Update [2005-12-6 16:48:0 by Madman in the Marketplace]:Arianna Huffington has a snarky takedown up on Hillary’s shameless pandering to the right:
TO: ALL
FROM: HRCRSSCT (Hillary Rodham Clinton Red State Street Cred Team)
RE: BUILDING ON FLAG BURNING SUCCESSGood news. Our internal polling is going through the roof over HRC’s signing on to Bennett’s flag burning bill. Our focus group feedback shows it’s the perfect have-it-both-ways positioning. We get to be pro-flag and anti-constitutional ban at the same time. Moderate Dems can embrace this as the lesser of two evils; Red Staters just know that we support Old Glory. Sure, we’re getting some blowback from the lefty blogs…but that actually helps up our Red state street cred. Messaging suggestion: HRC might want to lay off the flag burning/cross burning comparisons (even NASCAR dads don’t equate flag burning protestors with the KKK).
Hillary Clinton will face An Antiwar Challenge:
Former National Writers Union president Jonathan Tasini, one of the most outspoken progressive activists in the U.S. labor movement, is expected this week to launch a Democratic primary challenge to New York Senator Hillary Clinton on a progressive platform that features a call for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.
Tasini has scheduled an announcement for Tuesday morning in New York City, setting up a campaign that could put unexpected pressure from the left on Clinton, the unannounced frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination who until recently has been one of the strongest Democratic backers of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
One can only hope that this is the beginning of a trend going into the primary contests for ’06. The left has provided support for far too long while being both the in-the-streets army AND the favorite punching bag of the centrist hacks who run the Democratic Party.
Mr. Tasini, who is perhaps best known for taking on the NY Times on behalf of freelancers is now taking on another challenge that others might find as daunting as the Times was. As he writes on Alternet.com:
Why I’m Taking on Hillary Clinton
Imagine walking into the ballot booth and casting your vote without having to hold your nose. Imagine being able to vote for what you really believe, instead of telling yourself (yet again) that the best you can do is pick the lesser of two evils, including voting for someone who is a supporter of the war in Iraq. I can imagine having a real choice — and it’s the reason I’m challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for Senator from New York.
My campaign will give New York voters a voice and a choice, for the differences between the incumbent and myself are stark and wide. She supported the war in Iraq from the beginning, and even now, after the deaths of 2,100 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqis, and the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, still holds a position not very different from that of George Bush (find a “winning” strategy, then withdraw troops … sometime.)
This is great news. It is vital that every one of the office holders who betray the values of their base voters face primary challenges. It is important that this party differentiate itself from the right, for it to stop drafting in every contest behind the Republicans. As Tasini continues:
My background, my positions and my beliefs are a mirror opposite. I am a long-time labor leader, organizer and activist, who will draw financial support in small amounts from many thousands. I am a patriot who has firmly and vocally opposed the war — who thinks that real homeland security means bringing the troops home now — and who believes that our economic future should not be determined by an ideology of corporate protection that moves good-paying jobs to countries that desecrate the environment and abuse their workers, and which leaves hardworking American men and women to face a dead-end future. I support providing Medicare to all Americans, so good health becomes a right, not a luxury for those who can afford it.
I also stand in challenge to the politics of business-as-usual — and to the Democratic Party which has a chance to regain power, if it has the courage to put forth a message and agenda that is something more than Republican-lite. I have talked to people throughout New York State and the country, and they are hungry for that vision. My campaign offers progressives a chance to say their votes cannot be taken for granted, simply because a Democratic Party candidate is the “less bad” option. It gives us a chance to pursue our conception of what America should be.
Can I win this race? It’s always tough to take on an incumbent. But whatever happens, I hope to leave behind a network of activists committed to taking back the country and electing leaders who have the nerve to stand against corporate abusive of power and those who would impose an American empire on the rest of the world. And I do not believe victory is impossible. The late Paul Wellstone’s slogan was “vote for what you believe in,” a slogan that is the clarion call for If the people of New York do that, we can win. The time has come to stop accepting second best. I’ve worked for a better world my entire adult life, and I still believe it’s within reach.
Wow, a clear statement of goals and a vision for a better, more progressive party and country.
I hope this will be a vigorous and open primary contest. I hope Senator Clinton has enough integrity and faith in her policies to go honestly toe-to-toe with a progressive opponent and have a true contest of ideas, a true contest to determine what this party should be. I doubt she will, but I’m willing to be suprised.
Mr. Tasini’s campaign website is right here and his blog is here.
Update [2005-12-5 21:29:4 by Madman in the Marketplace]:In case it isn’t clear yet that Senator Clinton is going to keep running to the right:
Sen. Clinton co-sponsors anti-flag burning law
December 5, 2005, 10:44 AM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag _ though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.
