[Mb-civic] Hillary and the Ports By DAVID BROOKS

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

March 12, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary and the Ports
By DAVID BROOKS

A couple of years ago I watched Hillary Clinton enter a Munich hotel with a
delegation of fellow senators. Clinton came in first. There were about 50
paparazzi by the doors. Cameras flashed, people screamed. There was general
pandemonium as she walked through the lobby, like Elizabeth Taylor in her
prime descending upon Cannes. The hotel manager escorted her into a waiting
elevator and whisked her to her suite.

Then the other senators came in the doors. The camera crews started packing
up. The crowd dispersed. No hotel manager awaited them. They pushed the
button for the elevator and milled about until it came.

United States senators are not entirely lacking in vanity. So I thought
there might be a tinge of resentment at Clinton's diva treatment. But not at
all. Other senators like traveling with her. She's down to earth and fun to
be around, they say. At work, she's serious, diligent and respectful.

So when I've been asked if I think Hillary Clinton can win a general
election campaign, I've always answered yes. I figure if she can win over
Republican senators (and Bush staffers), she can probably win over 30,000
more voters in Ohio.

She's also got a key voting bloc disposed in her favor. Ten percent of the
electorate are what Pew Research Center pollsters call pro-government
conservatives: mostly white, working-class women who attend church weekly
but support government welfare programs. Only 12 percent of these voters
supported John Kerry in 2004, but 51 percent say they have a positive view
of Clinton. These voters alone could put her over the top.

But campaigns reveal character, and force us to adjust our views. The Dubai
ports deal ‹ a politically unpopular measure that almost all experts agree
was justified on the merits ‹ was a test of character. John McCain and Chuck
Hagel passed. Clinton, though, joined the ranks of the nakedly ambitious
demagogues.

Clinton didn't seem to mind when officials of the United Arab Emirates
kicked in up to a million dollars into her husband's presidential library.
She didn't seem alarmed when Dubai poured at least $450,000 into her family
bank accounts through her husband's speaking business. She didn't object
when the Clinton administration approved a deal for a Chinese government
firm to run the Port of Long Beach. But when the Dubai ports deal set off
Know-Nothing mobs, she made sure she had the biggest pitchfork.

"The White House is trying to hand over U.S. ports," Clinton charged.

"We cannot afford to surrender our port operations to foreign governments,"
she roared.

"We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports,"
she insisted.

All of these statements were deliberately misleading, since there was never
any question of ceding sovereignty or security. They played to the rawest
form of xenophobia.

The consequences for the war on terror will be significant. As David
Ignatius wrote in The Washington Post, the government of Dubai has done what
we've asked all Arab governments to do. It has challenged Al Qaeda;
supported U.S. forces; modernized the educational system to combat
extremism. It even gave $100 million in hurricane relief. We've proved that
we may be inept in combating our foes, but we're ruthlessly efficient in
betraying our friends.

But my subject is Clinton's political prospects. This episode ‹ which
combines buckraking with pandering ‹ brings back the Clinton years at their
worst: the me-me-me selfishness, the occasional presumption that humanity
exists to serve Team Clinton.

It also shows Clinton doesn't understand her political weaknesses. First,
nobody, not even among her friends, is totally sure she actually believes in
anything, or whether she just coldly calculates political advantage. This
episode reinforces that sense.

Second, Clinton is the only presidential candidate who does not offer a
break from the current polarization and bitter partisanship. A McCain or
Mark Warner presidency would shuffle the political deck. But if Clinton is
elected, American politics over the next years will be as brutal and
stagnant as now. The 1960's Bush-Clinton psychodrama would go on and on.

A lot of the bitterness would not be Clinton's fault. But over the past
weeks, she has shown that far from behaving in an unorthodox manner, or
flummoxing hatred, she is happy to be a crude partisan, and egg on prejudice
and paranoia.

In the short run, Clinton did the popular thing. But over the long run,
people vote on character. After a rehabilitating few years, Hillary Clinton
just reminded us of her ugly side.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top