The Lessons of Bitternessgate
As with so much of the post-Super Tuesday intramurals in the Democratic presidential race, identifying the truly instructive aspects of an "issue" from the plainly meaningless or exasparatingly silly or the intentionally destructive components of that issue can be difficult. So to with the sturm und drang surrounding Barack Obama's bitterness comments. Yet, a close look at the comments and their aftermath sheds much light---on Hilary Clinton.
Let's be honest. What Obama said was not all that controversial or even particularly insightful. It certainly wasn't novel. Books have been written with that very premise. Commentators have argued the same point. Presidential candidates (dare I say the husband of the other Democratic contender) expressed virually the exact contention 17 years ago. So his opinion does not inform us in any significant way about him or how he would govern.
Hilary Clinton's response, on the other hand, provides more than a small glimpse into the manner in which she will govern. And, in my estimation, that is what is truly instructive about this circumstance.
Hilary Clinton immediately chastitised--and continues to chastise Obama--for elitism and for being out-of-touch. Although she claims that this should matter to Democratic voters because Republicans have succesfully exploited fears of Democratic elitism in voters in the past, her real purpose is to destroy through any means the likely Democratic nominee for her own personal gain. In other words, her personal success matters most--though its dressed in words of party concern.
This is not a new strategy; one that began, as Josh seems to suggest in his thoughtful blog on the subject, with the Jeremiah Wright affair. Remember in mid-December, long before the Obama threat had even materialized for her campaign, the HRC New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen was forced to resign because he publicly raised the specter of Obama's past drug use in the context of Obama's electability once the Republican's got a hold of it. (As an aside, I somehow bet Shaheen is as out of her campaign as Mark Penn is). This strategy of destroying the opposition even if it may not be in the best interest of her party or even her own long-term interests is what is significant. And the fact that she is willing to do this in a circumstance in which she and Obama are basically mirror images (wealthy, senatorial political elites) speaks volumes.
This episode demonstrates, then, the core governing principles we can expect from an HRC presidency. She will govern not with an eye toward an electoral mandate, not with an eye toward the will of the people, not with an eye toward broad progressive policies or fundamental change. At her core, HRC will govern to win, govern to succeed in the short term. She will be hypocritical when necessary, vindictive when helpful. She will most certainly not make an effort to change the tone in Washington since that tone is the one that will have brought her to power. A Hilary Clinton presidency, at its best, will be one step forward, two steps back
In policy terms, recall the litany of policies, issues and arguments that HRC has promoted to position herself for the presidency as a window into her potential administration. The 2005 anti-Flag burning bill she sponsored was a made-for-Fox TV moment. Her use of the fear card (somewhere Karl Rove must have been smiling) with the now infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call advertisement was indicative of a willingness to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. And, of course, most disturbingly, her support of the Iraq war. That was a bad bet on the popularity of that conflict--a no-doubt mistaken belief that she would look unpatriotic if she took on the wisdom and legitimacy of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.
Based on his comments, I don't know whether Obama is an elitist or out-of-touch. I doubt it, but this controversy sheds no light there. It does, though, demonstrate precisely how HRC will govern as president. She will move inexorably and instinctively and unapologetically to the right.
Let's be honest. What Obama said was not all that controversial or even particularly insightful. It certainly wasn't novel. Books have been written with that very premise. Commentators have argued the same point. Presidential candidates (dare I say the husband of the other Democratic contender) expressed virually the exact contention 17 years ago. So his opinion does not inform us in any significant way about him or how he would govern.
Hilary Clinton's response, on the other hand, provides more than a small glimpse into the manner in which she will govern. And, in my estimation, that is what is truly instructive about this circumstance.
Hilary Clinton immediately chastitised--and continues to chastise Obama--for elitism and for being out-of-touch. Although she claims that this should matter to Democratic voters because Republicans have succesfully exploited fears of Democratic elitism in voters in the past, her real purpose is to destroy through any means the likely Democratic nominee for her own personal gain. In other words, her personal success matters most--though its dressed in words of party concern.
This is not a new strategy; one that began, as Josh seems to suggest in his thoughtful blog on the subject, with the Jeremiah Wright affair. Remember in mid-December, long before the Obama threat had even materialized for her campaign, the HRC New Hampshire co-chair Billy Shaheen was forced to resign because he publicly raised the specter of Obama's past drug use in the context of Obama's electability once the Republican's got a hold of it. (As an aside, I somehow bet Shaheen is as out of her campaign as Mark Penn is). This strategy of destroying the opposition even if it may not be in the best interest of her party or even her own long-term interests is what is significant. And the fact that she is willing to do this in a circumstance in which she and Obama are basically mirror images (wealthy, senatorial political elites) speaks volumes.
This episode demonstrates, then, the core governing principles we can expect from an HRC presidency. She will govern not with an eye toward an electoral mandate, not with an eye toward the will of the people, not with an eye toward broad progressive policies or fundamental change. At her core, HRC will govern to win, govern to succeed in the short term. She will be hypocritical when necessary, vindictive when helpful. She will most certainly not make an effort to change the tone in Washington since that tone is the one that will have brought her to power. A Hilary Clinton presidency, at its best, will be one step forward, two steps back
In policy terms, recall the litany of policies, issues and arguments that HRC has promoted to position herself for the presidency as a window into her potential administration. The 2005 anti-Flag burning bill she sponsored was a made-for-Fox TV moment. Her use of the fear card (somewhere Karl Rove must have been smiling) with the now infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call advertisement was indicative of a willingness to appeal to the worst instincts of the electorate. And, of course, most disturbingly, her support of the Iraq war. That was a bad bet on the popularity of that conflict--a no-doubt mistaken belief that she would look unpatriotic if she took on the wisdom and legitimacy of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy.
Based on his comments, I don't know whether Obama is an elitist or out-of-touch. I doubt it, but this controversy sheds no light there. It does, though, demonstrate precisely how HRC will govern as president. She will move inexorably and instinctively and unapologetically to the right.
