Update [2005-7-26 14:51:33 by susanhu]: Slate‘s “Day to Day on NPR discusses Hillary and the DLC at noon PDT, via Seattle’s KUOW, which has great Internet listening.
From the LAT (sub. free):
The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton — once considered a champion of the party’s left — with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.
In her speech at the group’s annual summer meeting, Clinton signaled a desire to retain her independence from any party faction. She called for a truce between the DLC and liberal elements of the party, which have engaged in a ferocious war of words over the Democrats’ direction since President Bush won reelection last year.
“Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire too,” she told the gathering in Columbus. “Well, I think it’s high time for a cease-fire — time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share.” ,,,
From ABC’s The Note:
MORE BELOW, including Chris Bowers’ comments at My DD and a report on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to “seek nuance on abortion”:
From Chris Bowers’ post on MyDD, via Howie Martin’s great blog:
That, however, is a very stark contrast with the meeting this year: I am not a master political strategist by any means, but one thing I can tell anyone not named Hillary Clinton right now is that you have no prayer of defeating, much less seriously competing, with Hillary in the 2008 primaries if you take the same path she takes.
If Hillary is in the race, then she is the DLC candidate, period. I don’t care if Vilsack is the DLC Chair–Hillary shares a name with the only President they helped elect.
You cannot possibly hope to challenge her by somehow out-DLCing her. Your only option is going to be to look to outside sources of power within the Democratic Party that she would not have a stranglehold over, such as labor and the netroots.
In fact, finding, appealing to, and eventually tapping the rising netroots star may even take a noticeable amount of distancing one’s self from the DLC, which, deservedly or not, is, um, not very well liked in these parts.”
Howie Martin also has an excellent recap of today’s article in The Hill:
Their hope is to respond to last year’s election setbacks, make the party more inclusive and make it less identified with abortion. The effort comes at a sensitive time as Democrats wrestle with how best to approach the upcoming confirmation hearings on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Abortion dominates the Supreme Court debate among conservative and liberal activists and is expected to be central in Roberts’s hearing. But Democrats are now downplaying abortion as confirmation hearings near.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) last week warned reporters not to “translate this entire process into a referendum on Roe v. Wade.” Instead, Senate Democrats are attempting to broaden the debate to one about the right of privacy and focus on Roberts’s writings on the interstate-commerce clause of the Constitution, the legal underpinning for much congressional regulation.
In the wake of defeats in the 2002 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders acknowledge that the issue of abortion has been a political liability for their party.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who is considered the front-runner for the 2008 presidential race, took the lead in adding nuance to the party’s position on abortion when, in a speech earlier this year, she said it was important to reduce the number of abortions. Her remarks were widely interpreted as a move toward the center of the political spectrum.
Reid and Pelosi have discussed a relationship between Democrats for Life group and the DNC. Dean has also participated in the discussions, according to Democrats for Life.
Representatives of Democrats for Life, including Nelson’s staff, and 16 House Democrats met with Dean on Thursday morning to urge him to establish an official relationship that would be signified by, among other things, posting the group’s Internet address on the DNC website. So far, the DNC has refused to allow even that modest show of affiliation with Democrats for Life. DNC spokesman Josh Earnest said, “We don’t have links to any other third-party groups.”
But when asked about Dean’s talks with Reid and Pelosi, Earnest said, “I’m sure he’s had conversations with them about that because he supports a big-tent party.” Democrats for Life representatives are scheduled to meet Pelosi this week, and Reid has voiced his support for establishing the more official relationship. “Senator Reid has been contacted and has been very receptive of what we’re trying to do,” said former Rep. Chris John (D-La.), who sits on the group’s board of directors, adding, “He is pro-life, as you well know. He is very supportive of trying to make that link and make that recognition.”
Reid’s aides have put the emphasis on their boss’s efforts to reduce the number of abortions. They said that Reid met with Nelson and Democrats for Life earlier this year and discussed his work on legislation that would lead to fewer women seeking abortions. Reid’s aides said they were not familiar with the dispute between Democrats for Life and the DNC about an official link.
The efforts to build a relationship seem to be having an impact on Dean. A day after meeting with Democrats for Life, the Associated Press reported, he told a group of college Democrats: “We do have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party.” Dean also recognized that Republicans have successfully used the abortion issue as a weapon. “I think we need to talk about this issue differently,” Dean said. “The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party.” Dean’s public comments reflect remarks he made to the DNC’s national finance board last week. He told his top moneymen and -women that he would “like the word ‘abortion’ struck from the political discourse.” Steve Grossman, a fundraiser and adviser to Dean who attended the meeting, said, “[Republicans] use it to misrepresent us. We haven’t found a way to characterize ourselves properly.”
