Why I see HRC as the more conservative candidate

[Ken Burch]

I've said this often. I've been attacked by HRC people quite often FOR saying it. They cite voting records(which were mostly meaningless since they were votes on measures that were certain to lose when the GOP held the Senate anyway).

What it comes down to, for me, is this:

It's not so much the voting record. It's the attitude the candidate exudes towards Democratic voters, towards Democratic principles, and towards, frankly, the way in which politics is conducted.

HRC, on all of these, presents as a conservative.

She presents as a conservative because she has sought to divide the Democratic base on the kind of faultlines Republicans use to divide it. She has encouraged working-class white voters to resent and fear energized black voters. She has encouraged the notion that black voters essentially can't have anything in common with working-class whites, or, for that matter, can't be considered "working-class" themselves(she doesn't quite call them "shiftless" but the implication is clearly there).

She presents as a conservative because she has, on foreign policy, embraced the basic right-wing idea that the only way to show strength is to show mindless rigidity. Her policy on Cuba, which is indistinguishable from George W. Bush's, is part of this. As is her pointless hostility to Hugo Chavez, when removing him from office could have no other effect but to plunge Venezuela back into permanent conservatism. Her unquestioning support of the status quo on Israel/Palestine(she'd clearly be happy to see the occupation go on forever)is another example. She backs the ugliest parts of the foreign policy status quo and seeks to quell all dissent against that status quo. This has to be inconsistent with any progressive values.

She presents as a conservative because she encourages the notion that idealism and practical improvements in people's lives have to be opposed concepts. At times, frankly, she seems to be running AGAINST the very idea of idealism, as if tiny, incremental adjustments in practical mundane reality(not that such improvements, and larger ones shouldn't be sought, and not as if Obama would be any less interested in making them, of course)is the only thing we have the right to ask for. As if politics as a means to create a larger social transformation, a larger transformation of values, is a notion we should scorn and, indeed fear. As if we have to make sure that the dreams we all hold must be kept at bay. In a sense, it's like she's endorsing a view of politics that echoes the view of life expressed in The Big Chill: the notion that you have to sell out and put your soul in the deep freeze simply to survive. This is not only a conservative notion of politics, it's a hopelessly depressing view of life.
As a lyric by Leon Rosselson once put it "If we cannot dream, we might as well die".

Her belief that DLC Dems still have a legitimate place in the leading councils of this party is also a basically conservative belief.

HRC could have been better than this.

She could have embraced the idealistic as well as the coldly practical.
She could have worked to bring working-class whites and the working-class Rainbow together. She could have embraced activists and admitted that they should matter as much as big donors and the Beltway centrist hacks.

In refusing to do any of that, she has, no matter her voting record, marked herself as a centrist. And she hasn't even gained any votes from taking the colder, more rigid path.

This is why she must be regarded as the more conservative, more divisive, and less electable candidate.

[Eagle_Eye]

1. If Obama is trying to differentiate himself from Hillary by leaning left, it disguise his true natur

If Obama is presenting us with a alternative to Hillary by giving the appearance of being more progressive, more to the left the she is, then we run the risk of electing a candidate that is not what we think he is.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Obama is exactly what he says he is, a common sense non ideologue.....

Who treasures the constitution and will uphold it.

He is a populist who will allow us to provide him with the back up power that he will need at the bully pulpit.

What the OP said about Hillary is correct. She is more conservative than Obama....because being a conservative is an ideology, and she and her "he's an elitist" and other comments shows that she uses Wedge issues to divide.

Hillary is divisive and polarizing, as she has examplified throughout this campaign, again a normally GOP tactic.

She also lies with a straight face whenever it is required....just like the GOP does.

She supported the war till she couldn't.
She supported talking shit to Iran, while she could.
She prefers GOP primary rules.
She has trashed a Democrat more than she has the Republican opponent.

Plus, Bill Clinton did more for the Republican agenda than they could have dreamed of.

THE RISE OF THE DLC

its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse-style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a pro business, pro-free market outlook.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/24/16457/4867

Hence the DLC via Bill Clinton's Presidency gave us among other things.......

