"Who Is Hillary Clinton?" - Good article from progressive writer Barbara Ehrenreich in The Nation

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

"Since the start of her candidacy, antiwar Democrats have implored her to admit that she made a mistake on Iraq, which she stubbornly, even childishly, refuses to do.

In the end, the question of who Hillary is seems almost a bit anthropomorphic. Surely she has loved, laughed and suffered in the usual human ways, but what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded, power-seeking machine encased in a gleaming carapace of self-righteousness. She's already enjoyed considerable power, both as a Senator and a "co-president," and in the ways that counted, she blew it."

Read it here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/ehrenreich

[ChiciB1]

1. Saw Her On C-Span About A Month Ago... She's Supporting EDWARDS! n/t

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

3. Wouldn't surprise me. Everyone here should read NICKEL & DIMED

It tells the truth. Edwards is the only one of the major candidates who is addressing these issues HEAD-ON.

[Warpy]

5. I'm not surprised, Ehrenreich's writings on what's happening

to the working poor in this country are extensive and eye opening.

Edwards is the only candidate who has noticed they exist.

[LeFleur1]

26. Edwards

Edwards says all the right things. He seems to understand the problems. But when he was on the Committee and knew more information than regular senators, he voted to give Bush the power to go to war. He didn't show up to vote much as a Senator, either. Makes a person wonder exactly what he thought was so important that he couldn't get to the votes in the Senate.
If he were to get the Nod for Democratic Candidate. I'd vote for him, and, if he won, I'd hope that he'd show up to make decisions as President and lead the country.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. Great news and not surprising since JE is the only one truly addressing those issues nt

:bounce:

[papau]

23. The Nation has been at war with Hillary for the last few issues - I suspect they will continue for

the duration.

While they provide future ammo for the right, they also let light shine on all the objections that might be raised to her. If she does get the nomination the fact that she faced down these attacks a year earlier will work to her advantage and outweighs any future GOP ad that may quote the Nation's comments.

[NNadir]

2. Who is Barbara Erhrenreich?

Is she the woman who ran around in 2000 saying that Bush was the same as Gore?

Why do we need Republicans telling us about Democrats?

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

4. NAFTA meet NAFTA n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Haha. And to think I was going to post something similar as a joke

Life is full of surprises.
Oh yeah, Ehrenreich is a documented Rove lieutenant. Ultra-conservative. Yup. Uh-huh.

(And now for remedial readers: :sarcasm: )

[NNadir]

8. Well, one theory of the "Bush is the same as Gore" theory is that it denigrated Gore.

Another is that it elevated Bush, making Bush seem moderate and sensible. That certainly was part of what Mr. Rove wanted to do, no?

I regard Nader and all of his supporters as de facto Republicans. In so doing I note that Mr. Nader was a frequent and common guess on the telescreen provided by CNN between 2000 and 2004, where he was identified as a consumer activist rather than "Anti-Democrat" politician.

I still have no use for Nader, Ehrenreich, Moore et al.

THERE MIGHT BE NO FUCKING WAR IF THEY HAD SUPPORTED AL GORE IN 2000!!!!!!!

Now all of a sudden they have complaints. When I was marching against the fucking war, Ralph Nader was in the luxury box complaining about NBA officiating.

The real problem...the real problem...is that nobody can think critically for themselves. Instead it's "Barbara Ehrenreich says..."

Fuck Barbara Ehrenreich. Her actions and her effects speak louder than her dribbling words.

[frazzled]

11. Ehrenreich certainly parroted the right-wing talking points on Gore

For example:

Normally I'm more responsive when summoned to help save a drowning man. But
none of the lefties for Gore are arguing that Gore has said or done anything
recently to earn progressive support. He's going down, is all, and going
down so quickly and inexplicably that no one can call him "wooden"
anymore--there's a question whether he's even carbon-based. Here he is,
faced with the frothiest Republican presidential hopeful since Dan Quayle,
and Gore can ignite no sparks, cannot even rise above his own fundraising
scandals or apparently grasp wherein the scandal lies.

He was "wooden," ... perhaps not even "carbon-based." Duller than Dan Quayle-like Bush. Riddled with fundraising scandals.

And we should listen to Barbara Ehrenreich exactly ... WHY?

[Tom Joad]

20. but unlike Rightist (like Joe Lieberman) ... she opposed the policies of Bush.

[Tom Joad]

19. gore supported sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Gore supported Bush1 war on Iraq & Reagan's invasion of Panama.
Gore supported Clinton/Newts destroying the safety net for poor americans.
Gore supported unfair trade laws and anti-environmental agreements like the WTO.

Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate.

Seems that gore has some explaining to do. If nader had not run, many who voted for him would have joined the majority who stayed home.

[BenDavid]

12. You are right on. That is her....And

most of these folk like her and others kept saying and writing, that americans did not need the smartest and most experienced to become president. For two elections these same type folks have said bout the same thing and in the end elected and re-elected this monkey-in-a-mans suit. Now these same folks are saying that Hillary is too smart and too experienced to be president, and we need to go with someone that cannot win the election in 08....WOW!

I thank you
Ben David

[ClassWarfare2008]

22. Why do we need "Democrats" acting like Republicans?

Spot the Democrat in this picture.....





(trick question - there aren't any)

[wyldwolf]

7. well, your post starts off with something not true

"Since the start of her candidacy, antiwar Democrats have implored her to admit that she made a mistake on Iraq, which she stubbornly, even childishly, refuses to do."

Nope, sorry, she has admitted it was a mistake. She just won't give in to the stubborn, even childish, demands of the anti-war left and use the words "I'm sorry."

what we are left with is a sleek, well-funded, power-seeking machine encased in a gleaming carapace of self-righteousness.

:rofl: Not only did she just describe most politicians, she did it in a true leftist fashion.

She's already enjoyed considerable power, both as a Senator and a "co-president,"

HA! So we can now use this article as proof Hillary already has eight years of white house experience, despite the denials from the left?

Remember how I once asked you if you were still in high school? It's because of OPs like this. You don't know who Barbara Ehrenreich is.

[Bitwit1234]

9. What I want to know is will the real Obama stand up.

Isn't that statement as stupid as the one this reporter submitted to her paper or where every she printed it.

And I get so sick of this crap about her not admitting she doesn't support the Iraq vote and she shouldn't have voted. How many damn other democrats senators and candidates voted to go to war with Iraq.
How many other times has she said over and over and over and over and over so many damn times, that if she knew then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted.

So according to these people who support other candidates and want to try to get voters to turn against Hillary, only Hillary Clinton should get down on her knees every time one of the buttholes walk up to her and scream from the roof top I am sorry. Why is Hillary supposed to scream over and over and over and over and over I am sorry and they don't print any other articles about the other dems running. So Hillary Clinton should go to all her campaign stops and debates and yell over and over I am sorry for my vote.

Maybe they should get off their butt and research something else, I think this subject has been printed in the news so many times it is ridiculous. No wonder they call these so called reporters, newsreaders. That must be all they do read the old newspapers and recycle the crap.

[frazzled]

10. Ehrenreich in 2000: "Why We Should Vote for Ralph Nader"

Also written for The Nation.

Don't get me wrong. I like Barbara Ehrenreich and find some of her writing intriguing. But her political judgment is not always very practical. Ehrenreich was one of the vocal and persuasive backers of Ralph Nader who gave us .... eight years of GW Bush and Dick Cheney.

Just sayin.

Here's (one of) her Nader articles:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/votenader.cfm

[ChiciB1]

14. Too Bad About The Article... But She Wasn't Talking That Way When I Saw

her last. I like her a lot and always have, even though I have had some disagreement with "some" of her points of view. Over all I find her to be very intelligent and LIBERAL in the old way! No DLC type, that's for sure.

She IS very confident of herself too and regardless of how you "splain" it she sticks to her guns. I don't like that she was one of Nader's supporters, but even I have always agreed with WHAT Nader says, just don't like him being a spoiler and agree he DID cost Gore here in Florida!! BIG TIME! I know many don't buy Nader's influence in 2000, but it's a REALITY to me! I dare say many many many more think he's the one who screwed it up, as opposed to those who don't!

And I WISH he would just STOP his agenda regarding "running" again! He was dropped by the GREENS and I doubt he'll ever get any real support again, still and all... Please Ralph... let's not go there again!

[bling bling]

13. It just doesn't stop. It never evolves. We never grow up.

John Edwards: Voted YES on IWR
John Edwards: Member of Senate Intelligence Committee privy to classified information on Iraq. Dick Durbin, also on the committee, voted NO on IWR.
John Edwards: Passionately supported the war. Wrote an op-ed that the White House even used to help promote their propaganda campaign.

Yet Clinton is raked through the coals despite the fact that she's admitted she would vote differently knowing what she knows.

Anyone who supports Edwards while at the same time verbally denigrating Clinton over the IWR obviously doesn't see the disconnect to a degree that their denial is as annoying as it is frightening. Furthermore, such people can spare me their lectures on pretty much anything related to politics and I have no problem saying so in each and every thread where I see the dumb argument being made.

