Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Talk Down To Us, Hillary Clinton. Please.

Hillary Clinton, listening to you debate Barack Obama, I get the feeling that you think the things you say are so obvious that they need no explanation.  I think you overestimate us.  You can't rely on us to make the connections for ourselves.  You're going to have to spell some things out.

You have 10 days and one debate on February 26 left to tell us exactly what you meant when you warned us about false hopes.  You've paid a high price for the upcoming debate on MSN.  To keep it on the schedule, you had to back off from your demands that NBC examine and correct the practices of their commentators.  I was disappointed in you.  But this is your debate.  You paid for it, so use it.  Don't back off from Barack Obama again.

How can hope be false?  Don't flinch.

You have to lay out some of the ways our hopes have been dashed in the past.  To do that, you are going to have to risk telling the truth about some of the sacred cows of the Democratic Party.  Some of us don't really remember the history of the Kennedys.  We don't remember that Jack Kennedy barely eked out a victory over Richard Nixon, that, instead of bringing a deeply divided country together, he stumbled into the Bay of Pigs, followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Diem assassination, a deepening involvement in Vietnam, and a three-year delay in proposing the civil rights legislation he campaigned on.  It was Jack Kennedy who gave us Robert McNamara and the statistics of attrition as well as Camelot and the Space Program, and Jack Kennedy who gave us the Special Forces to combat insurgencies throughout the world as well as the Peace Corps.  It was Jack Kennedy who failed to confront racism in the South for almost three years after he took office.

You are going to have to talk about how Lyndon Johnson, after a landslide victory over another Senator from Arizona, sacrificed his Great Society on the altar of a lost war, because his Secretary of Defense and his generals on the ground persuaded him that the war could be won while he cowered at the thought of becoming the first American President to lose a war.

You are going to have to talk about how Jimmy  Carter was undone by the Iranian revolution, a failed rescue mission, and Reagan's October surprise.  America's response to Carter's straight talk about sacrificing to meet the challenges of the energy crisis?  Ronald Reagan and twelve straight years of Republican rule that included Iran-Contra, an escalating cold war, and a vicious attack on the poor.

And, finally, you are going to have to talk about the false hopes of your husband's administration.  You are going to have to talk about the mistakes you made.  You are going to have to share your own disillusionment.  You are going to have to explain to us how you, who started out young and full of hope, ended up an accomplished compromiser who is one of the top recipients of drug company campaign contributions.  If there is something to learn from that about false hopes, you are going to have to spell it out for us.

Why can the President of the United States not meet with a man like Ahmadejinad without pre-conditions?  What kind of pre-conditions?  Don't step back.

You have to tell us that Ahmadejinad has opponents in Iran who will be undercut by a prestigious summit with the U.S.  You have to remind us that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is furnishing weapons and training that is killing American soldiers and Marines, that Iran supports Hezbollah and is furnishing weapons and training that is killing Israelis.  You have to explain your vote to condemn the Revolutionary Guard -- a vote Mr. Obama missed -- even at the risk that it would strengthen the hand of those neo-cons promoting a war with Iran.

Why did you vote for the Authorization To Use Military Force against Iraq?  Don't clinch.  Don't cover up.

You have to tell us what your mindset was when you cast that vote.  Were you thinking of Kososvo?  Were you thinking of the way a limited bombing campaign had forced Hussein to let the weapons inspectors back in once before?  How did you miss the signals that others saw that Mr. Bush intended to use the authorization to invade Iraq, not just to bomb it?

Why can't we talk about Ronald Reagan, even in generalities, without, in the same breath, condemning his policies?  Step up to this one.

You have to tell us that Ronald Reagan consciously tried to destroy minorities and the poor by making the Congress choose between funding massive armaments for the Cold War or social programs at home.  You have to say that black people bore the brunt of that attack, that Jesse Jackson denounced Reagan and ran against his policies while Michael Dukakis did not, and that, finally, it was your husband, Bill Clinton, who embraced the Jackson critique of Reagan-Bush and took back the White House for the Democratic Party.  You have to acknowledge our debt to Jesse Jackson.

Why do we have to leave Iraq right now?  Stand up to the body blows about authorizing the war and tell us the truth.

