Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate

Barack Obama has catered to the 3 main left-wing groups dominating the Democratic party: they include pacifists who oppose military intervention, free spenders who believe that the answer is always more government spending, and apologists for the African-American sub-culture that produces academic underachievers and violent criminals. To the pacifists, he has pledged to never attack another nation unless it directly threatens the USA. So, an Obama-ian response to the Serbs' slaughtering the Kosovars in 1999 would have been to ignore the victims. To the free spenders, he has promised to raise taxes: eliminating the cap on payroll taxes and likely hiking the capital-gains tax rate from 15% to 28%. [1] He will pour some of this new revenue into primary and secondary schools even though we already spend 31% more per student than even the education-obsessed Japanese. [2][3][4] To the apologists, he has offered 20 years of attendance in a church preaching hatred against European-Americans and blaming them for all that ails African-American society.

This 3-pronged electoral strategy has been successful. A majority of young adults (who lack knowledge of history and current events, according to numerous studies), college students (with "higher" education having been a bastion of peaceniks for decades), and wealthy liberals (who have the money to waste on higher taxes) has consistently supported Obama.[5] An overwhelming majority (roughly 90%) of African-Americans has flocked to Obama. He is now mere weeks away from winning the Democratic nomination.

We are witnessing the coronation of another Ned Lamont. Like him, Obama does not represent the views of mainstream America. While most Americans oppose unsuccessful military intervention like the current occupation of Iraq, the very same Americans support successful military invervention: e.g., the Gulf War in 1991 and the NATO-led police action against Serbia in 1999. Also, most Americans oppose increasing taxes to grow the size of government as numerous politicians can attest that they gained political office by pledging "no new taxes". Of course, blaming European-Americans for African-American failure just does not resonate with non-African-Americans, who comprise 88% of the United States and who have witnessed millions of immigrants succeeding without blaming European-Americans.

If Obama is Lamont, then Hillary Clinton could be Joseph Lieberman. Propelled by left-wing groups, Lamont defeated Lieberman to win the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Still, Lieberman knew that he, unlike Lamont, enjoyed broad support in Connecticut. So, Lieberman bolted from his party, ran as an independent in the general election, and -- won.

Like Lieberman, Clinton has been sidelined by the left-wing groups but enjoys broad support across the American electorate. It supports fiscal conservatism like workfare-focused welfare, cautious social liberalism like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", limited interventionism like the police action again Serbia, and free trade like that embodied by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This philosophy of government is precisely the one which she proactively helped her husband to implement when he served as president.

In a 1992 interview with Ted Koppel, she famously rejected "staying home and baking cookies" and effectively became chief adviser to her husband.[6] His government policies are her government policies. Though the left-wing groups dominating the Democratic primaries have forced Ms. Clinton to distance herself from his policies, her voting record in the Senate affirms her commitment to a continuation of them. For example, despite criticizing free trade on the campaign trail, she actually voted for free-trade agreements with both Chile and Singapore in 2003, dovetailing his support for NAFTA in 1993.[7]

These policies are the reason for her popularity in mainstream America. Even conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Bill Cunningham have declared support for Clinton.[8][9] So, if she entered the presidential election as an independent candidate, she would likely win a 3-way race among John McCain, Obama, and herself -- just as her husband and Lieberman won their 3-way races in 1992 and 2006, respectively. However, before she can even entertain the idea of running as an independent, Clinton must ask herself whether she has (1) the confidence to win and (2) the courage to burn all her Democratic bridges.

note
1. The essay, "Hillary Clinton as an Independent Candidate", was originally written in 2008 May.
2. Kimberley A. Strassel at "The Wall Street Journal" concurs with most of the key points in the above essay. [10]
3. During the 5-year period ending on 1998 April, President Bill Clinton reduced the number of civilian employees in the executive branch by about 330,000. He reduced "the number of federal government employees to a level lower than any time since the Kennedy administration". [11]
4. The Democratic Leadership Council, of which Hillary Clinton is a member, advocates "free trade, personal accountability and a strong national defense". [12]
5. Barack Obama opposes using the American military to protect the victims of genocide. [13]


references
1. "Obama's Tax Evasion", "The Wall Street Journal", 2008 April 18.
2. "Education Indicators: An International Perspective", U.S. Department of Education, 2003.
3. "Transcript of Thursday's Democratic presidential debate", CNN, 2008 January 31.
4. Curtis Brainard, "Obama’s NASA Plan Gets Little Play", "Columbia Journalism Review", 2007 November 29.
5. "National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study", The National Geographic Education Foundation, 2006 May.
6. Ted Koppel, "Making Hillary Clinton an Issue", ABC News, 1992 March 26.
7. "The U.S. Congress: Votes Database", "The Washington Post", 2008.
8. "Hannity and Colmes" (interview with Ann Coulter), Fox News, 2008 January 31.
9. "McCain apology angers conservative host", CNN, 2008 February 27.
10. Kimberley A. Strassel, "Farewell, New Democrats", "The Wall Street Journal", 2008 June 20.
11. Donald F. Kettl, "Reinventing Government:
A Fifth-Year Report Card
", Brookings Institution (Center for Public Management), 1998 September.
12. John Fund, "The Keepers of Clintonism", "The Wall Street Journal", 2008 July 3.
13. James Taranto, "'It Didn't Happen'", "The Wall Street Journal", July 26, 2007.

12 comments:

J-T said...

here are my take on your post:
1. "So, an Obama-ian response to the Serbs' slaughtering the Kosovars in 1999 would have been to ignore the victims."
==> You need fallacy course for making such rash assumption. He said Iraq was an war that should never have been waged and the reason was clear. If you are going compare, then use Obama's position on Darfur. They are similar in nature.

2. "even though we already spend 31% more per student than even the education-obsessed Japanese."
==> Read the OECD report and please let me know the US ranking in terms of quality of its high school and middle school education.

3. "he has offered 20 years of attendance in a church preaching hatred against European-Americans and blaming them for all that ails African-American society."
==> Be more specific about which part of Wright's sermon you disagree with. I suggest you watch the entire video.

4. 'A majority of young adults (who lack knowledge of history and current events, according to numerous studies), college students (with "higher" education having been a bastion of peaceniks for decades)"
==> For a guy who earned PhD from Stanford, I was expecting better argument.

5. "wealthy liberals (who have the money to waste on higher taxes)"
==> And Hillary? She is a cameleon and changes to whatever color that suits her.

6. "While most Americans oppose unsuccessful military intervention like the current occupation of Iraq, the very same Americans support successful military intervention: e.g., the Gulf War in 1991 and the NATO-led police action against Serbia in 1999."
==> Again, fallacy course - that's all I have to say. Why do you mix up his stand on Iraq with other things? For a guy with a PhD from Stanford, you are awful with logic. Read his stand on Pakistan. He said long ago, that if Pakistanis do not cooperate regarding Taleban and Osama, US should act unilaterally. It is a matter of Judgment.

7. "Also, most Americans oppose increasing taxes to grow the size of government as numerous politicians can attest that they gained political office by pledging "no new taxes".
==> He supports raising taxes for higher income group.

8. "If Obama is Lamont, then Hillary Clinton could be Joseph Lieberman. Propelled by left-wing groups, Lamont defeated Lieberman to win the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Still, Lieberman knew that he, unlike Lamont, enjoyed broad support in Connecticut. So, Lieberman bolted from his party, ran as an independent in the general election, and -- won."
==>Tsk, tsk..tsk. Connecticut does not represent the entire US. Again, you have a tendency to compare apple to orange without making any assumptions. You are splitting the democratic vote by half and yet expect to win? Just apply your logic.

9. "It supports fiscal conservatism like workfare-focused welfare, cautious social liberalism like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", limited interventionism like the police action again Serbia, and free trade like that embodied by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This philosophy of government is precisely the one which she proactively helped her husband to implement when he served as president."
==> My god! You just talked against it. Hey she is against all that now. No wonder, you are cameleon too.

Anonymous said...

