Hillary Clinton: "I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country"

[maximusveritas]

That quote is not a new one, but it's one that sheds quite a bit of light on one of the many differences between Clinton and Obama.

The Nation's Ari Berman had a good take on it here:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=241474

"I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up," she said.

In case you don't remember, Hillary grew up a Goldwater girl.

If you read Obama's writings, speeches, and interviews, you'll note that he never calls himself a "centrist". He was never a member of the centrist DLC and even told them to take his name off their website when they listed him on it.

Hillary, on the other hand, is very much a centrist and she intends to carry that agenda into the White House. She has close ties to the DLC. Not only is her husband a former chair and poster boy for the DLC, she herself has personally worked closely with them to implement their agenda, even when taking some heat for it from the left:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html
While other politicians like Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Edwards have moved far away from the DLC and centrism, Hillary has stayed close.

The key concept here is the difference between centrism and bipartisanship.
Centrism is defined as "The political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position. " It implies taking a position halfway between the two opposing parties.
Bipartisanship, on the other hand, simply means working with opposition to pass legislation that will be beneficial to the American people. It implies nothing about moving toward the center and can often be accomplished without moving very far at all from your original position.

The best denunciation of centrism comes from Obama himself in a speech at the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award Ceremony in 2005:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051116-remarks_of_sena_2/

If he were here today, I think it would be hard to place Robert F. Kennedy into any of the categories that so often constrain us politically. He was a fervent anti-communist but knew diplomacy was our way out of the Cuban Missile Crisis. He sought to wage the war on poverty but with local partnerships and community activism. He was at once both hard-headed and big-hearted.

And yet, his was not a centrism in the sense of finding a middle road or a certain point on the ideological spectrum. His was a politics that, at its heart, was deeply moral – based on the notion that in this world, there is right and there is wrong, and it’s our job to organize our laws and our lives around recognizing the difference.

The rest of that speech is worth checking out as well. It's one of his better ones and a great tribute to Bobby. Don't be fooled by the media trying to distract us with petty nonsense. There are some fundamental differences here in the way Obama and Clinton would govern and that's what we need to focus on.

[Why Syzygy]

1. She would have to be centrist

because neither the right nor left can stand her.

[demo dutch]

5. Yes and in case you forgot most of the country is somewhere in the center!

[Kittycat]

13. So is IL - and we don't care for her :)

[frylock]

31. and here's the new (so-called) center..

<-----------------------------------------|---------------------->

[ursi]

19. does she come up with her own campaign ideas? I've heard this one before.

[here_is_to_hope]

25. Alright, you have had your 24 days...

time to pony up and get yourself a little yellow star...:hi:

[OHdem10]

2. Not the Smartest Move and they are usually politically savy.

[papau]

24. And it didn't work - Murdoch still endorsed Obama (New York Post)

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/postopinion.htm


POST ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA


January 30, 2008 -- Democrats in 22 states across America go to the polls next Tuesday to pick between two presidential prospects: Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.<snip>

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.<snip>

Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.<snip>

[antigop]

30. LOL! "Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband..' OMG!

Papau, I am really surprised at you.

[grantcart]

3. what I think is lost in the DU discussion about Obama

is that it seems that he has no interest in "moving to the center" but is interested in "moving the center to him"

[sandnsea]

4. Precisely

When you are in an dysfunctional relationship, you don't hammer it out with the SO, you pick up and move on. The sick puppy gets well and follows, are falls by the wayside.

[tishaLA]

6. that's the best way of phrasing it I have seen.

[readmoreoften]

8. There's no interest in it because it's patently ridiculous.

Obama intends on expanding the military. He has no plan to end Bush's tax cuts. He wants more religion in government--and has proved with his support for Caldwell and McClurkin that he's not bringing them to the left but going to the right. He's heavily involved with the Council on Foreign Relations. He is resolutely free trade, although he misses too many votes to know where he really stands. He's a relative newcomer to union support. He's spoke well of Reagan and Bush's appointees. He has gotten votes of confidence from the most vocal neoconservatives.

How can he move the nation to the left when he isn't on the left?

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

[grantcart]

12. His policy agenda is as left as any of the other candidates

thank you for providing a link that proves it



he is clearly to the left of Clinton and slightly to the right of Edwards.

Two facts)

1) It doesn't matter where you end up on a piece of paper or a color chart if you cannot translate that into action. When Obama was a community organizer he significantly increased the number of registered voters in the poorest neighborhoods.

2) When he came out of Harvard as the first black editor of the HBR he could have made $ 300,000 a year clerking at the Supreme Court or much much more on wall street. He could have made $ 200k plus at a non profit and built a political career. My guy Edwards, Clinton and all of the rest went for the bucks first and the activism second. If your going to challenge Obama's sincerity to the liberal agenda then come up with alot more than some of his supporters are homophobic. We know that. There is a significant part of the African American community that is homophobic. Are you really trying to say that McCurkin is pulling Obama to his position rather than Obama pulling him to his position? By the way Clinton and Edwards are exactly on the same position as Obama on LGBT issues.

When you show me a candidate that has risked as much personally as Obama I will listen to your tripe but until you can show me a candidate that actually put his future at risk the same way Obama did please take your cheap shots somewhere else.

[Critters2]

17. By reaching across the aisle?

Please. They're both corporate-owned centrists. Not a penny's worth of difference between 'em.

[grantcart]

18. then i guess you will have no further involvement in the election

but there is one major difference that I think undermines what your saying. As the first African American editor of the HBR he had an absolute lock on supreme court clerkship ($300k), wall street partnership ($ 500,000 starting and up), non profit attorney ($ 150,00). All of the others took this route - including Edwards - and I don't fault any of them because I may have done the same thing.


Here is the fact that makes this particular criticism a cheap shot: Obama didn't. He went into the community and took pennies on the dollar. We have a candidate who actually stopped saying big things and took a big personal financial risk and worked with poor people. Of course your free to stay on the sidelines and take cheap shots but if Clinton takes over the party and it becomes the same corporate shill we saw in the 90's you will have been as responsible as the most ardent Clinton supporter.

If Obama takes over and he follows that path then you will have every right to be bitter and condemn but atleast you will have made a decision based on facts relevant to the candidates personal history. Its fine to be sceptical but if your going to be cynical and stay out of the fight you take responsibility for what follows. The reality is we are down to two candidates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. "Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." T. Paine

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!.

Think what you want about Barry Goldwater, but liberty and justice are the two things that are being traded away in the name of "centrism".

[madrchsod]

9. "I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country "

do you mean this hillary--i will use the power of the state to build a "centrist"(?)coalition...that`s not democracy hillary,you have to let the people decide what they want then you advocate for them.

"that is like what I remember when I was growing up," she said" maybe you did hillary

but a whole lot of us saw things differently.

the more she talks the more tom haydens endorsement of obama makes sense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Always seek the source material

In this case I had to follow a link from your link to do so.

This was part of a long interview that the Washington Post ran 0n 10/10/07. Here is more of it:

...Her economic proposals included what she said would be a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline, higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and programs aimed at easing economic uncertainties among middle-class families. They include housing assistance, making college more affordable and the universal health-care plan she outlined last month.

Clinton spoke at some length about her rivals' criticism that she carries too much political baggage from the conflicts of her husband's administration to be an effective and unifying president...

... "The overall assessment, given all of the mistakes that I made and all of the lessons that I've learned, is that we've got to put an end to it, but you can't just hope it goes away," she said. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.' You've got to demonstrate that you're not going to be cowed or intimidated or deterred by it, and then you can reach out and bring people who are of good faith together."

She said she has begun to attract support from contributors and voters who may have been skeptical of her in the past. Criticizing Bush, she said he has pursued a "50-plus-one" strategy "instead of saying, 'You know what -- there may be some people we will lose if we reach out' " to create a broader coalition.

"That's what I intend to do," she said. "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902284.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007100902286

Of course the comment about being a "Goldwater Girl" was a quip added by "The Nation", not by the Washington Post. And since I grew up about the same time that Hillary did, let me point out that the Goldwater Campaign was considered a radical departure from the centrist coalition that Hillary is remembering from her youth. Goldwater was way outside of the main stream at the time, that's why he suffered a devastating defeat to LBJ. Remember "extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice"?

And Hillary - the child of conservative parents - only got swept up into being a "Goldwater Girl" for his campaign only - she did not go on to be part of Goldwater's conservative movement. For all the love heaped on JFK today, he actually defeated Nixon by being more of a cold war warrior than Nixon was, citing the grave threat of a "Missile gap" with the Soviet Union that suddenly vanished after JFK took office. Before JFK was Eisenhower, who some might almost call a Liberal by today's standards. Back then disputes between the Democrats and the Republicans were supposed to "end at the waters edge" and usually they did, while both parties attempted to remain bi-partisan regarding foreign affairs.

Relations in Congress between the majority Democrats and minority Republicans usually remained quite civil during that period also. Senate Minority leader Everett Dirksen was a far cry from Trent Lott or Bill Frist.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.'

What got lost in the snippet you provided was this paragragh (along with Clinton's generally populist set of policy priorities that she outlined):

"The overall assessment, given all of the mistakes that I made and all of the lessons that I've learned, is that we've got to put an end to it, but you can't just hope it goes away," she said. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.' You've got to demonstrate that you're not going to be cowed or intimidated or deterred by it, and then you can reach out and bring people who are of good faith together."

[maximusveritas]

29. I know

I did read the rest of the interview. picked out that "centrist coalition" bit, like the Nation article did, because I thought it was more in tune with her record, particularly her association with the DLC. Most of her other comments just looked to be shots at Obama, but didn't really signify a shift from her centrism.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

14. Yes, I think this is her strategy, a lot of moderates like her

I thought that's what independants usually were. I'm not sure about that anymore since I've read that Obama has strength with independants, but I actually do think that independants will vote for Hillary in the GE over McCain

[Eric J in MN]

15. When she was a "Goldwater girl," LBJ was president.

It's bogus to twist her words into saying she wants to be like Barry Goldwater.

[martymar64]

16. Translation: Workers - Prepare to be fucked again!

Centrism is just another word for corporate domination and more wars.
No thank you.

[avaistheone1]

20. If Hill defines the center at the same place the media does, we're screwed.

:nuke:

[Hidden Stillness]

21. Many Good Points, but I Think They are Both Basically the Same

Yes, I think there are a lot of good points to both the OP and several other posts on this thread; I worry most when Clinton starts using this phony "corporate 'D'LC consultant" word "centrist," because it means nothing, nobody talks that way in real life, (is it "middle-of-the-road" or "majority"? No), and it usually means the totally corporate-centered deregulating, outsourcing "policy" that the lobbyists of the "D"LC always do. The difference, though, is that I don't believe there is any real difference between Clinton and Obama. I think their voting records are almost alike, and I even remember early during the campaign when Obama was promoting the horrific idea of "merit pay" for teachers, usually to the boos of the audience. That has since been dropped ("cynically," "triangulating"?--it would be if it were Clinton, right ?). I largely agree with the sense of things on this thread--the big threat with Clinton is the corporate "fascism" of many sorts, like modern/global Hoover. I just don't believe Obama is notably different. I always hate the Goddamned "centrist" jargon though--it ALWAYS sounds to me like they are trying to trick us all. Oh, it's all right...

[jackson_dem]

22. So does Obama. You can't build a broad coalition that isn't centrist

Which is one reason I always found Obama's claims of offering unity and progressive policies as disingenuous.

[magatte]

27. He is talking about bringing TRANSPARENCY to the Government

He appeals to the ordinary citizen that share his goals for the nation, be they Republican, Democrats or Independent. And armed with this majority he will be able to gain the (forced) support from Republicans in Washington. That has been his whole philosophy. Change coming from the bottom.

This is how he will fight: ....He explains it quite clearly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XLyQNJsCv0

You use transparency at every level of government and use public pressure to shame opponents to vote for what their constituencies want. (see reference to independents and republicans OUTSIDE of Washington)

[DemCam]

36. oy...where have we heard these words before>+?

[AtomicKitten]

23. K&R! Whooop! There is it!

[KittyWampus]

33. it's kind of funny and kind of sad.

[AtomicKitten]

35. and really kinda

:scared:

[AJH032]

28. how is this different from Obama?

One of his central themes is unity, and I guarantee you he isn't promoting unity by showing off his "liberal" views.

[OwnedByFerrets]

32. Im not ready to play nice.....nt

[New Dawn]

34. "Centrism" = giving the GOP whatever they want

And we already saw that in the 1990s: NAFTA, Welfare Deform, the Telecommunications Act, the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act", etc, etc, etc.