[xkenx]

25. Wrongo, you and bitwit. HRC knew (or should have known) then.

Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, and 21 other Democratic senators voted against IWR. They have often said that all the intelligence was available to all Congresspeople (not just Rethuglicans), showing that the WMD claims were clearly bogus or unsubstantiated. They also had input from Wes Clark and others debunking the WMD myth and urging restraint. I attended a meeting in late 2005 where Sen. Levin was asked about why many of his colleagues voted "yes." His reply, reluctantly (trying not to embarrass them)was that they were basically chickenshit to stand up for what was right. All these intelligence information machinations have recently come out more publicly; Dems. were requested by the leadership to actually read the full intelligence reports. Some did. Those who did voted NO. It is unclear whether Hillary did read them--no matter--it was her duty and obligation as a U.S. Senator considering matters of life and death and war to read it (or have an expert staffer read 92 pages and interpret). So for Hillary to say, "If I knew now......." is just a LIE. She knew even if she didn't read; she was not in an isolation booth. And IWR co-sponsor John Edwards is scarcely better; he just made a politically smart move when it was safe to do so by belatedly turning against Bush. Blood is on all their hands, and, it won't wash off, and the stench won't go away. And THAT is why so many Dems. are holding their noses about Hillary and Edwards, particularly Hillary, because she is graceless about even admitting a gross mistake. Shades of George Bush. And THAT is why we run the risk of too many Dems. staying home Nov. 2008 if Hillary is the nominee. It doesn't take too many feeling they cannot, in good conscience, cast a positive vote for her. It isn't too much different from those who voted for Nader in 2000 because they couldn't get excited about Gore. If you think THAT was a problem, just wait till 2008.

[bling bling]

27. Neither of us are saying that Hillary's hands are clean

I guess I can't speak for bitwit, but my point is that there is a select group of people who use the IWR issue to attack Clinton over and over. And yet, these same select people urge us to support Edwards. Perhaps Hillary didn't say the words "I'm sorry." But, any advantage Edwards has for saying "I'm sorry" is eradicated by the fact that he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it's ridiculous to go for Hillary's throat on this and at the same time give Edwards a clean slate.

If people want to blame both of them, fine. If people want to forgive both of them, fine.

But judging them as polar opposites on Iraq because one said "I'm sorry" is ludicrous. In fact (and I *never* say things like this): it reminds me of the Republicans who arrogantly accuse the liberals of this or that behavior while overlooking the same behaviors from people on their own side (or using some lame reason to excuse it). It's infuriating when they do it to us and it's infuriating when I see us doing it to ourselves.

[xkenx]

28. I DID include Edwards

But Hillary really scares the hell out of me. She seems incapable of anything principled or being willing to concede error on her part. We desperately need moral, principled leadership in this country.

[BeyondGeography]

15. This article is not devoid of insight

Hillary does wear her self-righteouness on her sleave, and, in choosing Bill, she certainly set herself up for perpetual victimhood coupled with the consolation prize of a lifetime seat on the moral high ground. One can only conclude that she likes it like that.

<But it was a relationship irreparably twisted by Bill's compulsive priapism, which seems to have put the young Hillary into a permanent rage, but, perversely, also bound them ever more tightly together. In the unstable molecule we used to call "Billary," he was the id and she was the super-ego, a role she clearly relished even as it poisoned her with resentment. As Bernstein argues, Bill's dalliances only increased her power in the relationship, since, as a rising political star, he needed a smart, loyal wife to fend off the press and publicly stand by her man.>

One could also easily conclude that this self-assigned role makes it extremely difficult for her to admit wrongdoing and just move on. This is also known as her Bush-like inability to knuckle under to demands for apologies.

<Having failed with her own hard-won health portfolio, and besieged now by the press for her sleazy deals in Arkansas, Hillary began to flail--reaching out for help from New Age healer Marianne Williamson. Compared to the Bush era White House scandals, the Whitewater land deal was microscopic-- no one died or was tortured--and surely the "vast rightwing conspiracy" played a role in keeping it alive. But as Bernstein writes, what magnified it out of proportion was Hillary's own pattern of "Jesuitical lying, evasion, and ... stonewalling." She was not in the habit of being wrong--that was Bill's job--and admitting to wrong-doing was simply not in her repertoire.>

The irrelevant fact of Ehrenreich's support for Nader is a sad excuse for HRC's defenders to treat this article as a waste of time.

[bling bling]

16. Yes it is.

And the support for Nader has nothing to do with it.

