PhotoDude.com

Mon. Mar 10, 2008

Vetting Clinton

I started off this election cycle, what was it, nine years ago … nine months? Really? OK, back then I felt that, Number One, the Republican Party needed a resounding thumping so that they might go on a spirit walk in the wilderness and “Find Themselves” again. So I looked at the then vast Democratic field, and realized with Hillary at the top, it would likely eventually narrow down to her and one other. At that time, I could envision reconciling myself to voting for Hillary, if it turned out she was the Democrat with the best chance of winning. And, way back then, it was hard to argue otherwise.

While my vision of Republicans walking the wilderness seeking their True Conservative roots remains undiminished, an additional imperative has developed for me. It is no longer enough just to see the Bush Faux Conservative era end, I want to see the end of the Bush-Clinton era. I’ve come to see their politics as nearly one and the same. Divide and conquer. Or triangulate, as the case may be. And looking around at the populace, nearly every harsh partisan battle we’ve seen for two decades can be reduced to a Bush, or a Clinton.

I have not been driven to these opinions by any right wing conspiracy, it was the actions of the Clinton campaign itself that have placed the following burrs under my saddle.

We are continually told that Hillary Clinton is the candidate of 35 years of experience, the one who’s been completely vetted during her decades of service. There simply can be no more surprises about her.

Yet her behavior would indicate otherwise on the clear issue of releasing her tax returns. I say it’s a clear issue, because in her campaign for the Senate in New York, she berated her opponent heavily for failing to release his in a timely manner. The Clinton campaign has said [1] “are your taxes done yet? Wait until mid April,” and [2] she’s simply too busy running a campaign to release those right now, it will definitely happen before the fall campaign, though.

As for [1], no one expects her to release her 2007 return today, it’s perfectly legitimate to wait until mid-April for that. But what about the tax years 2000 through 2006? Why should they be delayed? As for [2], I can’t help but think Hillary won’t be the one running the Xerox machine to get these returns out, and I also believe her staff can complete any priority task they are given by their boss.

So, what’s the hold up? Will those returns reveal anything in a month that they will not today? Surely they aren’t going to change between now and then. So one must conclude there is simply something worth worrying about in the previous six years returns, and it is therefore worth delaying as long as possible on releasing them. Perhaps they’ll come out on April 23, the day after the Pennsylvania primary.

I’m sorry, I can come up with no legitimate reason that years 2000-2006 should not be released already, now, especially given her castigation of her one-time opponent for not releasing his.

Which brings us to the issue of what I call “The Rules.” We are a society of laws, rules, and order. We agree to the rules beforehand, and then we play the game. If, during the game, the impurity or inefficiency of a rule becomes apparent, or, heaven forbid, you realize that particular rule is working against Your Team … you still have to play by the rules. Otherwise people wonder what other rules you may choose to flaunt when it fits your whim.

So talk of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations “as is”, or that the popular vote should outweigh the determining delegate total, or the chestnut about how caucuses are “undemocratic” and therefore don’t matter, is all the talk of a Rulebreaker. Someone who might, say, look at a law passed by Congress, decide they don’t like it, and, I don’t know, sign it anyway and then say they don’t have to follow it because they deem it an unconstitutional restriction of their executive power.

Trust me, it could happen.

Then there’s the “experience” issue. So many false assumptions. First, there’s the base assumption that it is the most experienced candidate who will be best for the country. By this logic, Nixon would have become president in 1960, Carter would have been re-elected in 1980, and we would have rejected some young upstart named Clinton in favor of re-electing the vastly more experienced George Bush in 1992.

If you carry that “experience” argument into the fall in a Clinton versus McCain matchup, guess who loses?

There’s good reasons age and experience do not always win out over “youth” and vision. Bill Clinton offered many of them in 1992, when he was roughly the age Barack Obama is today, running as an agent of change versus the Same Old Status Quo Politics of DC.

Funny how arguments change, eh?

For example, on one day, you can suggest “Of course, well, you know, I’ve got a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. And you know, Senator Obama’s whole campaign is about one speech he made in 2002.” The implication being that while McCan and Clinton have the necessary experience to be Commander-in-Chief, Obama does not.

Then, the very next day, you can suggest he’d make a good VP on your ticket. The implication being, [1] that he is fully qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, in fact, one heartbeat away from the gig, and [2] maybe if you buy one you’ll get one free, as in, vote for me now, and you’ll get him later. It’s a most cynical ploy.

Then there’s the continually used phrase “35 years of experience.” That takes us back to when Clinton left law school. During those 35 years she did many things … other than hold elective office (that’s just the last eight years). By this logic, I could run for President claiming 30 years of experience, as I left Wake Forest University in 1977, and have done many things since then … other than hold elective office.

For example, during the past dozen years, I’ve gained vast experience in accounting. Because I’ve been in the same room when my wife does it, and have often talked to her about the problems she faces in her job. But trust me, you don’t really want me doing your books.

By the same token, Susan has over a decade of experience watching me build web pages. She has run a group weblog that I set up for her in Textpattern, and has even pointed and clicked her way to some actual HTML. But, she’ll be the first to admit, you really don’t want her designing your web site.

Many will say such a comparison is unfair. I’m willing to grant that as First Lady, Hillary got an inside view of a job that very few will ever understand .. except those who hold it. I’m willing to also grant she socialized with and hosted dignitaries of all stripes, with opportunities to be exposed to the diplomatic world in a way that very few can match.

But I am also left asking, what were her memorable accomplishments between 1992 and 2000? There was the health care debacle of the early 90’s, and though I’ve never placed that squarely and solely on her shoulders, it is her biggest policy involvement of that term. I also know that despite the failure of the primary effort, she succeeded in smaller health care initiatives for children and veterans later in the Clinton term. She also traveled abroad more than previous First Ladies. But does this constitute bona fide executive experience?

Much of it is a real stretch. On her web site, it says “As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act.” Yet as DailyKos points out...

If you don’t read this whole post, all you need to know is that Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 and the FMLA was signed just sixteen days later, on February 5, 1993.

Just on that basis it doesn’t look like the First Lady had to do much of anything to get it done. But read on for the full chronology which reveals the emptiness of Hillary’s Clinton’s attempt to get credit for this legislation.

Well. Her most “memorable accomplishment,” to my mind, was to earn the enmity of a significant portion of the populace (not exactly a common accomplishment for First Ladies), one that remains today as evidenced by her relatively high negative ratings.

You can argue that was due to the right wing attacks on her and her husband, but in the end, I have to look to results, as we do with any President. And though she claims she is “fully vetted” because of how she beat those attacks, I would argue she survived them with significant and long lasting damage. That argument is bolstered when Rush Limbaugh urges his Texas listeners to vote for her in their primary, in hopes of keeping her in the race. She has a very real and hard ceiling on her support. And regardless of the “fairness” of that damage, it’s not deniable. In fact, in many ways, this campaign has provided ample fertilizer for growth in that area.

She’s the candidate of 50% plus one. And that’s a strategy that will last a long ways past November. We’ll get at least four and possibly eight years of partisan infighting, trying to get that last one above 50%. Because that’s all you need, right?

Myself, I’ve seen enough of that. I have come to associate our partisan bickering with two names, which have collectively been on the ballot for 20 years now. It’s time for a Bush-Clinton free election.

At the very least, after two decades, I think we owe ourselves the opportunity to see if we can make it four years without either of those families involved in the executive branch. And see how our political world might change, after over two decades of this. Try it, you might like it.