People attending the meeting between Dean and Democrats for Life said that he was very receptive and that he would look into building a stronger relationship with the group. He also said that he would explore establishing the Internet link. But whether that happens may depend on the final version of a legislative proposal pro-life House Democrats are crafting that would try to reduce the number of abortions in the country by 95 percent over the next 10 years.
Rep. Ryan is expected to introduce the proposal after the August recess. The Democrats for Life website would heavily promote the bill, and DNC officials have told lawmakers opposed to abortion that they would like to review it before linking up the two groups’ websites.
More from ABC’s The Note:
“Warner, Vilsack and Bayh — all current or former governors — used the meeting to introduce themselves to the delegates as potential national candidates, each testing new themes in carefully crafted speeches. Implicit in all three speeches was the suggestion that they have records demonstrating how to win and govern in places, such as the South and the rural Midwest, where Democrats have faltered in recent presidential elections — a boast that Hillary Clinton cannot make for herself.”
“Attendees gave all four prospective candidates good reviews, but the mob scene that surrounded Clinton afterward showed she retains a special position within the party, one that for now seems to transcend the party’s ideological camps.”
“Clinton’s Speech Wins Over Delegates,” blares one Columbus Dispatch headline. LINK
“Preening before the national media, the four peppered their speeches with lofty calls for a party that is militarily strong against terrorism, economically just, socially responsible and grounded in faith,” write the Columbus Dispatch’s Hallett and Marquette. LINK
Ray Hernandez of the New York Times focuses on the attacks on the President’s national security record, and includes the RNC pushback on Sen. Clinton. LINK
Notes Mike Glover of the AP, “The speech was coupled with the announcement that Mrs. Clinton had been chosen to head the DLC’s ‘American Dream Initiative,’ described by the organization as a national conversation with business, political, labor, civic and intellectual leaders on an agenda for the country and party.” LINK
“The chairmanship will allow Mrs. Clinton to travel the country next year, when she is seeking another term in the Senate. The job will be an opportunity to burnish an already high-profile image that frequently energizes Democrats while also helping anti-Clinton Republicans raise campaign cash.”
The New York Sun’s Josh Gerstein left the DLC’s “national conversation” asking, “Should Senator Clinton be considered the sole rightful heir to her husband’s political legacy as a ‘New Democrat’?” LINK
And Note Gerstein’s excellent ear here: “Some of Mr. Warner’s rhetoric seemed specifically aimed at differentiating himself from Mrs. Clinton. He mentioned the need for candidates with broad appeal in Middle America, saying, ‘We Democrats neglect the heartland at our own peril.'”
It took the New York Daily News’ Ken Bazinet all of five words to use “Bubba” in his write-up of what he sees as Sen. Clinton’s continued move to the center. LINK
The Des Moines Register’s Thomas Beaumont on Gov. Vilsack’s vision for the way forward for the Democratic Party. LINK
The Indy Star finds a sneaky way to lede with Sen. Clinton while appearing to lead with its hometown guy. LINK
(Spotted at the DLC meeting: Mark Penn and Thomas F. McLarty.)
You guys know that it’ll be Rice and Clinton in ’08, right?
And unfortunately, it seems Hillary doesn’t need an “aura of electability” to win the primary.
I should brush up on my Japanese. I need to get the hell out of this country. I can’t live with 4-8 more years of Republican rule. And I don’t think Rice can handle it either.
Do you think Rice was involved in the Plame outing?
Yes, Susan, in some way or the other, she was involved. I am one who thinks everyone knew what was happening and went along for the ride. NOW REPEAT AFTER ME, ONE MORE TIME——-IT WAS ABOUT FIXING THE INTELLIGENCE AROUND THE POLICY!!!!!!!
It strikes me that this quoted phrase–while it’s invaluable as a reference in the midst of a discussion–is probably too techy/wonky for effective public soundbyting. [I know, I know–I should stop verbbing nouns].
The heart of the matter is that the Administration was striving to be wrong. Every effort they made, at every stage before and after the invasion, was an effort to be wrong and stay wrong when there were always plenty of people who were right.
I’d like to see if a good 5-to-8-syllable slogan for that concept can be found, something that delivers the concept of incompetence to the rank-and-file’s gut, without triggering defense mechanisms over philosophical beliefs.
Dunno. But, I can probably assume she knew it happened, how it went down, and who did it. The White House staff and administration isn’t that big. My office is bigger, and I know 80% of the corrupt crap that goes on around here. You’d be AMAZED at how corrupt a doughnut company can be.
And I concede you’re probably right about HIllary in ’08. Once again, the people haven’t a voice in who decides who runs.
well, they aren’t going to GIVE us a voice.
Anybody who cares about women’s health, gay rights, the environment or anything else needs to face that the party doesn’t. They only will if we MAKE them.