There are few arguments that rile me up personally more than the Hillary = power-hungry machine argument. The reasoning used to defend that argument is an insult to all women in this country. She didn't divorce him? She's a Senator? They've supported each other? Oh dear, a woman who dared help her husband even AFTER he hurt her. There have been time's when my husband has done stupid things to where he might have deserved for me to not try and help him ease the situation. But I love him and don't want him to be humiliated in public. There's nothing he could do to me that could make me turn my back on him if he truly needed my help or support, even if we got divorced.

There's insight unveiled in this article alright. Insight into the author and those she references, such as Bernstein.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. Yeah, but...

"The irrelevant fact of Ehrenreich's support for Nader is a sad excuse for HRC's defenders to treat this article as a waste of time."

Indeed. This enables them to conveniently avoid confronting some of the valid points the article makes.

Oddly enough, this is similar to the approach taken by Michael Moore's detractors. Rather than addressing the troubling information he frequently exposes in films like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko, it's much easier to attack Moore and avoid confronting the actual issues at all.

Unless we conclude that HRC is the presumptive nominee (and if so, why waste time on campaigns and voting), it is valuable to closely examine the policies and personalities of our candidates. This presumably will make the candidate who emerges from the primary process stronger. That is, unless we're afraid of the truth.

UPON EDIT: One thing I admired greatly about Bill Clinton is that before giving a speech, he encouraged his aides to probe and attack the speech, looking for weak points and arguing against him. In fact, I'm told he was annoyed when his aides handled him with kid gloves. Contrast that with Bush (and others) who are so insecure that they surround themselves with sycophants instead of people who challenge, refine, and strengthen their ideas.

[frazzled]

18. I don't think her past pronouncements are irrelevant

As I quoted above, she held some very low opinions of Al Gore--that he was "wooden," had no personality, was not progressive, he had 'fundraising scandals.' I think most of us progressives would agree that her analysis was very skewed on those counts. I maintain that when someone has displayed that kind of dubious political judgment in the past, it would behoove us to think twice before swallowing their opinion whole again in the present.

And by the way: Michael Moore admitted his error with regard to Nader. In the last elections, he understood the importance of supporting a Democrat. Perhaps Ms. Ehrenreich has regretted her part in 2000 as well (I don't know), but, sadly, she's at it again, bashing a Democratic front-runner, and that is not healthy. Remember, just 527 votes in Florida could have prevented a war that has devastated tens of thousands.

I am not a Hillary supporter, so I think I'm looking at this pretty objectively. (I am, however, impressed by Hillary, and if she wins the nomination I will be proud to support her).

Ehrenreich is making the power-hungry harpie argument here. It's shockingly unfeminist and insulting.

[HamdenRice]

24. Excellent read! Ad hominem against Ehrenreich is irrelevant

This is a superb article and it makes me wonder how anyone could support Hillary after reading it. It's mostly a brief, trenchant summary of Hillary's blighted resume of failure, deceipt, and self-righteousness, as well as her instinct toward secrecy that rivals Dick Cheney's, with a bit of psychological insight thrown in, based mostly on Bernstein's recent biography.

For those of us old enough to remember the first years of the Clinton administration, the article is really more a reminder than a revelation. It reminds us of her disastrous attempt to hijack health care reform -- what status does a first lady have to reform an entire human services sector??? -- and her policy preferences, which dismissed the obvious solution of single payer while attempting to entrench the private insurance industry's "death grip" on health care.

As for Ehrenreich's support for Nader, I think one thing we tend to forget is how angry many Democrats were -- even Gore supporters -- about Gore's 2000 campaign, and much of what Ehrenreich wrote was aimed at that problem. From his choice of Lieberman to his sighing during the first debate, Gore gave lots of ammo to his enemies and little inspiration to his supporters.

Gore is my number one choice for 2008 by miles, but that's in part because of the obvious transformation of Al Gore since 2000. Many of America's greatest leaders have had traumatic transformations as a result of personal or professional tragedies or challenges -- FDR's polio transformed him from a light weight rich guy playing at noblesse oblige politics to a compassionate committed progressive; Martin Luther King's near nervous breakdown at his kitchen table in Montgomery transformed him from a playboy preacher to a civil rights prophet; Bobby Kennedy's reaction to his brother's assassination, his recognition of the power structure's role in it, and his later tour of Appalachia and other impoverished parts of America transformed him from a ruthless enforcer for his brother to a social visionary; and the theft of the 2000 election changed Al Gore from a candidate who had been over-polled and over-consulted by DLC "professional election losers" to an uncensored truth teller.

The fact that lots of people who were lukewarm to Al Gore are enthusiastic about him now has as much to do with how Al Gore has changed as it has to do with how we've changed.