In this Sunday's Washington Post, James Carville and Mark J. Penn admonish Democrats not to underestimate Hillary's electability, or as they more eminently phrase it, "
The Power of Hillary." The piece is energetic, well-written, relatively persuasive . . . and misses the mark completely.
Carville and Penn employ four quotations to frame the general concern they endeavor to alleviate: (1)"Hillary Clinton really is one of the weakest . . . nominees with whom the Democrats could be saddled." (2) "Democrats are worried sick about her chances." (3) "Just give someone else a chance, so we in the Democratic Party can elect a Democrat." (4) "She cannot possibly, possibly win."
Had Carville and Penn spent the occassional few minutes on DailyKos, a bastion of progressive ideas and, incidentally, the most highly-trafficked weblog, a Saturday night on the town might have been salvaged and the surprise of an inevitable backlash from readers could have been adverted. In my view, none of the four selected quotations reflect the central concerns expressed by Democratic voters.
I will elaborate in some depth, but first some preliminary observations respecting "electability" (which I suspect would enjoy a lesser degree of support). I would submit that many among us have devalued the "electability" component to our electoral decisionmaking calculus. Why? In my view, this has occurred because "ignorance" and "irrationality" have exerted an unprecedented degree of control over the conservative voting calculus. If you concur at least in part, you might find this trend particularly worrisome given the rise of reality TV as a favorite mode of transit to an obscured vantage point. Simply said, we're tired of trying to discern which of our prospects would keep conservatives on the couch instead of in the voting booth.
On to my main criticism of Carville and Penn's article... It isn't Hillary's electability; it's her apparent (but by no means established) willingness to compromise democratic values, whether in the abstract or in fact, for a few more points in the next poll. I think it is important for Hillary to defend herself against a well-funded, bloodthirsty GOP attack machine. I think it important for Democrats to actively support her in doing so. I do not think, however, adding red to one's wardrobe is the way to do.
Whether she has moved to the right or has always been where she now stands, on many issues, she has left the Democratic building. A few examples should illustrate.
Hillary, a Yale law graduate, has said she would not support a constitutional ban on flag burning, but is co-sponsoring a bill that would do so. Her stance, to put it bluntly, is patently hypocritical and did not go unnoticed. See e.g. "Don't be a Hack Hillary,"Los Angeles Times Op-ed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held it a form of free expression protected by the First Amendment. Well that's just the "liberal" wing of Republican-appointed justices, right? Well yes, if you would call Justice Scalia a "liberal" justice. In Texas v. Johnson, Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, eloquently explains (citations omitted):
To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do.
...
We are tempted to say, in fact, that the flag's deservedly cherished place in our community will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today. Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson's is a sign and source of our strength. Indeed, one of the proudest images of our flag, the one immortalized in our own national anthem, is of the bombardment it survived at Fort McHenry. It is the Nation's resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag - and it is that resilience that we reassert today.
The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. "To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." And, precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by - as one witness here did - according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."
As reported in the Washington Times ("
Hillary Goes Conservative on Immigration"), Hillary has championed the cause of conservatives opposed to the McCain-Kennedy bill.
"More than any other leader of either political party, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has been focusing on immigration reform and border security - taking hard-line positions that appeal to frustrated Republicans in a move that could guarantee her enough support in red states to win the White House in 2008," conservative author Carl Limbacher wrote recently on NewsMax.com, which has chronicled many of Mrs. Clinton's statements on immigration.
...
In an interview on WABC radio, [Clinton] said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
On abortion, Hillary has attempted to
moderate her pro-choice stance. However inartfully, she appears to have carved out a quasi-centrist position that William Saletan of Slate succinctly describes as "
Safe, Legal and Never."
"Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion, and I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and minds that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available," the former first lady said.
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate. We should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," adding that abortion "represents a sad, even tragic choice to many."
Additionally, Hillary stated, "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances." Interesting.
And then there's the war in Iraq. When the political posturing is cast aside, Hillary and Bush stand on substantively similar ground.
"Once we get that government set up, I have said we must deliver a very clear message," Mrs. Clinton said in a recent speech to a group of realtors on Long Island. "I disagree with the President that we are going to be there with no end in sight, I think that sends the wrong message. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people have to be willing to secure their country for themselves. I disagree with some of my dear friends who say set a date certain, say we're pulling out--six months and we're gone--because I think that sends the wrong message."
In other words, neither the President nor I endorse a timetable. Whereas Hillary thinks it would send the wrong message, most Democrats disagree. Consider, for example, John Kerry's "wrong message" at Faneuil Hall this past April (worth quoting in depth) :
As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.
Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines, a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.
So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.
Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
If Iraqis leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year�s end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.
So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.
We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position. It belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times."
Although 31% of Democrats advocate keeping American troops in Iraq, I suppose Hillary has to think about her national security credentials for the 2008 election. Now I respect, even like, Hillary, but if the primaries were held today my vote would go elsewhere. And Mr. Carville, Mr. Penn, it would not owe to any calculated assessment of "electability."