NAFTA

Clinton Signs NAFTA
12/8/93"I do want to say, also, a special word of thanks to all the citizens who helped us -- the business leaders, the labor folks, the environmental people who came out and worked through this; many of them at great criticism, particularly in the environmental movement and some of the working people who helped it. And a group that was quite pivotal to our success that I want to acknowledge specifically are the small business people, many of whom got themselves organized and came forward and tried to help us. They made a real difference. " Bill Clinton at NAFTA signing Ceremony
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/120893-speech-b...

1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

Clinton Signs The Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years. The goal of this new law is to let anyone enter any communications business -- to let any communications business compete in any market against any other.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has the potential to change the way we work, live and learn. It will affect telephone service -- local and long distance, cable programming and other video services, broadcast services and services provided to schools.
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

WELFARE REFORM ACT

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
On August 22, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 Conference Report to accompany H.R. 3734, the controversial legislation which repeals the 60 year old social safety net for the poor and requires welfare recipients to work. The legislation is very much like H.R. 4, the previous welfare bill that the President vetoed at the urging of NOW and other advocacy organizations. And, like the previous bill, the President received severe criticism from community activists, women's rights, social service advocacy, labor, minority, and religious groups in embracing this Republican-led effort to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1996_Welfare...

BANKING REFORM BILL

Clinton signs banking overhaul measure
November 12, 1999
The biggest change in the nation's banking system since the Great Depression became law Friday, when President Bill Clinton signed a measure overhauling federal rules governing the way financial institutions operate.

Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial "supermarkets" selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years.

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has fought for years for the overhaul. Gramm said the bill would improve banking competition and stability.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/12/banki...

DOMA

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- HR 3396 or Public Law No. 104-199 -- on 21 September 2000. It defines marriage as an act between heterosexuals and frees one state from being required to honor the same-sex marriage conducted in another state. As of this writing, 39 states have laws based on DOMA; 18 of those are amendments to the state constitution.

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/DOMA.htm

CHINA TRADE DEAL

Clinton signs China trade bill
October 10, 2000
he measure is considered the most important U.S. trade legislation since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. But it faced a long campaign of opposition from labor, human rights and conservative groups who wanted to retain the annual review of trade relations with China.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/10/... /

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillary-clinton-on-w...

(ACTUAL LINKS AVAILABLE HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5587196

[Eagle_Eye]

5. 69 lines of text and eight links to tell us about Hillary

You define Obama by telling us bad things about Hillary.

So we are in the position of not voting FOR a candidate, but rather AGAINST a candidate.

That just gives me warm fuzzes all over.

[democracy1st]

6. thats a dayum lie and you know it,she's telling you why the Clinton's are more conservative

by way of their policies. If you enjoy all those DLC policies so much vote for Clinton. And over the course of a year you should know Obama. We're not going to sit here 6mos before election and feed you guys info. The fact of the matter is when the Clinton's had power the Democratic party lost strong legislation and seats.

[Eagle_Eye]

10. Yes, Hillary is a quantity that we can research, but is the Obama we are seeing the one we will get?

Once Obama is elected, will his actual policies differ from his campaign policies?

[Ken Burch]

13. This thread wasn't about Obama at all. It was about my intrepretation of HRC

I didn't arrive at these conclusions the day I became an Obama supporter.

[Ken Burch]

18. You do realize that we run that risk with ANY candidate, don't you?

And if what we've seen this year is HRC's true nature, can you honestly say that THAT is a person with that true nature could be worthy of OUR party's nomination? She hasn't been positive, inspiring, or a uniter.

[cboy4]

2. This must be why she'll soon be leading in the popular

vote.

And Obama fans are accusing others of being divisive? Pot meet kettle.

[Ken Burch]

14. She would only be ahead if the illegitimate Florida/Michigan results are counted

And many of the polls conducted in states where she "won" now show her running behind Obama in popular support there.

None, to my knowledge, show Obama having slipped behind in any states where he won.

Are you ever going to stop pretending you're not a HRC supporter? Is there any real point in continuing that now?

[bigdarryl]

4. its about time the dems nominate a PROGRESSIVE!!!!!!

I'm sick of these democrats trying to be republican like

[Ken Burch]

21. True dat.

n/t.

