Brand Hillary (Page 5)

By Greg Sargent

This article appeared in the June 6, 2005 edition of The Nation.

May 19, 2005

In other areas too, the "new moderate" Senator Clinton has compiled quite a liberal voting record. If you don't believe it, just ask the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action. In 2004, ADA says, the Senator earned a "liberal quotient" of 95 percent (compare that to, say, John Edwards at 60 percent, or the Democratic senators as a whole, at 85 percent).

» More

Most Read

Issues »

What about Clinton's biggest lapse--her Iraq vote? For some antiwar progressives, no doubt, it will be a deal-breaker. And, of course, they are unlikely to be comforted by the fact that she really thought she was doing the right thing, as people who are close to her insist she did. Yet to focus on that one vote, again, misses the larger goal of Clinton's politics. As she recognizes, the Democratic Party's problem on national security far transcends the Iraq vote. Decades of assaults on Dems from the right (helped along by international fiascoes presided over by Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter) have succeeded in persuading Americans that Dems are fundamentally uncomfortable with the application of American "hard" power abroad. As Clinton well knows, this is not something that can be corrected by merely donning a pair of plastic hawk's wings. It's a perception problem that will take a long time--and a lot of hard work--to reverse. So she's methodically built up a comfort level--and comfort is the key--with national security issues, joining the Armed Services Committee and spending countless hours mastering military arcana. This approach is far more involved and politically shrewd than just talking tough on the Sunday chat shows. It's not off-putting to the Democratic base, which loathes Joe Lieberman-style militaristic posturing. And it comes across as genuine, because it's rooted in Clinton's strategy of emphasizing smart, pragmatic government over ideology.

Of course, sitting on Armed Services is hardly a substitute for articulating a sweeping foreign policy vision that can compete with GOP militarism. But it may be a necessary first step. Polls indicate that there's rising disquiet with the direction of Bush's foreign policies. At the same time, Americans appear consistently more comfortable entrusting foreign policy to the GOP. What that suggests is that perhaps the real problem Dems have on national security is not just the quality of their ideas but that moderates simply won't listen to them. That in turn suggests that one key to reversing Democratic decline in the foreign policy arena is to do what Bill Clinton managed to accomplish on various domestic issues: Get moderates to open their ears. Which is, arguably, the larger context of Hillary's Iraq vote. "Putting aside whether her vote was a mistake, which I think it was, she voted what she believed to be right," says John Podesta, head of the Center for American Progress and President Clinton's former chief of staff. "The larger end result may be that the middle of the country sees a senator with a tough nose who is not afraid to use force."

For months Democrats--and some outside the party--have been saying that Hillary can't win in 2008. You've heard the arguments: She starts out with 40 percent against her. She will energize GOP turnout--not to mention fundraising--like nobody else. Sure, Republicans have decided they like the real Hillary. But as Michelle Cottle wrote in The New Republic, "the bulk of the electorate, all those folks who won't tune into the race until after Labor Day '08, will be voting on Hillary the icon."

That all may turn out to be true. What's more, the retail politics Clinton has mastered may be lost on the gargantuan stage of a presidential race. And the right's ability to dominate the news cycle these days may guarantee that Hillary's skills remain beside the point--her enduring First Lady image could trump her actual politics and persona. "You just have to accept the fact that with any Clinton, the media is going to be difficult," Grunwald says. "You don't ask why. You just deal."

Of course, any speculation about 2008 might take into account the small detail of who her opponent turns out to be, not to mention what the climate of the electorate is three years hence. But whatever the scenario in 2008, she has put together at least the beginnings of a winning political formula right now. Her version of Clinton centrism has been less about doing what Bill needed to do to survive in the White House--pit center against left--and more about doing what she needed to do to survive in the Senate--pit pragmatism and hard work against ideology. In essence, she's triangulating against herself: She's revealing the common-sense-solution-embracing Hillary, in contrast to the left-wing ideologue her caricaturists gave us. It helps that Hillary, while extraordinarily shrewd and calculating, also really is hard-working, hard-headed and culturally moderate. In the end, the irony is that her effort is working not just because it's smart politics but also because it's largely genuine.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Clinton will be good for progressives or for the party as a whole. In the short term, though, she can certainly help the party--if nothing else, she's at least beginning to develop a Democratic alternative that could constitute one path to political success. "Hillary may not be an iconic liberal, but she fights for the people liberals care about--women, children, veterans, people without healthcare," Podesta says. "Best of all, she's tough, and she knows how to win."

About Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent is a contributing editor at New York magazine. more...
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» Campaign 08

Not "The Senator," But "That One" | McCain brings a creepy campaign cheapshot to the debate stage.
John Nichols
Posted at 00:20 EST

» The Beat

Obama v. McCain: "Fundamental Difference" on Health Care | Obama says it is a right, McCain says it's your responsibility.
John Nichols

» The Notion

Bush's Failing Financial "Surge" | How the Bush administration applied Iraq-style methods to its financial Katrina.
Tom Engelhardt

» Capitolism

Expert Failure | How the elites failed us.
Christopher Hayes

» Editor's Cut

Who's Watching the Fox at Treasury? | As the Bush administration outsources management of the bailout bonanza, how many more Goldman Sachs alums will fill these critical posts?
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» Act Now!

S. Dakota Goes After Choice (Again) | Meet the Rev. Steve Hickey. He believes that S. Dakota has been chosen by God to upend Roe v. Wade.
Peter Rothberg

» The Dreyfuss Report

Brits Say: We Can't Win in Afghan | More troops will make it worse, not better. They add: It's time to negotiate with the Taliban.
Robert Dreyfuss

» And Another Thing

Are You the Very Model of a Modern Vice-President? | Sarah's not the only one with a special skill.
Katha Pollitt