On Hillary
Regarding Markos Moulitsas's op-ed, "Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat?"... I'm actually going to disagree with one of the leading lights in the progressive blogosphere. So here are a few points that struck me while reading his piece.
His criticism of Hillary for allowing her advisers to strip her personality from the public and for staying away from big ideas...on these two fronts, I'd say that this is a product of her unique circumstance in being a first term senator with such a high profile. Entering the Senate as the former First Lady and the wife of Bill Clinton meant she had to be ultra-careful with how she would be perceived. She purposely chose not to be a bull in a china shop. She'd have been pilloried had she shown a higher profile or personality. To her credit, she kept her head down to earn credibility as a Senator and has worked hard, by any account. Some of the unlikeliest sources have swung completely around to support her. See this NYTimes article re: Corning Inc. and its support of her for her work on their behalf. And see also the respect given to her by such fellow Senators as Lindsey Graham, a former House impeachment manager back in the day. The challenges of becoming a Senator with her "baggage" have kept her occupied, yet she's handled herself remarkably well. Had she advocated big ideas she'd have been criticized for not earning her dues, or stepping on fellow Senators' toes, being an attention hog...while this may be mocked by some, she does have to work with these people and establish relationships.
As for a lack of big ideas...she's in the minority party in the Senate and is certainly not alone on that count. Russell Feingold who is favoured by Kos is a remarkably bold and courageous Senator yet his ideas are certainly not "bigger" or more inspiring at this stage? Is the censure motion one such idea? I grant him McCain-Feingold although it's unclear that this bill has improved the funding of political campaigns in the U.S. Billions are spent and the influence of money on Capitol Hill continues to rage. Give Hillary another term, she'll have her own comparable legislative achievements to any Senator. Especially if the Democrats take back the Senate.
It's also worth considering who the Republican nominee is likely to be in 2008...John McCain? With perhaps Rudy Giuliani on the ticket? Or even Mitt Romney? These people have star power - Romney's is growing - and the Democrats need their stars too. Hillary is a star. Gore is a star. I don't count these people out. Gore's got big ideas - what if he ran with the environment as a focus, as a metaphor for the purpose America should re-dedicate itself to after years of Bush incompetence, domestic and foreign? I would not assume, as well, that Hillary is incapable of her own big ideas.
As for the "Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic party...", I'll defer to those who know the operational dynamics far better than this blogger. But Bill Clinton, the Secretariat of his generation's politicians is not a problem by any rational characterization. The man is an asset. For lack of a better comparator, he's the Democrats' version of Karl Rove, their svengali who always seems to have his finger on the pulse and who is always able to cut through complexity and connect with people. To have this asset on your side, I simply can't see this as a problem. (I'm sure that's not the sense in which Markos meant it, entirely.)
The fact that Clinton "never broke the 50-percent mark in his two elections" - to this, all I'd say, he'd certainly get a greater vote percentage in today's world. How about 60%? He looks pretty freakin good in the rear view mirror.
On electability, Hillary may very well appeal to a wide swath of voters. Not the Bush voters, that's for sure. John McCain isn't going to appeal to core Democrat voters either. Cancel those factions out. Hillary is going to appeal to women, significantly, and likely the moderately conservative women who voted for Bush for security reasons. I could go on about her life story and profile, if you assess the life she's led, it's not so radically liberal in its entirety (the feared caricature). And does anyone really think Hillary couldn't do better than Bush on the Commander-in-Chief front? Bush is an empty shell who has been filled up by neo-cons, the Veep's direction and with little intellectual capability to see past the questionable advice and intelligence. Do you think Hillary would be worse than Bush? (Not the best slogan, that's for sure!)...absolutely not!
I think there are many cases to be made on Hillary's candidacy. There's something about this issue that makes people have a lot to say...
