| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Hillary A Centrist? Um, No, Lol. Are You Off Your Meds, Again? |
| 2005-11-15 |
| Is Hillary a centrist? Let's look at her votes President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what a "New Democrat" is. Specifically, was the phrase anything more than a cynical Clintonian effort to make liberal Democrats appear more moderate? Looking ahead, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who must be considered the early Democratic front-runner for the White House in 2008, seems to be adopting a similar strategy. Over the past year, much has been made in various media accounts of Clinton's leaving her liberalism behind in favor of the center. So my bewilderment over the New Democrat label is not just an academic inquiry. Ironically, I sought clarification at an academic conference at Hofstra University late last week. After all, it was titled "William Jefferson Clinton: The 'New Democrat' from Hope." Various speakers tackled what a New Democrat was. Perhaps the most exhaustive account was presented by Al From, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council and referred to as the intellectual godfather of the New Democrats. He emphasized opportunity, responsibility and community, and served up phrases like "modernization of liberalism," "forging a third way," and my personal favorite, "empowering government over bureaucracy" - whatever that means. Paul Begala, a political consultant for the 1992 campaign, added that Clinton offered "modified populism." All of this hardly clarified things. The former president only muddied the waters further with a mind-numbing speech Thursday that defended his administration. It was a laundry list that included lots of ways he spent taxpayers' money. In the context of the conference speeches and Clinton's record, including his big tax hike, harsh class warfare attacks and failed attempt at socialized medicine, the New Democrat label seemed substantive only on the international front. To his credit, Clinton was much more a free trader than most of his fellow Democrats. In the end, much of the New Democrat philosophy was the old Democrat philosophy spruced up with the rhetoric of moderation. Is that also the case with Sen. Clinton's so-called move to the center? Well, it certainly is hard to detect any centrism in her overall Senate voting record. Each year, for example, she has scored 95 percent with the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action. But let's focus on four key Senate votes that presented opportunities for Democrats to flash their moderate side. In October 2002, 29 Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton was one of those 29, and while subsequently critical of how President George W. Bush has handled the war, she has not backed away from her vote. Score one for moderation. Next came a vote on banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. Clinton made a splash earlier this year by calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice." Nonetheless, she could not bring herself to vote to stop the particularly horrific practice known as partial-birth abortion, although 17 of her fellow Democrats in the Senate did. Score one against moderation (and life). While her husband generally grasps the benefits of free trade - noting in his speech "trade lifts people out of poverty" - Sen. Clinton opposed the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement this past June. Ten Senate Democrats voted for it. Another blow against Hillary's moderation. Finally, there was the confirmation vote in September for John Roberts as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. With Roberts' powerful intellect, obvious mastery of the law and sound temperament, only an ideologue could have voted against him. Twenty-two Democrats gave a thumbs-up for Roberts, including some big-name liberals such as Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Hillary Clinton voted against Roberts. One key vote and some occasional centrist talk do not make a moderate. Just as Bill Clinton the New Democrat was more about political posturing than policy reality, Hillary Clinton's move to the center lacks credibility. It is simply Clintonian. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #2 Jolly - interesting. That should be real appealling to GM. Great deal for most large employers, power for Hillary; heck two out of three ain't bad. :-) |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-11-15 21:48 |
| #1 A classic divide and conquer move by Hillary: I hear through the Washington grapevine that she is talking to corporate America about bringing back her plan to take over the health care industry. The deal is, corporations support her plan (and her run for Prez), in return they get to off-load their corporate health insurance plans, which have become a big headache for them. So far this deal seems to be under the radar of the MSM and punditry. |
| Posted by: jolly roger 2005-11-15 10:22 |