Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Can Hillary Clinton deliver?
Lost in the argument about whose health care plan is more universal is
the more important question of who will be more likely to get his or
her health care plan--and other policies--passed. The Dems are likely
to pick up seats in both houses, but they're unlikely to capture a
veto-proof majority in the Senate, which means that a Democratic
president will have to win over some Republicans and make sure to keep
all the Democrats in line.
One of Hillary Clinton's primary arguments against Barack Obama is that
she is the candidate who can best "deliver change" due to her
experience and to having learned from past mistakes.
Some argue that Clinton won't be effective because she's too partisan
to work with Republicans. This argument is right but for the wrong
reason. Clinton's partisanship waxes and wanes with the popularity of
the Democrats (or rather the unpopularity of the Republicans) and her
political aspirations. When the Republicans controlled congress and the
2008 election was far in the future, Clinton was actually quite
effective at establishing relationships with Republican colleagues and
working with them to accomplish objectives. From the NYT 4/29/06:
With Senator Trent Lott, she worked on improving the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. With Representative Tom DeLay it
was foster children. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House,
jumped in with her on a health care initiative, and the Senate majority
leader, Bill Frist, was a partner on legislation concerning
computerized medical records. The list goes on: Senator Robert Bennett
on flag-burning; Senator Rick Santorum on children's exposure to
graphic images; Senator John Sununu on S.U.V. taillights; Senator Mike
DeWine on asthma.
So Clinton will work with Republicans. The question is, will
Republicans work with Clinton? When she was just a junior senator in a
Republican congress working on bi-partisan issues, it was not a
problem. But as a Democratic president trying to push controversial
policies though congress, it would be an entirely different story.
Hillary Clinton has been a bogeyman to the Republican base for 15
years. Any Republican legislators who vote with Clinton on high-profile
controversial issues would be blasted by right-wing pundits, risk
attacks from conservative challengers, and alienate their bases.
Conversely, Republicans who tie up Clinton bills and nominations would
be cheered for sticking it to the president that conservatives love to
hate. Bill Clinton's health care plan failed for many reasons, but
chief among them was the fact that Republicans tied the plan to Hillary
Clinton and so were able to rally in opposition to it by demonizing
her. I fear that there would be many more such doomed plans under a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Clinton's second handicap when it comes to getting things done is a
lack of charisma. Charisma is often disparaged as an unimportant
quality--you don't have to want to get a beer with your president as
long as he or she is effective. But charisma plays an important role in
the ability of a president to be effective. Approval ratings reflect
performance and also events that a president cannot necessarily
control, such as economic downturns. Charismatic presidents like Bill
Clinton and Ronald Reagan (the "teflon" president) have been able to
maintain high approval ratings even as scandals and negative events
unfold around them. Uncharismatic presidents like George Bush Sr. are
much more likely to see precipitous drops in their approval ratings
when things go poorly. Hillary Clinton would be such a president.
Presidents with low approval ratings are less likely to be able to get
things done, as we're now seeing with Bush Jr. Their opponents are more
likely to fight them, their allies are less likely to support them,
their parties are more likely to lose midterm elections, depriving them
of the majority necessary to accomplish legislative objectives.
Barack Obama, when it comes to Republican appeal and charisma, is the
exact opposite of Hillary Clinton. Despite a voting record that is at
least as progressive as Clinton's, Republicans actually like him. Some
Democrats see his Republican appeal as a turn off, but a president who
appeals to Republicans while pushing a progressive agenda is the best
thing that could possibly happen to the country and the Democratic
party. Obama is the reverse Reagan--an extreme conservative who
appealed to many Democrats. An Obama presidency would mean that "Obama
Republicans" would be an important factor for years to come.
Second, Obama is the most charismatic candidate to run for president
since Ronald Reagan. This charisma should not be dismissed as a "pretty
face". It's a tremendous asset which would enable him to push his
agenda through congress and fill the legislature with Democratic
candidates riding his coattails.
I don't mean to suggest that it would always be easy for Obama or that
he wouldn't encounter fierce opposition at times, but because of
qualities that he has and Clinton lacks, he would as President
encounter significantly less opposition and be much more likely to
defeat it. Thus, Barack Obama , not Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic
candidate who would be most able to get things done.
Comments (28)
Sorry about the formatting problems. Alas, due to TPM technical problems, I can't even edit my own blog.
