Actually, it really isn’t- most politicians would pay to have this kind of opposition:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s support for the war in Iraq has outraged many liberal activists in the Democratic Party, who are warning of retribution, including a primary challenge to her re-election campaign next year.
Some liberal activists are angry over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s stand on the Iraq war, and are supporting a 2006 primary challenger.
But the activists are in the same sort of political bind that liberals found themselves in a decade ago when Bill Clinton defied liberal orthodoxies: struggling to bring meaningful pressure to bear on a politician who is cherished by many traditional Democrats.The frustration on the left toward Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, has been building for months, particularly as opinion has turned against the war and some Democrats in Congress have begun to pressure President Bush to begin a withdrawal of American troops.
Recently, the anger erupted into public view, with antiwar activists publicly protesting against the senator and, perhaps more significantly, an antiwar candidate emerging to challenge her in the Democratic primary next year.
That challenger, Jonathan Tasini, a longtime labor advocate, has the support of Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar protester who lost her son in the war and who camped for weeks outside Mr. Bush’s Texas ranch, demanding to meet with him. Mrs. Sheehan has been critical of Mrs. Clinton.
I can see how Clinton infuriates some on the hard left (hell- her video game crap and the support for flag-burning legislation annoys me to no end), but these kinds of attacks on Clinton only make her more palatable to the majority of the public.
John S.
Maybe it’s all part of the plan.
Feign outrage from the left so that enough of the right will consider voting for her – hell, wasn’t she seen holding hands with the man who presided over her husband’s impeachment?
Although I would typically ascribe this sort of masterful maneuvering to the Republicans, perhaps the Democrats have finally scraped together a clever strategy for victory.
That is, if they can shake off their nasty penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
M.A.
I suppose the triangulation could work for her, but leave it to conservatives to dismiss the concerns of us anti-war types. For many of us — and if you look at the polls, it’s not just extreme lefties who support the war — the most important issue of our time is the Iraq War, and more generally the way 9/11 has been exploited as a political weapon by the Bush administration in order to carry out policies that have nothing to do with 9/11 (such as the Iraq War).
The dishonesty of the Bush administration, the screwing-up of the occupation, and the sheer stupidity of the idea that endless war is OK because Saddam was a meanie — these are major issues with potential ramifications for years to come.
If the Democrats don’t represent us on this issue (and they barely do as it is), then no political party represents a position that is becoming more and more mainstream every day. I’d rather have a minority party representing my interests on the most important issue of our time than a majority party that is as clueless and wrong as Bush.
Sojourner
Maybe it’s a good strategy, maybe not. Hillary may find that a lot of folks in the Dem base may choose to stay home in 2008. If it comes down to McCain vs Clinton or Guiliani vs Clinton, I’m not sure it really matters who wins. They all suck. The Repub base, on the other hand, despises Hillary and will likely turn out no matter who runs.
M.A.
I meant “oppose the war,” of course. Though supporting this war is crazy enough to be something that I would normally have associated with extreme lefties….
Paddy O'Shea
Alienating the 1% that find her compromises abhorrent in order o pick up 5% of the independent voters that hold the balance in national elections these days is not necessarily a bad thing.
That said, I wouldn’t want to give this nomination to Hillary just yet. The prospect of awarding the nomination to a potentially stronger candidate will appeal to at least some Democrats. And giving the steaming heap of fundie slunk the Republicans have on tap, there will be many to choose from.
My ticket? Mark Warner and Wes Clark.
John S.
Warner seems to be good at bringing a lot of people of varying political stripes under the same tent, so he does seem to be a likely viable candidate.
I thought Clark/Edwards should have been the ticket in 2004. I would have like to have seen Bush try to posture himself as tougher on defense than an actual general or try to attack Clark a la Swift Boat style. And listening to the righties try to bitch about how the former commander of NATO has no plan for military victory would have amused the hell out of me.
