Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich lays it out in the open for anyone who’s been wondering where he stands on HRC.
His whole post is only five paragraphs long, and it’s direct.
He covers Hillary’s willingness to damage the party:
In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had HRC’s statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn’t. This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party’s nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent.
And he speaks from first hand experience about the fine fellow running her campaign:
I suppose I should not be surprised…….when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was HRC who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to “triangulate” by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward.
Reich seems resigned to the outcome:
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm…….Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America — including, especially, the nation?s youth — been so inspired. The Clintons would prefer to write off ?Obamania? as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change.
The money finish:
HRC’s tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from — internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans’ cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
Reich is well respected, and I admire his honesty. In five paragraphs he cuts through all the noise around this campaign, and speaks directly to the reasons why Obama should be the nominee.
This guy has been an Obama rump swab for a long time now. What did he say in this article that was actually factual, triangulate this, scorched earth that … Dick Morris. Good grief, enough already.
<
p>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
<
p>Snoozer, this is exactly what we do not need from people. Reich should follow the advice of this poster who says that Obama and Clinton Supporters should Drop Out of the Race.
Let’s have people vote, then we nominate the one with the most votes. What do you think? No? Scorched earth you say?
<
p>But, but, but, Robert Kennedy? — What about Robert Kennedy? I thought he was Barack Obama.
worked in the Clinton White House as Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary. That tells you something about the Hillary campaign.
<
p>A couple of factual statements that you might have missed.
Hillary’s tack of praising GOP nominee McCain (and herself) in comparison to Obama, is a fact. Reich claims he’s never seen that before in a presidential campaign. Besides it being ‘factual’, it points out Hillary’s willingness to denigrate her own party.
<
p>On the strategy of Bill Clinton to move away from the Democratic party and to the right:
And this was before GATT, NAFTA and the WTO. Reich is correct in his description of Clinton’s policies. In addition, Reich doesn’t even touch on the repeal of Glass Steagall, led by then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin & Alan Greenspan. This triumph of “deregulation” in 1999 came just before Rubin left the WH to become the head of Citibank.
Citibank is now looking for a bailout to prevent collapse, and Rubin is a top financial adviser to the Hillary campaign.
<
p>If you want to attack the messenger rather that address his criticisms of the Clinton’s, that’s fine, but claiming that Reich doesn’t present facts, is just incorrect.
<
p>BTW, dismissing Mark Penn’s record doesn’t make it disappear. Reich touches briefly on Penn, but barely touches the surface of how corrosive an influence he is on the Democratic party in general, and for Hillary in particular.
you had something to back up your snark about facts. My mistake.
<
p>If you want to claim that someone doesn’t have facts, show where. Merely calling Reich names, or calling me a hater for presenting something negative about HRC, is IMHO pretty weak.
<
p>
First he posts that Obama’s health care plan is better than Clinton (or problem Edwards for that matter) and that it will actually cover more people. Kind of odd since he leaves out 15 million people. I enjoyed the post heading, he’s an idiot.
<
p>Then our esteemed blogger tried to bail himself out and not seem like he’s carrying water for the Obama campaign, it’s obvious that he knew what he was posting was completely wrong. This happens about a month later says that they are pretty much the same, why are we debating mandates. Who knows which one is better. Weeeeeeeeee…
<
p>His credibility is shot. Posting something from Reich is like posting Obama campaign material. It really too bad, he could have been useful to everyone during the primaries. But instead he chose a different path. Best of luck to him and to you as well.
<
p>On with the hating….
Just pointing out this kind of postings are worthless and you don’t agree.
I was just pointing out the irony in your trying to label all Clinton criticism as “hating” while at the same time using hateful words to describe Reich.
He already established a pattern, and it bothers me. That’s all.
right out of the box:
<
p>When I pointed out that what he said in his post was in fact true, you continue to change the subject to health care, and to denigrate Reich. I see that you don’t want to address Reich’s points.
<
p>Since Reich actually worked in the Clinton White House, it’s laughable that you try to dismiss him because he’s been critical of Hillary.
<
p>Next time you want to be cute with the snark, please try to bring something to back it up.
What does this have to do with Hillary again? Do you understand what I’m saying?
<
p>But coming back to being factual, you need more than an unlinked quote from an article. It’s kind of embarrassing don’t you think? Honestly, so did we have less poverty? People with health care? Unemployment rate? Including jobs with good salaries? Reduction of National Debt? Home ownership? Which one of these are not what Democrats what to have?