Clinton, D-N.Y., has agreed to co-sponsor a measure by Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, which has been written in hopes of surviving any constitutional challenge following a 2003 Supreme Court ruling on the subject.
Her support of Bennett’s bill follows her position in Congress last summer, when a constitutional ban on flag-burning was debated. Clinton said then she didn’t support a constitutional ban, but did support federal legislation making it a crime to desecrate the flag.
In her public statements, she has compared the act of flag-burning to burning a cross, which can be considered a violation of federal civil rights law.
The Bennett-sponsored measure outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else’s flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
Great news! – Thanks, Madman. I’ll be supporting him.
Primary challenges have to be conducted smartly to avoid weakening the party and ensuring the success of the opposition party. It is good that Hillary has a primary opponent to the left of her. Let the debate begin and let the party decide in the primary who is the candidate.
But if the primary degenerates into the “politics of personal destruction”, the Democratic Party will be hurt.
I believe that Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown know this. I hope that Tasini and Clinton realize the same thing.
I see this debate as completely positive. I’m not suggesting you are in the hand wringing crowd, but this battle offers an opportunity to seize the agenda. I like both men, and as long as the debate is relatively high signal, it keeps the media eye on Democratic ideas, while the Republicans sit on the sidelines. An opportunity to display our energy, our visions and, if the debate is proper, a momentum builder when the winner emerges.
As for Tasini, if his entry forces Clinton to stop her courtship with the Republicans(see today’s news), then it will be a valuable exercise. Nobody gets a pass, nor should they forget their accountability. Clinton needs to realize that the fight is for our ideals, not a game to position oneself for their own personal ambition at the expense of the greater good.
to see healthy debate, different points of view aired openly and honestly after the looooong reign of right wing lock-step? The season of “your either with us or against us”?
I would prefer to see Clinton get a good strong dose of reality and get the hell out of the race on her own steam. IMO, she’s all about the Hillary, not the party or the people. She brings nothing fresh to the debate, more politics as usual.
…I’d sign up to use whatever of my skills Mr. Tasini would fine useful. I am no fan of Senator Clinton on a range of issues. But, if he lost the primary, I would not be helping the Republicans get yet another seat in the Senate by staying home or voting for a quixotic third party.
recommend staying home or voting for a third party if Senator Clinton and the DSCC worked to undermine this challenge. If the party has the strength to have a honest contest then of course progressives should support the party nominee. This should include public debates.
The days when the active left shut up, man the phones and GOTV efforts while getting trashed publically need to be over.
on any organization that had the strength and the commitment to make Hillary do the right thing. The world isn’t flat, there are options outside the ballot box.
Was it FDR who said, “Make me do it.” meaning go out and build a coalition, go out and convince the public, go out and create the demand. Make me do it. A worthwile effort and one too often neglected by the grassroots who have the power to do just that.
Some will rail against this challenge as unproductive. I would suggest that Clinton has forced the issue by ignoring the overwhelming desire of her constituents. Our vote is not absolute because of the D, your deeds decide how events unfold. This challenge was bound to happen, given her resistence to pragmatism with regards to Iraq and her overt pandering to the right, in a cynical effort to position.
I have been waiting and hoping for this ever since Senator Clinton’s 2003 “I support President Bush” speech which horrified me.
Thanks for writing this up.
I was pretty thrilled myself. I think it’ll be pretty ugly w/ the centrists though, and I hope Mr. Tasini has invested in some asbestos suits.
Don’t be surprised if supporting Tasini – should he actually develop a strong challenge to Sen. Clinton – brings you into close contact with some folks that you, uh, have less than good feelings toward.
For example, Kos.
I’m not bringing that crap here.
Always my writing has been about what I think is good for the country. My questioning of anybody’s “rules” has always been in the interest of fostering open, vigorous and sometimes strong debate. I haven’t posted long strings of lies and distortions of other people’s words. I haven’t taken what had been offered as an honest attempt at communication and turned it into some kind of virtual re-enctment of the scene in “Lord of the Flies” with the dancing around the pig’s head. I haven’t posted gross distortions of events and other people’s actions. The issues I raised are not concerns of me alone, and the appearance of some kind of ethical problem is apparent to anybody who cares to look at it.
I’m willing to bet that I’d be better able to maintain a sense of polite distance than some of the other’s you’ve hitched your wagon to.
That’s it in this thread between me and you.
I have not “hitched my wagon” to anyone.
That said, let’s let it rest at this: I hold political values extremely similar to yours. I think that your tactical and strategic means of enacting or implementing or popularizing those values are not workable. That is why I argue with you. Arguing with you on those points is extremely difficult when my arguments are nearly always met with accusations of treachery, selling-out, and questioning of my principles and philosophical commitments. Such accusations will continue to be met with vitriol.
