In an article entitled Frustration Over Iraq Vote Unlikely to Trouble Clinton, Raymond Hernandez of the New York Times explains the mentality of Camp Clinton.
Political analysts say Mrs. Clinton’s standing within the party gives her greater room to maneuver politically.
“She has the left in her back pocket,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac institute. “She doesn’t have to worry about catering to them. She has to worry about attracting centrist Democrats, the mainstream of the party.”
Those poll numbers are for New York State, where she is running for a second term in the Senate. She is facing an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini. Cindy Sheehan has endorsed him. Of course, Tasini is unlikely to help the anti-war cause:
“The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq,” he said. “If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it’s a distraction.”
No offense to Tasini, but I have to agree. Hillary Clinton’s re-election is a foregone conclusion, and it will send the wrong message if her victory is seen as validation for pro-war candidates in the 2008 presidential primaries.
The bigger problem is the mentality of dismissiveness towards the liberals in the party. Hillary is positioning herself in the center on a number of issues, including her asinine sponsorship to protect the flag.
That argument was at the heart of the politics of Bill Clinton, who succeeded in defusing issues that Republicans had often used against Democrats.
Mr. Carroll, of Quinnipiac, argues that many of Mrs. Clinton’s more moderate positions will help inoculate her against what he says will be a line of attack against her in a Democratic presidential primary: that she cannot win a general election for the White House because she is so politically polarizing.
“When we are talking about the presidency, centrist Democrats will try to make the case that she is not electable,” Mr. Carroll said. “I don’t know if it’s a valid argument. But it will be made.”
…But Mr. Matzzie, of MoveOn.org, said that while Mrs. Clinton had solid support among liberal Democrats, her break with them on a crucial issue like Iraq could lead to questions about her commitment to her own supporters.
That, he said, could ultimately fuel a sense within the larger electorate that she is politically disloyal.
“If she is perceived as disloyal to her base, then who is she loyal to?” he said. “The genius of Bill Clinton is that he was always perceived as loyal to his base. But we didn’t have an issue during his presidency that was as divisive as Iraq.”
The Clintons are not loyal to anyone but themselves. They know how to govern, and they are savvy strategists. I find it hard to argue with their strategy, as Hillary needs to defuse her lightning rod image in order to have a decent chance to compete in many purple states. But they are living in the past.
Democrats (and many independents) are craving leaders that will stand up and call it like it is. That is what bloggers do everyday and that is why liberal blogging is such a growth industry. Call Bush a chickenhawk and the greatest threat to the country, as Paul Hackett did, and legions will line up to support you. And you’ll get bonus points for doing it early before it was popular or merely politically expedient.
Hillary is doing what she needs to do, after years of being pilloried by the right she is distancing herself from the base (the special-interest groups). It’s a strategy that makes a lot of sense…for her. But it is not a strategy that makes a lot of sense for us. We want to swing the pendulum back further than the centrism of Bill Clinton and the DLC. We think conditions are ripe for a big backlash against the GOP. But, we will not see that backlash unless the contrasts between our policies and Bush’s policies are made as stark and obvious as possible. Hillary is not the right vehicle for that.
I would not be heartbroken if she became President. But I guarantee that I will fight against her nomination. If she wins, it means we have a lot less influence than we had hoped. It means that we are already in Hillary’s back pocket.
I don’t feel that way. Do you?
I’m not. At this point, I’m not willing to support her, or any other candidate that continues to support this stupid war. Plus, I’d like to see a president whose name isn’t Bush OR Clinton.
Know him personally, and if he can fuck it up for Democrats he will, as long as he can get his name in the papers.
As president of the National Writers Union, he basically ran it into the ground.
And the big win of Tasini vs the New York Times (notice he got his name in there, and not that of the National Writers Union), the fight to get writers paid if magazines or newspapers also used their articles on website, was a pyrrhic victory — now newspapers and magazines routinely grab every right for the same low price (previously, writers would sell first rights, and could then resell elsewhere.)