[CreekDog]

7. The netroots prefer Obama to Hillary *primarily* for this reason

there is a distrust of Hillary Clinton as too tied to the insiders in DC (thus more supportive of the establishment, which we've been trying to replace anyway) and a distrust of her based on hawkishness tendencies (IWR, Kyle Lieberman --does anyone even need to read that thing to get an idea of how bad an idea that was? -yet she voted for it).

i remember talking to my mom who liked Dennis Kucinich but voted for Hillary and i told her, Obama is more liberal than Hillary and she said "I know that". She supports her anyway.

[Enrique]

8. you don't mean she's a conservative

you mean she's bad.

Liberalism is an actual ideology, it's not simply goodness.

[Ken Burch]

22. No, I mean she's conservative at least in presentation and objective affect.

I never said liberalism was "simply goodness". If you are a liberal, however, you are required not to look down on or deny the political legitimacy of other parts of the liberal coalition. Obama and his campaign have never looked down on feminism, never looked down on working-class whites(and was never unsympathetic to their issues)and was certainly not disdainful of LGBT voters or Latinos.

HRC's campaign, OTOH, has been based in increasing measure on the notion that blacks and activists have no legitimate leading role to play in the party, but rather must "wait their turn". Her supporters' usage(in PA and WV particularly)of the meme that blacks and working-class whites are not equally important and do not have far more in common than in division is very conservative, and, among other things, dishonored the memory of Robert Kennedy(whose image was used in her campaign ads and who she has pretended to be the natural succesor of)a person who NEVER wanted to keep blacks and working-class whites in opposing camps but, rather, was killed for trying to bring them(as well as Latinos and Native Americans)together in a coalition for justice.

Liberalism doesn't need the tone HRC takes. It doesn't need a leader who has based her campaign on splitting the liberal coalition.
Liberalism is about making everyone in that coalition equally welcome.

[cornermouse]

9. And Obama is willing to consider school choice.

He's not getting out of Iraq immediately or as soon as possible and he wants to reach across the aisle which involves trading away what we want. He had his campaign staff inflate what was a non-issue on the South Dakota statement into implying that Hillary was hanging around for obscene reasons. The Hillary and Bill are racists accusation come from his campaign and are probably part of Rove's "attack them where they're strong" ideology. He used his grandmother and his great uncle as illustrations to make political points, used ethically questionable tactics to get into the state legislature, and repeatedly concealed the truth of his un-impoverished upbringing. If you look at what he's done while in office you will see a consistent pattern of not taking a position on any votes where it could come back to haunt him in a drive for the presidency after only 2 years of actual experience(his third year being devoted to running for President).

They are both conservative. They are both divisive. Probably the biggest difference I see between Hillary and Obama is experience.

[MGKrebs]

11. You however, reject divisiveness completely.

:snark:

A couple of fallacies about your theory:
1. Democrats for generations have stood for issues that were important to them. Often these issues involve sticking up for the poor, underprivileged, and otherwise disenfranchised segments of our society. Continuing to do so is not un-Democratic. Obama supporters can try to change the way the game is played going forward, and that's fine, but trying to rewrite history is just... well... divisive.
2. DLC may be MORE conservative than some other strategies, but so what? It's not like there is only one approved "Democrat" stereotype.
3. Obama's likely going to need a little of that "centrist" mojo as we get into the GE.

[Ken Burch]

15. I've damn well tried to. My whole project for the last two months

Has been about getting the party together. Since HRC can never unite us(as you know, since she can never be popular among the party as a whole thanks to her anti-black and anti-activist campaign)this means getting her supporters to accept that nothing positive comes of her staying in the race.

[cornermouse]

16. Oh so she's racist and anti-activist and

you think it is time her supporters get with the program and dropped her like a hot rock... ...If Obama was behind would you still be saying the same thing? I doubt it strongly.

[Ken Burch]

17. Actually, if the math WAS reversed(and I've said this on DU a number of times)

I would be calling for Obama to get out(with HRC making some major conciliatory moves at the same time).

Her supporters bashing of Obama people for being idealistic and young is antiactivist, and you know it.