Not another dime directly to the Party, the DSCC or DCCC. Only to progressive candidates or progressive activist groups. No more GOTV for “centrist” hacks. Try to get as many progressive delegates to the convention as possible then raise hell. Contest the party platform, loudly. Every activist group should start building ties now with Unite to Win.
We kept hoping that they would listen, but instead they only lock the doors tighter.
NOT … ANOTHER … DIME ….
and, if necessary
NOT … ANOTHER … VOTE ….
Rice won’t need to “handle it” and more than W does – she’ll get plenty of “help” from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and associated characters.
As far as Hillary, it’s hard to say whether she’s shifting to the middle to get elected and would then govern from farther to the left, or whether she really believes the LDC line. The problem with that strategy is that once elected, the democrats still won’t have decided what their governing philosophy is going to be, which has been a recipe for perennial indigestion -and marginalization – for the left wing.
Leaving the Left with the dilemma of playing nice and hoping to get a sliver of pie, or going to the Greens and getting nothing.
🙁
Rice won’t need to “handle it” and more than W does – she’ll get plenty of “help” from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and associated characters.
True. Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Scooter and the gang), have been running everything for the past what, 5, 6 Republican Administrations?
I can’t live with 4-8 more years of Republican rule.
And that’s just if a DLC Democrat like Hillary wins. Imagine what it would be like if an openly Republican candidate won!
Notice my last sentence.
2008 Presidential Ballot
( ) Tyranical, moralizing, regressive conservative
( ) Incompetent, easily-ignored, lobby-whoring crony
Damn. I guess it WILL be a secret ballot. Of the HUNDREDS of women in politics that could make for good presidential nominees, we will get THESE two!
And I really think Rice will be pushed, not John Ellis. If Dems manage to get Clinton up there, the BEST Republican counter will be Rice. She’ll have the experience, the foreign contacts/agenda, and a relatively clean slate. That, and she’ll lay waste to Hillary in the polls.
Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton would be YA embarassment for the Democracti party. Out only hope is that Dems in the primaries are SO TIRED of losing that they won’t choose her.
I wouldn’t even vote for her given her bullshit on abortion.
I do not think abortion should be criminalized. I don’t thinkit should be partially criminalized, or conditionally criminalized.
She has the right to head anything she wants to head, but let it be known from here on out, this one person will not be on her side. I am not a DLC’er….I will not vote for her at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stand with the progressives here. I want to fight fire with fire. I want to go much further to the left than most are now. I suppose I am called a radical. After what we have been thru this past 5 years and I can go back further, I will not vote for a moderate or a centerist…. I want someone who will stand up for the ppl not a bunch of money and not a dynasty!!!!!!!!!!
Damn it. I said that if the Democrats did this, I’d vote for a third party candidate. But I was so hoping I wouldn’t have to…. or that i could just be embarrassed I ever said that, and buckle under.
ALSO! What in the fuck are the Democrats thinking? We have:
and on and on
Why do WE have to bend over?
Well, one reason I can think of: Jeb Bush. I really do think, and have thought for some time, that he’ll be the ’08 candidate. Even though he’s George’s brother, he’s quite different. Better looking (a bit). Smarter (quite a bit — at least he knows how to speak in English, not to mention Spanish). Jeb will be very formidable and he’ll have the FULL MACHINE behind him.
Me too Susan! I am very concerned. I am very scared as to the reasoning of all this bru ha ha on Mrs. Clinton. As far as Kerry goes, I was a ABB person, I was not extremely hyper for him as some were. As a matter of fact, less so than would be imagined. I get all hot and bothered when they mention the Clinton name at anything running….:o) But she has a right to do anything she wants but not as my candidate at all…I hope someone gets the drift at some point or the other about all of this.
I have been called in so have to run. Hope to catch you all later on…hugs and have a great day…just keep me informed…..
Have a great day at work.
I treasure your posts — you always get to the heart of things.
I have to wonder how John Kerry is reacting to these stories.
He’s so hot on running again in ’08, he has wet dreams about it.
Who sponsored them? Les Wexner?
I wonder if the DLC has a human being strategy, say, for brown people and the other demographic blocks that Dean said we needed to re-energize? Or is it limited to backing away from abortion and reminding them that they-have-nowhere-else-to-go?
It’s one thing to get a sound bite here and there, but reading it all together (thanks, SusanHu!) I am just furious. The DLC wages losing political strategies, and they blame reproductive rights?????
Who are these people? Who are these contemptuous, contemptible assholes? How stupid can they be?
Apparently they have their own agenda, and it’s with 53% of the population. Yeah, if it weren’t for us goddam women, the Dems would be flying high. Uh huh.
Already my mother, who gave thousands to the Democrats last year, has said she won’t give them another penny. Why give money to a party that stands for nothing?
Not good.
Have you read over the Democrats for Life website?
This is a group I would in no way want to see my party encourage or support – the DNC should stay far, far away.