It culminated in a fight during the last election, where Tasini knew that the health insurance he’d negotiated for members was fraudulent, but warned no one during the election for fear he wouldn’t win.
Many NWU members ended up with thousands of dollars in unpaid bills, and they were the lucky ones — the real tragedy was for those who didn’t get treatments they needed desperately, but were hung out to dry by the fraulent insurance.
In one case, a member in the midst of chemotherapy, who would have died without it, was $30,000 or more in debt to her doctor, who finally refused to continue treatment until he was paid $15,000 for his out-of-pocket expenses.
I was there at the battle between those on the board who insisted the NWU front the doctor the money and Tasini, who fought against saving that woman’s life.
Tasini ended up quitting the NWU halfway through his last term, to set up some sort of vague charity website to fight “media issues.”
Guess that didn’t work out for him, or at least, didn’t get him the free press, that running against Hillary would.
Beware of Tasini, he’s out for himself, and no one else.
It sounds like he has chosen the right career, and is likely to enjoy great success in the political arena, regardless of how this particular “election” turns out.
<shudder> What a jerk!
Also, I was referring to 2008, not 2006. Her reelection is a foregone conclusion. New York seems to like her, and she appears to have been a very good Senator. I just don’t want her as President….
then she had better start watching her ass.
…is that even though Americans have turned against the war in Iraq, they still dislike protesters against it, and they don’t trust anyone who didn’t vote for it.
Many still think the Democrats are the party of pacifists and appeasers.
An unapologetic, anti-militarist liberal would carry a huge appeal for the netroots but little for the public as a whole. The candidates we like best are not electable in the current political climate.
Hillary can kiss my ass. She had the opportunity to stand up to the Cabal of Fascists in the WH and instead continues to pander to them. If it means sitting out in 08 or writing someone in I will never support her or anyone like her. The Party better start to realise this or there will be no hope to put an end to the Republican Police State we are living under now.
President Hillary Clinton – the James Buchanan of the 21st century.
I somehow got on her mailing list and it pissed me off when I got spam telling me about her speeches and asking me to give her $$$. So I stopped being on her mailing list.
She doesn’t represent me or any of my beliefs and I’ll do everything I can to not let her get the nomination.
I hate that she’s become the de facto nominee in 2008 by the press, since a lot can happen in 2 years to change the dynamics of the electorate.
I truly resent that people assume that we are sheeple and will vote for Hillary because the press tells us to. We aren’t like republicans where we will vote for whomever gets the nomination because the party has spoken.
Hillary needs to prove to us that she deserves our vote. And everything she’s said and done has done little to convince me. If she gets the nomination, it might be the first time in my adult life that I will not vote in a national election.
posted over there.
Chris Matthews says Hillary has the Democratic nomination sewn up; it does not make it so. She better just hold onto her seat in the Senate and stay out of the national arena. I will not vote for Hillary. Period.
I want a liberal, progressive, pro-peace candidate and if the Democratic Party doesn’t give me one, I’ll vote Green. It’s not all about electability and “winning” to me. If the Dems sell out their principles, if they abandon the so-called “special interest groups” like women, minorities, gays, and the poor (you know, the majority of the people in this country!) then, they aren’t my party anymore.
What an interesting write-up, Boo.
One thing to consider — and as I think you’re inferring: We need to be solidly behind Hillary for her ’06 reelection campaign.
Maria Cantwell is facing the same problem in ’06 — a primary opponent who is actually a Green Party member but who has crossed over to the Democratic party just to run against Cantwell. (And he’s on the popular state politics mailing lists, busily trying to seduce liberal Democrats.)
One thing that Maria Cantwell has done very constructively is to create a prominent image of herself as an opponent of ANWR drilling and as a new energy advocate.
