“In 2008, Hillary Clinton wasn’t seen as the candidate of change. Her vote to authorize the Iraq War proved hugely problematic and turned off many progressive primary voters. So how will she make the case in 2016 that she wasn’t able to make in 2008? It’s likely she will emphasise her chance to make history as the first female president of the United States.” (NPR website)
I for one am no more interested in Hillary being the first woman President than I am about Obama being the first black one. What I want to know is what her policies are likely to be:
1. Is she going to send troops to get embroiled in the Middle East? (Best personal guess – yes)
2. What are her views about about the growing gap between rich and poor and what will she do about it? (Best personal guess – absolutely nothing).
3. What will she do about the dismal educational system in the US? (Best personal guess – maybe she will try, but Congress won’t let her)
4. Her party is resentful of Wall Street. Will she get serious about financial sector reform. (Best personal guess – no, she needs their money)
5. Will she support the anti-democratic trade agreements? (Best personal guess – of course)
6. Will she support a rapprochement with Iran (jury out)
Who feels differently? If so, please tell us why.
The problem with Obama is that he is preoccupied with this idea of “first black President” He has been very anxious not to mess up and preclude any other black person being President in the future. This has made him very cautious. And he hasn’t messed up, but much, much more was expected of him, and there is great disappointment.
Hillary has the same problem if she goes on about the First Woman. The difference is that Hillary is a paid-up member of the Washington Consensus* already, and the difference in views between her and mainstream Republicans is so far slight. She won’t rock any boats. It’s possible she might surprise, but at the moment she is a huge yawn.
* Washington Consensus means subscribing to “American exceptionalism”, full- blooded support and use of the military, don’t antagonise Wall Street, AIPAC, the gun lobby and especially big business; keep beating up on the usual enemies ( you have to have them) and keep the main objective – money – clearly in view.
Just out of interest, do you support a rapprochement with Iran and what do you think Hilary’s views are on the issue?
On everything else I think I agree with you. Hilary is further to the right than Obama, her presidency will change nothing. This a comment posted on Facebook by a friend, who happens to be the deputy returning officer of the Oxford Union:
“I love how if Clinton was making a bid for power in the UK people would be castigating her as a right-wing neocon. She doesn’t support single-payer healthcare (read: systems like the NHS), she was been silent on Wal-Mart’s union-busting whilst she was a board member, and she’s in favour of greater executive authority and opposed to transparency about programs such as the NSA. She makes David Cameron look like Natalie Bennett.”
Hillary will do whatever the lobbyist tell her and what brings in most money for her campaign (and the inevitable second term). So I don’t think she will contemplate a serious rapprochement with Iran while Israel is so adamantly opposed. I personally believe it is simply crass not to bring Iran in from the cold and talk to them, not bully them, after all this time, and bearing in mind the fact that we caused the rift in the first place.. Iran is a big country, with an educated population, an excellent army and means of causing a lot of trouble. We should be trying to stabilize the region , not rile it, which means dropping the aggresiveness. To this extent the interests of the US are different from the perceived interests of Israel (but that is another debate!)
I think we ought to be concerned about Iran getting a nuclear weapon and its horrific abuse of human rights, as well as the fact that it is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. So in that regard, I agree with Netanyahu that the deal is not good enough. But I also agree with you that we ought to be stabilising the region. I think the interests of the US and Israel are the same: a stable Middle East. This means that we should not antagonise the Iranians, but if they act aggressively, and if it can be proven that they are still trying to get a nuclear weapon despite the deal, then we need to act as a counterbalance. I also think we ought to end our alliance with the Saudi Arabians, as this makes us less popular with the Iranians and the Saudi’s human rights records are almost as bad. Epicurus would have called for moderation: alliances with dictatorial regimes, be they Iran or Saudi Arabia, are anything but moderate.