Hillary Clinton: ‘You Campaign in Poetry, But You Govern in Prose’

There’s no question at this point that the 2008 election will be about “change.” But, if “change” is going to happen, we as Democrats have to come to terms with the hard truths of American politics.

Since the mid-seventies, the country has been unable to undertake any meaningful change in its domestic policies in spite of an unaffordable medical system, a dysfunctional immigration system, relentless gasoline consumption, and growing disparities not just in wealth, but in opportunities for our citizens.

Like it or not, addressing any of these issues will require tremendous savvy at maneuvering within the “System:” the unremitting competition of special interests (from corporations to unions to environmental groups) led by various representatives, including lobbyists, that defines Washington. Politicians who promise to sweep past the System disappoint and/or deceive. Recognizing this fact is not selling out to the system; it’s just practical politics.

Furthermore, red and blue are not going away and blithe assumptions that the partisan divide can be transcended is a recipe for a superficial politics that will change nothing. Mere hope is nothing within the system. Democrats will move beyond red and blue when they actually get something done.

On matters of public policy, encompassing both international relations and domestic issues, the differences between the major Democratic candidates are inconsequential. This is true both because there are very few, if any, meaningful stated differences among them and, more importantly, because whatever differences that do exist are insignificant in relation to the more meaningful question of whether any of the candidates’ public policy proposals can ever actually be implemented. Voters may develop the impression that there are meaningful policy differences, but this is a tribute to their prejudices or to the skill of politicians in creating a general impression that important differences exist when, in fact, they do not.

So, with these hard truths in mind, which Democrat running for president is best suited to navigate the complex web of political ideology, special interests, and lobbies that will dominate American politics for the foreseeable future? Who will actually get something done? Hillary Clinton, who has the most preparation, experience, and knowledge ever combined in one Presidential candidate, and who also happens to be a woman, is clearly the candidate best suited at this particular moment in our history.

A measured but unquestionably tough liberal Democrat, already one of the most famous and respected women in the world, only Hillary is up to the task of leading us out of Iraq, resolving the Iran stand-off, and dealing with events in Afghanistan and Pakistan while re-bonding with our traditional allies.

When it comes to domestic policy, no one has a better sense of when to compromise, “triangulate” (a word no one should be afraid of), and fight the good fight when this is what is required to get the job done. Only Hillary’s unmatched combination of Executive, Congressional, and political experience, in addition to an entire career dedicated to resolving of the major domestic issues of our time—medicine, education, poverty—is suited to get the job done.

Hillary is not without her bad history. When Obama and Edwards were two lawyers, years away from entering public life, Hillary was making a mess of revolutionizing the country’s medical system, a worthy project that was politically botched. Had she not demonstrated again and again since that time that she has learned from these and other mistakes we would not be writing this editorial.

Her Democratic rivals, by comparison, have no history of mistakes on the big stage from which they could have derived hard lessons. (Guest spots on Oprah don’t count.) Obama claims superior “judgment” to Hillary because, as an Illinois State Senator, he opposed the Iraq war, while the majority of Democratic senators, including Hillary and Edwards, voted in favor of Bush’s war resolution. He deserves credit for his prescience on this issue just as Hillary deserves credit for her support, as a private citizen, for the first Iraq war, at a time when most Democratic senators voted to oppose it. However, these actions, away from the main political stage, tell us little about the judgment the candidates will exercise when one of them becomes commander in chief on Jan. 21, 2009.

As Democrats, we’re fortunate to have what is generally considered to be one of the strongest fields of candidates in a long time (the same can’t be said of the Republicans). But now it’s time to make a choice and we’re down to two, maybe three candidates. Among them, only Hillary is prepared to reestablish the United States’ well-respected international leadership and address the urgent challenges that face our country.

Upasana Unni ’11 lives in Canady Hall. Tiffany E. Wen ’11 lives in Stoughton Hall. Both are members of Harvard Students for Hillary. Clay A. Dumas ’10, a Crimson editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House. He is a member of the steering committee for Harvard Students for Hillary.