• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

In a speech to a group of Connecticut Democrats on Monday, Hillary Rodham Clinton, former first lady and New York senator, called President George W. Bush’s economic policies the worst the country has seen since Herbert Hoover was president. She pointed out that with huge tax cuts come cutbacks in government programs and services. And, for emphasis, she added that she’s fed up with people being called unpatriotic for challenging the administration’s policies – a declaration that drew a standing ovation.

Clinton has frequented the news of late, outgrowing her junior senator status and emerging as the national Democratic leader. No other prominent Democrat has lambasted Bush’s poor economic philosophy and reactionary foreign policy with the same zeal or candidness – not even those who seek to replace Bush in next year’s election. This is a problem.

The Democratic Party is a timid, thoroughly disorganized organization. None of its proclaimed leaders pose a prominent counterweight to Bush in the same way that House Speaker Newt Gingrich served as a check during his prime on Bill Clinton, also a popular president. Clinton’s remarks offer a small ray of hope for a those who place faith in the Democratic Party – unfortunately, as of now, she is not an option for the Democrat’s 2004 presidential candidate.

Clinton should rethink her decision not to run for president next year. Given what Democrats have to work with now, she’s the best option to try to defeat Bush’s administration. Most credible polls show that while Bush’s popularity has wavered, he handily defeats all of his contenders.

Clinton’s record is not at all unblemished. Besides various skeletons in her closet left over from her husband’s presidency, Clinton let down millions of progressive thinkers by helping write the president a blank check on Iraq, giving away Congress’ war declaration powers this past fall. She’s an in-the-box politician, skilled at working with big donors and business leaders; she is willing to compromise to get things done and to bolster her popularity.

But she’s also a compelling figure who will draw people’s attention and get them to consider whether Bush administration policies are best for them. She could turn on millions of voters, who otherwise would be withdrawn. If Hilary Clinton had come to Westwood Plaza this past week, the turn out would have been much larger than it was for another democratic presidential hopeful, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton offers a clearer vision than Edwards, the waffling Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., or Congressman Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., whose lack of leadership helped the Democrats utter failure in last November’s elections. Meanwhile, Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor whose ideas, particularly his strong anti-war stances, appeal to the left-wing of the Democratic faithful, is too unknown. Sen. Joe Leiberman, D-Conn., is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress and does not offer what the party needs now – a distinct break from Republicans.

But Clinton is more than the “least bad” option. While she isn’t great on some issues, she’s dead-on-target on the big issue: the economy. Clinton demonstrated a fiery unwillingness to let Bush use his popularity gained through invading Iraq to push his domestic agenda, an agenda headed by a huge tax cut designed to line the pockets of the richest Americans. She firmly rejects the inevitable cuts to education, environmental protection, prescription drug coverage and child care that will come with a ballooning military budget and hundreds of billions in tax cuts. Clinton shouldn’t be intimidated by Bush’s popularity. Everyone thought her husband couldn’t beat the first Bush.