Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FIGHTING FOR WHAT?
Clinton is presently making a big deal about the fact that she is "a fighter". After this primary season, I don't think there can be any doubt about her willingness to fight. What Clinton's gas tax proposal tells me is what she's willing to fight for. She is not willing to fight for what she thinks is right in the face of public pressure. She's not even willing to restrict her compromises to cases in which public pressure to do something stupid already exists. She will sacrifice principle and the public good when it's expedient for her to do so.
I guess that has always been one of my two major problems with Clinton's candidacy. Even if we concede that she's a "fighter," whether or not these fighting skills will be consistently used on behalf of progressive values is another question entirely. (There was a better argument to be made about this in terms of electability, but the result of the primary despite her large inherent advantages, her reliance on Mark Penn, etc. speaks for itself. Primaries, in this sense, do provide important information.) Having said that, I would find the gas tax stupidity considerably less objectionable if she had a non-trivial chance of winning the nomination. Given that Obama is nearly certain to actually be the candidate, agreeing with John McCain to not only endorse a bad policy bit reinforce GOP frames about the party's nominee is pretty odious.
With respect to my other major objection, Hilzoy cites Clinton's vote authorizing the Iraq War as another example. I'm actually not so sure; I think it's entirely possible (indeed, I think, more likely) that Clinton thought her vote on the war was right on the merits. In terms of evaluating her as a potential president, though, I think this is worse.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (7)
I'm sorry, but at this point there is no credible progressive argument for the Clinton candidacy whatsoever. She seems to be running for the Republican nomination, using the Karl Rove playbook.
Obliterate Iran? Suspend the gas tax? Be afraid, be very afraid, of the bad scary negro? I mean, this is just enough to gag a maggot.
Posted by: cervantes | May 5, 2008 1:01 PM
I've been saying this about Hillary Clinton for years. The Clintons' reputation as fighters actually comes out of 2 things: their wonderful defense of education, the environment, and health care against Republican attacks during the government shutdown, and their defense of Bill Clinton during impeachment.
But one of those things was fighting for their self-interest, not the American people, and the other was defense.
What you don't see from the Clintons is fighting for a liberal principle that took real political courage and capital.
It isn't enough that the Republicans hate you. Liberal governance is not about whether the opposition party likes you or not; it's about whether you can pass liberal programs. By that standard, the Clintons are conservatives.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | May 5, 2008 2:31 PM
So what does this make Obama who won't even fight for universal healthcare?
Posted by: gutless wonders abound | May 5, 2008 4:28 PM
gutless:
Neither will Clinton. The only thing to be said for Obama's plan is that at least it doesn't feature the individual mandate.
I don't like the fact that we don't seem to be able to have a presidential candidate who will advocate providing health insurance for every American. But this is one more area where Hillary Clinton, to the extent she is fighting at all, is fighting for a conservative outcome (forcing us to give money to private insurance companies for rip-off crappy coverage).
Posted by: Dilan Esper | May 5, 2008 6:29 PM
spin Dilan spin
mandates bad
UHC is a conservative outcome
I understand that you and many other corporate lawyers do not want to subsidize other people's health care. Why not just be up front about it?
By the way, how do you choose which client picks up the tab for your web surfing and commenting?
Posted by: gutless wonders abound | May 5, 2008 10:15 PM
spin Dilan spin
mandates bad
UHC is a conservative outcome
I understand that you and many other corporate lawyers do not want to subsidize other people's health care. Why not just be up front about it instead of resorting to complete bullshit?
By the way, how do you choose which client picks up the tab for your blog surfing and commenting?
Posted by: gutless wonders abound | May 5, 2008 10:16 PM
gutless:
1. Stick to the issue, will you? Personal attacks are not warranted or necessary (nor are your attacks well founded).
2. I definitely do want to subsidize other people's healthcare. For that reason, I support universal health care, i.e., the provision of health care, or a public or private health insurance policy, to every American. What I oppose is forcing Americans to purchase bare-bones insurance from private companies.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | May 6, 2008 9:28 PM