It was about this time last week when I realized that I'd been judging the Democratic candidates based on their personal charisma, since I never bothered researching their views. Needless to say, Clinton came off pretty poorly in the fray; Obama's "articulate, attractive, intelligent young guy" vibe trounced her "nitpicking, evil harpy."
But as fun as it is to poke fun at Clinton (and I consider it a hobby similar to stamp-collecting or bowling,) judging her on her weird haircut or that ridiculous southern accent she affected back in March isn't fair. The far right considers Clinton to be a sort of boogeyman, the Keyser Söze of the Democratic field, and broadsides her no matter what she does — but she can't be that bad. Hell, if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like her that in itself is enough for me to give her a second chance.
Clinton's liberal, sure (when did that become a dirty word?) but so are Obama and Edwards. If liberalism really gets to you, then Clinton is the least of your worries — sometimes she comes across as downright conservative. She's pro-death penalty. She supports making flag burning illegal. Hell, she even came out in favor of three-strikes laws, though that was back in 1994.
Clinton is also a moderate on some points — take gay marriage, for example. She's against it, but she's all for equivalent civil unions. She's in favor of sexual education that goes beyond abstinence, but for allowing private prayer in schools. Her stance on immigration is really quite a compromise; she voted for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act this year, which would have placed more guards on the border while simultaneously offering a path to citizenship for illegals. She seems quite rational in her moderate positions; I never thought I'd quote Clinton favorably, but regarding sex ed, she said, "I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts and evidence." Sounds good to me.
As for the Watergate, Filegate, and Travelgate controversies — give it a rest. Kenneth Starr spent millions and cleared both Clintons. It's smelly, but nobody can prove anything, and we do have "innocent until proven guilty" to consider. If you need a Democrat to burn for skirting the law, then get on Ted Kennedy for Chappaquiddick. Bridge over troubled water, Ted?
Clinton is a politician; she's slimy, but no more so than Bush, and probably a good deal better than your Wolfowitzes or Nixons. A chameleon, she changes colors based on her environment; remember the Yankees cap she started sporting when she ran for NY Senate in 2000? Still, that's no reason for conservative talk radio to start spouting self-righteous mendacity. If we question Clinton's Yankee-loving credentials, we must also question Bush's "military service" in the Air National Guard, most of which was spent drinking.
I'm not saying that I'll vote for Clinton. She'll undoubtedly pay off the national debt by raising taxes, not by cutting spending, and she'll uphold or institute protectionist trade policies. She's supported the USA PATRIOT act twice, and doesn't have any new ideas for Iraq, either. Finally, to be honest, something about her still rubs me the wrong way.
But as far as Democratic candidates go, she's certainly not the demon that the far right has (very successfully) made her out to be.
Seth Pate still prefers Obama, who has actually served more time in elected office. Disagree with him at: spate@asu.edu.