| I have always been of the opinion that strong progressives need to have a multi-faceted strategy for winning power and making change, and that we needed progressives to take on a lot of different roles- including outside agitator, institution-builder, media pundit and inside operative. Some of us play at several, or even all, of those roles at different times.
I have also believed that strong progressives need to engage with elected Democrats who are more centrist and not just work for the strongest lefties in any given race. As much as I loved his progressive message and stands on issues, I never chose to work for Jesse Jackson when he ran for President. I have tended instead to work for candidates who, in my judgment, were reasonably good on the issues who I thought had a chance to win in the general election, because to be involved in changing policy, you actually have to win, and my hope was always to fight on the inside to get those candidates to govern in as progressive a away as possible. I know that some of you will think of that as being a sellout, but I have always believed that what history shows is that good things happen only with a combination of outside movement pressure and good people on the inside working to get the politicians they work for to do the right thing. So I don't look for heroes who are pure of heart, I look for people I think are basically good people who will respond the right way when faced with a tough choice most of the time.
Which brings me to Hillary Clinton. |
| I was for Harkin in the 1992 primary, but went to work for the Clinton campaign after the primary was over, and I worked in the Clinton White House for the first two and a half years. I've been fascinated by the discussion about Hillary in Chris' recent posts (here and here), and in general in the blogosphere for a long time now. I know she is very disliked by a fair number of bloggers. Like a lot of you, I was disappointed by her vote five years ago and her reluctance until recently to push for an end to the war; I've never been a fan of her or her husband's positions on trade, and I wish she was more of a populist on economics in general. I worry about some of the people advising her and some of the people giving/raising her money; and I am concerned, for her own sake and the country's, that she has a tendency toward being cautious when what this country needs is bold solutions.
But you know what? I'll fess up: I really like her. I tend to bond with people, to see what is best in them, and my years working with Hillary in the '92 campaign and at the White House made me a very big fan. I know I'll get plenty of shit for saying that, but before you let loose, let me make my case.
One thing I really respect about her is that she actually cares about getting the details of legislation right. She always wanted to know how provisions in bills would affect specific people she had met on the campaign trail or knew from Arkansas or other places. For me, having someone in her position care that much about the problems of specific people is an incredible thing.
I also loved her passion about the big issues that really mattered. As I wrote in this post on the impeachment fight, it was largely her passion and determination that kept us fighting for universal health care even in the face of all the advice not to do it.
I also thought she as a person was, and is, a class act. I know that in comparison with many of the issues we all work on, how well she treats the people around her may not seem like it matters very much. But I have always believed that such things do matter, that it tells a lot about whether a person cares about others, and how they will react to the real human problems their constituents face. The reason Hillary has such hardcore loyalists around her is that she treats people with respect: checking in with them when they're in the hospital, hosting baby and wedding showers for them, listening to their ideas, and treating them with the kind of respect that politicians, in my experience, rarely treat their staffers. She extended many of the same personal touches to people she met around the country, once asking me if I'd heard from x person that she'd met at a forum we did somewhere on whether she'd had her baby yet, because she wanted to send her a note when she did. And I never felt that she was being calculating in doing so- she treated her lower-level staffers with the same kindness she did with the power players, and she kept in touch with many of the regular folks we met on the road, not only the wealthy and powerful ones.
The other thing I should say to the OpenLeft.com community, since we are so focused on building progressive infrastructure, is that she has done more than any other elected official I know about, with the possible exception of Sen. Daschle who has also been a stalwart in this arena, in terms of helping to build progressive infrastructure. The Center for American Progress and Media Matters might not be in existence without her early help. She has helped the issue advocacy group I chair, American Family Voices, raise money. She has helped countless other strong progressive groups as well, and has exhorted many different donors I know to think more about infrastructure.
One final story: I have done a personal check-in meeting with Hillary every few months ever since leaving the White House. The last time I went in was about a year ago (I haven't done any trips in since she became a candidate). At that meeting I told her how excited I had become about the blogosphere, and that I thought it was an incredibly important movement for building progressive power. Her response was interesting: not surprisingly, she felt that parts of the blogosphere treated her unfairly, but she seemed generally intrigued by the netroots movement and its potential, and was glad I was engaging with this community. Well, you might say if you were cynical, that she was just being nice or being careful, she doesn't really give a damn about the netroots community. Having known her as long as I have, I can tell you this: if she thought I was full of it, or that what I was doing was a waste of time, she would have bluntly told me so.
In the time since that meeting, she's hired people like Peter Daou and Judd Legum to join her team; she signed up as a speaker for YearlyKos; she sent Howard Wolfson onto Bill O'Reilly's show to defend the DailyKos (and, of course, herself for coming to YearlyKos); and more importantly to all of us in the progressive community than any symbolic outreach, she's moved solidly our way on a range of really important issues including the war.
All politics, you say? Maybe. I gave up trying to determine the personal motivations of politicians a long time ago. The bottom line is that she is consistently reaching out, politically and substantively, to progressives.
Once my old and dear friend Tom Vilsack got out of the presidential race, I decided not to sign up with any of the other candidates. Right now feels like a good time to be banging away from the outside, saying whatever I want to on the issues, pushing my progressive beliefs through OpenLeft.com and my other work. I still wish Hilary was more of an economic populist, and had been better on the war. But I know her to be a good person who cares about other people, and I'd be happy to have her as my nominee. |