I'm witnessing the strangest moment of the Democrate Party thathas begun right after Hillary bowed out. It is the moment when Obama's electability has been questioned the most. Obama had to cancel his travel schedule to see Hillary late at night at the house of a California senator in DC. Up to now, every one's eyes has been centered to Hillary's supporters. This moment is supposed to be that of Obama, jubiliant, confidence overwhemed. More than any other moment, now the Dems is in a bad shape.
Of course, Connecticutt is not the nation as J-T argued. I'm not saying HRC will have a 100% chance of winning as an independent. But I would like to say that the Party is in a degradation process due to the lack of vision and leadership of the so called leaders, Howard Dean for exemple.
After being reelected as independent, Lieberman keeps helping the Dems to secure its fragile majority in the Senate. Shame? Lieberman's actual case and the current situation will initiate disintegration and alienation of the Dem Party at least latently. If they stay home or write in the favor candidate, it will be only a right reaction against the party apparatus. Though Mc Cain wants to show himself as gentleman, the Rep will excarvate Obama's real life as an octopus holding a lot of things: Rezko, Farrakan, flip flops etc... Right or wrong depends on how they are showed. Let's see.

Korie said...

African-Americans did not immigrate to America. They were brought here in chains and forced to do the work that the European immigrants deemed below them or face rape, brutality, and death. To compare the African-American population to that of the actual immigrant populations that followed slavery is absurd.

It seems that YOU are the one with a skewed remembrance of history.

Ken said...

I too wrote an essay on this matter call "Is a Major third Party Around the Corner". It can be read at:
http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/is-a-major-third-party-around-the-corner/
The Op-Ed by the reporter does have some merit, however I believe that if this were to have happened, it would have happened last Saturday, instead of the endorsement of Obama.

Nia said...

How stupid. Voting for Hillary Clinton as an Independent will do nothing but split the Democratic vote and ensure that McSame wins. And if you supported Senator Clinton for her POLICIES, you would recognize that she and Obama were virtually indistinguishable on policy. Mandates was the only big difference. So if you liked her POLICIES, you would vote for him. I suspect that all of this is a smokescreen for another motive. Perhaps Tim Wise's article can help you clarify your thinking. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6314771

Nia said...

Correcting my post: *Mandates in health insurance were the only big difference.*

Anonymous said...

Hillary will not run for as an independent, I think she is setting herself up for 2012. Her political life is far from over, if this was 2012 and she lost then I could see her running as an independent, it would be her last chance, but her chances of becoming the first women president are not gone now.

By endorsing Obama she is ensuring herself that if McCain wins the general election, she won't be able to take full blame. However, the day after she conceded the was a picture of her and McCain on his website and now there is a women holding a Hillary sign with McCain bumper stickers all over it under the Citizens for McCain group. If McCain wins this general election, you can make a safe bet that Hillary will become president.

She would break this little 'friendship' her and McCain seem to have in a heartbeat and say he is the same as George Bush, you should of picked me over Obama, now I will win and bring real change. I expect the upcoming months till election that Hillary won't campaign very hard at all for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Hillary has not put 18 million cracks in any glass ceiling. There is no glass ceiling.

The good news is that 18 million bra burners from the 60s lost. And they will likely die from cancer before voting in 2012.

What Hillary has done for American women is just lower their salary.

Anonymous said...

Hillary does not want to run (or *be* run) as an independent candidate. She has asked you to join her in supporting Barack Obama. What part of all this do you not understand? Merciful God in heaven, it boggles the mind how spoilt and recalcitrant some people can be. Truly.

Wim Roffel said...

"So, an Obama-ian response to the Serbs' slaughtering the Kosovars in 1999 would have been to ignore the victims."
Your memory is short. Most people were killed in the war - not before. Clinton needed a war to divert the attention from the Monica mess and by making demands that Milosevic could impossibly satisfy (including free access for NATO to the whole Serb territory - the infamous appendix B) he made war inevitable. Obama would probably have chosen the wiser course of just putting enough pressure on Milosevic.

Elizabeth Morgan said...

I can't believe anyone with strong convictions about our country and this election would be stupid enough to suggest throwing votes away by voting for a write-in candidate. Have you learned nothing from what happened to our country when Bush "won" over Al Gore because of the voting problems and Nader syphoning off votes that could have made the difference and changed the world? Your editorial is such a bad idea it is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

"Free spending Democrats"?????
95% of all federal deficits were run up by Reagan, Bush and Bush 2. 75% of federal deficits were run up while the Republicans controlled the White House and at least one house of Congress. The average Republican president since 1960 ran up a deficit of 4% of GDP. the average Democratic president had deficits of 0.9%. All figures from the Historical tables of President Bush's 2008 Budget.
Deficits are exclusively a Republican problem.