Tell us that we can't let events on the ground dictate when we withdraw as Senator Obama has conceded he will do.  Tell us that events on the ground are not under our control.  They are controlled by Iran, the Shia militias, the Sunni insurgents, and, as they were during the Johnson administration, by our generals.  To say that we might stay if sectarian violence increases as Senator Obama has said, puts our timetable for getting out of Iraq in the hands of everybody but the Commander In Chief.

Why do we have to fight for mandatory health insurance?  Stand up.  This is your round.

You have to tell us that universal health insurance is the next great battle in the fight to extend the benefits of a Great Society to all Americans.  You have to remind us that voluntary participation in social programs like Social Security is a Republican tactic, designed to undo the work the Democratic Party has been up to since the 1930s.   Opponents of society will always propose lofty alternatives like so-called "right to work" laws, private savings accounts, or voluntary participation, and they will always tar Progressive programs as coercive and raise the specter of the government garnishing wages and forcing "folks" to contribute to the greater good. 

It's time to come off the ropes, Hillary Clinton.  A man in the wrong can't stand up to a woman in the right, if the woman in the right just keeps coming.


Comments (17)

Very thoughtful post. It has been my problem with her from the start. Just tell me the truth, don't obscure, don't lie. I am smarter then that.

But one thing I would like to ask her about health care.

why do you trust in insurance companies so much that you believe they will significantly lower prices for your average American in between middle class and poverty level just because it's the right thing to do since they will be making more?

I want an answer on this. Is it because they made a promise as they funded your campaign? Is there knowledge you have about this you won't let us in on? Just give me a reason to believe I (making more then the poverty line, but not by enough) will be able to afford this mandatory policy and maybe I can throw my support behind it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_5;_ylt=AhKirfLtuscDMGJucg2JTVAE1vAI

"Clinton's advisers have repeatedly criticized the Obama campaign's health care mailing, which says her plan for universal coverage would "force" everyone to purchase insurance even if they can't afford it. Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.

Obama's plan does not include the so-called "individual mandate" for adults, and he has argued that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. He has said his first priority is bringing down costs.

The Illinois senator's plan does include a mandate requiring parents to buy health insurance to cover children."

Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.

To some extent yes. And then it forces them to pay, whether they can pay or not. You can scale the premiums according to income but they won't also be scaled based on credit card debt, mortgage payments, etc., etc. Ultimately, they will be forced to pay.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

avatar

Great post. JFK was no great shakes, probably the most overestimated president in US history. And let's not forget what amounted to a campaign of state-sponsored terrorism against Cuba that LBJ mercifully brought to an end.

It is one of the supreme ironies of history that a president who authorized an assassination campaign (with the aid of US organized crime, no less) against a foreign leader was himself brought down by an assassin's bullet. It's enough to make you believe in karma.

you're asking her to be something she's not.

she writes policy, and she knows her stuff. she studies what will pass, and who will support it. she does her homework, and she comes up with a plan. and her healthcare plan is probably a great one.

but she doesn't ever give us the why, that's not her style. we just have to accept that she's right, and she'll work on cutting the deals to get it done.

she'll tell us it was the right thing to do, but not much more.

it seems to be the opposite approach of her current opponent, who can apparently explain the reasons for the policy first, so that he has the backing of a clear majority of the public before he has to start negotiating. but she's been pretty clear that she doesn't think that kind of background work matters.

avatar

This pretty much sums up the Hillary approach.

Terrific post. I hope that you have forwarded it to her campaign. I prefer Hillary because she appears to be a realist and smarter negotiator. I worry about the influence of the insurance companies, but less so with her than with Barack.

Her plan for health care could force the insurance companies to either do as well as a government plan or leave the business. Slim chance. But Obama has already conceded mandates, so his plan will certainly get us nowhere.