She also spoke eloquently against Gonzales’s confirmation, stressing his involvement with Enron — which has been a huge problem for county utilities in Washington state. (Maria has also worked hard with local utilities officials to help them with their suits against Enron.)
I don’t know Hillary’s voting and issues record as well as Maria’s. But has Hillary also given the left some solid, prominent support on key issues such as ANWR, energy, and Enron?
If so, she’ll have assets that will appeal to the left-of-center Democrats.
And didn’t she vote against Gonzales’s confirmation?
Wonder how she’ll vote on Alito. Any indicators?
you and duranta have different takes.
I sympathize with duranta very much. But, in this case, losing badly is not going to embarrass anyone but the people that supported the believed in the challenger. It is not a good way to make a point.
It may be you that is missing the point. Apparently this man, although I know nothing about him except that he is an anti-war candidate, believes enough in his “mission” to challenge a sitting, popular, U.S. Senator. Perhaps, to him, it is not about winning either.
I would hope the anti-war folk would flock to him, if he’s not screwy in other areas. Would like to see his platform.
It isn’t always about winning. In fact, for the issues we have all supported, it’s often not about winning.
Point is, a lefty candidate, if he is that, that is anti-war, could push Hillary more to the left, which isn’t a bad thing, is it?
what the poll numbers in NY show is that Hillary is headed for a crushing victory and that this opponent will not budge her an inch. He is no more than bug on Hillary’s windshield.
I don’t begrudge him his principles and his right to run. However, I think he will accomplish the reverse of what he hopes.
Dems will turn to us and say, “If an anti-war candidate cannot do better than 3% in New York primary, what are our chances in 2008 with Russ Feingold?”
We don’t need that kind of example flung in our face.
on the windshield if people like you hold back because he “has no chance of winning”. It’s the anti-war message, and the noise we can make with it, that would matter.
Also, Hillary is corporate beholden. It would be interesting to know his views on economic issues.
Boo, they’re going to say that about Feingold either way…
Boo Man …this isn’t a sporting event where one side wins and the other side loses. You guys keep talking about winning….what does winning get you?
This war is about to blow up in the face of the United States…..the militias are arming to take over Kirkuk, the Shiites in the South are going to get help from Iran and their militias will probably start fighting US forces.
The war will greatly expand into Iran and Syria very possibly instead of bringing the troops home they will be sending more.
Got to get out of Iraq now.
There is nothing pragmatic about winning with Hilliary unless she is playing possum.
There won’t be much of a change and they will crucify her if she were ever to become president without complete control of both houses.
I’ve been in the “Hillary = Yuk” camp for a while, but Mrs. K.P. keeps telling me she’s OK, so I looked into which organizations rated her highly and which didn’t (see here; on green issues here) and maybe I can live with her as the nominee after all – but she’s still not my first choice in the primaries. Like Bill, she’s a little too smooth, a little too finger-in-the-wind. But maybe you need to be to take the White House? 😛
if you don’t at least applaud the guts of an anti-war candidate running against her, and lend him some support.
This is the perfect time and way to embarrass her, nevermind his chances. Things could get really nasty, even more nasty, in Iraq, during the course of this campaign.
Fuck Moveon.org. They’ve been weak on the war.
I’ll attend a rally for this candidate, if I can get up there.
Yes Fuck Move on. Org and Juan Cole too both of whom are not firmly against the war and pulling the troops out.
The Iraqi Army may very well dissolve very soon back into the militias and insurgents from which large parts of them are drawn and they will be fighting the United States. This war is ….words cannot describe….how screwed up being there for one more second is…..it appears it’s about to blow…..
people like Clinton and Kerry and tell them that we DON’T like them, or DON’T want them to run for higher office (as, Pres.)
I really really do this, and think more people should. For instance, if Clinton infers from these numbers that she could win the Presidency, I think she’s completely wrong.
I write back on the fundraising letters I get from her. “Don’t run…” blah blah blah.
