Hillary the Healer?

I attended the Hillary Clinton rally at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem this past Saturday. All the New York Democratic bigwigs were there, but fortunately I missed all of their speeches and arrived just in time to catch the President's introduction of Hillary. His introduction was vintage Bill Clinton, particularly the parts where he rhapsodized about how promoting alternative energy sources would not just reduce carbon emissions and dependence on Arab autocracies, but also create jobs immune to outsourcing, since "somebody's gotta go put up those wind mills and solar panels, and that kinda work can't be done from China or India." Hardly a slam-dunk in itself, but an interesting observation.

The most noteworthy part of Bill's stump speech, however, is that he touts Hillary as the candidate most likely to enact needed reforms because she will be best able to achieve compromise with Republicans. The need for compromise is uncontroversial; unless the Democrats find 60 seats in the Senate (a remote possibility), they will need Republican support to pass anything beyond a budget. The striking part is that Hillary is now the candidate who will best be able to reach across party lines. For anyone familiar with the depths of conservative hatred for Hillary (or for anyone who has watched five minutes or more of Fox News), the idea of Hillary as the most bipartisan of Democratic candidates requires some reflection to accept.

Not that Bill is necessarily wrong. Hillary by all accounts has won grudging respect from conservatives in the senate, probably because of her hawkish foreign policy stances (Iraq, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorist Resolution) and support for select "moral values" resolutions (namely federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case). She has also largely dropped the self-righteous rhetoric that distinguished her early public profile, most notably in the 1993 health care fight. But being a Senator is different from being President; facing a President Hillary Clinton, it seems to me the Republican strategy would be to attack mercilessly and not concede an inch.

Perhaps Hillary could engender fervid opposition and still find a way to work with Congressional Republicans. As Trent Lott recounts in his memoir, after the 1995 government shutdown Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress produced a shocking number of legislative compromises considering how viciously Limbaugh and co. were attacking Clinton in public (I don't share Lott's enthusiasm for all of the laws passed). Maybe Hillary could repeat this feat. But I'm not yet quite ready to rule out the possibility that someone without Hillary's baggage would have an easy time crossing party lines. To me Hillary is undoubtedly qualified, but her decision to tout her bipartisan credentials in particular still strikes me as a bit peculiar and premature.

As for Hillary's speech, it was solid but unremarkable. Iraq, education, housing, healthcare - the expected fare. Following Bill Clinton is not an easy task, but she sounds convincing enough and I would certainly vote for her over any Republican.

For you non-New Yorkers, the location of the rally held special importance because of Abyssinian's hallowed place in Harlem history. Consider Big L's lines from the 95 Stretch Armstrong Freestyle:

And every time a mack eleven bucks/ I'm killing at least seven ducks/I never was a follower of Reverend Butts.

Here Big L is referring to Calvin O. Butts, Reverend of Abyssinian Baptist. Big L's home block of "139 and Lenox" is about two streets away from the church. Just to put the event in context.