"No Surprises"

by hilzoy

As I see it, there are good reasons for Democrats to vote for Obama, and good reasons to vote for Clinton. Personally, I think that there are more good reasons to vote for Obama, but that reasonable people can differ on this score. But there is one argument in favor of Clinton that I've seen around lately, and that I think does not hold water: that the Republicans have already thrown everything they have at Clinton, and so we already know what's out there and what effect it's likely to have. Or, as Clinton herself put it:

"I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises."

I have no particular reason to think that there are any surprises out there. But I also don't think there is any good reason to think that there aren't. In particular, the fact that the Republicans threw everything they had at the Clintons while Bill Clinton was President would only imply that there was nothing left for them to throw if we assume that no new dirt has come into existence since 2000.

In thinking about this, it might help to read this NYT story, about Bill Clinton helping a mining company get a contract in Kazakhstan, after which the head of the mining company gave $31.3 million to Clinton's charitable foundation, and pledged $100 million more. Alternately, one might peruse TNR's list of Clinton's shadiest donors, and reflect on Clinton's failure to make her tax returns public. One might also ask oneself: if the Republicans knew about some scandal that had developed since 2000, would they be more likely to use it during one of Clinton's Senate campaigns, when she was virtually certain to win regardless of what they came up with, or to hold it in reserve in case she ran for President?

Again: I absolutely do not want to suggest that there is any actual dirt on the Clintons for the Republicans to dig up. Nor am I trying to argue against voting for Clinton. As I said above, I think there are good reasons to vote for her. I just don't think that this is one of them.

Comments

[Barnabas]

KcinDC: "If you want a pro-Clinton post, perhaps you should get your own blog for that."

That sounds an awful lot like "Love it or leave it", which I do not associate with debate. I am not inclined to particularly cheer any candidate in the US elections, specifically because I cannot vote for any of them.

I must admit I tend to expect a lot of balance from ObWi, largely because of the "Voice of Moderation" byline, but indeed it may be that the balance is between the two official parties and not elsewhere.

Goodbye.

[liberal japonicus]

Barnabas,
Given that the 'center' of ObWi is the notion that change is possible and that a true discussion and engagement with the issues is a good thing, it seems destined that the site (and this is not to assign all individuals here with a particular opinion) is going to be pro-Obama. His message and his modus operandi seem like a good fit here. And, as a teacher, I have found that people tend to write about what they want to write about and so do not do so well when they have an assignment. This may be at the heart of some criticism of Obama supporters, in that Clinto supporters feel that a failure to sufficiently defend HRC amounts to hypocrisy. The left has always been particularly susceptible to this kind of notion, similar to the question 'who is more committed to the revolution?'

Your complaint, on the other hand, is the opposite of that, which is that for us to be clear headed in our discussion, we should automatically balance things out when discussing two options. The problem is that this is what the US news media has turned to in discussing events, which has failed us miserably.

I don't want to make a defense of ObWi become an attack on you, so I'll stop there and hope that goodbye isn't permanent.

[john miller]

Barnabas, to be honest, I tend to think that of most sites that have a liberal/progessive bias (which ObWi does have, although being more accepting of right of center views than most) ObWi has tended to be one of the more balanced.

In times like this, you tend to see polarization of views, thus some sites are extremely pro-Obama and some are extremely pro-Clinton. At those sites, there is little to no tolerance of the opposite viewpoint.

There have been people defending Clinton here and as long as they make a rationale presentatioon they have been accepted. In some cases, the defense of Clinton has been an attack on Obama, which is less tolerated.

At the same time, the majority of pro-Obama people here have stated clearly that they would vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. Granted there are some who say they will either vote for McCain or abstain, but they are in the minority and basically represent people like OCSteve who actually find more in McCain that they agree with but are willing to vote for Obama because they have a sense he can actually accomplish something.

Hilzoy's post here is not to create a suspicion of things being hidden in a closet, but rather to simply state that the sense that Clinton has already withstood the barrage and come out on top is mistaken.

And as you can see from this thread, there is an acknowledgement that Obama will also be a target of vicious attacks.

[Hartmut]

To use that old stereotype: Jesus would have no chance of winning without cheating.
A Jew with uncertain father, violently anti-business, weak on national security, rumors of having an affair with a woman of a disreputable profession etc asf.
---
I think Clintonphobia is more like asthma or an allergy. I takes some time to get afflicted for the first time but later even tiny traces of stuff can trigger life-threatening attacks. The public was bombarded with so much stuff during the Clinton-WH years that many got the political asthma. Now even slight allusions to the old stuff is likely to get the anti-Clinton sentiment to full power again. The attempts to infect us with a similar reaction to Obama is on the way but not yet effective enough to make the election a foregone conclusion. Hillary might have a chance against Gingrich or Brownback but the risk against a (perceived) reasonable moderate like The Son of Cain is imo too big to take.
A position in the cabinet would be something completely different (if announced after the election).