The more things change, the more the stay the same
Mithras at Fables of the Reconstruction comments on the fear of a Bush/Clinton dynasty:
Look, if Hillary becomes President, perhaps the word “dynasty” would technically apply. But I think it’s a stupid application of the word. To me, a dynasty is one built on intergenerational transfers of wealth and the accretion of social and political power as a result of that wealth. The Kennedys are a political dynasty. The Bushes are a political dynasty. The Clintons? Remind me who Bill and Hillary’s ancestors were again. Any Presidents back there? Any old money? Hell, any money at all?
………..
It’s not a dynasty partly because people from the beginning talked about Bill and Hillary being a package deal, so her candidacy feels (to more or less irritating effect) like that of the incumbent. But it’s also not a dynasty because her standing in the polls is an expression of the desire finally to break through the sexist bullshit, so that other women can compete for the White House without having to ride in behind their husbands or fathers. Perpetuating a dynasty is about maintaining the status quo; electing the first woman President is not. [Emphasis mine]
A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a historic event – there’s no doubt about that – but let’s try not to confuse the novelty of a woman in the Oval Office with some kind of challenge to the status quo. Hillary Clinton is in virtual control of the Democratic Party apparatus, she draws support from all of the major figures in from the Democratic policy circles, she was an unusually involved First Lady for eight years and a Senator for six. Like most Washington Democrats, she’s needlessly cautious, instinctually moderate and on foreign policy, predisposed towards hawkishness.
She represents the Democratic status quo; if you think that’s a good thing, then you’re right in supporting her. But if you look at the Democrats and see a party broken by triangulation and cowardice, then Hillary Clinton is far from the best choice.
I agree. Neither sex nor skin color are a good enough basis for saying that someone will bring change. I wrote about this here. Candidates have to have a progressive platform and a proven commitment to a set of deeply held values. In my opinion, both Obama and Edwards offer this. I don’t agree with either of them on a number of things, but I would be comfortable voting for them in the general election.
However, if Clinton gets the nomination I will seriously consider voting for a third party candidate. It really depends on who the Republican candidate is. Chances are I would hold my nose and vote for her, but if someone like McCain was running on the other side, I might not see enough of a difference to keep me from voting for someone else.
I haven’t decided what I’ll do if Clinton gets the nomination. My support for Obama is based largely on his foreign policy judgment; his early opposition to the Iraq War, Senate votes and public statements point to a man who takes a measured, cautious and pragmatic approach to international relations. Hillary’s hawkishness (her Iran rhetoric) and her foreign policy cowardice (her fear of being weak makes her more likely to push for military solutions) land her squarely in my “people who shouldn’t be president” group.
But, she is vastly preferable to any Republican. And since it will likely be a tight race, it seems like the responsible thing would be to volunteer for her campaign and vote for her in the general.
I still feel that if the choice is between a hawkish Democrat and a Republican you should perhaps look to what kinds of Supreme COurt Justices they would appoint.
That might tip the scale.
Let’s not forget that McCain talked about being in Iraq for 100 years. That ain’t your ordinary hawk.
Good point Thomas. If I voted for Clinton it would be for that reason. But I live in California, so I have more options. If I’m feeling particularly anti-Clinton on the day I go to vote, I really don’t have to be concerned about hurting her by voting for someone else. As I’m sure you know, it is nearly impossible that California would go for a Republican in the presidential race.
I certainly advocate everyone who doesn’t live in a “safe state” voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it ends up being. We have to win this one. However, if Clinton gets the nomination, those of us who do have the option of voting for someone else without hurting her chances, should take the time to weigh our options and consider which choice would have the greatest impact.
I’m committed to the Democratic party, but my views are similar to the group Greens for Impact. They are pragmatic Greens that reject the Ralph Nader approach of spoiling elections. Instead they advocate voting for Greens in safe seats/states and Democrats everywhere else. I think they make a compelling case.
Right Tom, all things considered, a Hillary Clinton presidency would be vastly preferable to a McCain, Romney or Huckabee presidency.
But I think too many people take that fact and twist it to mean that Hillary Clinton is actually challenging the status quo. You can make a pretty strong argument that Obama is challenging the status quo, and it is definitely the case that Edwards is, but frankly, Hillary Clinton is the boring Establishment candidate. Her possession of a vagina doesn’t change that.