the "friendliest presidential campaign in history."
Clinton is a center-left politician. People call her a moderate, which she is, but I believe it is a misnomer. Other people call her a hawk, implying she was "for Iraq all along," --like most of the rest of the Senate wasn't, too. How quickly we forget that at that time, the Senate had been granted a Republican majority by the direct vote of Dick Cheney, and it was becoming increasingly obvious that whoever opposed Bush died. Congress was under extreme partisan control, with an aggressive neoconservative Republican in the Oval Office, and a triumphant GOP majority in Congress. Democrats across the board couldn't risk seeming "un-American." With Obama drifting toward the center in the General Election, it seems odd that someone who was already there lost the nomination. It gives credence to the conservative claim that America is a center-right nation. While I don't believe this claim wholesale, it certainly is true in most places I've lived, even the liberal haven of the Pacific Northwest.
Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will "probably" not run for president again shouldn't take bets on it. Arguably, if Obama wins two consecutive terms, she just might not run again at age 68. But that is a big if first of all; he hasn't won his first one yet, and he could still end up being a Carter or even a Grover Cleveland, creating an opening between two terms. Or, McCain could win, but I have to say that under my breath unless I want to be accused of any number of odious things. No president is assured of a second term. And, even at 68 (69 by the swearing in in 2017) Clinton would not be the oldest president. In fact, age might be a positive for Clinton, where it is a negative for any male candidate (too young or too old.) Would you take critical advice from your grandma or from a college kid? At any rate, my point is, nothing is certain in life or politics, and Clinton's platitudes about not running again are just that: platitudes. It would be political suicide for her to be talking about another run at this point, even if it was in 8 years. She is also claiming (or reclaiming, if we remember how buddy-buddy the Clintons and Kennedys were until this year) the Kennedy mantle: lion of the Senate, reserved and steady leader, liberal standard bearer, credible statesman.
More importantly we should look at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and their formidable presence in Congress in the form of the New Democrat Coalition, and the Congressional New Democrats. The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives edged out quite a few Republican opponents, and claims credit for the 2006 Democratic majority. Chiefly, those interested in Clinton's future, should be watching in June 2009 when the DLC has it's 2-day national convention and will name a new Chair. Hillary Clinton is currently #3 in the DLC's hierarchy as the Chair of the American Dream Initiative, a broad-reaching initiative that gives her effective CEO-like status in the DLC. Being the Chair of the DLC seems to have launched more than one presidential campaign. Bill Clinton was DLC Chair 1990-1991. Joe Lieberman was DLC Chair until 2001. Evan Bayh was DLC Chair until 2005. Other notable politicians are or have been DLC members: Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Notably, Howard Dean (DNC Chair), Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) and Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) are not, and Obama has publicly stated he is not, and fundamentally disagrees with them on many issues. The DLC itself publicly laments not getting another New Democrat into the Oval Office, although they have (likely out of necessity) endorsed Obama. If Hillary Clinton is elected Chair of the DLC in 2009, when current Chair Harold Ford Jr.'s term is over, there is no doubt Hillary is still angling for President. The DLC is clearly her home base, and offers her much more security and opportunity to pursue her goals than the much bigger gamble of jumping on board the Obama administration.
Again, in hindsight, I would say Hillary Clinton had no interest in being Vice-President or she would be on the Obama ticket. Say what you will, but she could have played all her chips on the #2 nod and gotten it. She didn't, and it was the common sentiment all along, that she wouldn't. It was only after Obama settled the nomination that the "Dream Team" of Obama-Clinton gained any genuine popularity anyway, and that can most likely be attributed to appeasing Clinton supporters. Also, say what you will, but Clinton's own efforts and impassioned pleas to get behind Obama accomplished that. McCain capitalized on what was called a "fumble" by Obama in passing over Hillary by picking Sarah Palin, and while the "Palin bubble" was large and colorful, it burst. I have personally described Palin as a "breath of fresh air" in American politics, and I will stick by that description. However, Palin would also be a disastrous liability in the Oval Office. If McCain wins, every American should pray for his continued health and well-being.
Clinton's other option would be to run for Governor of New York in 2010. She would be two-thirds of the way through her current Senate term, and would not have to resign her seat to run. If she lost the gubernatorial election, she could safely return to the Senate, and most likely retain it in 2012, unless she were running for president again at that time. Who knows, if Obama wins, he just might ask her to take a Cabinet position, although it would likely depend on which one if she'd accept or not. Secretary of State? Probably. Secretary of Health and Human Services? Probably she would argue she can make a bigger difference in the Senate than take such a low-profile and thankless position. Clinton is more interested in building her political base in Congress, which she tragically overestimated in 2008. The DLC is her surest road to that kind of consolidation, as well as getting her political goals fulfilled in the form of legislation. And, oddly enough, an Obama administration could help the DLC (moderate - conservative) cause. With Democratic leadership leaning quite a bit to the left, and the likelihood of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress coming down the pike, American politics and policies are likely to be dragged kicking and screaming way to the left. If that happens, voters will be very likely to support continued Democratic control, but wanting a more centrist direction. No one seems to like the radical conservative direction we've been heading for the last 8 years, but that is not a reason to think they will like going radically left either. The DLC is going to gain a lot of credence in the coming years, especially if they reach across the aisle to the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans," or the members of the Republican caucus who are moderates, and who may well come to be called, "Obamicans," or "Obama Republicans." As a quite far left politician, Obama will have to rely on the center to get things done, and I'm sure the DLC, particularly if it is under the direction of Hillary Clinton, will be happy to oblige.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment