Hillary Clinton has now made it official, declaring her candidacy in a youtube video and heading off on a “road trip” to Iowa (no, she’s not driving herself). And the media is all over the story.
The tagline on her website: “Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that champion.” But, poking around that website, there’s no real content to it. No policy positions. No campaign promises. Just a bio, and a request for donations and volunteer help in the early-primary/caucus states.
Now, it’s not hard to find all manner of stories on why HRC is exceptionally unqualified for the office of the presidency: she has a history of corruption, from Whitewater, to accepting money for the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments during her tenure as Secretary of State, to destroying e-mails in which she conducted official business as Secretary of State. She doesn’t have a track record of accomplishment, having been “given” her Senate seat, with no signature legislation during her time there, and without anything that she can point to during her time as Secretary of State that brought about improvement in our relations with, or the state of affairs in, places such as Russia or Libya that were claimed “successes.” Her singular achievement has been to enrich herself and her family and build networks of power — to such a degree that there’s a reasonable case to be made that here marriage to Bill is all about wealth and power. I could go on, but that’s preaching to the choir, for the most part, so let’s think about this, instead: why, given all these flaws, do Democrats continue to support her?
So far as I can tell, then, the case for supporting her rests on three things:
1) She supports mainstream Democratic policy positions.
2) She is a woman.
3) She is presumed by Democrats to be “electable.”
I tried to poke around via google to find pro-Hillary columns/blog posts/articles/pieces of whatever kind. I started with a search for “I support Hillary”, which didn’t get me very far — a couple articles on celebrities declaring their support, for instance, and pieces that HRC herself supports. The first hit expressing actual support was this discussion from Democratic Underground, in which her supporters didn’t really have much to say about why, except presumed electability — and others countered that with statements that she’s the candidate of Goldman Sachs, not “everyday people.”
I realized that I didn’t have a close quote for that search, so I tried again, and found “This is why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016,” at CNBC, in which the author, Jehmu Greene, says,
It’s not just because she is a woman, but it’s what she has done and continues to do on behalf of women all over the world. . .
Hillary’s dedication to women’s rights, from that speech in Beijing 20 years ago through her time as senator, secretary of state and beyond, is one of the reasons I am so proud to know her and why I, along with so many others, am ready for Hillary.
Hillary has spent her life promoting women’s rights. She has been a champion for advancing equal opportunities for women and girls in America and around the globe, calling women’s empowerment “one of the great causes of my life.”
Now, did she achieve anything in furtherance of that cause? Greene speaks largely of her as an advocate, a champion, but doesn’t point to tangible achievements.
Here’s another search result: “Five Reasons Hillary Clinton is the Most Qualified Presidential Candidate,” at a site called electwomen.com. The five reasons:
- History of leadership, smart, analytic capabilities — citing offices held, including First Lady,
- Foreign policy experience — referencing, again, time served,
- Economic experience — meaning, apparently, that she has experience formulating policy positions,
- Global leadership on women’s issues — again, the speaking out, per the CNBC piece, and
- Strength and courage–the right temperament to become president — because she was able to “withstand the rigors” of the 2008 campaign and was still willing to serve in Obama’s administration.
Now, admittedly, this is an obscure website, but these are five pretty weak reasons. And maybe, in the end, it’s the fault of my search term, and, really, the internet is bursting with stories of mainstream Democrats articulating clear and convincing reasons why HRC is a great candidate.
But I’m not feeling it.
Republicans have, of course, done the same, nominating politicians who may have spent more time in elected office but whose pitch was, ultimately, the same: “it’s my turn.” Think Bob Dole. And maybe, for Democrats, those three reasons — support of mainstream Democratic policies, perceived electability (including wealth and power), and woman! — are enough.
But it’s just sad that none of these reasons speak to an ability to actually achieve what she promises, bringing about better days for “everyday Americans.” And as surely we all ought to understand from the example of Obama, in everything from foreign policy to the domestic economy, nice speeches and right intentions aren’t enough. Don’t we?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In