February 3, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, welcome to our lives. But fear not, the ability to edit your posts will be rolled out soon, hopefully as soon as next week.
February 3, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest difference the Hillary campaign is trying to make is that we cannot have "universal" healthcare unless everyone is mandated to do so.
I think the Obama plan is brilliant. While they cannot state it outright and get the insurance companies panties in a bunch, the end result is nothing but far seeing. This is my take on the plan.
The main thrust of the Obama plan is that if you have employer based healthcare, you can keep it. If you dont, the government has a plan for you.
But this is key - healthcare is one of the biggest operating cost for employers. I can see employers dropping their plans like flies, since the government offers a plan. This will make these companies more effective since they will be able to redirect those costs to improving infrastructure and wages.
For employees it will be a great weight lifted. No longer will you have to stay in a job simply for the benefits. It will then be possible to increase our economic expansion and more jobs, since a diverse amount of new companies will be able to flourish without oppressive employee benefit packages.
This will actually have the effect of pushing the private insurance companies out of the market. The more employers drop their plans, the greater the federal one becomes and essentally creates a single payer system.
The best part? It was created by the free market itself. Believe me, the insurance companies will push hard against mandates. It will be hard to argue against the free market. America at its best.
February 3, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I view Obama as having something more or different than "charisma." When he declares hope and speaks of community, it comes into being in his listeners. He seems to have a quality of generating the very things of which he speaks. Of creating hope. Creating community. Generating a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good.
This is exactly what we need right now. Someone who, by firing up supporters and legislators, is able to pass the needed legislation.
In contrast it seems that voters, especially independent voters and republicans, are so opposed to another clinton twosome in the White House, that it will galvanize the opposition and delay or destroy the legislation we need.
Better to go with Barak and get it done!
February 3, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
MAGEDULEY
If is so wrong to mandate health insurance why is it right that I am mandated to by car ins. If you believe Obama
s rant you don;t know much about people who live from pay check to pay check. If you go with his garbage then you might as well buy into te GOP reasons for doing away with Social Seucrity. Its mandated because until you need to think about it you won't. If they had to plan for thier own retirement they would not until to late. They will be no different with health ins. You have to mandate it ot else they will keep putting it off. I pay my car ins because I have to but there are times that I would let it lapse if I knew I could legally because that money can be spent on the electric bill. Life ins is readily available and very cheap if your young and healthy. How many of this group has life ins. My cousin could have taken out 50,000 life ins policy for less than $20/month He won't because he doesn't think he needs it at 19. Hopefully he lives till he is 49 and will pay three times that much for a lesser policy. If you really think about it you know why it has to be mandated
February 3, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point in writing this post was actually to move beyond the health care debate. To be honest, I think that Clinton's mandated coverage would be better, though I still have questions about enforcement.
But whomever wins in November, the health plan will still have to make it through congress, and I suspect that neither plan will emerge intact. So I plan to vote for the candidate who will be most able to convince congress and the American public to accept his or her plan. More importantly, I plan to vote for the candidate who will be most able to convince congress and the American public to accept all of the policies that he or she champions and all of the nominees that he or she presents. For the reasons that I've presented above, I believe that Barack Obama is that candidate.
February 4, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, thanks for the note. I apologize for whining about the bugs. It's just a bit frustrating at times. I think that the new functionality offers major improvements, and I commend your developers for that. I look forward to everything running smoothly soon.
February 4, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't compare a health insurance mandate to a car insurance mandate. The only car insurance you are required to buy is liability insurance because a car accident caused by you can wreck others financially.
Also Obama has in fact said he would be willing to take another look at mandates only after he has reduced costs and has a good idea where the market is going. Look at Massechusetts right now, poor people unable to afford insurance are being fined, making them even worse off financially. On top of that fully 20% of the uninsured have been given a waiver from participating. So mandates don't necessarily work. And speaking as one of the 47 million uninsured I don't need a mandate to get me to buy the insurance, it just needs to be affordable to me.
There is also the fact that a mandate makes the plan harder to actually become law. Like it or not there will still be Republicans around in January 2009, arguably more under a President Clinton then a President Obama. This has to be taken into account. Clinton can talk about whatever she wants on the campaign trail but what can she get enacted into a bill that arrives on her desk is the important question. Clinton partisans like to crow that this is a right wing talking point but I like to think of it as a reality check.