I bookmarked Kerry/Clinton’s “write me” address, and drop by from time to time to tell him not to run.
Write Clinton:
http://clinton.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Write Kerry:
http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/
Also — you can often pick up a zip code in their area from their site, and I never ever use my real name or real email. (.invalid.com as ISP in an email address prevents bounces from happening.)
No representative or senator would give any credence at all to their email. As it is, I often feel my words are disappearing into the ether – more behavior like this would make it even worse.
But look at the recent info on spying. I’m not risking it. You can if you want.
I started the zip code thing because some elected officials have their web sites set up to only take comments from people in their area.
it’s interesting just how much a lightning rod hillary is to both the democrats and the republicans. it’s amazing to me, given the role she had to play as bill’s “first lady” that she has managed to get where she is today. she had a lot of baggage, not of her own choosing, to carry and she has had some remarkable success. she would be really stupid not to position herself as more of a centrist.
how does one play the presidential nomination game without making compromises? is it even remotely possible to succeed unless this is done? answer: no way.
we liberal/independents have our passions and our benchmarks. how many of these, if pursued doggedly and inflexibly, will insure failure of the candidate we choose (assuming we have our way)?
that said, there are at least three potential candidates i would vote for and hillary is just one of them. i’m not in her pocket and i doubt if many people are. why are we letting the pollsters frame the issues for us? that’s fundamentally what i object to on this thread.
Sorry, folks.
I think the game is already over, and Hillary has won.
She may be living in the past, but she is JUST far enough ahead of the rest of the Dem pack to have the nomination pretty well wrapped up already, barring huge mistakes or illness. She has mended her bridges with the people who hold the REAL power here…big money…and they have given her their imprimatur as the “safe enough” candidate.
Just like Small k Kerry, only 100 times the politician.
Bet on it…NO ONE is running successfully for the office of President if they do not have a substantial amount of backing by the ruling classes.
No one.
No matter who tries…left, right or or out to lunch, Dean, Buchanan, Perot etc….they will face NY Times/USA Today/WAPO/Time/Newsweak/CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX/CNN style media assassination (“AAAAAARGH!!!”) before they even break a solid lead.
She knows this…she ALREADY ran an end run around them with Bill.
If you MUST oppose her…remember. NO ONE is who they seem to be in this charade.
NO one.
This is just practical politics as usual.
Just as it always was.
Watch.
McCain and Hillary are the candidates in ’08.
Barring illness.
Watch.
They have BOTH made their deals already, and may the best sham win.
I am a musician, and studied for many years with a man who said “You can’t practice a note if you can’t play it.”
Yup.
Well, you can’t change a country until you are in office.
Sorry.
That’s the name of the game, and Hillary Clinton is a PAST MASTER of the trade.
Bet on it.
AG
“may the best sham win”
ROTFLMAO
Seriously, though, you notice she didn’t decide to become the carpetbag senator from, say, Michigan or Illinois. She knows where the levers of power and money are, and by running from New York she’s letting the PermaGov know – at every swank dinner and cocktail party where you’re providing the background music, LOL – that she’s OK, she’s someone they can do business with, never mind the “D” label.
And some of those folks have at least some issues in common with us – some of them are in the insurance industry, and think global heating is very bad for business, for example; some are manufacturers of alternative energy sources; some are simply scared to death at the way their “R” party has been taken over by religious extremists and don’t see that as a good thing for their particular quarterly profits. (In general, any kind of extremism is probably bad for business…)
After all, George Soros didn’t make his money on the “El Gordo” lottery in Spain. And he’s been useful to the Democrats. (Investing in a future Quid Pro Quo, to be sure, but that’s how it’s ever been…)
And Hillary is lining up those folks now for her run.
I hate to be cynical, but you’re quite probably right.
She may be living in the past, but she is JUST far enough ahead of the rest of the Dem pack to have the nomination pretty well wrapped up already, barring huge mistakes or illness.
