Garnish your wages, or: Is our Clintons learnin'?
Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:24:35 AM PDT
"She'll garnish your wages." If Senator Hillary Clinton is chosen as the Democratic nominee, mark my words: This will be a lead slogan for the Republican opposition.
And it goes to show that despite all her talk of "experience," Clinton has not learned much about politics since the early 90s.
Let me go back a couple of steps to provide some context to the argument.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters regularly tout the Senator and former First Lady as the candidate of experience.
But I submit that she is the candidate of bad experience, and of failing to learn from experience. And on this subject, the topic of how to promote universal health care in this country is Exhibit A.
In the early 90s, as everyone knows, Hillary Clinton tried but failed to reform the nation's health care system. An admirable goal... but secrecy and political hamhandedness abetted the health care industry, its lobbyists, and its paid defenders in Congress, who sent her plan down in flames.
Clinton, while touting her experience, spins this negative example as a "learning experience," one that redoubled her commitment to getting it right the next time.
But has she really learned from her mistake? Read on...
But this weekend, national TV viewers found out that she has not learned much of anything about selling a health care reform. The Associated Press has the story:
Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Now I have to wonder: Has Hillary Clinton actually learned any-
thing about politics in the past 15 years?
For if she had, she would know that the specter of the government seizing your wages is a threat that will be siezed upon by the Republican party to destroy her candidacy, if she becomes the nominee.
"She'll garnish your wages" is the kind of phrase that will drive even the most committed middle- and lower-class supporter of universal
health care back to the Republican party. Somewhere, Frank Luntz is cackling with glee.
I'm not talking about whether she is right on wrong on her approach; I'm talking about whether she understands the people, the media and how the Karl Roves of the opposition re-frame debates to set back reform. However effective she may think her garnisheeing approach would be, she should have learned enough about politics and messaging to know better than to hand the Republicans this ammunition.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is the candidate of experience.
The candidate of bad experience.
The candidate of failing to learn from experience.
A vote for Obama is a vote for intelligent, fresh experiene, unsaddled with the baggage and habits of the past.
---------
UPDATE: Given the early comments, I wish to add this clarification.
I'm not arguing whether Clinton or Obama has the better plan. I'm arguing that Hillary stepped right into this framing trap, thus showing that she did not learn from her previous experience watching her health care reform dream go down the drain. Other diaries would be the place to debate the best way to change health care -- I'm talking about whether Hillary Clinton understands, after all this time, why she failed the first time. My suggestion is that she has not.
Permalink | 96 comments