You are encouraging her to use a message that would not win even were it treu. One does not win campaigns by tearing down the reputattion of heros and preaching about what cannot be done. The optomistic candidate wins every time, all else being equal. And all else is not equal. Sen Obama is a better poitican that Sen Clinton will ever be. He has mastered the art of apearing above the fray while beating his oponent who apears to be striking out but never lands a shot. He is a master of orator one of the most important tools in a leaders kit. Since their policy proposals are indestinguishable the better politician will win as there is no way to run an issues campaign against your own positions. Even the minute difference on healthcare that you and your candidate try to make into something is less than nothing since a mandate without an enforcement mechanism is a mandate in name only. She will probably end up with her enforcement mechanism being making people pay back premiums which is exactly what he propses for those who try to game the system. You see what we have here is a distinction without a difference. Wether you knowit or not she does and is basing her campaign on it any way. That is intelectualy dishonest in the same way most of her attacks have been in this campeign.

Sen Clinton has never ran a closely fought campaign before and it shows. Sen Obama has been the under dog in every primary and he learned how to win in the face of oposition. It is someting that Sen Clinton know only vicariously from watching her husbands campaigns. Seeing is not dooing and being the spouse of a leader does not make you one.

You have to explain your vote to condemn the Revolutionary Guard -- a vote Mr. Obama missed -- even at the risk that it would strengthen the hand of those neo-cons promoting a war with Iran.

A vote on which Hillary was joined by other brave champions of sound foreign policy like Lieberman and EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN.

This is one she should hope people don't pay much attention to.

Billy, just a note (or question I guess) on tax credits for those who cannot afford it. What about people like myself who make 30K a year, and thus are not going to be in the range of people who get tax credits but still are barely scraping by? I am not poor, but I'm not middle class either,.. I am one of the millions in the middle who the system really benefits the least. Until I hear a solid plan on how I can afford it I wouldn't back ANY universal health care plan.

Why do we have to leave Iraq right now? Stand up to the body blows about authorizing the war and tell us the truth.

Huh? That's not even her position. Her own web site just says it's time to "begin" ending this war. It's time to "start" bringing the troops home. And this should be done in the context of "securing stability in Iraq as we bring our troops home."

You can also find her saying "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."

http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter

avatar

You are looking for Hillary Clinton to tell the truth? Don't hold your breath. First she will have too ask Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn what to think. Then she will have to ask them what to say. But all they will tell her is to attack Barack Obama. By the time she figures it out, the last debate will be over.

avatar

Hillary must keep up the nonsense issues, because her record shows too much not to be liked.

Authorize War on Iraq? Aye!!
(And think of those nice photo-ops with wounded soldiers to show me actually caring!!)

Authorize War on Iran? Aye!!
(Couldn't let old buddy Joe down!)

BUT she says that she opposed the war!! Believe her?
And she gets credit for everything Bill did -- that you like.
But she opposed all that stuff of his that you disliked.

Or, what about a homeless person... or a homeless family?

avatar

You are asking her to be something she's not and never has been: forthright.

Brilliant post. I might not agree with it 100%, but I recognize good, reasoned writing when I see it.

I have to say, though, that I share Larry's thoughts that it's the optimistic candidate who wins. Hillary could deal with some of the flack coming her way with some of the explanations you suggest, but would these explanations only appeal to the left, or just the true wonks? The Democrats need to win the mushy middle, not to mention the folks who vote for candidate they'd most like to buy a beer. Plus, in making these explanations, would Hillary merely give more fodder to the swift boats bearing down on the Democratic nominee -- the ones filled with innuendo and half truths that will twist and contort whatever explanations she might put forth? In an ideal world, it would be the ideal thing to do -- elevate the discussion, deepen the policy debate. Maybe a year ago it could have made a difference -- but I don't see how Hillary changes course now.

I agree. She has a hard row to hoe. What she seems to be doing is shying away from the sacred cows and trying to compare Barack Obama's hope and change themes to Bush instead. Although neither fulfilled their promises, there is a world of difference between the promises Jack Kennedy made and the promises Bush made. I would rather have a failed Obama Presidency than a successful McCain one. But I'm not voting in Ohio or Texas. Ohio has to have a lot of remorse about Bush. She does seem to be hitting back on health care and NAFTA. She has a chance to do herself a lot of good on NAFTA by publicizing the fact that she disagreed with Bill on NAFTA. She can attack NAFTA and show her independence from Bill at the same time. I would be open to hearing her say what she would have done "if I had been President." I think she's in good shape in Ohio now. It all comes down to Texas?

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address