I'm so tired of the spurious style vs. solutions argument that HRC has been spouting. The notion that Barack makes speeches, but Hillary is in the solutions business is preposterous. So far, the evidence of Hillary's solution providing ability comes from....HER SPEECHES. I'm not suggesting that she doesn't have a voting record, or hasn't sponsored any legislation. But her voting record, her supposed edge in experience, really looks like what one would expect from a garden variety Democratic Senator in her second term. Admittedly, Obama's looks pretty standard for a Democratic Senator in his first term. So I'm willing to concede that she has exactly one term more experience than Obama, but I don't see this as evidence her being a more effective legislator, or by extension, of her being a more effective president.
Hillary makes speeches where she claims she's in the solutions business, but where are the solutions? She says it's time to get real. I agree. Let's get real. Hillary claims she's ready to fight the tough fights against the Republicans because she's faced the onslaught of the Republican attack machine. But being a punching bag doesn't make her a fighter. She has a proud record of standing up the Republicans and LOSING or worse, just ROLLING OVER.
Hillary points to her efforts at Health Care Reform during Bill's 1st term as an example of how she stood up the Republicans and fought. As I recall, she fought and LOST. How much did she stand up to the Republicans on the Bankruptcy act of 2001? (She voted for it.) That bill disproportionately hurt low income women, the group she claims she's fighting to protect. How much did she fight to protect the 1st amendment against a law to criminalize flag burning? (She SPONSORED that anti-american bill). Even right wing Justice Antonin Scalia agrees that flag burning is exactly the kind of political speech that the framers of the constitution had in mind when they created the first amendment. This isn't some kind of legal stretch to apply freedom of speech to a symbolic political act. The British used to imprison dissenters for burning the Union Jack or effigies of King George. The framers specifically wanted to protect this kind of act. Or how about how she stood up to the Republicans on the vote to authorize the war in Iraq? (She voted for it). Quite a fighter there, wasn't she?
It's Hillary's speeches that don't pass scrutiny. The fact that Obama's speeches are moving and inspirational, while Clinton's are not, does not make Clinton a more substantive candidate. It just makes her the candidate who's less able to convince others to support her agenda. Her argument is that she lack's charisma, therefore she's more substantive.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton's voting record is both longer and WORSE than Obama's. I'm willing to concede that given his short tenure in the Senate, Obama hasn't had time to amass the collection of troubling votes that Hillary has. But Hillary isn't arguing on the basis of her record, she is arguing on the basis of her persona. We're to believe she's the candidate of substance, not because her record actually supports this, but because she seems like one of those super-achieving smart girls, all grown up. I'll make a further concession. Hillary Clinton IS a super-achiever. The woman is a US Senator and a viable candidate for President.
I don't mean to demean Hillary Clinton by calling her a "girl". She is an adult woman, and far more accomplished and successful than most men or women can ever hope to be. But I think her psychological appeal is based on a persona that tends to emerge in high achieving girls in their school years. On visceral level, we see her as one of those who studied harder, did the extra credit assignments and the extra curricular activities, and earned the 4.0. But her record doesn't entirely bare this out. Or should I say, it evinces the darker side the achiever as well. The kind who is willing to not take the class that might hurt her GPA. The kind who might cheat a little to make sure she'd get the A+.
Cheating...tough criticism, but I'll be explicit about how the analogy applies. The 3 legislative acts I mentioned earlier, the Iraq War authorization, the Bankruptcy act, and the anti Flag Burning act...I believe that Hillary thought they were wrong when she voted for them. I don't believe that she is a crypto conservative. I believe she felt it was acceptable to compromise her principals if it might help her appeal to Republicans in some future presidential race, or limit their scrutiny of her current Senate term. This willingness to compromise principals to get ahead is the analog to cheating in my argument.
I hope this doesn't come off as sexist. I really didn't intend it that way. I just hoped to show that when Hillary says she's about solutions, not speeches, it's a point that she makes in her speeches. And that when she says Obama is about inspiration, but she is about hard work and achievement, she's really saying that she has substance, while he is just a persona. But there isn't evidence for her being any more substantive. It's just her persona.