But sadly, we pin our hopes on some ass backwards antiquated system where the good folks of Iowa get to decide the sacrificial lamb.
Jorge
Yeah, I think that this belief that Hillary will win the nomination easily is wrong. I have no desire to see her as POTUS. My guess is she might do well in the New England primaries but someone like Warner will come out strong in the mid-west and south. And let’s not forget what looks like the shrewdest political move by any Dem presidential contender that I’ve seen – Wes Clark taking a job as an analyst for Fox News. They’re paying him to campaign on the news channel of choice for many Republicans. Brilliant.
p.lukasiak
can see how Clinton infuriates some on the hard left (hell- her video game crap and the support for flag-burning legislation annoys me to no end), but these kinds of attacks on Clinton only make her more palatable to the majority of the public.
rule #1 for progressives…. ignore everything that conservatives have to say about Democratic politics, because they are either deliberately subverting the Democrats, or too clueless about how the party functions to be worth paying attention to.
Hillary is going to be the next Joe Lieberman — someone who polled really well in the years before the presidential primaries, but who isn’t going anywhere because she has so alienated the grassroots of the Party.
Hillary isn’t Bill Clinton — Clinton was the most gifted politician of the last half century (and that includes Reagan — Reagan could connect emotionally, but Clinton could connect both emotionally AND intellectually simultaneously). Her attempts at political positioning that are designed to serve her presidential aspirations are far too transparent for a Senator from a highly progressive state like New York. Progressives were thrilled to support Hillary for the New York Senate seat, because it was assumed that she would use that position to provide leadership for progressive causes. Her betrayal of that promise will cost her any chance she might have had to win the Democratic nomination.
Hillary will doubtless win the Senate primary contest, but it won’t be the cakewalk that wingers like John expect. Her victory will be due to the strength of the Democratic Party machine in New York, and not due to any “personal” support she has.
If I was Rudy Giuliana, I’d seriously consider running for Hillary’s seat at this point, because a strong showing by her primary opponent could lead to the entry of a credible 3rd party (i.e. Liberal) candidate in the general election….
Gary Sugar
Maybe so. But I’m not going to dream up triple bank shot strategies for my opinions or my voting. I won’t vote for Hillary or anyone who said that invading Iraq was a good idea, unless their opponent was equally pro-war. That said, once Hillary has sleazed her way to the nomination, I will prefer her to almost any Republican. So at that point, I guess the increased palatability will come in handy, despite the sickening way she got it. It’s all about the lesser of two evils.
Sojourner
Serious question: How many more elections will the Democratic base hold their noses and continue to turn out? Am I the only one who has had enough?
Paddy O'Shea
Sojourner: Gotta question for you. Remember in 2000 when the Nader folks used to claim that there was absolutely no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? And therefore it was in no way injurious to the welfare of the country to turn your back on the Democratic candidate and vote your “principles?”
They weren’t exactly right now, were they …
Sojourner
Fair enough. But at what point do progressives finally say, “Fuck you,” you can’t count on our vote for the lesser of two evils. Maybe that would get the attention of the Democratic leadership.
Why is it that the Repubs appear to listen to their base but the Dems don’t? Apparently it’s a winning strategy for them.
Frankly, it may very well be a long-term winning strategy to give the American public what they think they want. And after they’ve gotten thoroughly screwed they might then decide to pay more attention to policy rather than rhetoric.
Polls show that most people support progressive policies. So why should we continue to settle for less?
tom
And the last sentence of my line above should read: “I’m sure he’d be just fine and the better for it.”
demimondian
Think “Scaivo”. Think “Dover”. Think “Abramov”.
Soj, now think “Hostage crisis in Iran” (while simultaneously thinking “Cyrus Vance”.) Think “Cindy Sheehan” — and the dKos response to her.
Now, you tell me why we are extremely careful avout listening to you,
Paddy O'Shea
Compared to Bush and the people who have their hand up his puppethole, Ming The Merciless is a progressive.
Hillary Clinton, while certainly not my first choice, would be a vast improvement over the destructive assholes running this country now.
My take on this is fairly simple. In these rather extraordinary times you either vote for Democrats or you aid the enemy.
Sojourner
Huh? What does Sheehan have to do with anything? Since when did she, or dKos for that matter, become the face of the progressive movement?
ppGaz
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 1994:
Thanks to DKos and alicublog.
demimondian
Soj — think again. When did Sheehan become the face of the progressive movement? When did the Discovery Institute become the face of the conservative movement?
Here’s the problem: passion is like fire. It’s a great servant, but a poor master. The parties’ bases (notice the plural there) are the fire in their bellies — if I didn’t care about social justice and workers’ rights and health care coverage and all those things, I’d be a fucking low-tax Republican, and, I suspect, if J-Cole didn’t care about second amendment and minimal government and strong national defense and, he’d be a fucking progressive Democrat.
The fire always wants to run things, though, and that lets it be the master. The very properties that make the progressive wing of the Democratic party critical also make it dangerous to the nation, if we were ever to regain broad power. The party, as a whole, needs to remember that.
Gary Sugar
Yeah, but they vote for candidates, not policies. And American voters almost always prefer the more macho appearing candidate. The more macho Republican is usually the more extremist Republican; but the more macho Dem is usually the more centrist.
Sojourner
Gee, the Repub president supports the activities of the Discovery Institute. That’s a hell of a credibility shot in the arm, don’t ya think. And now John McCain has come out of the woodwork and done the same thing.
Now name two leaders of the Democratic party who have shown similar support for Sheehan. Hmmm. I’m still waiting. Correct answer? NO ONE. The only folks who appear to have a hard on for Sheehan are conservatives like you and John Cole.
Sojourner
And God bless ’em. They can continue to vote for the macho Repubs who will continue to cut taxes for the very wealthy and cut programs that help middle class students and the poor. The American public has every right to vote against their interests. And with declining educational standards, I expect this trend to both continue and flourish.
Steve S
Yeah, but it’s only the extreme lefties who whine about Hillary Clinton voting for the war. The rest of us can understand nuance and still support her.
Steve S
I worked on Draft Clark, and am prepared for a 2008 run.
In 2003 the Republicans were preparing their line of attack against Clark, and they’ll use the same crap in 2008. If you want to get a preview of what that line of attack is…
Go to the communist website http://www.counterpunch.org, and search for articles about Clark. You’ll find a lot of crap defending Milosevic, and calling Clark the butcher of Kosovo. You’ll find a story about how Clark wanted to go after the Russians when they landed at an airfield in Kosovo, and how a British general Jackson protested.
Those are the stories the Republicans were preparing to use. They were all listed on the gop.com website as opposition-research.
The irony of the republicans pulling up stories from the extreme left was rather funny.
Steve S
you mean the part where the Republicans tell them a bunch of lies if they promise to vote for them, and then renege on their lies when elected?
Is that the way you want to be treated?
At least the Dems are honest to you when they tell you to shut the fuck up.
ppGaz
I don’t think JC’s obsession with Sheehan has anything to do with “conservatism.”
I think it has to do with the ability of any person out there to bypass the approved channels of mass communication. Sheehan, simply by virtue of being who and what she is, need only park her car by the side of the road in Texas and she is famous. That really pisses off a lot of people who know how hard it is to get famous if you are just …. nobody. The more you know about fame, and study fame and talk about fame, and obsess over fame, the more you’d despise Sheehan. Who the hell is SHE to be famous? Why, she’s nothing but a (insert smear here)!
She doesn’t have to be smart, or articulate, or hip, or politic, to be famous. Or to be a hero. As I’ve said before, all she had to do was stand up. That makes her famous, and despised.
