She can continue to use this theme to highlight to the left and center that they have much more in common than their bickering suggests, especially in contrast to the Republican agenda. If Clinton is as serious about the issue of inequality as she sounds in recent speeches – such as the one she made to the New America Foundation where she promised that this would be her main focus in the coming years – her embrace of the issue could blur divisions between her and some of her critics. Both on ethical grounds – meaning that the current economic situation is not something Americans should tolerate – as well as for partisan considerations – meaning Democrats have traditionally been the party that has been associated with taking on this problem – the time is ripe for an agenda centered on this theme. The inability and unwillingness of the nation’s leaders to address this issue has been one of the greatest sources of frustration for liberals.
In recent months, Hillary Clinton has been telling audiences and reporters that if she ran, fighting inequality would be the major theme of her campaign. While Democrats in 2008 were still looking for someone who could break through the bipartisan noise, now they are searching for a politician who can accept the reality of Washington and take on their opponents by flexing their partisan muscle rather than avoiding it.Ĭlinton’s emerging platform about economic inequality is also one that all Democrats should be able to embrace. Following eight years when many Democrats feel that they have watched President Obama get beat up by Republicans on Capitol Hill, Democrats are going to want someone who can fight and fight hard.Įver since her famous statements about the “right-wing conspiracy” that aimed to bring down her husband, Clinton has demonstrated repeatedly that she has the stomach for the kind of brutal partisan warfare that defines Washington.
The most important argument that she will bring to the table is that she can be a fierce and aggressive partisan fighter. Instead, Clinton needs to make a compelling argument to the Democratic base about why she, as opposed to any other member of her party, is the best choice to run for president. And Hillary Clinton’s extensive record in public office leaves too much of a paper trail for her to pretend to be someone else. When Vice President Al Gore sought to do this in 2000, his speeches fell flat. Trying to reinvent herself as part of a presidential run just won’t work. Hillary Clinton won’t be able to remake herself into something that she is not. Most famously, her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002 became a symbol of her alliance with the centrist wing of the party. Hillary Clinton has made similar moves, particularly when she served as senator from New York and worked hard to build bipartisan coalitions. During his presidency, his support for certain kinds of deregulation and market-based approaches to public policy, as well as decision to end the federal welfare program, generated considerable heat from stalwarts in the party. Indeed, both Hillary and Bill Clinton have always been at odds with the more liberal members of their party as they have been insistent on crafting a more coalitional approach to winning elections.īack when he ran for president in 1992, Bill Clinton infuriated liberals with his “Sister Souljah moment” when he made disparaging remarks about the activist at a conference of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow coalition. The tension between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic base is nothing new. Elizabeth Warren who stands closer to the left’s position on many issues? The most recent controversy over her differences with President Obama immediately sparked familiar concerns – can Hillary Clinton win over the liberals in her party so that “the base” comes out in November 2016, should she decide to run? Can she prevent a primary challenge from a candidate like Massachusetts Sen. Also, her lead in the polls over GOP rivals has narrowed. Hillary called Obama to apologize for any harm her interview might have done the President and both attended a party in Martha’s Vineyard, where Obama was having what CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin called his “vacation from hell.” It’s not known if they did indeed “hug it out,” as predicted.Īll of this comes at a moment that Clinton is trying to regain her footing following the difficult roll-out of her book, “Hard Choices,” during which she made a number of comments, such as saying that she and her husband were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House, that offered fodder for her critics.
0 kommentar(er)