When is the last time the safe, conventional democratic nominee actually won the presidency? JFK? FDR? Hillary Clinton will never be elected President of the United States. Nominating her puts us 4 years closer to the disintegration of the United States.
Disintegration of the United States?
Could be.
Do you believe in majority rule?
Well, if a true and accurate poll were to be taken of all the people of the earth, I would bet that the majority of them would be in favor of that outcome.
How far are you ready to take the idea of “democracy”?
How far?
Maybe Hillary is the ULTIMATE Democrat.
Could be…
AG
Ain’t that the truth. Ultimate democracy. I think about that in terms of various world events. Like should Iran have nuc b-mbs? Would it help ck the power of the USA? Would that be good?
Ain’t that the truth –but possibly there goes my privilege up the chimney. Sigh. Time to buy more solar I guess.
Give up most of your privilege willingly.
It is, as another diary has it here about the topic of the NSA wiretaps, the fruit of a poisonous tree.
The fruit of economic imperialism.
And it is going to kill us all, in the long run.
It is really not a question of whether (or even when) other nations get nuclear weapons. That will happen, because the technology is available for money. The only way it can be stopped is by MORE war, and eventually the haves will run out of troops. When that happens, we either let the nuclear cat out of the bag or settle for Mutually Assured Destruction on a multinational scale. Also known as MADness. Once them injuns start to gittin’ them repeatin’ rifles, it’s going to be genocide or peaceful coexistence, and genocide on that scale by the use of WMDs quite probably means the end of the human race.
This is what the ban the bomb people were marching about way back in the ’50s. They were right. First it was the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Then China. Then several Western European nations. Then various Third World countries. Soon…soon enough, if it hasn’t happened already…small time warlords and drug cartels will have nukes. THEN what do you do? Kneel down, put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?
Or…make peace on a share and share alike basis.
Those are the only two options besides dragging along in this constant state of low level warfare, mired in the morass of a GLOBAL Iraq.
The have nots don’t have not any more, LookingUp. They won’t have it, and are willing to die for it.
Can’t kill ’em all…
AG
own the Constitution for the coming generation or two via Bush’s 2-4 Justice seats. The biggest single scare factor against voting Right or sitting out is that we might lose the Court. Well, now we’ve lost it.
So I’m not going to vote for anyone who won’t show me they’ll take the country back for the people. Not Mickey Mous, not Democratic Presidential Nominee Corporatist <fill_in_blank>.
Any questions Democrats?
Unless you take the viewpoint that the Republicans are just the current “paper corporation” supported by the Corporate PermaGov, and that as soon as they’re bad enough for business they’re outta there.
In which case we get AG’s choice of Hillary and McCain, in which case we can either choose the lesser poison or stay home and in effect vote for the other guy.
In the last thirty years the only times a Democrat won the White House was in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, when public revulsion over Nixon’s pardon combined with ineptitude managing the economy (anyone remember “WIN” buttons?) led to Carter, and a third-party candidate (twice) led to Clinton.
I suspect the corporate and public interests may have one of their infrequent alignments again in 2008 to remove the Republicans, but the corporate powers that be always remain behind the scenes…
But isn’t that EXACTLY the reason why we should be supporting some other candidate in the primary (yes, even a – gasp – anti-war candidate)? The fact that Hillary will win either way in no way “validates pro-war candidates”. And to use such as justification to not run another primary candidate sounds like faulty reasoning to me.
As a New Yorker, I’ll be voting for anyone else in the Dem primary.
I don’t have very strong feelings about Hilary one way or the other, with the the exception that I ABSOLUTELY DON’T want her as the presidential nominee in 08. Enough with the loser dinosaur centrists already.