Pretty sick, really. The same sick mechanisms of fame that made George Bush, an alcoholic loser with no credentials other than his famous parents, governor and then president, also make Sheean notorious, and “missing brides” the talk of the nation. But sometimes things have a way of working out. The dysfunctional mechamism shines a light on a Sheehan, who is after all the ultimate citizen in today’s environment. A parent who raised a kid to sacrifice him to the whims of a foolish and arrogant government. Yes, we have “every right to vote against our interests.” It doesn’t get any more against your interests than Sheehan’s situation, does it?
RA
Kos has 3 million readers.How many of those moonbats will disdain Hillary and vote for Nadar? With Hillary willing to become a conservative if it gets her to the White House, I think Nadar might double his vote total. A shot accross the Democratic Party’s bow.
I think Paddy O’Shea said it all when he named Bush as the enemy. Not the terrorist. Not the ACLU that want to give the terrorists free reign. But Bush who wants to listen in on their plans to try and prevent the next 9-11.
Then there is the wingnut who is affraid Bush will listen to everyone’s conversation and detain everybody without trial. Gee, the only people who should fear this are terrorists or the local fifth column. Yes the Democrats don’t want their dealings with terrorists monitored. If that happens we can try them and put them behind bars where they belong. Watergate was just national defense against a fifth column. Nixon should have gotten a medal.
ppGaz
DougJ?
Jorge
Steve S wrote
“You’ll find a lot of crap defending Milosevic, and calling Clark the butcher of Kosovo. You’ll find a story about how Clark wanted to go after the Russians when they landed at an airfield in Kosovo, and how a British general Jackson protested.”
Can you imagine today’s smear machine going after Eisenhower?
Sojourner
Shame on you for willfully giving up the rights that so many Americans died for. You really are pathetic.
capelza
D-Day Landing Craft Veterans for Truth…
Is Hillary really going to be the Dem nomination in 2008? Or is this wishful thinking on the part of the Freepers?
Also, if anyone votes for Ralph Nader this time I’ll personally hunt them down and beat the crap out of them. After getting funding from the Republicans in his run run against Kerry, the guy lost ALL credibility…what does he stand for again?
demimondian
Well, I guess I’ve finally made it — I’m a conservative. News to me. Hey, J-Cole, looks like I’m joining you in Hell.
OK, Soj, you don’t like Sheehan as an example. Fair enough — I happen to agree that she’s a red herring. She’s just a locally public issue. If you really want examples, I’ve jotted down a list of them here, but, in the end, the exact list is, itself, a red herring.
Steve S has it right — we could lie to you and string you along, and tell you we’ll respect you on the morning after the election, all the while plotting to pick your pocket, like the main-street Republicans have with their socon base. Is that really what you want? I doubt it, in your case, since if that was what you really wanted, you’d have never come back here after you left before.
Sojourner
You’re right. I don’t want to be lied to. I will only vote for those who I believe in my gut will vote for legislation that will help the American people, not just the wealthy or corporations. Which is a progressive agenda that, according to polls, is popular with the American public but will not be supported by politicians of either party.
Ironic isn’t it.
P.B. Almeida
Bunk. While he was a gifted politician, Bill Clinton is easily bested by Ronald Reagan.
1) Clinton presided over a serious weakening of his party and a turnover of the White House to the opposition. Reagan immeasurably strenghtened the GOP and handed the keys over to a fellow Republican.
2) Reagan won two thumping victories, including a reelection of historic proportions. Clinton’s two victories were decidedly less impressive. He didn’t even manage to win a majority of the popular vote in 1996, much less 1992.
Heck, you could argue that George W. Bush is a better politican than Bill Clinton ever was. Winning office, then increasing your party’s hold on power in the midterms, and then winning reelection, is not on Clinton’s list of accomplishments.
Barbar
So Hillary is going to run on a message like “Everybody hates me, so I can’t be that bad”? I would vote for her just to tick off the right-wing wackos, but I can’t imagine her being the best Dem candidate in 2008. (Well, maybe.)
