I did not support, and will not support, Hillary Clinton in her
quest to become President of the United States for one very simply
reason.
I could point to a host of policy choices with which I disagree with
Senator Clinton. Consider, for instance, her support for the Iraq War,
not only at outset but for years afterwards, a position she only
reversed formally when she entered the race for the Democratic
presidential nomination in January 2007. Or her mandated health care
plan, a similar version of which recently became law in Massachusetts
and is being unveiled in very wobbly ways. It does little to address
costs, as the Obama plan does more directly, and this omission is causing huge problems in the Bay State.
These policies differences matter, of course, but ultimately even
they were not enough of a reason in my consideration of HIllary
Clinton's candidacy. Ultimately, I believe Hillary Clinton lacks the
one quality many observers believe is the most important for anyone who
is President: judgment.
Think about her folly pursuit of health care reform in the early
1990s. Despite public and private concerns about the secrecy with
which she planned the legislation or the vastness of the reforms she
sought, Hillary Clinton never wavered. Until the bitter end, just a
few short months before the disastrous 1994 elections that brought Newt
Gingrich into the White House (thus permitting the remaining Clinton
years to be dominated by bitter partisan fighting, government
shutdowns, and tabloid scandal), Hillary Clinton insisted on her type
of health care plan, or none at all.
Compromise? Adjustment? Course correction? Never! Whatever you
want to call it, the idea of quiting what had begun and adjusting to
reality simply never occurred to Hillary Clinton. Instead, she put her
head down and fought until she simply got handed an embarrassing loss
by a Democratically controlled Senate.
The same inability to quit must surely seen in her marriage to Bill
Clinton as well. Despite suffering through a least a decade of
extramarital affairs and the then-public humiliation of its disclosure,
Hillary Clinton remained steadfast at Bill Clinton's side. Some might
question that decision not to quit a marriage, but let it pass in light
of what we know happened next between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
In that light, Hillary Clinton's decision not to quit her marriage
seems almost unfathomable. Indeed, her own blind denial of the reality
of the affair, even as report after report clearly pointed the rest of
the nation to its existence, goes to the heart of Hillary Clinton's
questionable judgment. By 1998, most the country did not believe Bill
Clinton regarding the Lewinsky affair. Yet Hillary did, and continued
to believe him until that fateful day on August 15th when he finally
had to tell her the truth.
Still, there would be no quitting from Hillary Clinton. Bill
Clinton might have to sleep on the couch for two months, but the
marriage would not end.
There would also be no quitting from Hillary Clinton about the Iraq
war. From her first vote to authorize the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton
remained one of the most consistent supporters of the war, despite
overwhelming evidence that the original mission and its very conduct
were compromised, if not broken altogether.
Hillary's views on the war did not change until early November 2006,
when two events galvanized her thinking. First, Democrats took back
both the House and the Senate, and elected many anti-war first-time
members of Congress. Second, and even more telling, on November 20,
2006, Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania -- one of the most
conservative Democrats in Congress, and a longtime supporter of the war
-- held an emotional press conference (twice breaking down in tears) to
condemn the Iraq War.
Calling it "a flawed policy, wrapped in an illusion," Murtha
denounced the Iraq war and said it was time to bring our troops home.
Only then, with political cover present and plans no doubt underway
to begin a Presidential campaign just a few months later, did she began
to obliquely criticize the very war she had supported strongly for so
many years.
And now we find yet another instance of Hillary Clinton's inability
to quit: the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race itself. It
seems as though no one can pursue her now of the folly of this race.
Despite winning fewer contests, votes, and supporters in the Senate,
Hillary Clinton remains intent on fighting on and on and on. Whether
it ends in June with a super-delegate bake-off, or in August with a
convention floor bloodbath, it's clear that Hillary Clinton will not
quit this fight either. Watching her on the campaign trail these days,
more than a year after the fight for the nomination began and longer
after any Democratic presidential candidate has had to campaign in
decades, one senses a punch-drunk happiness to Hillary.
She's in it, certainly, but not to win it. Indeed, most of the
great political battles fought by Hillary Clinton resulted in crushing
defeats. Instead, what Hillary Clinton seems to be doing is climbing
in the ring for another round for its own sake. Unable to win but
unwilling to lose, Hillary battles endlessly, believing the blood on
the floor and in her mouth is a kind of victory in itself.
It might even be a rationale for life itself. Now sixty years old,
Clinton has spent most of her public life in the act of fighting and
not quiting. It's almost tragic, but not quite. Had she been forced
into this life, it might qualify for the stage. Instead by consciously
and consistently exercising poor judgment, Hillary Clinton has
demonstrated to me that she should not be returned to the White House.
The last thing we need in 2008 is a President who thinks the ability to take a punch amounts to wisdom.
