Just wanted to riff off of Stirling's very good
diary entry here with some counter-arguments.
I want to make clear first that I think he did a good job presenting his views. Some commentors incorrectly, I believe, characterized his posting as vicious. It wasn't. It was just very, very plain.
So, here is my plain take on Hillary Clinton and the 2008 race.
First of all, although 2008 is a couple years away and Sen. Clinton must first be re-elected to her New York seat in 2006 before any real campaigning can be done ...
I think that it is starting to become clear to everyone that she owns the "inevitability" card at the moment. Inevitability is one of the most powerful things that a candidate can have in this media age, because it means that you get to create the conventional wisdom.
As long as it lasts.
And as the Howard Dean experience showed us, "inevitability" is a house of cards. It's very fragile. Remove just one card from the bottom and the whole thing collapses. In an instant.
But Sen. Clinton owns the "inevitability" at the moment and that makes her worthy of discussion and consideration hereabouts, even though a formal declaration of candidacy is obviously years away.
Stirling makes some clear points showing that he believes that Sen. Clinton would not govern, as president, in a way that is compatible with some very basic issues of interest to the Democratic base. Abortion is one good example. The Iraq War is another.
However ...
I want to caution folks who have been following the discussion about Sen. Clinton on the Daily Kos and are coming away with the idea that she is some sort of lighter, more palatable version of a Republican, a Corporatist or even a Movement conservative.
Listen, folks:
Sen. Clinton is a liberal Senator.
She has one of the most liberal voting records of any Senate Democrat. She routinely scores in the 90th percentile on all of those grade sheets published by liberal special interest groups.
And on nominations, Sen. Clinton not only voted against Bolton, but she also voted against John Roberts ... SPECIFICALLY CITING ISSUES SURROUNDING WOMEN'S RIGHTS, PRIVACY RIGHTS AND ROE VS. WADE as reasons that she voted against him!
Look, I know that many -- including myself are displeased with Sen. Clinton's "support" for the Iraq War effort -- but, contrary to many arguments made on Daily Kos lately, she has not abandoned liberal and Democratic values when it comes to a women's reproductive rights. She has not abandoned the fight for jobs for regular Americans. She did not vote for the evil bankruptcy bill.
Sen. Clinton is not some conservative wolf in liberal clothing.
Sorry! She just ain't.
The truth is that Sen. Clinton is not 100% there on all of the policy stuff that I want to see. Her continued "support" for the Iraq War is very troubling and I feel that it will damage her credibility among the majority of Americans who oppose the war.
On the other hand, I could accept the 70-80% of my "personal platform" that I am confident that she would try to deliver as a president. How do I know about that 70-80%? Because I have actually gone to her website, I have actually investigated her voting record and I have been closely watching how she is voting on the Supreme Court nomination seats.
What I haven't done is accepted in a blanket way every strident claim about Sen. Clinton as a "traitor," a "DINO" or whatever -- the claims that appear on this website every day of the week.
Beyond this ...
From a purely strategic angle, I believe that Sen. Clinton is one of the strongest political assets that the Democratic Party has. Anyone who has shook her hand or seen her in person can testify that she has a magnetic presence, is enormously warm and personable and has a scary level of charisma.
To top this off, I believe that, as a candidate, Sen. Clinton would do what it takes to become elected. I don't think that Sen. Kerry had that same level of commitment or maybe even the personal strength that would be required to carry something through 100% to the end.
It's very early in the race. I see Sen. Clinton as someone with a political programme that I can accept, if not fully endorse. And I feel like, as one of the strongest political assets that our party has, we cannot afford to set fire to her now and cast her by the wayside, whatever our personal biases are.
This is why I am open to a Clinton candidacy in 2008. I want us to run someone who has a good likelihood of getting elected and a good likelihood of governing from a platform that I can live with. At this point, Sen. Clinton is as good as -- or better than -- any other name that I've seen presented to me.