I have been more than fair to Hillary Clinton. I believe that far too many on this site have been over-the-top in accusing her of not being a real Democrat. People like David Sirota spin her debate performances to accuse her of "laughing" at American workers, and many just eat it up. I do not support her as my candidate, but I believe she is a genuine Democrat who is about 1 million times better than any of the jokers in the GOP.
But today I read this article in Politico about Hillary Clinton leaning right at Democratic forums, and something really bothered me. No, not that she had some right-leaning policies, that's her privilege. But WHY should took those positions. And thus comes in Mark Penn and his unreal statement. Take a look:
Clinton, who said she supports a federal recommendation for shorter sentences for some people caught with crack cocaine, opposed making those shorter sentences retroactive — which could eventually result in the early release of 20,000 people convicted on drug charges.
"In principle I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It’s something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well."
Now, that's not an entirely unreasonable position as far as I'm concerned. And whether or not I agree with her, I don't find the position itself offensive. What I DO find offensive is what her pollster, Mark Penn, said after the forum:
In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.
Her five rivals present on stage — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich — all said they favor making the shorter sentences retroactive.
"Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue," Penn said. "He’s already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers."
Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he "would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."
At no point does he argue that her position is right based on substance, or on principle. Only does he argue that it's right because it prevents that titan of a man, Rudy Giuliani, from going after her.
It reminds me of Kos' posting this week about the fearful, bed-wetting left, whose positions on policies are defined by how to avoid Rush Limbaugh saying mean things about you (especially since he wouldn't want to do that anyway).
But what amazes me about this is that Hillary is smart enough to KNOW that she'll be demonized, regardless of her positions. So why choose a position based on fear of being demonized? It doesn't add up.
I'm not trying to turn this into a bash Hillary diary, because what I'd love is for all Democrats to start being proud and principled in their positions, so that any one of them could make a fine President.
But I don't want any of our candidates choosing positions based on fear of what Rudy or any one else says. As Barack Obama has stated, one of the reasons Democrats don't win is because they don't build a mandate for their positions. I never remember George W. Bush saying "I won't stand hard for tax cuts" or "I won't act like I think global warming needs more study" because of what a Democrat might say.
It's time for Democrats to lead this country, which means standing up for principles and taking the country with them. Does that mean we have to agree with them on every policy position? NO. But it does mean that they have to take those positions for the right reasons: conviction, belief, and confidence that it's the right thing to do no matter what anyone says.
UPDATE: There have been some fair points made that my diary may have gone too far in assuming that because Mark Penn is quoted as saying something (and it may have been taken out of context), that is the rationale for Hillary Clinton's position. Indeed, he is a pollster and paid to think that way. And perhaps this diary is intended more to tackle his way of thinking than her's.
On the other hand, he is almost always quoted in the press following so many of her events. He is not just a behind-the-scenes pollster, but also a de facto spokesperson for her campaign. That's why it's hard to separate what he says from her positioning.