Sojourner
Reagan should have been impeached for Iran-Contra, which was far worse than a blow job.
I continue to be amazed by the Reagan supporters who continue to overlook that rather significant unconstitutional behavior.
Paddy O'Shea
RA: You don’t happen to be getting any money from those Pajamas Media fellows, are you? Own any Ann Coulter dolls?
Do you like to give them bubble baths?
Too bad Bush came around to the terrorism fighting thing a little late. Racking up a 42% vacation rate during his first 9 months in office hardly seems to me a sign of any particular vigilence on his part. George W. Bush certainly got in a lot more golf during the summer of 2001 than Osama bin Laden did.
http://www.alternet.org/story/11327/
Of course, that the man who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11 is still at large shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone cognizant of Bush’s incompetence in fighting the war on terror. While Al Qaeda remains quite actively involved in the killing of Americans, Bush seemingly prefers to spend his time spying on Americans.
And judging by what you read these days he even fucked that up.
RA, old buddy? I’d say that it looks like Bush has had about as much success in fighting terror as your high school English teachers had teaching you to write a coherent sentence.
That is to say, very little.
Fifi
Wow, I’m a liberal and a H. R. Clinton “hater” but the primary challenge is complete news to me. I’m very happy with her being NY senator. I just don’t want to see her as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008.
There’s one Dem senator though who is actually facing a serious attempt to consider the opportunity of the prospect of a whack of a whirl of a primary challenge but it’s Joe Lieberman. God, I’d love to see the $#$*&^#@$ go and like a lot of Dems, I’m quite ready to put some serious money in it. But even then, I’m not holding my breath.
So, yeah, you’re correct, that “challenge” to HRC is just a good opportunity to prop her centrist credentials.
demimondian
You mean that in the Alanis Morissette sense, right? (Speaking of which, Pandora played her acoustic remix for me. The tag line in the last verse is rewritten: “It’s like meeting the man of my dreams // and then his beautiful [beat] husband?.” Now *that’s* ironic.)
In fact, no, it isn’t ironic. It’s like the majority of Americans supporting a socon agenda — there are polls which report that, too. The problem for the socons is that the support is wide but shallow. The positions which actually stick are the horrendous, triagulated, compromise ones where people say “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” “We should preserve human life, when we agree that it is human.” “Gays should have the same rights as straights. If that requires marriage, then we’ll accept that, but you’ll need to show that civil union won’t suffice.” (And, as a long time activist for gay rights, I find that last one sticks in my craw. No matter; it’s not an unreasonable demand, and I can work to meet it.)
P.B. Almeida
Maybe so. Maybe not. I was merely responding to the manifestly untrue statement that Clinton was a better politician than Reagan. Comparing the two men’s accomplishments in this area leaves one with the inescapable conclusion that Reagan was inarguably more gifted than (the admitedly talented) Clinton in the art of politics.
Sojourner
On some issues perhaps. But on the social safety net, the support is broad and deep. Except, of course, on the part of the Repub leadership.
Sojourner
Sorry! My mistake.
demimondian
But the socons support the social safety net. They may have a marginally different read for what that means than you do, but they’re a lot closer to the progressives than they are to the libertarians or the pragmatists on the issue. So far, the socons have been conned by the republican leadership into believing that the leadership genuinely believes in “fixing” social security.
Bottom line: neither party gains with their base by undermining the social safety net. It’s just that the democratic party hasn’t asked you to trade it off against other issues you care about more — and go to dKos and read the feminists against the gay-rightsers against the urbanists against the…and you’ll realize that our party would be every bit as vulnerable to such a ploy as theirs is.
Sojourner
I’m not sure this is true. Look at the positions of the religious right – they are against government programs such as these. They only appear to support tax cuts.
demimondian
Which parts of the religious right? The leadership which is busy selling indulgences through gay-bashing? Or the folks in the pews?
