Deranged Clinton Syndrome
We all know the Times‘ Republican endorsement is a sideshow. What really counts is the editorial board’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Clinton is described as the “brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York.” This strikes me as senseless on both counts. Harsh-sounding? Brilliant? Clinton was undoubtedly a very gifted student, and I’ll bet she’d score higher on her SATs than, say, John McCain. But note that Obama, also a gifted student, is not identified as “brilliant.” He is “incandescent if still undefined.” One almost wishes the Times had praised his buttery-smooth cocoa complexion — that at least would have struck a less condescending note.
We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
Clinton, in contrast, can. Or at least that’s what she seems to be promising. So basically the Times is unwilling to give Edwards, the candidate who has offered the most detailed, comprehensive, and forthrightly redistributionist platform of the Democrats, the benefit of the doubt, yet Clinton is allowed to run a cynical campaign founded on sustained character assassination, obfuscation, and ethnic fear-mongering. The Times claims, rather amusingly, that “on the major issues, there is no real gulf separating” Clinton and Obama, a claim that makes a mockery of the careful work done by many of the Times‘ own reporters in drawing out deep contrasts between the two candidates. Clinton promises an end to the war in Iraq, yet she also offered a military strategy that closely paralleled that championed by Dov Zakheim and other advisors close to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
[Clinton’s] idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed.
Obama never backed the Zakheim-Rumsfeld strategy, and he also opposed the invasion of Iraq. As someone who backed the invasion and now supports the surge strategy, you might think I’d favor Clinton’s approach. And I suppose I do. But I do resent the fact that Clinton is lying about Obama’s record. Judging by everything I know about her decision-making style, her foreign policy ideology, and her political judgment, I believe not only that she would keep a large number of US troops engaged in Iraq but that she would be more likely to broaden the conflict, more likely perhaps than a Republican president.
Rather mysteriously, the Times writes:
Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.
Evidently Clinton is equally yet silently dedicated to these issues. That the Times is able to divine Clinton’s secret intentions on these broad and vital questions raises an interesting issue that may play an important role in national security discussions to come: if members of the Times editorial board possess powers of extrasensory perception, or ESP, shouldn’t they be using these awesome abilities to hunt down and destroy the remnants of Al Qaeda? Surely this would constitute almost as great a service to national security as electing Hillary Clinton president.
As for Clinton’s preparation for this Herculean task, one has to assume that Obama’s academic training and his tenure in the Senate, not much shorter than Clinton’s, means nothing. His experience in a state legislature, and indeed experience working on transparency in government in a state legislature, is also meaningless. All I can say is that it’s a good and wonderful thing that the editorial board can read minds. I just hope they the board doesn’t use its formidable mental powers to give Obama voters a terrible migraine. To be sure, that wouldn’t be as bad as actively intimidating Obama voters at caucus sites, another tactic the Clinton machine seems to have embraced. One can vote with a migraine, after all.
Hillary Clinton is “offended” by soaring CEO pay, and she believes that the rich — rather than, say, computerization — are responsible for stagnant middle-class wages. I wouldn’t be surprised if she also believed Barack Obama were also somehow responsible. Expect a robocall or email forward to this effect.
Then there is Clinton’s fascinating Laschian term.
“You had a corporate ethos, that, because of the more self-contained American economy, was really focused on community,” Mrs. Clinton said. “There was a sense of multiple obligations. It wasn’t just to one’s shareholders. It was also to one’s employees, to one’s community.”
So while Obama is overpromising (what is this “hope” of which you speak?), Clinton intends to restore community and togetherness and decency. Through the use of coercive force. What fun!
Despite railing against corporate executives in the vein of John Edwards, Clinton is nevertheless backed by top corporate executives. Why? It could be because she has a reputation for saying one thing and doing another. Indeed, she has a proven track record of doing exactly that. So as someone with conservative sympathies, I can see supporting Clinton on these grounds alone. Yet she also has a reputation, richly deserved, for cronyism, self-dealing, and opportunism. While some corporate executives will likely do well under Clinton’s tenure, it’s easy to imagine others — others who dare to cross her — experiencing a rougher ride.
Consider another “trivial” difference between Clinton and Obama.
Her plan goes significantly further than Mr. Obama’s. She decided, in effect, that the downsides of rewarding irresponsible borrowing was outweighed by the benefits of reducing foreclosures.
Imagine how tough a choice that was! More bold thinking from the Clinton camp!
One is reminded of McCain’s defeat in South Carolina in 2000. Clinton must sorely regret that she can’t use proxies to pointedly accuse Obama of fathering a black child — because, after all, he has two of them, and they are adorable.
Last word, I promise: David Leonhardt has vividly detailed (in fairly sympathetic terms) Clinton’s Dukakisian technocratic agenda, minus the integrity and plus pandering, but what makes Obama any better? After all, he also favors a major expansion of the state?
Obama’s theory of how government works is at least sensible, if not correct. Unlike Clinton, he doesn’t seem to believe government — or rather Hillary Clinton personally — can solve all of your problems. Rather, he believes that democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry, and that government can create frameworks to help individuals and neighborhoods flourish. The part about an active and engaged citizenry might be daft — Clinton, who relies on low turnout and an utter lack of public scrutiny of her past statements and commercial transactions, must think so — but it does reflect the view of the framers, who for reasons good and bad we revere.
