No matter what you may think of Sen. Hillary Clinton, she has a plan for everything, and enough tenacity to ride whatever lightning is thrown at her. Much has been made of her as a “fighter”, indicating that she’ll do whatever it takes to accomplish her goals.
Fighting is an important trait, and one that has served both Sen. Clinton and her husband well over the years. It is certainly a quality I want in a President of the United States. However, politics is much more complicated than just a bare-knuckle fight. Politics is the very best – and the very worst – of this country. To be a successful national politician in the United States, you have to have the iron fist – elegantly concealed in a velvet glove. Sen. Clinton is known for her iron fist. However, does she have the détente to be able to work with Congress?
No President can be effective without the ability to work with Congress. The two best modern examples to support this are Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan. They often talked tough about Congress to the press. However, they told Congressmen the truth individually, and had a warm personal touch that often helped them overcome practical opposition to their plans. They knew how to negotiate, how to cajole, how to plead with the better angels of a legislator’s nature (which is no small feat). But even more important than knowing how to do those things, they knew WHEN to do them too.
Reviewing Sen. Clinton’s eight years in elected office, it is troubling to note that she has not co-authored a single major piece of legislation that was signed into law. Even her rival for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, can claim bipartisan co-authorship on two major bills that were enacted into law (Lugar-Obama and Coburn-Obama) during his time in Washington – and he’s been in the Senate half as long as Sen. Clinton. This at least demonstrates some ability to reach across the political aisle to get important legislation through Congress.
The only other legislative experience Clinton can claim is the 1993-94 effort to bring about universal health care reform, when she was First Lady. Even in this, though, there was a major problem with Sen. Clinton’s ham-handed administrative style. Far from focusing on positive, collegial communication, she took her task force private, issued thinly veiled threats to anyone seeming to oppose her, and ended up offending even major Congressional Democrats such as Sen. Daniel Moynihan. As a result, her plan – and her reputation – took the fall.
One could easily, and rationally, assert that this combativeness is natural for someone who has been subjected to intense scrutiny, both personally and professionally, throughout her adult life. Were that all there was to tell, that explanation would be the end of this story.
Unfortunately, there’s more to this than just overdeveloped combat instincts. As her biographer, Carl Bernstein, has noted, Sen. Clinton appears to have “a difficult relationship with the truth.” A brief look at some of her foreign policy experience claims underscores both her lack of front-line experience and the “difficult relationship”.
Sen. Clinton says she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.” Unfortunately, Lord Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize winner for his role in the Belfast agreement, has characterized this claim as “a wee bit silly.” Brian Feeney, also heavily involved in the negotiations, is even more direct: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she isn’t on it.”
She says she helped negotiate for open borders for Macedonians. The truth is that those borders were opened the day before she arrived in the area.
Her campaign says her trip to Tuzla was the first time any First Lady has been in a “war zone” since the FDR administration. However, Pat Nixon went to Vietnam – in 1968. That was an actual war zone. In contrast, Sen. Clinton took her daughter along for the trip – and video shows they were flanked by Bosnian children as she made her way from the plane.
Oh yes…the dangerous circumstances she cites in the landing? The pilot of the plane says that there weren’t as much as bees, much less sniper fire. He goes further to say that, far from the “corkscrew landing” Sen. Clinton described, the only reason the flight came in on a steeper than normal approach was due to the hilly terrain, not avoiding anti-aircraft ammunition.
In all of these claims, one can see the kernel of truth around which the larger fabrication was spun. She WAS involved in bringing women’s groups into the Northern Ireland peace process. She WAS involved in the effort to keep borders open for Macedonian refugees. She WAS briefed on the possibility of danger in Tuzla prior to landing. None of this, though, excuses the conflations. As Ron Fournier plaintively asks, “Why wasn’t the truth good enough for Hillary Clinton?”
Okay, so she’s a politician who fights and embellishes. The sad truth is that, to become president, you have to project righteousness while quietly working within the political labyrinth of the Beltway. No modern President gets into office without some mud on their shoes. As long as it isn’t illegal, it’s fair game. So, Sen. Clinton’s “fish stories” aren’t a big deal, right?
Well, if you want to enact a four-part housing relief measure that is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $30 billion, you’d better be able to not only honestly account for the money and processes, you’d also better be able to TALK (not just fight) with Congressional heavies, both GOP and Democrat. If you want to start bringing troops home from Iraq within your first 100 days in office, you’d better line up Congressional backing. If you want to create “green” jobs, you’d better be able to get the Congressional delegations from auto-producing and heavy industrial states on board with you, because you’ll need them to explain to their electorates what’s happening. If you want to cap health care premiums at 10% of income, you’d better be more convincing than the health care lobbyists who will oppose your plan to your legislative constituency.
