I just read Digby's apologia for Hillary, and I have to say I have a hard time understanding why anybody who thinks of him or herself as a progressive Democrat can defend the Clintons. I know Digby voted for Obama in the California primary, but when push comes to shove she's a Dem loyalist more than she is a clear-thinking, probing analyst.
Digby is smart enough to know that Hillary is not a progressive Democrat. She's closer to Lieberman on foreign policy than she is to Obama, and that alone is reason to disqualify her from consideration by anybody who thinks of herself as a progressive. She is a DLC Democrat, and that faction of the party along with the Blue Dog Democrats are in their different way more Republican than they are progressives. The DLC Dems are more in line with Republican ideas about free trade and the militarization of foreign policy and are comfortable with the basic way in which the military industrial complex defines Beltway reality. The Blue Dogs are a continuation of the the socially conservative southern coalition of Dems and also line up with the Republicans on issues of national security and corporate welfare.
For purposes of holding a majority, it's important that DLC and Blue Dog Dems call themselves Dems, but they too often behave and vote like Republicans, and they have been profoundly complicit in the the Bush Administration's folly. They think of themselves virtuous for being more open to bi-partisanship at a time when that meant time and again caving to Bush administration's tyranny agenda. I'm all for bi-partisanship when we're dealing with issues about which principled and reasonable people can disagree, but no reasonable, principled, well-informed person who cares about preserving the rule of law and a republican form of government can compromise with the policies of this administration. It demanded time and time again the kind of resistance we finally saw from Chris Dodd some weeks back when the the Telecom Amnesty bill was coming to a vote. We need to recognize that the only real patriots in our national legislature are the ones who spoke out forcefully and voted consistently in resistance to Bush policy. There is no compromise with tyranny, especailly when it's the subtle, undercover kind created behind a fog of propaganda and confusion that is the GOP m.o.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton have not been nor are they now among these resisters. With McCain, despite whatever claim he might have to be a maverick to the contrary, it's obvious how he is a Bush enabler. But Hillary, because she has accepted to play the game by the GOP rules, is almost as complicit. I have more respect for principled conservatives like Chuck Hagel, Pat Buchanan, and George Will than I do for Hillary Clinton, Lieberman and McCain. I may disagree with the first three, but I don't think they are sanctimonious fools as I think of Lieberman, nor are they say-anything, do-anything panderers like Clinton and McCain. I could sit down and discuss issues with the first three, but with the others "reason" is simply a tool to be used expediently to justify his or her will to power.
So Digby's defense of the idea that Hillary should have stayed in as long as she did and should be respected as a tenacious fighter only makes sense if your goal is to say something to make Clinton supporters feel good in order to heal the wounds. Maybe that's her purpose, and there's a place for that. But it's not my purpose, nor is this blog the place for it. Anybody who is a Hillary supporter probably stopped reading this blog a long time ago, and while I'll admit it's a shortcoming, with so much at stake I don't have the temperament to suffer what I perceive to be foolishness gladly or any other way. Given the outrages we have witnessed in the political sphere I am not in a mood to make nice.
For progressive who at this late date has more positive things to say about Hillary than negative ones is either a fool or trying to placate one. She is a paint-by-numbers robo pol who did everything according to obsolete formulas, and she would have done the same as President. She was as prepared for this campaign as the French Generals were prepared for the German blitzkrieg. For all her intelligence she has proven time and again that she is politically inept. She was outmaneuvered, outsmarted, outfundraised, and just plain whipped by Obama. It was obvious to everybody weeks ago, except her and the people who still fanatically supported her. As the French generals are the very definition of political foolishness, so are Clinton and her dead-enders. That being said, if I find it impossible to make nice, I will try to shut up. I will make an effort from here on to restrain the disdain I have come to feel for the mindset that characterizes Clinton and her band, and let those of you who are kinder, more generous, and understanding than I do the placating. Luckily Obama seems to be that kind of person.
Leave a Reply