Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve Support From Progressives

jefferson_dem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-20-07 01:06 PM
Original message

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve Support From Progressives

Edited on Wed Jun-20-07 01:07 PM by jefferson_dem

...An interesting (and entirely reasonable) perspective, one that may resonate with some here, and offend others.

Just food for thought...

Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve Support From Progressives
by Paul Hogarth‚ Jun. 20‚ 2007

When I attended the California Democratic Convention last April, I was struck at the level of support that Hillary Clinton had among delegates in what was a very progressive crowd. With a wide-open field and a favorable climate for Democrats, 2008 should be the ideal opportunity for an emerging progressive to get the party nomination and make it to the White House. But in recent months, Clinton has pulled away from the pack and now has a double-digit lead over her nearest rival, Barack Obama. Most of this can be attributed to the “gender gap,” but it’s depressing that women would put the premium of the first woman president – any woman president – above other considerations. Because if you look at Hillary’s legacy (and her husband, since by electing her you’ll get two for the price of one), the Clintons are anything but progressive and represent an outdated politics unsuitable for America’s future.

It’s easy to be nostalgic about the Clinton years, but that’s only because who’s President now. Under Bill Clinton’s watch, the federal government ended its commitment to poor people with Welfare Repeal, betrayed gays and lesbians with the Defense of Marriage Act, devastated family farms with the Freedom to Farm Bill, let media conglomerates take over with the Telecommunications Bill, violated civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism Bill (which nobody remembers because we now have the Patriot Act), and pandered to anti-Castro extremists with the Helms-Burton Bill. And that was all just in 1996.

Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office with high optimism after twelve years of the Reagan-Bush era, and some good ideas like universal health care. But they quickly buckled under pressure when they couldn’t withstand the right-wing noise machine – a machine that will eagerly rev up its engines once Hillary becomes president. While many excuse their actions as dealing with a Republican Congress, remember that they also caved during the first two years when Democrats were in charge.

If there’s any positive legacy to the Clinton era, it was the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act that raised taxes on the wealthy and put our fiscal house in order. But even there, Bill Clinton backed off. At a fundraiser in October 1995, the President spoke to a group of wealthy contributors and acknowledged that many were upset that he had raised their taxes. “It might surprise you to know,” said Clinton, “that I think I raised them too much too.” Why progressives would want to go back to an era of cynical waffling and right-wing turns at opportune moments is beyond me.

While Hillary is not her husband, it’s reasonable to believe that she will govern like him too and surround herself with the same advisers. Her chief consultant is Mark Penn, who worked on her husband’s re-election in 1996. After helping the President win by selling out progressives and triangulating with Congress, Penn proudly boasted in 1997 about how Bill Clinton had shed the Democratic Party of its old, dying coalition and had replaced it with suburban professionals. “The great thing,” he said, “is that they vote.”

<SNIP>

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Hillary_Clinton_Doesn_t_Deserve_Support_From_Progressives_4634.html