Historically, the Clintons have never had good relations with Capitol Hill. Their coattails have never been long, which no lawmaker likes. Democrats took a beating in the 1994 mid-term elections, largely due to national irritation with President Clinton’s moral compass and Sen. Clinton’s unfriendly nature during the health care efforts. It took 12 years – until the political malfeasance that is George W. Bush – for Democrats to recover. Al Gore’s Presidential campaign in 2000 got less White House support than Sen. Clinton’s first run for the Senate that same year. There are Democrats who remember that lack of support with more than just a slight moue of distaste.
Given all these factors, President Hillary Clinton would probably require a supermajority in both houses of Congress just to avoid filibusters. This, unfortunately, is very unlikely, even in a year where Republicans are jumping ship and Democrats are poised to add to their majorities.
Hillary Clinton is a unique figure in American political history – First Lady, U.S. Senator, and the first viable female candidate for President. She is highly intelligent, organized, and determined. Her true, unvarnished record would indicate she doesn’t have a lot of direct experience, but her exposure to and intimacy with national and international concerns would be great for her in the White House. Certainly, she’s given a lot of thought to her plans, especially for the economic crises we face. That deserves credit and recognition.
However, no great Presidential plans can pass without Congressional support. Sen. Clinton’s record on securing bipartisan legislative cooperation indicates that there isn’t much more than fighting and embellishing in her playbook. For all her wonkishness, she lacks a simple precept, espoused on millions of kindergarten report cards every year: “Works and plays well with others.” And a President who can’t be straight with legislators, is unwilling to compromise, and is secretive even with those of the same party will just not work in Washington – especially if one wants to implement the plans she has put together.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Obama: Tactician and Gambler
It is said that any decent chess player knows the basic principles of the game, but that the true hallmark of a master lies in knowing when to violate those principles. It is also said that a good poker player can calculate odds, but a great poker player knows when to truly gamble.
Should he not become President, Senator Barack Obama may want to look into chess or poker.
Conventional political wisdom would argue that, in his discourse on race earlier this month, Obama’s Job #1 was to get as far away as possible from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in word and deed. Obama, according to this convention, would “reject and denounce” Wright in his entirety – and many believe that he should even leave Trinity United Church of Christ, his church home of 20 years.
This would certainly have been the politically expedient solution. It would likely not alienate a significant portion of his electoral base, and it would go a ways toward placating the working-class white vote that most pollsters say is vital to being elected.
This would also have taken some of the bite out of the Republican attack machine, which is certainly drooling at a chance to roll out Swift Boat ads on Obama’s race, religion and alleged lack of patriotism.
Any good political advisor would certainly advocate this approach to dealing with the Wright controversy. Since no Presidential candidate gets as far as Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain without good advisors, it’s safe to say that Obama probably heard this approach a number of times in the days and hours leading up to Wednesday’s speech.
However, there’s a larger principle than electability or delegates at stake here. Obama’s mastery of the American political chessboard was put squarely to the test by this furor. This was the closest any of the candidates will come to a “red phone” moment before Inauguration Day.
Obama chose not to do the expedient thing. Instead, he denounced Wright’s comments – for all the right reasons. As Obama explained clearly, people who believe what Wright believes see America as having made no progress since the Amistad pulled into port. Though the progress has been slow, painful and all too often deadly, we are certainly racially better off as a nation than we were when the first slaves were unloaded on our shores.
Only in today’s America could people like Condoleezza Rice, Norman Mineta and Alberto Gonzales have played such important roles in our government. Only in today’s America could Nancy Pelosi be two heartbeats away from the Presidency. Only in today’s America could we have two African-American governors serving at the same time. Only in today’s America could Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
At the same time, he chose to approach the Wright question simultaneously from a personal angle. It is in this response that Obama’s true character has been shown. Rather than take a machete to his ties to Wright, he instead stood by him personally, acknowledging the good that Wright has done for his family, in his community and in his service to America as a US Marine. He also acknowledged that Wright, far from being a loony modern-day black militant as some news outlets and commentators would have you believe, has treated people of all races in his church with respect and care. There are many anecdotal stories to support this. (Check the Chicago Tribune for examples, or go to YouTube and look up “Jane Fisler-Hoffman”.)
