Slow Week

Hillary Clinton is still drawing crowds in New Hampshire. Blah blah blah. But I did like the Hillary parts of this article by Garrison Keillor.

Senator Clinton is speaking in that voice and her poise and intelligence stand out in the field of candidates. She’s had so much experience in the limelight that she’s no longer enchanted by it. All of the articles about Whether America Is Ready To Elect A Woman have been written, and now we can move on and look at real issues. We need to figure out how to accommodate the millions of good folks who are here illegally and have become a part of our social fabric. Medicare should be extended to cover everybody. Our infrastructure and industrial base need rebuilding.

One of Hillary Clinton’s visible assets is the army of enemies she has accumulated, the carpet-chewers of AM radio and the right-wing trolls who go berserk in their webby caverns whenever madame comes trotting over the bridge. One could not hope for better enemies. It is like playing softball against drunks. They illustrate everything about Republican dominion that the country has come to loathe, the blithering arrogance, the cynicism and corruption, and this wretched war that drags on and on.

This And That

* Hillary is drawing record crowds in New Hampshire.

* Clinton introduces the "Student Borrower Bill of Rights"

"There are too many students in New York State and across the country that are overly burdened with loan payments or treated unfairly as they repay student loans. This bill makes it easier for students to repay their loans by putting in place a basic set of rights, including the right to borrow without exploitation and the right to real loan choices," said Senator Clinton.

Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher education. Today two-thirds of college graduates face loan repayments. At the same time, college costs continue to grow and need-based grant aid remains idle. Over the past decade, the average debt burden for college graduates has increased 58 percent, after accounting for inflation. And today, the average borrower graduating from a public four- year institution owes $15,500, while one in ten students owe $33,000 or more. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights will make it easier for students to repay loans by giving borrowers rights that are enforceable. Often, too many students see their costs go up after they think they've already budgeted for what they can pay. The bill provides borrowers the right to fair, monthly payments that do not exceed a certain percentage of their incomes as well as fair interest rates and fees.

When student loans are burdensome, borrowers may avoid important but low-paying professions, such as public health workers, social workers, and teachers. The burden of student loans also prevents college graduates from pursuing a higher degree. According to studies by the Nellie Mae Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates who do not go to graduate school, blame student loan debt. The prospect that student loans will be a great burden may also prevent successful high school students from going to college. Twenty percent of low-income high school graduates qualified for college, do not go to college. Senator Clinton has worked tirelessly to provide accessible and affordable education to all students. During the 109th Congress, two provisions from the Student Borrower Bill of Rights were enacted into law. These provisions enable borrowers to choose lenders with acceptable income-sensitive repayment terms when consolidating student loans.

* Hillary on Big Eddie Schultz's show.

* A great floor speech Iraq. It's pretty long, but it's important.

This And That

* Erica C. Barnett has a great post up on the "schizophrenic" coverage of women in politics, especially Clinton. Barnett is an Edwards supporter, but less so in the last few days. And worth reading anyway (although from the date stamp you can see she is not a daily read for me, except on Slog).

* I think this story overplays the differences in styles between Obama and Clinton. After all, Obama hit back pretty well with the Islamic school nonsense. But I do want someone who's willing to give back as hard as the Republicans are going to throw and then some:

“When you’re attacked, you have to deck your opponents,” she said to cheers from Iowa Democrats. “I want to run a positive, issue-oriented, visionary campaign. But you can count on me to stand my ground and fight back.”

No stranger to bare-knuckle politics, Clinton knows how to win, and her style would perpetuate the kind of politics the country has enjoyed - or endured - for more than a decade.

* I'm not sure exactly what to make of this article, but I am happy with how it ended:

Still, in all fairness to Hillary, her voting record on traditionally Democratic issues like civil rights and public education is undoubtedly liberal - it's on 'Republican' issues like foreign policy that she's more centrist. And though I may not like it, it's a politically realistic way to deal with a major challenge of being a female candidate for President - how to appear tough enough to be Commander in Chief without sacrificing one's womanliness. It's not easy, especially in today's machismo-driven political climate.