I just wish Obama would stop bashing Wal-Mart. As Pew found in 2006, a large majority of Democrats — an overwhelming majority of downscale Democrats — like Wal-Mart for the good reason that it delivers low prices. But that I can take. The lies and fear-mongering I can’t.
P.S. One small point I’d like to add:
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
She defeated Rick Lazio. In 2006, she defeated the former mayor of Yonkers. The editorial notes that Clinton “delivered on her promises.” Did she revitalize the economy of upstate New York? She certainly pledged to do so.
Short and sweet — Hillary would not end the Democratic Party by giving civil rights to terrorists, inflicting defeat in Iraq on the brink of victory, and allowing AQ free shots at the US with mass casualty attacks followed up by “hug the responder” stuff from the Federal Government and “why do they hate us.”
Even the NYT understands that Obama would do all that and more (seriously, AQ will stop attacking us because his granny lives in a mud hut in Kenya?) Obama (and Edwards) are not even cognizant that there are bad and dangerous men who want to kill masses of Americans on scales larger than 9/11. And wishing them away won’t work.
That’s why the endorsement. Simple as that.
— Jim Rockford · Jan 25, 04:45 AM · #
Bravo. You’ve been on a roll lately!
— PEG · Jan 25, 09:30 AM · #
Reihan Salam: Wonderful piece. Sometimes a Clintonite and a Democrat are the same thing, sometimes not.
I think some serious, bone-breaking damage has been done in this contest, as there has been some clarity as to where the Clintonite True Believers stand vis-a-vis the interests of the Democratic Party.
This hasn’t been a bar fight that we’ll all wake up in the morning and forget about. I think we now know more about the Clintons as people and politicians, and what they’re willing to do to win. I must say I never understood the Republican animosity to them, but I only saw them run against Republicans.
— fougasseu · Jan 25, 05:18 PM · #
“Clinton intends to restore community and togetherness and decency. Through the use of coercive force. What fun!”
That is funny – like the Iraq War, right?
— brianr · Jan 25, 05:44 PM · #
Jim Rockford, you are delusional if you 1. Think that’s true and 2. Think that’s why the NYT endorsed Hillary.
Obama has been far more coherent than Clinton on how we fight al Qaeda. You obviously have never watched or read his foreign policy speeches or visited his website. You probably only know that he opposed the Iraq War.
— bob · Jan 25, 09:35 PM · #
John McCain has an IQ of 133. I have no doubt he has no patience for the SAT but the idea that the totally predictable thinker Hillary Clinton, is smarter than he is, is ridiculous. She has no sense of humor, seems incapable of spontanaity and, it appears can not even have fun with Bill Clinton. The Times chose her because 1) she is as stolid as they; 2) they share a sense of entitlement; 3) and if you built a NYT reader from the ground up she would look, walk and talk like HRC.
— jjv · Jan 26, 02:34 AM · #
IT IS TIME TO TURN THE PAGE!!!
The reason I am so passionate and enthusiastic about my Senator, Barack Obama is because I believe in my heart, mind and soul that he is the BEST candidate, presently, to bring the American people together, unify our country, work with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, as well as represent America to the rest of the world. It is time to turn the page in history and set a new tone in Washington, D.C. and the way our government plays a role in our lives.
Obama is the LONGEST elected official in the democratic primary, serving for 11 years in the state and federal senate. He believes that education is an investment in our future and is willing to make community colleges free for our citizens. Obama believes the government should impose fines on corporations that pollute greenhouse gases, then using that money to provide “green” or environmental friendly jobs to urban and rural communities. This plan is the best long-range plan to boost our nation’s economy, create jobs and discover energy alternatives.
Obama also supports Veterans Housing, physical and mental health care for veterans. He believes in diplomacy, before quickly moving to war without all the facts. Obama was against the war in Iraq when it was unpopular. Obama is for the working and middle-class family. He will put $4,000 towards each college student’s first year tuition. These are some of the MANY reasons I support Sen. Obama.
IT IS TIME TO TURN THE PAGE!!!
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!
— ROBYN · Jan 26, 05:16 AM · #
All I’ve heard from Hillary, over and over again is “my 35 years of experience”. My question is…35 years of WHAT experience. She was only in the White House for 8 years. And from what I’ve learn recently, she spent the bulk of those “35 years” as a lawyer in Arkansas. Granted she’s done a bit here and there, but to say “35 years of experience” over and over is just plan MISLEADING. She should actually be saying maybe 3-4 years while she was IN the White House, and a few more here and there before the White House. Face it…she’s speaking on 35 years of IMAGINARY experience. And they call Obama a dreamer.
— Sharell L. Grant · Jan 26, 06:48 AM · #
This post is from a man of letters. I’m amazed at the fine details, point by point taking on the New York Times’ holier than though editorial endorsement of the Democrat machine candidate.
What will happen if enough people vote for Obama in Super Tuesday that Hillary has to bow out in February? Oops! Thanks to blogs like yours there is real debate today.
— Mick Gregory · Jan 30, 01:52 AM · #