Many of us have friends from far-flung places. I have the good fortune to have friends from all over the world, and all over the United States. I have friends who argue passionately in favor of pro-life, laissez-faire federal government, reparations, racial segregation, Zionist conspiracy and superiority of the male gender. I personally disagree with all of these positions. However, those friends have also been there for me when I really needed them. They cheered my successes, commiserated on my failures, and always told me what they thought I needed to hear out of genuine love and concern. Will I vote the same way as they do? Not on your life. But I’d never, ever give up their friendship. If the friends, mentors and loves of your life all think the exact same way you do, then there’s probably only one of you doing any real thinking at all.
One of the biggest criticisms of Obama’s speech is that he didn’t directly address the AIDS and 9/11 comments that Wright made. Of course, virtually no news outlet has played, say, the 10 seconds before and the 10 seconds after those comments. Now, I believe that asking God to damn America is wrong. However, Wright was talking about God damning America because it doesn’t treat its citizens like human beings. These two statements are obviously VERY different.
Does anyone deny that America has a history of this behavior? Ignoring all the usual examples of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation, take a look at the Tuskegee syphilis study – a Mengele-like disgrace devised, run and concealed by the US Public Health Service. President Clinton actually formally apologized for the government’s sacrifice of hundreds of black men solely to study long-term effects of the disease. Show of hands from anyone 50 or older: Would you have believed this back in 1972, when the study ended? So it’s not like there isn’t a pattern that supports Wright’s claim of an AIDS cover-up. It is outrageous. It is reprehensible. It is something I wouldn’t cite as true without firm evidence. But it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened in America. Even the wildest conspiracy theories have at their core some ugly truth.
And if you study the Bible at all, you know God is a vengeful God, who will strike out at those who destroy and poison even the least of His children. When you look at Wright’s comments in that context, it makes him look angry, not un-American.
Obama also chose to acknowledge the realities that underlie and define the racial chasms in America. He addressed the real feelings of African-Americans, and placed them in their historical context. He also addressed the real feelings of middle- and lower-middle-class white Americans, and how the worst of those feelings and fears can be manipulated into hatred. After this speech, no one should doubt the maxim that racists aren’t born; they’re made.
Ironically, Obama did show influences of Jeremiah Wright in his comments about racial resentments harbored by working-class whites. Wright has long been an advocate of self-help for African-Americans. (This is a part of black liberation theology, which is a founding cornerstone of Trinity UCC.) By acknowledging that there is a real point in the anger some whites feel toward blacks, Obama also underlines the need for African-Americans to take full responsibility for their lives. Those who really want to paint Obama as “Wright Lite” probably missed this link entirely.
Anyone who argues that this speech was solely based on callous calculation needs a refresher course in political math. Sure, Obama is taking a big gamble by betting that America is so ready for change that our citizens will begin to consider the racial questions his candidacy has raised. However, what he’s gambling with are his Presidential aspirations – and quite possibly his political future in its entirety. As any top poker player will tell you, going all-in with stakes that big is a mathematical, intuitive and emotional calculation. Crunching the numbers alone doesn’t make you risk your adult life’s work on directly confronting such an explosive topic.
Adversity does not build character. Adversity reveals character. When a much easier and safer path was available, Barack Obama chose the political road less traveled. Will this result in his inauguration ten months hence? No one knows. However, in discarding the tried-and-true principle of only talking about race in glowing Kumbaya-type terms, Obama forcefully demonstrated not only the depth of his own American understanding, but also the forthrightness, analytical ability and loyalty that all Americans should want and demand from their leaders.
Should he not become President, Senator Barack Obama may want to look into chess or poker.
Conventional political wisdom would argue that, in his discourse on race earlier this month, Obama’s Job #1 was to get as far away as possible from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in word and deed. Obama, according to this convention, would “reject and denounce” Wright in his entirety – and many believe that he should even leave Trinity United Church of Christ, his church home of 20 years.
This would certainly have been the politically expedient solution. It would likely not alienate a significant portion of his electoral base, and it would go a ways toward placating the working-class white vote that most pollsters say is vital to being elected.
This would also have taken some of the bite out of the Republican attack machine, which is certainly drooling at a chance to roll out Swift Boat ads on Obama’s race, religion and alleged lack of patriotism.
Any good political advisor would certainly advocate this approach to dealing with the Wright controversy. Since no Presidential candidate gets as far as Senators Obama, Clinton or McCain without good advisors, it’s safe to say that Obama probably heard this approach a number of times in the days and hours leading up to Wednesday’s speech.
However, there’s a larger principle than electability or delegates at stake here. Obama’s mastery of the American political chessboard was put squarely to the test by this furor. This was the closest any of the candidates will come to a “red phone” moment before Inauguration Day.
