35 years of progressive change? You decide.

This one's been up for a while at dKos and CCN. But finally here it is.  Mike P

Despite the fact that John Edwards' main claim of success while in the Senate, The Patients' Bill of Rights, never actually was enacted, and the fact that Hillary has plenty of change to run on, Edwards still claims that she defends the status quo against change.  It is noteworthy that in spite of all the successful work Hillary has done in support of the Children's Defense Fund and a longstanding friendship, CDF Founder Marian Wright Edelman says Hillary is no friend in politics. (link)  

Are Edwards and Edelman being realistic?  Or does Hillary really have the record of change to back up her claims of being best able to bring change?    As I wrote here, my overall take on Hillary is that, though not perfect, the seeming duality of her personality is explained thusly: Her intention is to do as much good as she can given the circumstances she has to work with.

Read and decide for yourself:

At Wellesley (link):

a) Worked for anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy, driving to new Hampshire on weekends.

b) Helped organize "teach-ins" on the war and on Civil Rights.

At Yale Law School(link)

a) (1970) Staff member of the Washington Research Project (later the Children's Defense Fund); wage was a stipend paid by a Law Student Civil Rights Research Council grant.  This activism is part of a thread that runs throughout her adult life.

b) worked at Yale Medical School on issues of early childhood education and healthcare. (1972) Research assistant for Anna Freud, Joseph Goldstein, and Albert Solnit (authors of Beyond the Best Interests of the Child) at the Yale University Child Study Center.

After graduation from Yale and before marrying Bill (link)

a) Worked with Marian Wright Edelman in Massachusetts for the Children's Defense Fund. (This work would later be followed with a stint on the board of Children's Defense Fund and passage of legislation favoring CDF interests. Her work as an advocate for children is also behind much of what she writes in It Takes a Village)

b) In 1974 Hillary participated in the Watergate inquiry into the possible impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon. (1974) Staff lawyer in charge of legal procedure for the special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, then inquiring into the impeachment of President Nixon, Washington, DC.

After Marriage to Bill

a) (1974-1976) Instructor at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

b) (1975-1979) US District Court (east district) of Arkansas, reporter for federal court speedy trial planning group.

c) (1976-1977) Adjunct professor and director of the legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock.

d) (1977) Associate at the Rose Law Firm.

e) (1980) Becomes first female partner at the Rose Law Firm.

f) (1980-1982, 1984-1992) During her husband's tenure as governor of Arkansas, holds a number of positions, including head of the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, board of director for the Arkansas Children's Hospital, member of the Southern Governors' Association Task Force on Infant Mortality.

g) (1986-1992) Head of the Board of Children's Defense Fund

During the White House Years

a) Crucial advisor to the President (link)

Was part of Decision to use force to rescue Albanian Kosovars from Milosevic.  Also advocated for intervention in Rwanda. (link)

b) Pushed for women, Madeleine Albright for instance, to have top positions (link)

c) Was part of use of "soft power" (link)

Her role mostly involved what diplomats call "soft power" -- converting cold war foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women's rights, human trafficking and the expanded use of microcredits, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.
...The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.

d) Health Care Task Force (See fantastic discussion by digby here)

e) Children's Defense Fund legislation showing the influence of Hillary's interests(link, link):

The Clinton administration enabled the most powerful successes of CDF to date. A deep commitment to children's issues was shared by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a college friend of Edelman's. This political backing yielded improvements such as an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided more support to working parents. Other legislation enacted during this time period included the Childhood Hunger Prevention Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Funding was also increased for the Head Start program and for child immunization.

The president promoted several of the CDF's positions in his legislative goals: he signed family leave legislation into law and stepped up enforcement of child support payments with the help of the Internal Revenue Service. He also proposed budgets that would fully fund or expand Head Start and WIC, advocated a comprehensive federal immunization program for children, and supported health care reform that would ensure care for children and pregnant women. Although not all these initiatives succeeded in Congress, the effort reflected the growing influence of the CDF on national policy.

Hillary in the Senate

a) A progressive voting record that does not favor corporate interests.

Other Affiliations over time

Affiliations
board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation; Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters; board of directors Arkansas Children's Hospital; ; board of directors Wal-Mart, TCBY, and LaFarge (resigned them all in May 1992); Board of directors Childrens Defense Fund, Washington, 1976-92, chair, 1986-91, Legal Services Corporation., Washington, 1977-81, chair, 1978-80; founder, president, board of directors for the Arkansas Advisory Committee for Children and Families, 1977-84; board of directors for the Child Care Action Campaign, 1986-92, National Center on Education and the Economy, 1987-92, Arkansas Children's Hospital, 1988-92, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, 1988-92, Children's TV Workshop, 1989-92, Pub./Pvt. Ventures, 1990-92; chairperson of the Arkansas Education Standards Commission, 1983-84; Member, Committee on Quality Education. So. Regional Edn. Bd., 1984-92; chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, 1987-91; honoray president Girl Scouts of America, 1993-; member of the advisory board of HIPPY, 1988-92, board of directors; honorary chair of the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities, 1993-, U.S. Delegate to the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995; honorary member of The Pen and Brush, 1996-. Fellow American Bar Foundation; member Arkansas Bar Association, Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, Arkansas Women Lawyers Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, Pulaski County Bar Association.