And Hillary of all people knows the power of presentation; after all the time she spent on irreproachably worthy causes, her highest approval ratings resulted not from her years of work at the Children's Defense Fund but from the sympathy that accrued in the wake of her husband's affair. For much of her term as first lady, the oft-changing hair covering her head got more attention than the unfaltering brain inside it. The impact of the years of personal scrutiny is reflected in her campaign website, which features pictures of baby Hillary and Mom Hillary alongside articles entitled 'Senator Soothing: Hillary Clinton can be Warm, Casual.'

When a 21-year-old Hillary Rodham made her commencement address to the Wellesley Class of '69, she said 'we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap.' I may not be thrilled about some of her more blatant political maneuvering, but I do believe that the idealistic Hillary - the Hillary who did her thesis on children's rights and criticized the Taliban's treatment of Afghani women before anyone else cared about Afghanistan - is still alive and kicking. She's just got to prove it to the rest of the country.

House Keeping

This blog is now Washingtonians for Hillary because there is a Washingtonians for Hillary Clinton. And even though this one was first, and it makes sense with the URL. The King County party has Washingtonians for Hillary Clinton and I'm already the first link on Google for "Washingtonians for Hillary" in quotes. So that's something. Also, if the electing Hillary Clinton as president thing fails, I can be for Edmund Hillary.

Caucuses

Remember when Clinton hadn't visited Iowa in more than 3 years and Edwards had practically taken up residence there and he was slightly ahead in the polls? Well, it's funny how things can change isn't it? Lots of things can happen in the next year, God knows. Still, it's nice to see her on top.

Mrs Clinton commands the support of 35% of voters who say they are likely to attend the Iowa caucuses, according to a poll conducted by the American Research Group. Former Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards, who had been in pole position on other early polls, was second with just 18%.

Previous polls in Iowa had put the former First Lady in fourth place, behind Mr Edwards, Senator Barack Obama and Iowa governor Tom Vilsack.

In New Hampshire, which holds the first primary next year, Mrs Clinton leads Mr Obama 39%-19%.

Both surveys were conducted after Mrs Clinton made high-profile visits to Iowa and New Hampshire to kick-off her campaign. Though it is nearly a year before the first real votes will be cast, these early polls are important for Mrs Clinton's ability to present herself as the candidate whose eventual triumph is "inevitable".

I don't think anything is inevitable with a year of campaigning but it's good to see. It's another reminder that the more people see Hillary Clinton the more they like her.

The People Who Know Them Best

It's interesting to see people so surprised that Hillary Clinton is "trouncing Rudy" Giuliani in a head to head in New York. In 2000, she was ready to beat him in a head to head Senate race until he got cancer, and dropped out. Since then, the people of New York have had a chance to see what a good Senator she's been. And one or two things has come out about Giuliani.

What people have seen is a good solid liberal. Someone who works for the interest of up and down state New York. Someone who's comfortable in the minutia of farm subsidies and of the Federal response to 9/11. They've seen someone who has genuinely made their lives better.

New Yorkers (and the rest of the country) are sick of divisive Republicans who can't or won't do anything for ordinary people. They know both candidates quite well, and when the rest of the country gets a look, I suspect we'll see similar numbers everywhere.

