It's very rare that my hometown makes it into a big national newspaper, especially a west coast one. So I was surprised to see the byline Glens Falls, NY on a Los Angeles Times article.
The LAT did a piece on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the prospects for her presumed run for the White House in 2008.
The article points out that while she's seen nationally as a staunch liberal, in the state she represents, many see her as a bipartisan problem-solver who has never seen an issue too parochial for her concern.
Contrary to her image as a paragon of all liberal causes, Clinton the senator has been a typical corporate Democrat. This is hardly surprising. Her career was that of a corporate lawyer and she was on the board of directors for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation.
Nevertheless, the Hillary case is quite complex. There is probably no politician in America, with the possible exception of the president, who has a smaller 'undecided' rating in the polls. Everyone either loves her or hates her.
The right will always hate her because of her role in her husband's administration. She tried to revamp health care (which pissed off the right) with a proposal that didn't really change much (which pissed off the left) and tried to do it all in secret (which pissed off everybody).
Some of the left opposes her for her enabling of and continued support for the Iraq aggression. Many suspect that in her brain, she knew it was a terrible idea but didn't have the guts to do what was right because she feared her presidential chances. Now that her support for Iraq is weakening because the aggression is increasingly unpopular among the public, that only appears to confirm such suspicions.
Many feminists will blindly support her for various reasons. They rationalize that
anyone who dislikes her must do so because she's a successful woman. Others feel that she was the real victim of the Republican sexual witchhunt that impeached her husband.
Such ardent feminist support for Mrs. Clinton baffles me. After all, her rise to prominence was based almost entirely on who her husband was. This seems the antithesis of feminist ideals.
While she is certainly very intelligent and driven and politically skilled, would she have gone from a corporate law firm in Little Rock to the US Senate from Westchester County, NY if her husband had been a schoolteacher or bus driver? Possibly, but it would've taken a lot longer.
Of course, having powerful relatives is often a vehicle for political careers. Just ask the current president. But at least the current president doesn't profess any belief in meritocracy. Mrs. Clinton is a feminist icon.
It baffles me that Democrats think she is their best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008. No matter how much of a corporatist senator she is, a good chunk of the nation will always see her as an evil feminist.
Her support is just as fanatical as her opposition and a Republican like McCain will be happy to present himself as a unifying alternative to the divisive Clinton.
Then, being divisive got Bush eight years in the White House so maybe that's the strategy she'll follow instead.
First, she has to win re-election to the Senate. It seems like a pretty good bet. The corporate media is ignoring Jonathan Tasini, her anti-war primary challenger as well as her Green opponent Howie Hawkins. The Republicans in the race have run two of the most farcical campaigns ever waged for statewide office on a major party line.
There was hope that Tasini might be able to pull off an upset like Ned Lamont did in neighboring Connecticut. After all, Lamont and Tasini were both anti-war challengers to pro-war corporate incumbents. Both New York and Connecticut are resolutely blue states where the war is highly unpopular.
But there have been some major differences. One, Lamont has money. He is a cable executive; Tasini is a consultant. As a result, Lamont was able to buy a lot of publicity which in turn leads to free publiclity in the lemming news media. Tasini has been able to do neither. The other is that blind support of Hillary by a good chunk of liberals. Lieberman was always to insufferably self-righteous to engender such loyalty.
Sen. Clinton has refused to debate Tasini. This is a typical strategy from an incumbent. But more disgustingly, it was enabled by the Time Warner channel NY1. NY1 refused to host a debate between the two Democrats because Tasini had not raised enough money.
According to them, a candidate must raise $500,000 AND be at least 5 percent in the polls. Tasini was at 13 percent, but hadn't raised enough money.
By contrast, NY1 did allow Tom Suozzi to participate in a gubenatorial debate against front running Democrat Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Suozzi was at only 9 percent in the polls, well below Tasini's 13 percent. But since Suozzi had raised a lot of money, the Time Warner channel allowed him to debate.
This is a great example of how the corporate media ignore not only smaller party candidates, but even candidates within the biggest parties.
Why was NY1 afraid to allow Tasini to debate? Why are the rules rigged against candidates without huge campaign war chests? Do they want to disqualify anyone who doesn't have a ton of money to spend on commercials on NY1?
Presumably, the Time Warner channel would say they have such rules to prevent debates which are so large and unwieldy as to be useless. They may say that they want to keep out 'fringe' candidates; but they may not say, even though it might be their goal, because they want to pretend to objectivity, they want pretend they 'don't make news, just report it.'
This is a bogus argument.
There are only two Democratic candidates for US Senate. Surely, NY1 knows how to handle a two person debate. A guy at 13 percent is a heavy underdog but if his ideas actually get press exposure, who knows if he'd win or not.
Furthermore, state election law requires candidates to receive a large number of petition signatures just to get on the ballot in the first place. These regulations alone would prevent huge, unwieldy debates.
I wonder if Time Warner being a big campaign contributor to Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment