Hillary and The Roosevelts

Bobby Kennedy, Jr. compares Hillary Haters and the Roosevelts over at Huffington Post. He starts with how many had an irrational hatred of the Roosevelts and continues:

Hillary's supporters should be heartened by the fact that intense hatred is often accompanied by equally strong support. Roosevelt won four landslide victories against his opponents and crafted the architecture for the most humane, successful, generous features of modern American government.

They can also take comfort in Hillary's proven ability to transform intense hatred into loyal support. I recently toured upstate New York's traditionally Republican counties which she has transformed through leadership and political acumen, into rock solid Hillary Clinton strongholds.

Update: Also on HuffPo, Hillary's former Chief of Staff and another writer outline Hillary's foreign policy experience.

< "Two Little FISA Frankensteins" | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    On a couple points, I think RFK, Jr. misses it (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    and, shows the fallacies in trying to conflate Slick and HRC into a latter day FDR and Eleanor.  From the article:

    "People in power with privilege don't want to be challenged at all," Hillary told me recently as we discussed the repetitive rhythms of history. "FDR's policies rescued capitalism, thereby saving the fortunes and restoring the incomes of so many of the same people who would curse his name over the dinner table. They somehow still felt threatened because they don't like to be questioned."

    The problem with Hillary is that she is, IMHO, on the same side as the "People in power with privilege [who] don't want to be challenged at all,".  Viz., her presentation of the poisoned chalice of "advisers" and "help" to Ned Lamont last year, the same crew who tried to remake Lamont into another of the consultant-driven, poll-guided timid Corporatocrats of the DLC.  And, kept him invisible while former Democrat Lieberman, pride of BigPharm, BigGuns, and BigOil both got his legs back under him and, with Bill's (and Hil's) and Rove's help, got back in the race and collected millions in corporate donations.  And, lately, we've seen HRC and Lieberman, publicly BFFs again, carping and wagging their fingers about violent video games and pushing sanctimony (though, oddly, not about that fundie "Left Behind" game with it's "convert or die" rules).

    Or, from the 90s:  "How can you be a lawyer without representing a bank?", when her work at Rose Law Firm came up.  You mighta forgotten that, but I haven't.

    "They [the VRWC of the '30s] somehow still felt threatened because they don't like to be questioned."

    Here's a core error, and core BS.  A lot of the hatred directed at the Roosevelts by their wealthy contemporaries (who benefitted from his policies, as RFK, Jr. posits) was driven by the sentiment encapsulated in the phrase "traitor to his class".  It was not so much that the plebs were questioning the wealthy (they never really crossed paths) but more that the plebs both were receiving more than the bare subsistence (or even less) they'd received previously, both in economic terms and in terms of their rights being respected.  And that the plebs' calls for change were being listened to.  What galled the Roosevelt-hating elites most was the idea that those filthy garlic-eaters* were to be treated as beings equally deserving of both respect and a piece of the pie as the elite.  The idea that people whose names ended in a vowel were "Equal" really galled the 30s elite.  And it still does, today.

    *(cf.  "It's a Wonderful Life", Mr. Potter's term for the people who were housed in George Bailey's development of nice, little houses out at the edge of town.)

    In this regard, HRC does not propose to change the status quo in the manner that FDR did when he took over from Hoover.  Her labor-management policies will be a pastel version of Bush's full-saturation union busting - otherwise, why have Mark Penn, whose firm does union-busting on staff.  Her civil liberties and wiretapping positions will be informed not by the Fourth Amendment, but by a haze of "important considerations" and "intelligence requirements".  And nothing I've seen from her proposes to change the base course of the ship of state when it comes to Iraq - partition and reduction of the independent state of Iraq into three colonies of the US, feeding us oil, guaranteed by a continuing presence there.

    "And there is something of the same going on today. If you challenge the pharmaceutical companies, the health insurance companies, if you think investment fund managers should be taxed at the same rate as nurses and firefighters, you run into this vitriolic response."

    Um, HRC's health care plan, as I understand it, boils down to making sure everyone has the opportunity to buy insurance from an insurance company.  On top of paying taxes at the same rate.  Wow.  And, as to increasing tax rates on investment fund managers - I haven't seen anything like that in her position papers.  If the current Congressional leadership's reaction when faced with obstructionism (not even vitriolic) is any guide, that tax disparity is an issue we'll never see addressed.  She doesn't challenge the right- she presents a bigger target and sells out her own.

    Irrational hatred was the powerful drug that intoxicated the Gingrich Congress to impeach President Bill Clinton at the time when he enjoyed 65% popularity with the American people and had steered the nation through eight years of peace and unprecedented prosperity.

    Roosevelt was hated because he brought change and it cost them a few coins off the edge.  HRC is hated by the right because it serves their interests to stir up their base through hatred, even though she is still a Goldwater Girl.  And that hatred was hardly irrational, at least at the level of the people stirring it up.  They knew exactly what they were doing, and guided their actions accordingly.  Gingrich and the house leadership were not intoxicated on hatred - they were pouring it to their base by the kegful.

    RFK, Jr.'s piece is a masterful piece of misdirection and misinformation.  I'm not buying.

    Hillary's supporters should be heartened by the fact that intense hatred is often accompanied by equally strong support.

    The problem is, that HRC is hated almost as much from the left, as from the right.  She gets it for adopting Republican positions, rhetoric and framing.  FDR was castigated by the left for not going far enough, fast enough, but IIRC, not hated for it.

    Reactionary Progressive (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by koshembos on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    The most fascinating element in the HRC hatred is that it was generated by the right wing, but has been adapted hook, liner and sinker by the progressives. You read TFM pages and the siding with Obama, who is to the right of HRC, and dislike of HRC can be cut with a knife. Same holds for DailyKos. Obama represent change as much as GW Bush represents wisdom; give me a break - bipartisanship? You must be from another planet.

    The hatred for HRC has caused progressives to lose their mind. None of them even tries to gravitate towards Kucinich or Edwards.

    The FDRs, at least, were not hated by their relatives.

    Not only is (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    the original post offensive, but so is your post.

    I didn't buy the right wing game plan on Hillary hook, line and sinker.  I actually have my own brain and I have this crazy ability to use it.  

    I have done quite a bit of research on Hillary and I do not like her corporate connections.  I do not like many of the pro-business moves from Bills years that did great harm to our middle class. (NAFTA)  Her foreign policy votes are horrifying.  And I said I would not vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq War and I am standing by my statement.

    Hillary is just not my kind of candidate.  Way to far to the right.  Also, I find her to be very unlikeable and I that is a serious problem for the general election.

    Lastly, you smarter-than-everyone-else kids really need to come to grips with what people are saying about your candidate, instead of dismissing them as a lack of knowledge and understanding.  You're heading into Ron Paul territory.


    Why is it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    that if you disagree, criticize, or just plain don't support Hillary, you are accused of hating her?

    Because her folks have figured out (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM EST
    how to build an Overton frame around that one, but still haven't gotten it in their heads that Bushie and Rover are even more adept at building those frames to push their agenda. The latter with the result that HRC and the other corporatocrats stand there with that deer-in-the-headlights look, and ask "where do I go to submit, again?"

    Because some folks, after they (none / 0) (#5)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    "disagree, criticize, or just plain don't support Hillary", they then go on to make a totally false statement to support their anti-Hillary view.  

    Case in point -  She gets it for adopting Republican positions, rhetoric and framing. - even though Hillary votes with the Democratic majority 97% of the time.  

    Only Hillary hatred could make someone so blind to the facts.


    I'm starting to realize (4.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 02:45:18 PM EST
    Hillary's candidacy will do more damage to the Democratic party than any Republican dream.

    Still letting other people's (none / 0) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:42:01 PM EST
    commentary provide you with a fact-free spin?

    Swing (none / 0) (#13)
    by DA in LA on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:27:02 PM EST

    It's because (none / 0) (#8)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    some Democrats seem to have nostalgia for a time when the foaming-at-the-mouth "Clinton Haturs" were vanquished by a Clinton.  Back then, the foaming-at the mouth Clinton haters were the right wing thugs.  Now, the crazy foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton Haturs are of the liberal blog reading variety.  And Hillary, like Bill, will beat the Haturs.  Or so they hope.

    Hillary supporters seem to think that by smearing progressive in 2007 by lumping them in with the "Clinton Haturs" of the 90s it will somehow convince voters that Hillary is really the most electable.  I don't know if smearing those to the left of Hillary (a large number of people) is so wise.  


    Hillary is a polarizing figure (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    for everyone, not just republicans.

    She is not Bill Clinton.  She doesn't have the charm or the charisma to make up for the fact that like Bill Clinton she will govern and make all decisions by polls and focus groups.

    I don't know what makes BTD and Jeralyn oblivious to the obvious and brings about these ridiculous posts.  Granted it's her site so they can do what they want.  But it does undermine their credibility that they are willing to ignor so much and pass on the company line on Hillary.

    Progressives are finaly realizing that she is everything the right has been screaming about for years.

    Hillary Haters (none / 0) (#10)
    by SFHawkguy on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    I'm curious if a concerted effort was made by Hillary supporters to interject "Hillary Haters" into the political lexicon.  It's a very divisive phrase, meant to preempt rational arguments against Hillary.  It's also very Rovian.  Has Hillary adopted the Karl Rove playbook and is she asking her supporters to use the "Hillary Haters" talking point?

    I predict this dirty trick will backfire.  It's meant to divide Democrats between the foaming-at-the-mouth liberal progressives and the rational third-way triangulating Democrats that are winners, i.e. Clinton  supporters. But this false, Rovian, preemptive smear will be hard to pull off in a Democratic primary.  Hillary's supporters are basically drawing the line in the sand and saying you're either a crazy Hillary Hater or on the winning side--you're either with us or against us.  It unnecessarilly alienates people to Hillary's left.  She should treat those to her left with respect and listen to their concerns.  Jeez, she's more solicitous of right-wing criticisms of her than she is of those to her left and she never goes on the attack against the right-wingers like she does the left. That's a heck of a strategy in a primary.

    Hillary Haters

    Couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#12)
    by DA in LA on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    I have not felt this way, under assault for my beliefs, in a long time.  And the last group to make me feel this way was indeed Rove and company after 9/11 and over the following couple of years.

    I find it very disturbing.


    you are either (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    with her or against her.