February 4, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis of Obama's health care strategy - I wish Obama were conveying this smart, market-oriented approach more to Democrats when Hillary attacks his plan as not as universal as hers (and she criticizes 'merely hoping'..).
February 5, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with your analysis, but want to add that as an Obama precinct worker, I am awed by the way he has brilliantly organized us to create the kind of massive grassroots organization that will be a formidable force for years to come. We are a hugely diverse group, energizing each other as a networked community, sharing our stories, successes, strategies, hopes, and visions. Most of us have never worked on a campaign before, but are absolutely stoked up, and making calls, canvassing, and doing thousands of creative things that only an empowered grassroots movement like ours can generate from the ground up. You have never seen anything like this in American politics before. Obama started out as a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer, and he has merged those ideals with state-of-the-art technology, and delegated responsibility down the line to fired-up and capable volunteer workers. This is not a movement fueled only by charisma, but by nuts-and-bolts brilliant organizing. He fires us up, but his/our organization delivers the votes.
February 5, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks engagedbuddist. I'm actually volunteering myself this afternoon, the first time that I've ever volunteered for a politician in my 36 years--which says something--and I've been impressed by the enthusiasm (if not the organizational skills) of the Obama coordinators. There also seem to be a lot more Obama supporters running around the streets of NYC then Clinton supporters.
Obama's organization received a lot of credit for his Iowa victory, but I haven't heard as much about it since then. Let's hope that it accomplishes something extraordinary today.
February 5, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...I kinda think Obama's inexperience and youth make him vulnerable to the political maneuvering of the senior senators and congresspersons from both sides of the isle. It makes me think that it's the reason people like Ted Kennedy are so gung ho to have him in office. Obama just doesn't have enough battle scars and victories over them for me to trust that he won't be like a ping pong ball. I know Clinton has weathered the worst of it and come out successful, and the
"Kennedys" from both sides of the isle won't be able to manipulate her. She's proven that she can work with republicans. Just because people "like" Obama doesn't mean they won't try to take advantage of him and succeed.
February 5, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Republicans? Yes, I know "Republicans actually like him." I assume you're talking about Congressional Republicans there and voters as "Obama Republicans."
The whole "Obama luvs Republicans and they luv him" framing troubles me. Not that any president won't have to try to work, as much as possible, with reasonable Republicans in Congress (and those have become very lonely in their own party). It's the expectations of the Republicans, voters and establishment, that is troubling.
Some Republican and Independent voters are supporting Obama because he's inspirational, and promises "real Change." Those are the ones embittered by the train wreck that is the Bush administration. Still, those Republicans expect that Obama's underlying message--that he'll be "bipartisan" and work with Congressional Republicans, including the wingnuts, to pass legislation. Beyond that, he's assured them, subtly but definitely, that he actually likes the Reagan years. Most of them aren't voting for a progressive, and don't expect Obama to behave like one if he ultimately wins the White House.
But here's what faces Obama when and if he wins the nomination and the presidency: he'll have to either keep those underlying promises and enrage the Democratic progressives, or tell the so-called Obama Republicans: "Thanks for your vote! See ya"
Either way, he loses that chunk of support. Somebody's going to be feel betrayed and be very, very unhappy.
February 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Julie, I think this is an astute point. We saw something similar happen with GW, who dropped his unity rhetoric as soon as he got into office.
But there are some key differences:
1) Bush handled his relationship with Democrats in particularly arrogant and ultimately shortsighted manner. With a similarly disdainful legislative majority behind him, he behaved as if the Democrats were irrelevant, which they essentially were until they came roaring back in 2006, mad as hell. Obama, I believe, is too smart and too forward-thinking to lose site of the need to show respect for the opposition. His less-progressive supporters don't have to agree with his every policy (any more than Reagan Democrats agreed with his every policy), as long as they continue to feel that they're being represented and that he's moving the country forward. To accomplish that, he also may not be able to throw left-wingers as much red meat as they would like, or as much as Bush threw to right-wingers, but I as long as progressive policy is being implemented, I don't see them getting too upset.
2) GW was a phony. His unity talk was quickly revealed as a Rovian ploy. Obama could still surprise us all, but he seems surprisingly and refreshingly genuine. Certainly, his message has been consistent since he started campaigning a year ago, even since the 2004 convention, in clear contrast to HC, who veers from "experience" to "change" to "economy" as winds blow. He's also been clear about his positions on health care and taxes. Consistency and genuineness goes along way in keeping people from feeling betrayed.