If I really believed that Clinton was “crafting” a principled “centrist stance” on the war, I might cut her half a break. If I really believed her “stance” spoke to deep misgivings and ambivalence about the right policy in Iraq, if I really believed the whole thing just befuddled her so badly that she was unable to figure out the right thing to do, I’d feel for her–I probably still wouldn’t support her, but I’d understand where she was coming from.
But I don’t believe any of this. I’ve made fun of and ranted against Hillary’s “stance” for quite a while now, but I’ve been thinking more about it of late. I think what’s happening here is that Clinton doesn’t believe that Iraq will still be an issue in the next campaign she plans to run, but that the “war on terror” will be. Follow me through this:
If John Murtha’s right, and I believe he is, most US troops will be out of Iraq in 2006, in time for Republicans not to have to run against the president in the midterm elections, and in time to help blunt Democratic charges about the mismanagement of the war (“My God,” they’ll say. “We rebuilt Iraq from rubble to a stable Democracy in a matter of four years–it took twice that long in Germany and Japan” etc.).
Now, Clinton doesn’t think she has to run in 2006 (more on this in a moment), but she is running in 2008, so no more need to fuck around about ‘ifs’ anymore.
In 2008, under Clinton’s formulation, Iraq will be a distant memory–the only time we’ll think about it is when the stray reports of car bombs or factional war leak out, and it won’t be our problem anymore, anyway (I’m speaking politically, of course). Clinton will then have the best of all worlds–Iraq won’t hurt her with anyone but the most diehard of the Democratic base (which base will again be marginalized if the war’s been over for two years); and when she gets to the general election, not only will the Republicans not be able to call her weak, she’ll actually be able to revive the issue of Iraq. She’ll be able to go on the offensive against the perceived Republican strength on military issues, because things like her time on the Armed Services Committee and her December 2005 email to her supporters show how deeply engaged she is on military matters. Hell, by 2008 she may have even figured out a way to say that the gibberish in her email was an actual policy for success in Iraq.
If Hillary’s right, then she’ll run in the primary on “electability” (“Do you really want a pinko like Feingold heading the ticket?” the whisper campaigns in Iowa will go.) and in the general on “steadfastness and experience.” She’ll bring on Wes Clark as the veep, and that could very well be the ball game.
So–as if this should surprise anyone–what Hillary is doing is smart. Not right, but smart. If things go the way she thinks they will, then she’s perfectly positioned for 2008. And even if they don’t, then she’s still got time for her position to “evolve” between now and then–in other words, she can write her apology to the Washington Post when people will remember it.
This is why Tasini’s campaign against Hillary is so important. They’d probably have to catch Hillary in bed with Ken Lay and a half-dozen coked-out prostitutes for Tasini to have any chance of winning, but it’s imperative for the future of the party that Hillary be forced to take a position on the single greatest political and moral issue American presidents face: when and why and how to go to war. If Hillary’s allowed to dodge this question until 2008, when the question comes on her terms, then she could very well be the next President of the United States.
Tasini for New York is here.
The MOQUOL–I Can Save You, America!
I got this big hatpin… and I’m not afraid to use it.
“The case I would make is that 2006 needs to be a year of reckoning for Republicans on Iraq,” he said. “If the antiwar candidate is creamed by Hillary Clinton, it’s a distraction.”
I disagree strongly with this. Without commenting on Tasini’s worthiness, the expectation is that he will get creamed. The polls show he will get creamed. If he gets creamed, there will be stories for a news cycle of two and then everyone will move on to more important issues.
On the other hand, if he actually has a strong showing (as small as 20-25%), Republicans will play up how weak Clinton is and that will be the spin in most of the media. I don’t see how the anti-war crowd will suffer at all from Tasini’s candidacy. Expectations are almost nil. That formula has worked great for Bush the Lesser all these years, I don’t see why we shouldn’t let the death of logical media work in our favor too.
“I don’t see how the anti-war crowd will suffer at all from Tasini’s candidacy.”
Neither do I, Shalimar. I think it may actually be the last chance to make her answer questions about the war.