The Take America Back 2006 conference is wrapping up. The most significant event here was the reaction to Hillary Clinton’s speech.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that her support for the war was a mistake.
Clinton’s and Kerry’s appearances at the Take Back America conference at the Washington Hilton put on vivid display the Democratic Party’s divisions over the foreign policy issue that dominates this year’s midterm elections, and the two possible 2008 presidential candidates offered a preview of the debate that could dominate the battle for the party’s nomination.
In my opinion, this is the exact news coverage that Hillary wanted to receive. Hillary needs to accomplish two things before 2008. She needs to do away with her reputation as a fringe, radical, leftist and she needs to get some Thatcher in her spine. Pissing of the ‘liberals’ by taking a hawkish line on Iraq accomplished both goals at once. Of course, it does so on the backs of our soldiers whose lives are mere pawns in the Clinton’s political calculations. Make what you will of that.
On the politics, it’s the usual Clinton mastery. On the morals, it’s the usual Clinton triangulation (trading away principles for votes). We’ll see how well it works.
Maybe I’m naive but I read the politics differently–I think voters have turned against the Iraq war and have seen the war on terror as mostly politics.
So I don’t see how Hillary gets an advantage by supporting this war. Why would people who are sick to death of it, and will be very wary of anyone who might get them into a mess like this in the future, vote for Hillary? I don’t get it.
Why would people who are sick to death of it, and will be very wary of anyone who might get them into a mess like this in the future, vote for Hillary?
but, but, but… she’s electable!
She’s electable in the NorthEast and the West Coast states. That’s it.
She’s not electable at all.
And she’s Bush-lite, Cheney-medium.
I don’t trust her, she’s a carpetbagger and the Prime DLC-er. You really think New Yorkers had a choice in 2000 electing her to the Senate. They did not. She foisted herself on my state and only her husband’s popularity got her elected.
Thus the sad state of politics, it’s always been this kind of belly-dragging.
Our democracy is over, long over. Hillary is proof positive that it’s over.
Your analysis seems both likely and yucky enough that I’m not even annoyed you called her by her first name.
Hmm. I’ll bet that this backfires and Hil will be pushing to appear at ykos II.
What mastery? Isn’t more than 50% of the country against the Iraq war now? And you can bet that the parts that aren’t wouldn’t vote for “Shill Hill” in a thousand years. The only thing Hillary could possibly accomplish with this is reassure her corporate masters that she doesn’t need to be eliminated in the primaries (she’s a safe Democratic candidate because she will lose the general on purpose, like Kerry did) and piss off the base to ensure that she doesn’t accidentally win the general.
No, folks.
The PermaGov will only offer Plan A + Plan A Lite.
NO Plan B.
Not unless it is offered as a (supposedly) doomed third party option of some kind.
Ms. C. knows this.
She knows which way the corporate winds blow.
Thus her tack.
If she wins…THEN we will see.
Until then…it is ALL deception.
All of it.
AG
This is Exactly what Hillary is all about. She’s Plan A+
Folks, just like Florida and Ohio were rigged in 2004, so has been every election for the last 20 years and more to come.
It will take an internal revolution for the people of Amerikkka to take back the country.
in what sense does Hillary need to do away with her fringe, radical, leftist reputation and get some Thatcher in her spine? need relative to whom?
it’s one thing for the dominant power structure to manufacture an illusion whereby mainstream values appear fringe, but something else for liberal commentators to buy into and support this illusion by presenting the interests of the dominant power structure as if they were actually the interests of the voting public.
No, BooMan, she does so on the graves of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Just as she finances her campaigns on the misery of millions of displaced and oppressed Palestinians. She knows both positions are wrong . . . she takes both for “votes” and the money to buy votes. The justification is that once elected she can do all manner of other “good things” to make up for it.
The promise is too small, and the price is too high . . .
Like her husband did?
… Oh, wait.
To his credit, I believe that Bill honestly tried to broker a fair settlement at Camp David but was unable to overcome the intransigent racism and sense of entitlement of the Israelis. Arafat was clearly there to compromise . . . borders of ’67 (themselves negotiable to allow Israel to keep some of the settlements) rather than of the original partition, negotiated land exchange in lieu of unlimited right of return for the refugees, negotiated water rights and so forth. Barak clearly was not . . . insisting on keeping (illegal) West Bank settlements (with essentially no compensation), no refugee rights whatsoever, a crippled (and divided) Palestinian state under Israeli domination, and keeping Palestinian water for immigrants invited solely by Israel. There was no way to resolve the Israeli rigidity, so the political decision was made to paper over the Israeli refusal and blame it all on Arafat for refusing “the best offer he was going to get”.