I am perfectly willing to cease the vitriol, but will not unilaterally disarm. I will also defend people and places that I feel are being unfairly attacked.
How can we move forward? It is important that we do so – we should be natural allies. We hold many, probably most, of the same political ideals. We support many, probably most, of the same political candidates, and often for the same reasons….
The difference is in our interpretation of the definition, utility and application of “purity” (which essay I am still digesting in the context of my own political experiences in the schismatic Left.).
In any case, this was a good essay, and good news. I enjoy a lot of your writing, and agree with you on many things…peace.
after the way you acted at Our Word I have no interest in working with you. At all. You remind me of Christopher Hitchens … a “reformed” lefty who “grew up” and is dealing with the “real world”. You deal with it by lecturing anybody who won’t make the same compromises you’ve made. I’m perfectly aware that you will consider this hypocritical … I don’t care. You serve only to reinforce the desired behavior on the part of those you’ve allied yourself with. You work with the ward heelers and you know it.
We can reach an accomidation by avoiding each other. I already avoid you except when you come into one of my threads or into the thread of someone I consider an ally. Even then, I try to ignore you.
“Reformed” leftists are like reformed smokers.
If I’m so wrongheaded, why don’t you all just ignore me? What the hell difference does it make? I’m the ranting conspiracy theorist in the back of the town hall, and they send you in as the sergent-at-arms to quiet me down.
The way I acted at OurWord was to participate based on how I felt – some (too much) was related to people bashing in a way that I felt was unfair. Some (not enough) was interacting on topics that do not get nearly enough attention on most other sites.
I was asked to read more and listen more and write less…and I did. I read most every day, and enjoyed a lot.
I was not “sent” by anyone for any purpose. I do not coordinate with anyone, nor do I answer to anyone. It is accusations like that that derail these kinds of conversations – you have some (in my opinion) extremely valid, cogent, and urgent critiques of the political, social, and organizational behavior of individuals and groups on the internet. It is, to me, a shame that you allow unfounded accusations with no basis in fact to overshadow and defuse those (again, in my opinion) more important points.
The point is that you are NOT wrongheaded – as I have repeatedly said, I strongly agree with a lot – perhaps most – of what you write.
I am perfectly willing to cease the vitriol, but will not unilaterally disarm. I will also defend people and places that I feel are being unfairly attacked.
Yes, I read your performance yesterday here
and that of the allies you defend.
We are reading and participating on this thread because we’re interested in politics and in what Madman has to say, not the ongoing obsession y’all have with silencing the voice of someone most people here appreciate and care about. Could you take it elsewhere?
Thanks.
I am reading and participating in this thread because of politics and because I am interested in what madman has to say.
I am not interested in silencing, I am interested in debating, working to build a progressive, effective, active, engaged coalition dedicated to real change.
I think madman has a LOT to teach, and a lot to give to such an enterprise, and I want to learn from him. I also think that he has a lot to learn (as do we all), and I think that I have something to offer.
If you want to silence me, then recommend that I be banned.
If you want to silence me, then recommend that I be banned.
Oh, please. I was asking you not to hijack Madman’s diary. Please don’t go all martyred victim with no justification. I already read what you had to say in the subject of people being silenced yesterday.
For example, Kos.
95% of the Kos mentions around here are either from a) site ownership b) people like yourself who drop by from time to time.
Who Kos does or doesn’t support has been made irrelevant here by site policy. That’s what happens when you dumb people up.
Well lookee here…who’s stirring the shit now? Jeesh!
My intention is not to stir shit. My intention is to try and reach some form of resolution such that we as a community (fractured, fractious, intransigent, and prone to schism as we are) can move beyond shit stirring and into the realm of practical, effective action.
I am certainly willing to take my lumps in that process, and will most certainly commit errors, sins, and transgressions of my own….but hey, it’s worth it.
What great news! Reading his words gives me some of that ol’ Howard Dean feeling of wanting to weep at the pleasure of hearing these things said, and so clearly and forcefully, by a Dem leader. Do you happen to know how he comes across in person? I’m praying for a touch of charisma in addition to the substance. Wouldn’t hurt.
I’ve been uncomfy with a Hillary run since 2001. Political dynasties are bad mojo imo. I’ve no doubt Hillary would be better than Bush.. but I’m getting a bit fed up with the idea of entire familes running just because people have a bit of a hard on for previlege.
If Bush were decently popular you just KNOW Jeb would be running next.
Poltitical dynasties are NOT in keeping with democracy.
Couldn’t agree more, esp. when it’s alternating dynasties.
I agree – having a family member (parent, spouse, sibling, child) who served as president should be an automatic disqualification. We fought a war of independence against the notion of family dynasties.
Absolutely great.
I will send Tasini some cash and recommend supporting him to all my family and friends in NY.
Thanks for the heads up, madman.