This And That

* James Wolcott has an interesting post on how the media are treating women involved in this presidential race (Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards). This part of a superbly long paragraph about Dowd is wonderful:

What's strange about the anti-Hillary hostility is how it glosses over the fact that Mrs. Clinton has not only been elected Senator of NY, she's been reelected handsomely; MoDo stills writes about her as if she were a presumptuous, calculating upstart who just popped out of her husband's shadow rather than a politician who's proven herself a powerful vote-getter twice (and a capable officeholder). She writes as if Hillary's omnipresence were a personal affront. As Tom Watson notes, Chris Matthews's antagonism towards Hillary is even worse--it's evolved into a separate branch of pathology. I know it's rough on Chris and MoDo and Mike Barnicle and Imus and the rest, but the sad truth is that we're not going back to the prefeminist suburban paradiso when Daddy was the sole breadwinner and Julie London made sultry music on the hi-fi and a pot roast was forever being warmed in the oven by a wife waiting all day for her Galahad to pull into the driveway--what Matthews half-jestingly considers the good old days.

* Clinton on CHIP funding:

It is unconscionable that the President’s answer to our health care crisis is to cut the already strained health care safety net for our most vulnerable. The President’s plan to cut funding to states for the Children’s Health Insurance program and slash tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid is more evidence of the President’s misplaced priorities. These cuts would take us backward and only magnify our health care challenge. We need to move forward and make health care more affordable and accessible for seniors, families struggling to make ends meet and the millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans. We face a real challenge on health care that we must confront head on. This is exactly the wrong approach. I will work to stop this short-sighted scheme and instead put us on the path to making quality, affordable health care accessible to all Americans

* And on the recent U.N. report on climate change.

This 'n' That

* Mitt Romney doesn't think Hillary Clinton would go to war with Iran, and that that's a bad thing. That makes Hillary sane and Mitt a jerk.

* The video of the Winter Meeting of the DNC.

* Speaking of the Winter Meeting, my sister was there and although she isn't supporting Hillary, she said that she liked the speech. And she may have a full report up here (even though she's also not a Washingtonian).

* An interesting article in Newsweek on Clinton's faith if you can ignore the stupid in the first couple paragraphs.

I Would Hope So

Hillary Clinton said that she would end the war if she was president. This is obviously something that can and should be said about any Democrat running for president. And frankly, it probably isn't enough just to say this far out. I'd hope that all of the candidates have more specifics about how to get out in the coming year, and anybody who doesn't isn't getting past the primaries.

I'm not sure who "core Democrats" are that the article mentions. There are plenty of people in the party who don't support her because of her vote on the war or some other thing. And that's fine, we're having a great debate in this country, and people will chose their candidate based on a verity of things.

Still there are people like me who disagreed with the vote, but still support her in part because we think that she'd do a good job of getting us out, as well as the fact that she's been a great Senator on most things that Democrats care about, and lead on import issues like choice and labor issues, and on the war more recently. There are also plenty of "core Democrats" who supported the war, or at least the resolution, and who like Clinton have changed their minds since then because of Bush's lying and the execution of the war itself.

I also think that the difference between the authorization and being pro-war are important. I don't want to let her off the hook for a vote that I don't think she should have made, but here's what she was saying about it at the time:

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right. [...]

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. [...]

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

Again, I disagree with the vote she took, and she probably shouldn't have trusted President Bush to do the right thing. None the less, getting into this war in the first place wasn't her idea.

Hair and Clothes

See if you can spot the silly in these two paragraphs:

“There will be more stories about my clothes and hair than some of the people running against me,” she said.

“I’m going to be asking people to vote for me based on my entire life and experience,” said Mrs. Clinton, who walked around a stage surrounded by people, with a microphone affixed to the lapel of her pantsuit. “The fact that I’m a woman, the fact that I’m a mom, is part of who I am.”

The article is from last Sunday and I was going to ignore it (and I should say that overall the tenor was better than, "she says we'll focus on her cloths, and she's wearing a pantsuit"), but as far as I can tell the New York Times has decided not to cover her plan for improving the condition of the middle class.

Now perhaps her plan isn't fleshed out enough. And there is certainly time ahead to talk about all of the Democrats' plans for various things foreign and domestic. But maybe Hillary Clinton talking about how to stop wage stagnation in the middle class might be more "fit to print" than the fact that she wears a pantsuit.