Display:


Thanks, Mike! (2.00 / 0)

You explained so well what this is all about. Do we want nice flowery language of "change", or do we want real action to make it happen? I hope we pick action. I hope we pick Hillary. She's the one who doesn't just talks, but acts for real change for real people. :-)


We shall overcome!
by atdleft on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:21:26 PM EST

Re: Thanks, Mike! (2.00 / 2)

I hope this helps people see that she really does have a progressive record and knows how to make things happen.  There is a thread running all the way from her time at Yale Law School through SCHIP today.  She has been working on issues like that for actually more than 35 years.  Since 1970 at least.


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is another story to tell (none / 0)

and I am not trolling here.

In 1982 Bill Clinton lost a re-election bid for Governor.  Most of the stuff I have read about the Clintons talk about this as a turning point in their careers.  Before that loss, Clinton had run a liberal administration.  After that he moved right, and never moved back.  It was Clinton who joined the DLC, who supported Reagan on the Contras.

As President his two lasting legacies are not progressive ones:

  1. NAFTA
  2. Welfare reform

As a Senator, Clinton supported the Iraq War (well, I think she did, who can tell).  

Her record over the past 15 years is not progressive: at best it is center left.  I will vote for her if she wins the nomination, but the Clinton's have made a political career based on "triangulating" against liberals.  


by fladem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is another story to tell (none / 0)

I happen to be from Arkansas.  Yes he lost the election.  Mainly because he supported the idea that teachers should have to pass a minimal skills test.  The teachers unions campaigned hard against him and blew it out of proportion.  But to say that he went way to the right when he won office again is to misread what actually happened.  You have to be in office to be able to do good things.  So they determined to piss off as few people as possible when they returned to the statehouse. As sappy or pragmatic as that may sound, it is what drives both Bill and Hillary.  They both want to do as much good as they can under the circumstances they have to work with.  And Bill was a very competent executive.


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is another story to tell (none / 0)

By the way, I agree about NAFTA and some other things.  I discussed that [here ].


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is another story to tell (none / 0)

oops here is the link


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Mike! (2.00 / 1)

btw Some of those links are to diaries of yours.  Thanks for your great work!!


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great job (2.00 / 0)

recommended.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:50:02 PM EST

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

The fact is that Hillary has had 35 years to make change and she doesn't have enough to demonstrate/show. You list affiliations? "Crucial advsior to President", "Drove to NH on weekends"? She was an "instructor", "reporter for federal court"???? But where is the change in any of that???? All thats missing is "worked paper route"!

I am sorry but what is presented above is not a list of 35 years of progressive change.

Its time to move on and try someone new.

She already had her chance- 8 years in the White House as "crucial advisor" and too many more years in the Senate to make changes and for whatever reason she didn't get it done. If she had we wouldn't be sitting where we are with the population asking for change.


Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.
by crackityjones on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:55:29 PM EST

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (2.00 / 0)

This is a stupid comment and you know it.  You are cherry picking to ignore the real things in the list of achievements, a list of activities related to the welfare of children that starts way back in 1970 and comes to fruition with all the CDF related legislation passed during the Clinton adminstration.  Good things like WIC and headstart.


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

Did you mention that most of her work for the Rose law firm was for corporate clients?  

Did you mention that she served on the Board of Walmart?  

Did you mention her extensive involvement in the DLC?

Did you mention her use of lies, cheap shots, and distortions against Obama over the past two months?


by upper left on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:31:27 PM EST

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (2.00 / 0)

Al Gore was part of the DLC once too. He even had Joe Lieberman as a running mate.  And yes I specifically put in a link to the Wal Mart part so some jackass wouldn't come along and imply something that wasn't true about her work there.  Who is lying about whom?  I think Obama is lying to attract the anti-war crowd.  Four years ago he admitted there was room for differences of opinion on the Iraq vote (link), the same sort of difference of opinion he talked about in the debate last night.  But now he and his supporters call Hillary a warmonger.

Aren't you Obama supporters embarassed by your childish caricaturization and minimization of the achievements for good of others?


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (2.00 / 1)

to me the problem with this diary is that it fails to recognize the definition of change that both Edwards and Obama are speaking to.  She can claim her 35 years of progressive experience in affecting people's lives, whether credible or not, but she cannot say that she works outside of the traditional confines of Washington, DC.  The only reason she is even in this race is because of her husband and the special interests who they both have maintained connections with, (you're lying to yourself if you deny that), whereas Edwards and Obama are funded by the people.  