And "antiblack" is not necessarily the same as "racist". She may in some form believe in racial equality in the future, but you HAVE to be antiblack to say that you have to be nominated because the country won't elect a black president(as she's repeatedly allowed her supporters to say directly and as she alluded to with what even YOU would have to accept as her unforgiveable "hardworking white people" remark).

Plus, HRC created a wedge between black and Latino voters that didn't previously exist and had no reason to exist, since Obama was never indifferent to or hostile to Latino issues.

None of HRC's supporters would be left out in the cold in an Obama administration. They'd be regarded as equally important with Obama's core supporters. Obama(despite media lies)has NEVER attacked HRC's voting blocs and was never indifferent to working class concerns. Indeed most of his black constituents(as HRC people refuse to accept for some reason)are ALSO working-class.

[cornermouse]

19. Obama hasn't exactly been friendly or inviting to

women or those older than himself. I'm not joking when I say that if my child or grandchild accused me of racism I would be deeply hurt and very angry. I really wasn't impressed when he told the entire nation that his uncle locked himself in the attic either. And being over 50 does not make one defective.

You're probably going to figure this makes me older than the Black Hills but idealism is not going to cut it right now. We're in too much trouble. Also I think I vaguely remember being young. And if I think about it long enough I might even remember what it felt like and what I did back at the turn of the century. Now where did I put that gingko biloba, false teeth, and hearing aid...

Your assertion that Obama has never attacked Hillary's voting blocks is incorrect but you're committed to your candidate and there's really not much point in continuing.

Sometimes we get in a hurry or just don't find the right words but I wish people could step back from their own dearly held position long enough to look at a post and hear how it sounds to the person it was aimed at. I'm sure I'm guilty too but about all you have to do to make the Obama supporters angry is disagree with their position. That's when they call people racists and other names that are intended to label, hurt, and drive out of the party. These are the actions that have split the party on the basic level far more than anything Hillary has done contrary to non-stop claims on DU.

Part of the problem is these invitations of conciliation may be well meant but most of them include victory lapping and some condescension mixed in with the invitation for conciliation. They sound more like an invitation to humiliation to the recipient. You might want to think about that. Then again, maybe not. And yeah, I know I probably didn't follow the correct pre-set formula in this reply but I don't particularly care for formulas; one of the privileges to being old, female, and, apparently, useless.

[Ken Burch]

20. Nobody in the Obama campaign has ever even THOUGHT

that older females were "useless". I've never thought that. If I ever said anything like that, the slightly older female who gave birth to me would justifiably knock me upside the head.

I've never understood where the "Obama has it in for older women" thing got started. Saying that an older candidate who happens to be female isn't automatically entitled to the nomination is nothing whatsoever like that. I have the utmost respect for all the groups that have identified with HRC. None of them would be left out in the cold under Obama, and I don't understand why anyone would think they would.

Btw, what exactly does "idealism won't cut it" mean? Why is there this assumption that a person can't be idealistic AND practical? Are there really any times where we're going to have no choice but to go against the party's ideals and progressive ideals to help people in the here and now? What kind of trouble are we in that requires us to be contemptuous of ideals? Aren't our ideals ABOUT doing right by our own supporters and by the powerless? When do we ever need to compromise on that? Those who consider themselves idealists or activists live in the same world everyone else does. We pay our bills and go to work like anybody else. Why should we be dismissed by any Dems? We aren't the problem. It's the OTHER party that's the problem.

While I'll agree that there have been some things said by some Obama people that clearly shouldn't be said, I don't think they are more guilty of that than the HRC people on here. And in both cases, can we be sure that those were ACTUAL HRC or Obama people? I think most of the harsh words on the part of Obama people have come from the legitimate frustration they've felt about the fact that, while it's clear the other candidate isn't going to be nominated, that other candidate has continued to attack Obama rather than doing the decent thing and ONLY attacking McCain. I think most of us just feel that the HRC campaign had a responsibility to not keep trying to discredit Obama. I still don't see why that was to much to ask.

Finally, while I've disagreed with some of what you've said, I respect the honorable and civil tone you took in it. Thank you for that.

[IsItJustMe]

12. I don't know about conservative, but she is the most dishonest candidate I have ever seen.