AFS Cinema
Clinton Is Not a Progressive
RECEIVED Fri., Feb. 1, 2008
Dear Chronicle,
With both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama left to fight for the Democratic Party nomination, progressives should pay close attention. Though either senator would be preferable to the Republican nominee, a progressive, forward-leaning second Clinton White House is not likely, because the Clintons are not progressives.
Bill Clinton ran a moderate White House, and Hillary Clinton has been a centrist senator. Both Clintons supported the Iraq war from the beginning, with former members of their administration like Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright offering public support for George W. Bush's war.
Also, in Margaret Thatcher-like moments, Hillary threatened Iran over its nuclear enrichment program and also said that she would consider using nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton has also received more campaign contributions from major defense contractors than any candidate of any party, according to the Huffington Post. It's clear that the Washington status quo will continue.
Barack Obama has said that he supports the decriminalization of marijuana, though he opposes legalization. Hillary supports the current drug war and opposes any change in marijuana laws, including medicinal use. There's a good reason Sen. Kennedy and his family endorsed Obama.
Instead of uniting independents and progressives, the Clintons have triangulated the Democratic Party base. Bill Clinton had no problem playing the race card in the South Carolina primary. Mr. Clinton, though extremely talented, has more baggage than Greyhound, and his presence in a new administration could be bad for a country that's trying to move into a post-racial, forward-looking era. Progressive policies from a new Clinton White House won't happen; that's becoming increasingly clear. Yes, Hillary would be the first woman president, but she is no progressive. Maybe it's time to turn the page on the Clinton-Bush era.
With both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama left to fight for the Democratic Party nomination, progressives should pay close attention. Though either senator would be preferable to the Republican nominee, a progressive, forward-leaning second Clinton White House is not likely, because the Clintons are not progressives.
Bill Clinton ran a moderate White House, and Hillary Clinton has been a centrist senator. Both Clintons supported the Iraq war from the beginning, with former members of their administration like Richard Holbrooke, Sandy Berger, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright offering public support for George W. Bush's war.
Also, in Margaret Thatcher-like moments, Hillary threatened Iran over its nuclear enrichment program and also said that she would consider using nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Clinton has also received more campaign contributions from major defense contractors than any candidate of any party, according to the Huffington Post. It's clear that the Washington status quo will continue.
Barack Obama has said that he supports the decriminalization of marijuana, though he opposes legalization. Hillary supports the current drug war and opposes any change in marijuana laws, including medicinal use. There's a good reason Sen. Kennedy and his family endorsed Obama.
Instead of uniting independents and progressives, the Clintons have triangulated the Democratic Party base. Bill Clinton had no problem playing the race card in the South Carolina primary. Mr. Clinton, though extremely talented, has more baggage than Greyhound, and his presence in a new administration could be bad for a country that's trying to move into a post-racial, forward-looking era. Progressive policies from a new Clinton White House won't happen; that's becoming increasingly clear. Yes, Hillary would be the first woman president, but she is no progressive. Maybe it's time to turn the page on the Clinton-Bush era.
David A. Terrell