The election of one of these candidates, in the mind of voters, can possibly be a monumental change in the way Washington works for the future.  As opposed to being bitched around by special interest groups and lobyists who funded your campaign, we think that the american people can directly tell these guys what we want done.  If they don't listen to us and act in our interests, we'll vote them out and sponsor someone else's campaign in the next cycle who will.  

This is quite different from the traditional poltiician who is almost always laregely supported by special interests, (i.e, your candidate).  In this traditional model, the way I and most younger people understand it, is that the various special interest groups give the politician money, and they in turn tell the large numbers of people who they control to vote for that politician.  They also provide enough funding for the candidate so he can go around talking him or herself up about how great he or she is in order to get additional support from those of the general public who are consistent duty-minded voters and who always end up choosing who they think is the lesser of two evils.  

This, in my opinion, explains why we have always had such low voter turnout numbers compared to our population.  The American people have largely been disenfranchised, and they consciously or subconsciously recognize it and don't bother voting.  

We finally have a set of candidates who have been funded directly by "us".  I for one am willing to "roll the dice" and see if it works.  If you Clintonites can't see the logic in this, it's because you don't want to and you are afraid of real change.  


by gabejack on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

There is no doubt that Hillary and Bill take money from lobbyists, though not even they take money from everybody.  But you are full of shite if you think Hillary is "pushed around by interests groups" any more than John or Barack would be.  She is one tough broad.  Look at what she did to Bill when he tried to water down her plan to appeal to an interest group (link):

Hillary was widely criticized for making the health task-force deliberations secret, insisting on pushing her proposal as an all-or-nothing package and targeting the health-care establishment as "the enemy" to be fought with a "war room." When Bill tried to make the plan more flexible, he had to defer to her... In July 1994, he was urged to accept a compromise plan with less than the universal coverage that Hillary wanted. When he unexpectedly told a group of governors in Boston that he would be willing to take 95 percent, Hillary immediately called her husband. "What the f--- are you doing up there?" she screamed, according to a West Wing adviser who was in her office at the time. "I want to see you as soon as you get back." The next morning the president not only recanted his statement but apologized.

Here is a case in point to show that Barack and John will face the same problems as Hillary: Universal Health Care is the main thing most people want, other than getting out of Iraq.  And if you look at how all three of the top candidates suggest they will do it, there isn't a lot of difference between them, except perhaps for the mandate part.  Hillary has a part in her plan to deal with special interests, as do John and Barack.  But none of them are talking about abolishing the insurance industry and going to single payer.  So they are all agreeing to let the insurance industry live another day.

Where is the big difference in practice then?  How is John or Barack exactly going to stand up to them in a way that Hillary will not?  All the talk about her representing special interests and them not representing special interests comes down to a big nothing.

And furthermore, Hillary has the voting record to back up her claim of not being controlled by corporate interests.  John and Barack mean well I think but they aren't going to be able to do any more than what Hillary will be able to do.  Probably less because she has way more political experience.

I will say that Barack is definitely inspirational and will be in the White House one way or another one day.  And even if John doesn't win he has set the terms for discussion for a whole generation.


by Mike Pridmore on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

Then explain why, in the end, the Cinton's lost the whole healthcare initiative?  Perhaps she used bad judgment in insisting that we not take the 95% as a starting point?  I think  a lot of people will say that 95% of what they were proposing more than 10 years ago is better than what we have now.

And, secondly, why on God's earth are the special interests giving her money in the first place if they don't think they can bitch her around when she gets into office.  Forgive me if i'm a novice but from my common sense perspective, it makes no sense to give someone money if they are not going to pursue objectives you care about?


by gabejack on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

Here is a nice discussion by digby about the health care dealings back then.  You might also read the related part in this piece by Nick Confessore.

As to the second part, John is getting money from trial lawyers and Barack has lobbyists on his team in both NH and SC.  So they aren't playing this quite as straight as they pretend.  Lobbyists definitely donate money hoping that they will at least get the ear of the one they are donating to if something important that affects them comes up.  Republicans were recently using money from K Street, which is the street where the special interests have their offices, to fund their elections and they were definitely playing to corporate interests.  

The kicker here is that if you try to get rid of all the special interests the Republicans will block it similar to the way they worked it out with special interests to block the Clinton health care plan.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:35:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

I can also tell how old you are by the way you refer to this woman as a "Broad"?  Don't you think that's a fairly demeaning word to be calling someone?  