The folks in the pews *like* social security for the elderly — they just want to make sure it’s there for them and their kids. They *like* unemployment insurance — after all, they’re the ones who wind up unemployed, not their bosses. They don’t like to support “shiftless welfare queens” — and, yes, that’s a codeword for black women, I know — but they strongly support the idea of a hand up for a woman who’s suddenly been deserted by a shiftless no-good bum.
Funny thing that, eh? No, Robertson doesn’t like that. He’s too busy engaging in Simony to notice, though.
neil
these kinds of attacks on Clinton only make her more palatable to the majority of the public.
That’s not the way to get them to stop, John
p.lukasiak
Bunk. While he was a gifted politician, Bill Clinton is easily bested by Ronald Reagan.
the key difference in the success of Reagan and Clinton had nothing to do with their relative skills as politicians, but with the nature of the political opposition.
Democrats have always placed the welfare of the nation above partisan considerations — and until Clinton was elected, that was true of Republicans as well. The Dems worked with Reagan from the day he was elected, and declined to initiate impeachment procedings despite the indisputable evidence that Reagan was guilty of grave impeachable offenses because the Dems realized that it would tear the country apart.
Contrast this with what happened to Clinton, who was being mercilessly attacked by the right wing even before he took the oath of office — and that attack continued relentlessly and viciously for a full eight years.
Reagan was like a guy trying to mow the law with a friendly but obnoxious dog in the yard. Clinton was a guy trying to mow the lawn with attack trained Rottweilers in the yard. It comes as no surprise that Reagan’s lawn wound up nicer — but that doesn’t mean he was better at cutting grass.
Gary Sugar
The cliche is that Catholic conservatives support the social safety net, but Protestant conservatives don’t. I have no idea how true or untrue that is.
Geek, Esq.
JC: You made one uncharacteristic boo-boo.
You didn’t capitalize CINDY SHEEHAN.
Either that, or you’re breaking your addiction.
Oberon
Don’t folks, Hillary Clinton won’t run for president.
Steve S
They didn’t come out in ’52, but they did later… It was the John Birch society. They accused eisenhower of capitulating to the Russians and allowing all of eastern europe to fall under their control.
At the time the John Birch society was regarded as a fringe. Today they are the heart and soul of the Republican party.
The Other Steve
shoot, been using my old name… Steve S. forgot to update this computer.
Frankly, I think Sojourner and John Cole are both somewhat right on the impact to Clinton of a challenge from the left. I don’t think any such leftward challenge is going to amount to much, though.
Also Oberon is right. Hillary ain’t running for President. The only reason she doesn’t kill this theme is because it worries the hell out of the Republicans.
nyrev
President? Hillary wouldn’t even be a senator by 2008 if the Republicans ran a decent moderate. She doesn’t do squat for New York, preferring to avoid even the pretense of addressing her constituents, and she can’t seem to remember that the state continues up past Albany. Luckily for the Democrats, the GOP seems to be pushing for a hard-right candidate now that Pirro’s out of the picture.
Satas
Bush was put in power by Dems. Hillary is good friends with the Plame group that had an interest in starting the Iraq war to sell off the covert WMD program and training at CIA, for which they blamed Rice and Bush.
How close was Hillary to the Plame group? She may have no choice.
tzs
Am I the only usually-votes-Democratic-person who finds the concept of voting for Hillary Clinton about as enthusing as listening to nails screeching on a chalkboard? Both make me clench my teeth and my mind hurt.
And Lieberman?! I wish the good people of Connecticut would kick his so-called-moderate ass into the Atlantic. Not the first Democrat who has triangulated so much he’s ended up in bed with the Republicans. Thanks a lot, Joe. Why should I vote for a fake Republican when there are so many real ones out there?
Anyone wanting to poke Bob Burr to run again? I may detest him for a whole lot of reasons, but at least the guy is spot on when it comes to civil liberties.