No, I haven’t. URL?
http://www.democratsforlife.org is the url
The thing I dislike most about it is that they are VERY vague about specifics in their about us description – you have to really dig and click links to see more detail on their views. The more I found out, the more I disliked them, though they will gloss over their agenda with calls for unity between Pro-Life/Pro-Choice dems.
to see the number of abortions reduced, by increasing availability/access to birth control, better education so people don’t get pregnant when they don’t want to, and by increasing access to health care to prevent critical birth defects that can lead to an agonizing decision on the part of parents…but I do not want to see the choice removed from those who have no other option.
DFLA is very vague as to their agenda…and that scares me; what have they got up their sleeves?
From Political Wire, once again via Howie Martin:
Well, for once it looks like I’m in agreement with Kos. There is hope for the party. 😉
So we can replace it with the advance of conservative Democratic ideology? Sorry, Mrs. Clinton, I voted for you for the Senate but if you’re the candidate in ’08, I’ll write in Robert Kennedy Jr.’s name.
Heh.
Something I learned from years of wargamming:
You’ve got three groups (or more) on the field. All you have to do to win is make sure that the people shooting at you are getting shot at by someone else too. And that doesn’t preclude you from shooting at the guy helping you out, ESPECIALLY if you two are going to have to fight it out when all is said and done.
There’s no reason that moderate and liberal Democrats (I can’t believe I’ve said that) to cease fire with the DLC. If we take power back in the next 3 years, God knows they’ll start attacking like the Republicans if we let them. All we have to do is make sure that we beat the Republicans. Our spare energy needs to take the top off the DLC’s head.
Because, seriously, what’s worse:
1) The DLC legislating
A) morality,
B) speech,
C) economy (well, unlegislating it), and
D) liberties (lessened right to privacy, new government rights to invade your fucking bodies and minds)
2) or Republicans legislating
A) morality,
B) speech,
C) economy (pillaging), and
D) liberties (maybe an even lesser right to privacy, governments divine rights to invade your fucking bodies and minds)
Damn it!
Good points.
Oh hell, I’ll probably vote for Hillary. Might as well admit it now. (Ducks — stop throwing that stuff at me!)
Given the two choices, it’s clear.
Gawd, I bounce all over on this stuff. But — in the end — faced with another Bush administration, I’m pretty darn sure I’ll vote for Democrats.
Joe Wilson says he’ll never vote for another Republican as long as they’re pulling all this shit .. I heard him speak in Seattle and he talked about a GOP Congresswoman who’d served his district ably for years. But, he realized that he had to vote against her to hope to shift the balance of power in Congress.
not me.
I really don’t see much difference anymore (and people can yell “idiot” all they want). Clinton’s policies helped make this nightmare happen.
I voted for John Anderson. There was no fucking way I could vote for Reagan; memories of his governorship were still too raw. But I was extremely unhappy with Carter — I think he should have told the Shah to take a hike. So, I went with the alternate candidate.
If Hillary is the candidate in 2008, I may have to do the same thing. I apologize in advance, but she feels too much like a political opportunist, taking a stand because it’s popular, not because it’s right. If she’d been around in the 1960s, she would have been telling Kennedy and Johnson to take it slow on the Civil Rights Act, and give the South a couple of hundred years to get used to the idea…
Heh, I probably will too, but just the same, I won’t be happy about it.
Can’t say the same.
I am seriously considering changing my political party affiliation to “Independent” at the moment, though, so I may be in a different place than most.
From a REAL- LIFE friend Ray, via Howie Martin — again! (Ray is very cool. Very, very nice, and an inexhaustible worker.)
but it seems to me that now that we real democrats know that Clinton has capitulated to the Al From machine, we can take her off our list of potential candidates we’d want to support and set about working on developing support for someone more willing to “stand up” for the principles we believe in.
In short, we don’t have to spend even one iota of time thinking about Clinton. She’ll be the default opponent to the Repubs anyway if we can’t find and nurture someone more suitable. So let’s spend all our energy cultivating others; people with integrity, smarts, good communication skills, and solid, unequivocal Democratic principles they won’t sell out on.
Hillary and Al From and all the rest of the DLC people who’ve shown so much contempt for those of us who don’t bow down to their corporate, self-aggrandizing, and losing strategies and ideas; well they can all just go shit in their collective hats as far as I’m concerned.
And of course, if the DNC decides to bestow it’s imprimateur on this “Democrats For Life” group, the entire Democratic party cpould be in danger of extinction. I went to this groups website and prowled around to see how definitively they stated their views. Interestingly, the rhetoric on their site suggests they’ve been very careful to avoid coming right out and making a declaration that they oppose “Roe”. So maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But if they do oppose Roe and would work to overturn abortion rights, they have no business being a prominent player in any party I would associate myself with or vote for.
If there’s anyone who knows this groups official position on Roe v. Wade I’d like to know.