I also believe that, were it not for keeping the options open for Hillary, Bill would have said so. But we’ll never know . . .
Years ago, I was complaining to my mother (solid Democrat) that Clinton won’t turn a liberal leaf in his second term. “Oh yes he will, he’s just been holding back.”
Thanks Bill Clinton for having your Justice Department draft the PATRIOT ACT.
Thanks Bill Clinton for expanding the Military-backed economic Imperial Empire. Thanks. All Africa thanks you. Thanks.
Thanks Bill Clinton for NAFTA, thanks. Thanks for putting more money in the hands of the ultrawealthy than any president until your successor and gumba GWB.
Hillary? Liberal? Social Justice? Equity and Economic Parity? Only on the same line as this blog post. . . . .
In my opinion, this is the exact news coverage that Hillary wanted to receive. Hillary needs to accomplish two things before 2008. She needs to do away with her reputation as a fringe, radical, leftist and she needs to get some Thatcher in her spine. Pissing of the ‘liberals’ by taking a hawkish line on Iraq accomplished both goals at once. Of course, it does so on the backs of our soldiers whose lives are mere pawns in the Clinton’s political calculations.
I agree that this is the goal here, but I think it’s far, far too late for her to get anywhere using the Clenis-tested Sister Souljah strategy.
Hatred of Hillary on the right is so viceral in depth and theological (or demonological) in its scope that strategic statements like this will make little difference on the right side of the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, statements like this will erode what little goodwill remains for Clinton among progressives. Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton was the object of progressive fantasies for two convergent reasons:
In fact, Hillary is, politically speaking, rather like her husband, minus his mad skillz.
She will either be the John Glenn of the 2008 presidential race (i.e. the frontrunner who wins nothing in the primaries)…or the George McGovern (by which I don’t mean that she will be a far-out leftie, but rather that she will lose spectacularly if she gets the nomination).
In the interest of film-historica accuracy, I meant to say that The American President (NOT Dave) was a Sorkin project.
Hillary Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, Joe Leiberman with lipstick. She represents everything that is wrong with the Democrats and has little or no chance of winning a presidental election. Of course that makes her an ideal DLC choice.
The only way a Democrat can win by running to the right is if the left is willing to hold their collective noses and vote Democratic anyway.
I’ve done that in the past, but will never do it again. If Mrs. Clinton is the candidate, I won’t vote.
I could be totally wrong here, but in spite of her position and the $$ behind her, I don’t think she has much of a chance in 08. Too many “Good Democrats” are dead set against her, and I don’t think that is going to change. If you want to talk about female candidates, someone like Barbara Boxer comes to mind.
Hillary just wants the spotlight, nothing more, nothing less.
Specific example: Early during the Part D fiasco, she was quoted
So, lets take a look specifically at what she has done to rememdy Part D:
Senators Frist and Clinton are co-sponsored the
Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005 with Senators Mel Martinez, Barbara Mikulski, Jim Talent and Barack Obama. The HTEQA implements health information technology standards that would guide the design and operation of interoperable health information systems and establishes standards for the electronic exchange of health information.
Like new software really will help people who can’t afford their prescriptions!
Since she was pushing health care reform earlier, she should be in the forefront. Since she is not, she has no credility with me. (And, IMO, shouldn’t have w/any other voter.)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0613-33.htm
For the entire story…
That’s our Katie Heald from Portland who now has a job with DC CP. She was one who went in…
CodePink is a threat to Hillary??? Cripes.
Nice to know that the dems-or the Hillary group- are now using the same silencing techniques that bushco implements at events. Viva la No Difference eh.
There is no difference. Hillary is a War Supporter. She supports WarPig’s lies.
Ever doubt her BushAssKissing ways – have a love one go to one of her fundraising events and DARE to ask her a question about this war.
At Portland’s Bird Dog Hillary event (id a diary here of mine) our ladies were treated horribly by her security as well as her audience. Signs were grabbed and shredded. They were booed and shoved. Scratched and bruised.
Imagine if Hillary was a Republican…
oh wait…