Obama chose not to do the expedient thing. Instead, he denounced Wright’s comments – for all the right reasons. As Obama explained clearly, people who believe what Wright believes see America as having made no progress since the Amistad pulled into port. Though the progress has been slow, painful and all too often deadly, we are certainly racially better off as a nation than we were when the first slaves were unloaded on our shores.
Only in today’s America could people like Condoleezza Rice, Norman Mineta and Alberto Gonzales have played such important roles in our government. Only in today’s America could Nancy Pelosi be two heartbeats away from the Presidency. Only in today’s America could we have two African-American governors serving at the same time. Only in today’s America could Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
At the same time, he chose to approach the Wright question simultaneously from a personal angle. It is in this response that Obama’s true character has been shown. Rather than take a machete to his ties to Wright, he instead stood by him personally, acknowledging the good that Wright has done for his family, in his community and in his service to America as a US Marine. He also acknowledged that Wright, far from being a loony modern-day black militant as some news outlets and commentators would have you believe, has treated people of all races in his church with respect and care. There are many anecdotal stories to support this. (Check the Chicago Tribune for examples, or go to YouTube and look up “Jane Fisler-Hoffman”.)
Many of us have friends from far-flung places. I have the good fortune to have friends from all over the world, and all over the United States. I have friends who argue passionately in favor of pro-life, laissez-faire federal government, reparations, racial segregation, Zionist conspiracy and superiority of the male gender. I personally disagree with all of these positions. However, those friends have also been there for me when I really needed them. They cheered my successes, commiserated on my failures, and always told me what they thought I needed to hear out of genuine love and concern. Will I vote the same way as they do? Not on your life. But I’d never, ever give up their friendship. If the friends, mentors and loves of your life all think the exact same way you do, then there’s probably only one of you doing any real thinking at all.
One of the biggest criticisms of Obama’s speech is that he didn’t directly address the AIDS and 9/11 comments that Wright made. Of course, virtually no news outlet has played, say, the 10 seconds before and the 10 seconds after those comments. Now, I believe that asking God to damn America is wrong. However, Wright was talking about God damning America because it doesn’t treat its citizens like human beings. These two statements are obviously VERY different.
Does anyone deny that America has a history of this behavior? Ignoring all the usual examples of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation, take a look at the Tuskegee syphilis study – a Mengele-like disgrace devised, run and concealed by the US Public Health Service. President Clinton actually formally apologized for the government’s sacrifice of hundreds of black men solely to study long-term effects of the disease. Show of hands from anyone 50 or older: Would you have believed this back in 1972, when the study ended? So it’s not like there isn’t a pattern that supports Wright’s claim of an AIDS cover-up. It is outrageous. It is reprehensible. It is something I wouldn’t cite as true without firm evidence. But it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened in America. Even the wildest conspiracy theories have at their core some ugly truth.
And if you study the Bible at all, you know God is a vengeful God, who will strike out at those who destroy and poison even the least of His children. When you look at Wright’s comments in that context, it makes him look angry, not un-American.
Obama also chose to acknowledge the realities that underlie and define the racial chasms in America. He addressed the real feelings of African-Americans, and placed them in their historical context. He also addressed the real feelings of middle- and lower-middle-class white Americans, and how the worst of those feelings and fears can be manipulated into hatred. After this speech, no one should doubt the maxim that racists aren’t born; they’re made.
Ironically, Obama did show influences of Jeremiah Wright in his comments about racial resentments harbored by working-class whites. Wright has long been an advocate of self-help for African-Americans. (This is a part of black liberation theology, which is a founding cornerstone of Trinity UCC.) By acknowledging that there is a real point in the anger some whites feel toward blacks, Obama also underlines the need for African-Americans to take full responsibility for their lives. Those who really want to paint Obama as “Wright Lite” probably missed this link entirely.
Anyone who argues that this speech was solely based on callous calculation needs a refresher course in political math. Sure, Obama is taking a big gamble by betting that America is so ready for change that our citizens will begin to consider the racial questions his candidacy has raised. However, what he’s gambling with are his Presidential aspirations – and quite possibly his political future in its entirety. As any top poker player will tell you, going all-in with stakes that big is a mathematical, intuitive and emotional calculation. Crunching the numbers alone doesn’t make you risk your adult life’s work on directly confronting such an explosive topic.
Adversity does not build character. Adversity reveals character. When a much easier and safer path was available, Barack Obama chose the political road less traveled. Will this result in his inauguration ten months hence? No one knows. However, in discarding the tried-and-true principle of only talking about race in glowing Kumbaya-type terms, Obama forcefully demonstrated not only the depth of his own American understanding, but also the forthrightness, analytical ability and loyalty that all Americans should want and demand from their leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