<
p>Listen, these are not reasons to vote for Hillary. These are things that happened during Bill Clinton’s presidency. I think Reich and people of his ilk are completely and utterly useless. Your posting of the article and this cut/paste response that I don’t really understand is pushing this even more. Sorry if you feel otherwise and feel this is useful, but you’d be wrong.
I’m sorry, you’re right. Analysis and debate over a candidate’s style of politics is “completely and utterly useless.”
does not mean that figure holds water.
<
p>And, I tend to listen to a guy who actually worked with the Clintons intimately. He was close to them both and thinks they have gone over to the dark side. He knows them a lot better than you do and think they are sell-outs. Believe me, he could have stuck with them and come to back to power potentially with them – that he decided to stick it to them despite himself shows he has some principles.
<
p>I discount what you say more alot than what he says. You only speculate, Reich actually has been involved with them.
FYI, John Edwards used the number many times, this was discussed in detail in just the past few months during the debates. It does seem that we go through a lot of information in a short period of time, but we can’t be forgetting some of the more substantial discussions the candidates had earlier in the primary. Jonathan Cohn at TNR crunched the numbers and gave an estimate. Has Obama even said that the numbers were wrong? Come on now, this is very poor.
that is that Reich likely has his own agenda, and “power pathology.” And the agenda’s not necessarily “truth-telling.” I stated this earlier; don’t misunderstand this guy. He’s got an ego the size of frickin Montana (don’t they all) and probably didn’t get his ass smooched enough by Bill.
And his words should carry some weight. He was a close friend of the Clintons for years. He went to Oxford with Bill. He is staunch progressive, who I’d imagine many of us would have liked to see as Governor in 2002. He knows their politics and persons better than most. Its worth asking why he turned off to them.
<
p>I tend to think its because he lost faith in their aims and saw that they craved power more for its own sake then for what they could do with it.
<
p>
on Mr. Reich. I had the opportunity to see that guy up close and personal, and I was NOT impressed. A very dear friend of mine hosted a backyard soiree for him, paid hundreds of dollars for food and drinks (money she could ill afford) and the candidate came two hours late, gave a few words from her porch…and then took off. I was embarrassed for her and just plain annoyed that I had spent so much time helping her prepare for a five minute blowhard speech. Manners don’t cost a thing, lanugo, and he doesn’t have any. I wound up voting for the other guy.
<
p>My own observation on Reich, is that he’s another self-important, pontificating piece of work who didn’t get his ass smooched long and hard enough by the Clinton’s to suit him.
This attitude that the Clintons are power-hungry and amoral is just false. Not least because you’ve started reading their minds when you write statements about what they “crave.”
<
p>Look, they do seek power. So does Obama, so did Kucinich, and anybody else running for the most powerful job in the world. A slacker recently tried to run for President, and Grandpa Fred Thompson quit after he found out it didn’t give him time for his nap schedule. You can’t do jack-diddly without power, so people who want to use government to improve American life are going to seek power.
<
p>But among the big-name Democrats, who has spent the most political capital trying to get healthcare for the people who dry clean your suits, the people who drive your taxi cabs, the people who vacuum your office carpets at night?
<
p>Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
<
p>Yes, they were defeated. By Republicans who like the status quo and think there’s some moral failing inside dry-cleaners, cabdrivers, and janitors. By a media which does not care whether government policy helps or hurts the majority. And by Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jim Cooper who sought power, too, and were content to sink universal healthcare and reap the bounty of a grateful insurance lobby. (I can understand why the GOP fought it, that’s their way. I’m miffed at the media’s philosophy. But I’m angered at the Dems who fought it because Democrats are supposed to look out for the people who aren’t born rich and lucky.)
<
p>So you can claim that a young Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1994 didn’t have the political know-how to get universal healthcare, but there’s no logical way to claim “they craved power more for its own sake then for what they could do with it.”
<
p>They went all in and lost for universal healthcare. That’s not some selfish interest in the Ayn Rand sense. Bill and Hillary were never going to end up with incomes too modest to get insurance.
<
p>(As a final note, because the Clintons got so close to reforming the system, the health insurance industry kept its rates even or only slightly higher for about three years, out of fear that angering the public might give the Democrats and the Clintons more political capital to get the job done.)