panderer-in-chief
by Ryan Schuette
Published: May 31, 2008
As the Democratic nomination winds down, so does the once formidable Clinton political machine.
CNN reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY-D) shows signs of slowing since she took her campaign staffers out to dinner in Puerto Rico as sort of a “Thank you and goodbye,” surely a cordial end to an increasingly quixotic campaign for the highest office.
If only she had given as much respect to the American public. The New York senator and her querulous husband used their time in the limelight to accuse, charm, cry, harangue and sometimes harass (members of the media, anyway) their way to the nomination. The House of Clinton divided a political party whose prospects for success seemed unquestionable following the 2006 congressional election.
Worse (and tellingly so, as the nomination wraps up in favor of a man professorially honest), Sen. Clinton pandered shamelessly to voters, always to ethnic and working groups that the Clintons could successfully exploit: lower-class workers, Latinos, women and whites. Her lowest point surfaced during the Rust Belt primaries when she knocked back a shot of Crown Royal at a pub in Indiana, framing a legacy of advocacy and elegance, at times likened to Eleanor Roosevelt, with low-brow populism more similar to Huey Long.
But this is about more than lugging whiskey with voters. It’s about using the prejudices of voters – informed or ill-informed – to shape governing strategy and policy preferences, the soul of a candidacy. From proposing, as Fox News reports, that she would “totally obliterate” Iran if it threatened Israel to suddenly criticizing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – her husband’s brainchild and legislation she touted in her memoirs – Sen. Clinton has shown herself to be more of a crowd-pleaser than her rival, a man who draws tens of thousands to his rallies.
Forget the philosopher-king: hail the panderer-in-chief, a presidential candidate who will give the voters what they want, whether it works or not.
Case in point: the gas tax holiday. When presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (AZ-R) proposed cutting 18 cents in federal taxes over the summer, Sen. Clinton quickly adopted the same line, seeking to win over lower-class voters.
Sen. Barack Obama (IL-D) distinguished himself by giving voters a hard truth – that making it easier to pay at the pump would make it more difficult to wean the country off foreign oil. In the process he won over pundits and policy-wonks that saw wisdom in the junior senator from Illinois.
Not so for his rival from New York: The Economist called Sen. Clinton’s proposal tantamount to “economic populism,” and over 230 distinguished economists – including Nobel laureates and former advisers to Bill Clinton – released a public letter criticizing her and Sen. McCain, so reports The Huffington Post.
Sen. Clinton responded by saying she would rather not put her “lot in with economists,” this according to the same news source. Who would say this is wisdom, for a political campaign or a country?
The American people deserve better – especially from a candidate who purports to support them.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
(11)
June 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
So, I’m not sure what to take away from this. Are you of the opinion that Hillary is insincere about her candidacy and constituents? That’s an interesting point.
Personally, I think Barack has shown more poise in this race than any candidate I’ve been alive to see, including Senator Gore, but I won’t fault someone for trying to see the forest through the trees.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
By someone, I meant Hillary, of course. Not you, Schuetteman. :)