…but what a difference 10 years makes. IN 1995, I was thinking of printing up campaign buttons:
Now every time I see her on C-SPAN or the news, she’s different. Her handlers seem to have the issue of the month for her. And my enthusiasm for her as a politician has diminished greatly.
This flag thing is just ridiculous. In a sad attempt to push further right, she’s taking up one of the most idiotic wingnut issues as a cause.
I appreciate this diary as I cannot stand Hill. Tasini has my support even though I do not live in NY. I loved what Tasini has to say and boy could we ever use more candidates like him. Send some to the 50th in Calf. Keep us posted on this guy will you?
If challenges from people like Tasini, Pennacchio, and Hackett succeed in making democrats move back to the left, their efforts will have been well worth it, even if they fail to get the nominations. A healthy number of votes for lefty challengers will send the dems a message they drastically need to hear.
I am a life-long independent and if the democrats expect to get my vote and the vote of people like me they have to give me a reason to vote for them beyond “I’m not as bad as my opponent.”
I agree with what you say, with one caveat – there are some instances where “I am not as bad as my opponent” really IS a good reason to hold your nose and pull the lever…
Let me add a caveat to that: that “some instances” is really a pretty limited case – choosing between Clinton and Dole does not qualify. Choosing between Carter and Ford might, between Nixon and Johnson..yech. But between Bush and just about anyone? Between Coburn and Carson? Between Santorum and anything with a pulse? Yeah, Pennachio is far, far far superior…sigh.
Pennacchio is far superior. That’s why I’m voting for him in the primary.
Good! I wish I lived in PA so that I could do the same.
Perhaps but the problem I see is that if dems believe that lefties will accept right-leaning dems without protest, they will continue their march to right. Not electing someone whose positions go against my beliefs in order to convince the democrats that this strategy is not the way to go is to my mind a decent counter-strategy. I might have to make a sacrifice now in order to get better candidates the next time.
It reminds of the first rule of dog-training: “Don’t reward behavior you don’t want.” If I vote for candidates like Casey, I can expect more of the same to be put forth, because I will have rewarded behavior I don’t want.
Also first rule of parenting. 🙂
For some reason, it always works better with the dogs, though… 🙂
Haha. So true. Kids have a tendency to talk back, and they have opposable thumbs which lead them to all manner of destructiveness that dogs can’t even begin to imagine.
Yes, I am a parent.
Me too. What was I thinking, encouraging my kids to think for themselves? 🙂
Isn’t that the truth!? We encourage them to have their own ideas and opinions and then they do. Talk about unintended consequences. 🙂
It delights my mother no end…”I told you this thinking children idea was bad…they should just be little robots….” At least she’s half-kidding. 🙂
What about all those people who never go to the voting booth, because they see yet another ho-hum candidate who’s trying to be Republican Lite?
I think I’m like most people when I say, If I want a Republican, I’ll vote for a Republican.
There is the silent plurality of registered voters — and the silent majority of all eligible voters — who are not voting. They are the ones needed to win, rather than competing over the wingnut-dazed masses who are already in play.
Nobody is speaking to the values held by the majority of Americans. That’s sad. And frustrating when the Democratic establishment, and would-be leaders, keep pushing rightward.
Perhaps the goal of both parties is to keep reducing the percentage of the populace who bother to vote so that they can spend their marketing dollars more effectively.
media girl, I could not agree more! I have been saying variations of what you just wrote for months now, but this seems to get pooh-poohed more often than not.
It seems that anyone who REALLY wanted to get these voters would be best served by eschewing BOTH Rs and Ds and coming up with somethign brand-new — these non-voters, and I know a lot of them, don’t vote, not because their are stupid or uniformed, but because they are DISGUSTED, all the way ’round. And to be honest, though I have always thought it my responsibility as a citizen to vote, it is getting harder and harder every day for me not to join them.
I absolutely agree with this.
I think that the power of this “silent constituency” needs to be decisively demonstrated before any party or politician can or will do what is required to reach out to it, however…
Nader tried in 2000 and 2004, but the results were very underwhelming. Regardless of his supposed “stealing” of votes from Gore or Kerry (something that I do not find particularly important or compelling), the number of people that voted for Nader was so small that either a) the “silent constituency” is not as big as you or I think, or b) some key ingredient is missing – something that will galvanize the near-majority of eligible voters that do not vote into action.
I think that b) is probably closer to the truth…but how can we get them engaged? Nader and other 3rd party candidates lay out a message that is pretty close, at least in terms of rhetoric, to what many Americans say they want in poll after poll….but people did not come out in any significant numbers for those candidates.
Is it “name-branding”? Is it potential to actually win? Is it big names, stars, media darlings, sports figures? What?
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
And if can be managed with only electoral bloodletting, all the better.