For all of you older folks still supporting Clinton and other establishment candidates, some advice from a quote by someone many of you whose words you used to believe in but somehow along the road, I assume you lost your way and became just as a fearful of change as the generation that preceded you....
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
because the times they are a-changin'.


by gabejack on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:09:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

That can be a term of respect.  Accept that or not, makes me no difference.  I know what I meant.  And don't get in my way if you happen to be on the road when I am.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

That last bit was in jest by the way.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

Wow, good thing Hillary was so dead-set against 95% of Americans having health care.  Because now thanks to her efforts, 100% of Americans... oh, crap, that's right.

A president who doesn't know how to compromise, and goes on the attack the moment someone steps the tiniest big out of line?  Tried it for 8 years, against my will.  Didn't like it.

You know what the big difference is between Edwards/Obama's approach to health care?  They're willing to make compromises, and settle for 95% because it's a huge step up from where we are now.  Rather than do everything in secret, curse out anyone who doesn't worship the plan, and then take credit for the "success" of the plan after it fails utterly and sets back universal health care for a decade.  Let me repeat that - Hillary Clinton, specifically Hillary Clinton's arrogance, as highlighted in the boldface paragraph above, has done more to stop universal health care in this country than any lobbyist for the HMOs.  And I don't want to put health care's fate back in her hands any more than I'd want to put Brownie back in charge next time a hurricane hits.


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

That isn't why the plan failed.  When they did make concessions the Republicans went behind their backs and talked everyone into turning them down.  If you really want to know what happened you can read digby here.

And the same tricks that were used by Republicans then will be used against Obama or Edwards should they become president.  But my main point was that Hillary knows how to stand up for what she wants.  And that quote is just one example.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

And my point was that if standing up for what you want involves not budging when a compromise is offered, and reaming out anyone who tries to find a solution other than yours, you're not going to get what you want.  Or you're going to piss off an alienate the entire world, as Bush has done using the same kind of attitude.


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

Today, everyone, on the left and center anyway, agrees that we need to cover everyone.  Hillary was ahead of her time with that insight and you refuse to  give her credit.  In the end no compromise they offered was good enough, because Republicans were willing to do anything to be sure they failed.  You obviously haven't read the links I gave to explain why they failed.  Either that or you failed to understand them.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

And just about everyone agrees that we can't cover everyone without an incremental step that covers most people.  But you're missing the point - it's not what she tried to do, it's how she went about it.


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:28:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, Hillary! (none / 0)

And what would you really know about that?  I'm willing to bet you ignored every link I put up about this.  Hillary could have offered the perfect plan and it would have failed.


by Mike Pridmore on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (2.00 / 1)

My primary problem with the Clintons is not policy, although she is not as progressive as I would like.  My problem is not with her personal characteristics, although after Gore and Kerry I would prefer someone who is less stiff and mechanical.  

My problem with the Clintons is their approach to politics.  They made no effort to reign in the excesses of corporate money in politics when BC was Prez (remember the Lincoln Bedroom).  They have never made campaign finance reform or ethics reform a priority. They thought they were so clever they could use the power of the Presidency to beat the Repubs at the money game.  How well did that work out?  The Dems spent 12 years in the minority.

The Clintons embrace "old school hardball."  They have carried Oppo Research to new levels.  They are willing to out Rove, Rove.  I find this extremely distastful and extremely stupid.  Dems will never win consistently by trying to beat Repubs at slimeball and money games.  

These sort of games just damage the image of the party and give Repubs an excuse to say, "everybody does it."  I want some one who will change the game.


by upper left on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

And they eat babies for breakfast while they count their money. </snark>


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

Beyond snark do you understand my criticism of the Clintons and their political style? Do you think I am being unfair in my characterization?

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am trying to express my profound concern about these issues.


by upper left on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 35 years of progressive change? You decide. (none / 0)

Sorry, it looks like hyperbole to me.  They aren't doing any more oppo research than other candidates as far as I can tell.  If they are they don't seem to be using it very well.  The money might be more of a concern for me if Hillary had not had a very anti-corporate voting record.


by Mike Pridmore on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

35 years of change? (none / 0)

Woah buckaroo. Slow down there. Isn't "35 years of change" a bit of an oxymoron?


by mcdave on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:45:59 PM EST

Re: Oxy's for morons (2.00 / 1)

No... She fought hard for progressive changes every single year she's been in public life. Her list of accomplishments is impressive.

Let's see YOUR list, buckaroo.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oxy's for morons (none / 0)

Um... mcdave isn't running for anything, as far as I know.  He doesn't need a list.  And I can only assume, KnowVox, that you founded the ACLU and Greenpeace?  Or do you not have a list of accomplishments either?


"It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One."
by schroeder on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

mike- here are your diary stats (none / 0)

 from that OTHER website - #20 in comments, #99 in recommends, #43 in impact for the day.


by campskunk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:53:02 AM EST

Re: mike- here are your diary stats (none / 0)

Thanks campskunk!!  We hardly ever get as many recommends for Hillary diaries as we do comments.


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.