So when I first read the DeLong quote a few months ago, it troubled me. As KLR points out, the man is one of THE Democrat economists and has no apparent reason to be less than honest in his assessment of Hillary (well, that's not totally true. If he is one of THE Democrat economists and supports Obama, he has a big reason to be unkind to Hillary, but that didn't occur to me at the time). Anyways, I pondered what he wrote for a little while, but in the end (and this is where I get crazy) I took it as a good thing. Why, you ask? Well, I'll tell you.
Prior to the 1992 election, the Clinton's had been big fish in a small Arkansan pond. They had absolutely no experience in DC politics and (to put it nicely) it showed. Clinton immediately bit off more than he could chew and (like Jimmy Carter before him) assumed that Congress would somehow be shamed into going along with him on BIG TICKET items, because he thought it was the right thing to do. With her role in the health care debacle, Hillary was right along with him.
But here's the thing, you read about Bill Clinton and they always say that his first 2 years in office taught him some incredibly valuable lessons about working in Washington. He was embarassed by the '94 election. After that, he changed tactics and went on to have a (I think) very successful presidency. In short, the Clinton moral (or at least THIS Clinton moral) is: young hotshot got humbled, took his shots, learned to play with the big boys and ended up succeeding.
So why can't that be the moral for Hillary too? 1994 was 14 years ago. For more than half of the time since then she has been a Senator for a very important state. One of the things that made the DeLong quote first stick out is (as far as the policy savvy part goes) it simply doesn't jive with what we've heard about her in the last 8 years. I agree that the quote is very much food for thought. I guess I just think that the health care debacle may be important for the way it helped shape her, rather than how it defines her.
Still, I do think the story is important for pointing out that people with 2-4 years of DC experience who seem to think that force of will is enough to bring Washington to its knees should be treated with skepticism. Don't you think so, Senator Obama?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So Hillary gets the trophy for "Most Improved Player"?
If rating people on their potential to learn from their mistakes, why not "Bush 2008"?
Because if there has been one theme of the Bush presidency it is total unwillingness to learn from his mistakes. Bill Clinton was the opposite (except when it came to women). I'm just saying that political history is filled with people who responded positively to being bloodied and bruised and the only evidence we have at hand on Hillary (that she is considered by her peers at least to be one of the more with it policy people in the Senate) is that she might be one of those people. Maybe she isn't, but without that information DeLong's opinion is a data point, not a conclusion.
Well said DRH, well said.
Post a Comment