When I attended the California Democratic Convention last April, I was struck at the level of support that Hillary Clinton had among delegates in what was a very progressive crowd. With a wide-open field and a favorable climate for Democrats, 2008 should be the ideal opportunity for an emerging progressive to get the party nomination and make it to the White House. But in recent months, Clinton has pulled away from the pack and now has a double-digit lead over her nearest rival, Barack Obama. Most of this can be attributed to the “gender gap,” but it’s depressing that women would put the premium of the first woman president – any woman president – above other considerations. Because if you look at Hillary’s legacy (and her husband, since by electing her you’ll get two for the price of one), the Clintons are anything but progressive and represent an outdated politics unsuitable for America’s future.
It’s easy to be nostalgic about the Clinton years, but that’s only because who’s President now. Under Bill Clinton’s watch, the federal government ended its commitment to poor people with Welfare Repeal, betrayed gays and lesbians with the Defense of Marriage Act, devastated family farms with the Freedom to Farm Bill, let media conglomerates take over with the Telecommunications Bill, violated civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism Bill (which nobody remembers because we now have the Patriot Act), and pandered to anti-Castro extremists with the Helms-Burton Bill. And that was all just in 1996.
Bill and Hillary Clinton came into office with high optimism after twelve years of the Reagan-Bush era, and some good ideas like universal health care. But they quickly buckled under pressure when they couldn’t withstand the right-wing noise machine – a machine that will eagerly rev up its engines once Hillary becomes president. While many excuse their actions as dealing with a Republican Congress, remember that they also caved during the first two years when Democrats were in charge.
If there’s any positive legacy to the Clinton era, it was the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act that raised taxes on the wealthy and put our fiscal house in order. But even there, Bill Clinton backed off. At a fundraiser in October 1995, the President spoke to a group of wealthy contributors and acknowledged that many were upset that he had raised their taxes. “It might surprise you to know,” said Clinton, “that I think I raised them too much too.” Why progressives would want to go back to an era of cynical waffling and right-wing turns at opportune moments is beyond me.
While Hillary is not her husband, it’s reasonable to believe that she will govern like him too and surround herself with the same advisers. Her chief consultant is Mark Penn, who worked on her husband’s re-election in 1996. After helping the President win by selling out progressives and triangulating with Congress, Penn proudly boasted in 1997 about how Bill Clinton had shed the Democratic Party of its old, dying coalition and had replaced it with suburban professionals. “The great thing,” he said, “is that they vote.”
With Bill Clinton back in the White House playing the unprecedented role of ex-President and First Gentleman, he will have more influence than any presidential spouse in history. And from their perspective, what worked for Bill will work for Hillary. Hillary’s vote for the War in Iraq – and her refusal to apologize for that complicity and disdain for the anti-war movement – shows that she’s just as much of an opportunist as her husband, and will sell out the Left without batting an eye.
Of course, Hillary’s lead is not just about Clinton nostalgia. It’s also because she’s a woman, and her candidacy creates the opportunity to finally elect a woman president. Her current double-digit lead is largely due to the gender gap, so it appears that progressive women are choosing identity over ideology. Contrary to what feminists at The Nation would hope was the case, I saw at the state party convention many female delegates who were wearing “Impeach Bush” stickers while enthusiastically waving Hillary Clinton signs.
If you look at female activists within the Democratic Party, Hillary is more popular among older women, whereas younger women cannot forgive her for the War. She is also more popular among Beltway insiders who make up much of the early fundraising, whereas women who are involved at the grassroots level are looking elsewhere. Which explains the theory that her lead is purely about name recognition and as more voters start paying attention, Edwards and Obama will pick up support.
Markos Moulitsas effectively made this argument yesterday on Daily Kos, as he compared Hillary’s current lead in the polls with how the Democratic primary field looked like four years ago. In June 2003, he said, the front-runner for the nomination was Joe Lieberman, followed by Dick Gephardt and then John Kerry. Therefore, said Moulitsas, such polls are meaningless at this early stage because they’re all about name recognition.
But that doesn’t explain why Hillary has picked up support over Obama in the past few weeks, when he was tied with her in the polls. And while Joe Lieberman was the Vice Presidential nominee in 2000, he was never exactly the “establishment” choice the way that Clinton is now. Back then, the choice of the Democratic Party elite was actually John Kerry – who went on to win the party nomination.
In California, Clinton’s front-runner status has already gotten her the endorsement of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Four years ago, Lieberman’s support in California was limited to conservatives like Ellen Tauscher and Cruz Bustamante. So don’t expect Hillary to nose-dive the way that Lieberman did, even if Edwards and Obama start capturing the imagination of primary voters.
It’s too soon to tell how the Democratic primary field will play out, and if Al Gore enters the race it’s a whole different ball game. Ironically, Obama is more popular than Clinton among independent voters – but the establishment who normally wants to pick the “winner” is sticking to the former First Lady. Whether they desert her later on as it appears inevitable that she will lose the general election remains to be seen.
But now it is depressing to see Hillary Clinton pick up support for the nomination, when Democrats – and the country – deserve so much better.
Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org
