Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Other Reason to Oppose Hillary Clinton

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -

Hillary Clinton's enabling of the Iraq war disaster, and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it, has by far been the left's biggest gripe the presidential candidate, and understandably so. Her role in enabling this painfully misguided war is a stain on her record, and on this country.

But her view on Iraq, however unforgivable, only represents part of the reason why progressives should oppose a Clinton candidacy with vigor. And even if she were to get down on her knees, admit her foreign policy follies, and beg us to accept her apology for the infamous 2002 vote to authorize Bush to go to war, it would be a huge mistake for the left to support her candidacy. The other reason? It's her affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council, stupid!

The DLC--best known for its sketchy alliance with big-business, its McCartyite attacks on the anti-war left, its loving admiration for Joe Lieberman, and its hawkish stances on foreign policy--has been trying to take the liberalism out of the Democratic Party for more than two decades now, and in many ways has succeeded.

It was when the DLC was at it its most influential that Bill Clinton began his "era of big government is over" campaign, and passed historical cuts to welfare. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has led to a drastic increase in media consolidation, was also another unfortunate byproduct of the DLC president's capitulations.

The group has made a habit out of attacking anti-war candidates, as seen in 2003 when founder Al From along with Bruce Reed, attacked the Howard Dean campaign, saying it was from the "McGovern/Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group elitism at home." When Ned Lamont was running against Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the DLC lamented what they called return of "liberal fundamentalism."

 In short, the main reasons why Democrats were elected in November--sharp condemnation of the war, and a push against our neoliberal trade policies--are dismissed by the DLC as losing issues that ought to be permanently abandoned by the Democratic Party. Their reaction to the 2006 midterm was to declare victory for the vital center (pointing largely to Lieberman's victory, which resorted to taking a de-facto endorsement from the RNC) and urging Democrats to, among other things, "exercise self-restraint in promoting new public-sector activism."

And Now that Tom Vilsack, who chaired the DLC from 2005-2007, is out of the race, there is simply no doubt that Clinton is the DLC candidate. Her picture rotates among the top of their web site where she is prominently touted as a member of their "leadership team," along with From and new DLC Chair Harold Ford, who disgracefully voted for the Military Commissions Act, which effectively legitimized torture and killed habeas corpus.

To be sure, Clinton has worn the DLC hat well. On top of her support for the war in Iraq, she has supported free trade agreements like NAFTA; voted for the Patriot Act--twice; given speeches at AIPAC events with aggressive rhetoric on Iran; cosponsored flag burning legislation and said she would support torture in the case of an "imminent threat to millions of Americans."

- Advertisement -

Contrarily, other Democrats who could serve as possible alternatives to Clinton as a nominee have been distancing themselves from the DLC. John Edwards, once closely affiliated with the group has taken a decidedly more populist tone on the budget, trade and Iraq. Al Gore, a founding member of the DLC, has been straying from them ever since he made his 2000 convention speech. He advocated for a single-payer health care in 2002, endorsed Dean in 2003, and gave unambiguously strong critiques of Bush's war long before it became politically fashionable to do so. In 2003 Barack Obama, upon learning that the DLC listed him as one of "100 New Democrats to Watch," promptly asked for his name to be removed.

Cleary Democrats are running away from the DLC, if not due to personal opposition to its policies, than at least due to an understanding that its platform is no longer palatable to winning elections.

Moreover, the Bush nightmare has enlivened a spirit of change in this country, a small hint of which was seen in the 2006 election where a new Democratic majority was won largely on populist, anti-war platforms. Consider Sen. Jim Webb's response to Bush's State of the Union which, contrary to the DLC line, spoke of only two things: income inequality, and leaving Iraq. This momentum could provide a chance for the party to break free from what has been an iron grip of triangulation.

A Clinton presidency, however, would be a huge blow to such an effort, and a huge boost to the DLC. If triumphant in 2008, they would be able to claim that they--not the netroots, union workers, or its political base--have been behind the only two Democratic presidents since 1976. Surely, they will point to this as evidence that and that a run-to-the right electoral strategy is indeed the only path to success and continue the Party down the road that has already failed them once before.

For too long now the Democratic Party has been woeful in representing working class Americans, weak and compliant in the face of Republican power, and a chief enabler the grossly misguided and amoral invasion of Iraq and the loss of liberty that has come with it.

- Advertisement -

Clinton, and her DLC brethren are not part of the solution--but rather, part of the problem.


Michael Corcoran is a freelance writer based in Boston who has been published by The Boston Globe, The Nation, Common Dreams, Alternet, CBSNews.com, Campus Progress, Blast Magazine, and Extra!. His work, focusing largely on foreign policy, the (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

How Obama Fooled the Left

The Left's Public Health Option Problem

The Politics of Impeachment

The Other Reason to Oppose Hillary Clinton

Shared Complicity: The Tragedy of the Pelosi/CIA Affair


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
20 people are discussing this page, with 36 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Commenter signed up, placed two trollish, attackin... by Timl on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 7:53:32 AM
You could disagree without attempting to tear the ... by Ben on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 10:26:55 AM
I would welcome a debate about the merits of Hilla... by Michael Corcoran on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 11:16:49 AM
IF HE IS BANNED WHY NOT REMOVE HIS COMMENTS? LEAVI... by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007 at 11:06:43 AM
I admit I have never been a fan of Hillary, It ... by Eileen Fleming on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 8:37:13 AM
I don't recognize Democratic leaders, only represe... by Arthur M. Howard-(Scotoni) on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 4:24:21 PM
I am one of those life-long Democrats who believe ... by Kenneth Briggs on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 7:06:47 PM
My gut instink tells me Hillary is one bad apple t... by Fred F on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 7:24:57 PM
It's a long way to the primaries and perhaps a lit... by Bobinthebox on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 7:46:30 PM
Most of the Clinton haters are Naderites who would... by pratliff94 on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 8:29:26 PM
(ardee)....Follow your own advice, Reverend. Espec... by ardee D. on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 11:22:47 AM
You know what really is a slanderous attack? When ... by ardee D. on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2007 at 5:03:26 PM
Arnee, I just came in from out of town last n... by pratliff94 on Thursday, Mar 8, 2007 at 4:31:21 PM
THIS HAS BEEN FLAGGED WAITING FURTHER REVIEW FOR N... by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007 at 11:16:03 AM
>>> ...The war is not the "be all" of the next el... by Bill Tower on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 5:43:59 PM
I would vote for Kucinich in a minute if he would ... by pratliff94 on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007 at 12:48:08 PM
I would vote for Kucinich in a minute if he would ... by pratliff94 on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007 at 12:48:11 PM
The Depue/Bureau County Democratic Club of downsta... by mike kohr on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 9:21:03 PM
Your depiction of Howard Dean as being opposed to ... by David Wald on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 11:12:31 PM
You make a valid point about Howard Dean. He was i... by Michael Corcoran on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 11:35:39 PM
Sorry, I failed to address your question about Kuc... by Michael Corcoran on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 11:41:01 PM
That should read that Dean "was" not in favor of w... by Michael Corcoran on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 12:05:24 AM
Aside from all of the above comments on the DLC/Hi... by Barbara on Thursday, Mar 1, 2007 at 11:54:06 PM
I hope that more people are heading in that direct... by Laur on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 6:15:22 PM
the single biggest reason people should oppose her... by Ben Marble, M.D. on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 12:09:23 AM
>>>> well.... the single biggest reason people... by Bill Tower on Sunday, Mar 4, 2007 at 5:25:06 PM
Vote for John Edwards in '08, NOT Hillary Hilla... by Robert Morrow on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 1:56:39 AM
Where is the proof of all these amazing allegation... by uluro on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 5:46:24 AM
And all this filth was in the "Clinton Chronicles"... by pratliff94 on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 8:40:45 AM
Its not rape the Clintons were willing.... by Fred F on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 12:06:29 AM
Oh my goodness, debate vs diatribe...diatribe wins... by ardee D. on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 5:40:18 PM
Maybe You Ought To Read John: 4-42. It Clearly Def... by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2007 at 12:00:40 PM
lock the damn door, please.... by ardee D. on Monday, Mar 5, 2007 at 5:42:11 PM
Yep, you folks are keeping good company. You sound... by pratliff94 on Friday, Mar 2, 2007 at 9:43:31 AM
I can not endorse Hillary for President. If Rupert... by BriMan on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 1:41:35 AM
These lengthy comments by Murrow are just silly. M... by Michael Corcoran on Saturday, Mar 3, 2007 at 12:31:53 PM