February 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another difference is that the majority of Republican voters actually favor things like civil liberties, equal opportunity, universal health care, peace, diplomacy, etc. If Obama actually brings some of these things about, your Republican neighbor who kind of likes Obama today won't feel betrayed--he'll like Obama even more.
February 8, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah say amen
February 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, didn't you know that Hillary has a "proven" history of successful change? This is why today we have universal health care, because she is soooo good at getting things passed. Oh..wait..well, um, hey, she successfully renamed a bunch of libraries and post offices, that's fighting for change right?
I gotta say though, that it is going to be hard for her to get anything passed through a Republican congress, which is what we are going to get if she is nominated, because we are going to get our asses kicked in Red/Purple districts and states, and if we don't totally lose our power in 2008, we can be certain that we will see it go away in 2010, just like in 1994 with Bill. The Clintons are divisive, we need to MOVE ON!
I gotta say though, 2010 won't be a problem, because she has ZERO chance at winning against McCain. Nominating Hillary would be electoral suicide for the Democrats. WAKE UP!
February 7, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect Paul Krugman (the well known economist and op ed. columnist at NYTs)mostly but I think his support for Clinton's (and Edward's) mandates forcing lower middle class people to pay health insurance premiums is a mistake. A tactical mistake as it will probably lose Clinton the November election and further erode her already unsteady electability.
It's true that many of the uninsured are poor and would be covered in a more heavily and expanded medicaid, but a large amount of them are like me: lower middle class in income (around 40k a year), in professions or jobs that are self employed or free agents such as artists, tradesmen, or just small business employees of less than 10 employee companies that can't afford insurance or want to pass the buck upon their employees. And larger companies are reducing benefits or inflicting high deductible, large copays that finance less than 50 percent of any health emergency. Health insurance is more and more a racket where the workers pay more and the well off pay much less in terms of percentage of income.
Clinton's plan would enforce more 'customers' for this racket making Health Insurance even more expensive as it would lose competition from those who refuse to pay their high premiums. Her tax refund or tax reduction for those too middle class to get Medicaid... most of the uninsured.. wouldn't be enough to offset the losses those forced to pay as the lower middle class doesn't pay enough federal taxes to compare with the cost of health insurance (estimated to be 12000 a year and climbing. ) High deductible policies that cover almost nothing until the deductible is met are still more than what the uninsured pay in taxes. So how's Hillary going to help these people pay enormous costs in insurance (10 percent or more of their income). So far Clinton is less the forthcoming about the Govt run insurance that'd give people like me another lower cost option and that one would really imflame the right to call it socialized medicine (the option I'd prefer but don't see it coming anytime soon.)
Also, the Clinton proposal of tax deductions and tax rebates are a form of subsidy for the insurance companies and would not encourage the health care industry to lower costs.
These people like me who would want to have a Democrat in the White House might have to re-think it as they see their own financial plight being ignored by a Clinton nomination.
February 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fitting that there is an Obama ad immediately following your piece.
February 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see a sprint ad. I guess that it rotates. Interestingly, I've seen the Obama ad before, but I've never seen a Clinton ad on this site. Whatever. As long as I don't have to look at that freaky anti-wrinkle ad with the ghoulishly wrinkled woman.
Getting to your implication, of course I am an Obama supporter. I try to be as objective as I can be and rely and logic and evidence, but I realize that my argument is influenced by my opinion.
February 9, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent analysis. I wish the Obama campaign would emphasize this point. It's bad enough that people think Hillary is more electable, which is laughable since Obama appeals to independents and moderate Republicans whereas Hillary doesn't. But why elect someone who'll make an ineffective President? Suppose Hillary does win the nomination and then the general election. She's president for 4 years and gets nothing done because Republicans block her at every move. 2012 rolls around and the Republicans can argue that Hillary was a failure. The Democrats will realize the same thing, but of course they won't admit it. In private, though, they'll be kicking themselves for backing Hillary instead of Obama. Obama will be clear to run in 2012 by arguing that he should've been the nominee back in 2008. I wish the Hillary supporters would think about all this. Oh well. It's not like she's going to beat McCain anyway.
February 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
To: DennyCrane
Are Obama supporters so naive to think that the Republicans in Congress will give him a pass? That they won't try and obstruct everything he tries to do in his term in office? That they won't use 'fear of the negro' to whip up their racist, bigoted base? So then, won't the Democrats, 'in private', be kicking themselves for backing Obama instead of Hillary? "What fools we were to nominate a black man for President!"
Oh, please
February 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
tonto_cal, Republicans are not monolithic any more than Democrats are. There are of course many Republicans who will attempt to block a Democratic President's every move, but there are also moderate Republicans who will occasionally vote with the Democrats, and Republicans from mixed districts who can't necessarily afford to vote against popular policies.
The more popular the Democratic president is, the harder it will be for the Republican leadership to keep their party in line, which means that Dems will be able to override filibusters and procedural challenges with Republican assistance. Conversely, if the President is perceived as unpopular, it will be easy for Republicans to rally in opposition and difficult for the Democratic leadership to keep their own party in line behind the President, so the Dems may fail to pass bills even if they have a majority in the legislature.
February 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or does anybody else hear in this Barack will bring people together mantra a rewind of Bill Clinton 92 and 96? This work with the other side pledge/strategy was the very basis of his campaigns. It was because he was so popular and his political skills were so apparent that the rightwing hate machine started up down here so early and went on for so long. (I live in TN) I'm with tonto_cal on this one; the conservatives are not going to play nice just because people like Barack. Some conservative persecutors even admitted that they like Clinton personally. Even Ken Starr admitted that he admired him. I think you underestimate the zealotry and lust for power on the right.
February 9, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
claridge, if you read my response to tonto_cal, then you missed the point. It doesn't matter whether the conservative leaders like Obama personally. And yes of course the rightwing hate machine will go after him.
The simple version of my argument is really simple: the more popular a president is, the more power he or she has to get things done in the legislature because their own party is more loyal and the opposing party is less loyal. (You can see this happening right now in the newfound cohesion of the Democrats and the loss of the once-renowned party loyalty of the Republicans under the unpopular GW.)
The slightly more nuanced addition to my argument is still pretty simple. The more popular a president is with voters of the other party, the more power he or she has to get things done in the legislature because the there are fewer opposition voters screaming for blood and therefore more latitude for moderate opposition legislators to work with the president.
These are just basic principles of politics that hold true regardless of who's in office and who controls the legislature.
My more contentious premise, which neither you nor tonto have denied, is that Barack Obama would be a more popular president than Hillary Clinton and, in particular, would be more popular among Republicans and independents.
If you accept that premise, then it follows from those two political principles that Obama would have more power to get things done as president than would Hillary Clinton.
February 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, I don't think anyone should underestimate the psychic damage that the party will have do to itself in order to rush Barack ahead of the first women with a legitimate shot at the White House. Has anyone taken the time to contemplate how long the party has been preparing itself and the country for this run? How much this carrot has been dangled in front of the women of our party? And now, out of nowhere and for no urgent reason, we just brush her (and all of her supporters) aside? I know that I feel very ambivalent about this, and I don't like the message this is sending to them or to the Republicans. So, don't overestimate how popular Barack would ultimately be. This is a promise that our party has been making for a very long time now, reneging will come at a price. I don't care what some of these female bloggers are saying. Where I am, I can feel the resentment rising. And I can't say I blame them.
February 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
claridge, I would love to have a woman president, but your line of argument is not only flawed; it's perilous for the Democratic party. The party is at its worst when it selects candidates and policies based on obligations to special interests. If we select Clinton this time, does that mean we have to select an African-American next time, having dangled the Obama carrot in front of them? Or can we just throw them another supreme court justice or something. And don't forget the Hispanics. Having dumped Richardson and crapped on Gonzales, we need to do something for them double-quick. And then uh-oh, the white males are getting restless again...
This kind of thought leads to poorer candidates, perceived focus on special interests over merit, and a divided party. As Democrats, we should never hesitate to reject a candidate because of race or gender, and it's important to work for heterogeneity in government when possible, but once we start making choices because we "owe" this group or that group, we'll only succeed in undermining our ability to succeed.
February 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Major oops. I meant that "we should never reject a candidate because of race or gender" or "we should never hesitate to select a candidate because of race or gender" not that "we should never hesitate to reject a candidate because of race or gender"
February 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment