USA | Det är inte var dag man ser rubriken “Stop Hillary” i en amerikansk s.k. progressiv tidskrift. Ännu mindre på omslaget.
Doug Henwood, redaktör för Left Business Observer, har skrivit en essay om Hillary Clinton i Harper’s Magazine som väckt stor uppmärksamhet.
I media och bland politiska proffstyckare på både vänster- och högerkanten utgår man mer eller mindre ifrån att nomineringen till demokraternas presidentkandidat är hennes om hon vill ha den.
Och på vänsterkanten är man inte speciellt intresserad av att framföra något negativt om Hillary eftersom man tror hon har störst möjlighet att vinna över en republikansk rival (vem det nu än blir). Dessutom brukar det straffa sig att göra sig till Bill Clintons och Hillarys fiender.
Som Henwood själv skriver: “[M]ost progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms. Pundits who have written about her in the past dismissed my queries in rude and patronizing ways.”
Men Henwood är inte lika säker på att ännu en president Clinton skulle vara det bästa för partiet eller landet.
What is the case for Hillary (whose quasi-official website identifies her, in bold blue letters, by her first name only, as do millions upon millions of voters)? It boils down to this: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her favor. She has, in the past, been associated with women’s issues, with children’s issues — but she also encouraged her husband to sign the 1996 bill that put an end to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), which had been in effect since 1935. Indeed, longtime Clinton adviser Dick Morris, who has now morphed into a right-wing pundit, credits Hillary for backing both of Bill’s most important moves to the center: the balanced budget and welfare reform. And during her subsequent career as New York’s junior senator and as secretary of state, she has scarcely budged from the centrist sweet spot, and has become increasingly hawkish on foreign policy.
Since leaving the State Department, Hillary has devoted herself to what we can only call […] Clinton, Inc. This fund-raising, favor-dispensing machine is key to understanding her joint enterprise with Bill. Unlike the Bush family, an old-style WASP dynasty for all W.’s populist bluster and blunder, the Clintons are arrivistes who approach politics in a highly neoliberal manner. That means nonstop self-promotion, huge book advances and fat speaking fees. (Hillary has now joined Bill in the six-figure club).
And with an eye to the presidency, Hillary has also kept up her line of neocon patter, while carefully separating herself from Obama.
When I spoke to Dick Morris, I asked him how Hillary would differentiate herself from Obama during the 2016 campaign. His prediction: She would say that her predecessor had outlined a beautiful vision, but now voters “need someone who can get things done.” He added that she would criticize Obama for not having armed the Syrian rebels earlier. Two weeks later, in her conversation with [Jeffrey] Goldberg, Hillary did exactly that, while also suggesting that the president was to blame for the rise of ISIL. (In a revoltingly laudatory Washington Post review of Henry Kissinger’s new book, Hillary distinguishes between the president’s first term, during which they “laid the foundation” for a new approach to international relations – and the “crises of the second term,” as if the world suddenly changed when she strolled out of the State Department.)
Morris told me that if the Massachusetts senator [Elizabeth Warren] “or some genuine figure from the new populist left of the Democratic Party” were to challenge Hillary, “they could upend her in much the same way that Obama did in 2008.” Warren, meanwhile, swears she doesn’t want to run, even as Hillary dons the mantle of inevitability for the second time.
Tidskriftsomslag: Harper’s Magazine, november 2014