Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RE: CLINTON AND THE RIGHT.
On the question of whether the Right's recent ascendance could become a potent political attack against Hillary Clinton, I'm a little closer to Tom's position than Dana's. Dana's right, of course, that though "'Progressive institution-building' has become a major concern for liberal funders, journalists, and politicos...the average Democratic primary voter simply isn't thinking about it." But it's very unlikely that the appeal Tom has in mind would mention progressive infrastructure. Rather, Clinton's presidency abetted the rise (and, to be sure, fall) of Newt Gingrich, saw the Democrats lose the Congress for the first time in 40 years, failed to produce a successor, and ended with the ascendance of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and so forth.
In other words, the Clintons didn't beat the villains. They simply survived them. But given the the current Democratic moment, cleverly sidestepping impeachment proceedings isn't a win. Taking on the Right directly, and successfully, is. And that's not what the Clintons did. Indeed, Hillary's immediate strategy in the Senate was to work very hard to make friends across the aisle, to forgive former tormentors, and to demonstrate bipartisanship. That's not fighting the Right. That's making your peace with it. And whether that's a smart legislative strategy, it's not one that fits into Clinton's current appeal.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (4)
Thank you, Ezra. I'm still waiting for the specifics on the "I've taken on the right wing in this country, and I've beaten them every time" claim. Escaping a fight with your dignity (mostly) intact is the not the same as beating your opponent.
I was in my thirties during the Clinton years, so I have a pretty clear memory of the politicis of that time. It was hardly a time of liberal hegemony.
This claim of hers has apparently taken on the status of conventional wisdom, much like Rudy's claim to be a "straight shooter," and will not be challenged by the conventional media.
Posted by: brewmn | November 8, 2007 2:52 PM
My concern about this post is that it's a little apple and orange-y. If the purpose is to thoroughly defeat the Republicans so that they never control the levers of powers in America, there's no evidence that a cooperator would be worse than a 51%er (for lack of a better term). Look at Bush & Rove -- they meant to bury the Democratic party so they used scorched earth tactics. What's happened to them? If you want to knock the GOP back, pass a good health care bill. The reason they fought it in 1993-4 was they feared it would hurt them politically.
I'm assuming the Senate won't have a filibuster-proof majority. If there is a healthy Senate majority, and a good House one too, then a cooperator might not be the best president, since more could get done by ignoring the GOP. The problem is that it's hard to forecast what kind of Senate there will be for the next president, especially when there are only 50 Dem's, including a couple of wobbly ones.
Posted by: American Citizen | November 8, 2007 2:57 PM
This claim of hers has apparently taken on the status of conventional wisdom
That's because whenever Democrats debate issues of principle or ideology, eventually the the terms are reset-- and yes, it's like a reset button-- to 'not everyone wants to win elections. I guess.' It's beyond maddening, because it confines all intraparty disagreement strictly to a middle level, too immediate and cowardly for discussions of core principles and too broad for the hard questions & specifics of policy debate.
Posted by: latts | November 8, 2007 3:21 PM
"If you want to knock the GOP back, pass a good health care bill. The reason they fought it in 1993-4 was they feared it would hurt them politically."
I think you could knock back the GOP with a *good* healthcare bill, but if they collaborate too much with private insurers and it's bad for citizens, then it will knock back the Dems, along with the idea that government works for citizens.
I think more people are ready to give government a try, but they'll be really angry if they're betrayed and that opens a space again for the usual GOP "anti-government" tactic.
I could definitely get to the point where I agree, and a healthcare plan that is more in the service of the industry than citizens, especially with mandatory participation, would definitely be it.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 8, 2007 3:58 PM