Et Tu, Hillary?
The author of this blog and many others gave Hillary Clinton proper respect as the leading Democratic candidate for 2008, and most of us acknowledged her relative moderation and strength on Iraq as welcome surprises. I’m beginning to reconsider. Recent signs, such as her incredibly offensive race-baiting on MLK Day, point to a Hillary who is feeling the heat of the incessant carping from the radical activist base. Unfortunately, Hillary has taken the wrong lesson from this.
Earlier today, we saw how Timothy Kaine of Virginia practically wore opposition from the progressives like a badge of honor. That bodes well for his future, for only by ignoring the far-left tendencies of the former Deaniacs can any Democrat hope to win national office. Hillary has failed this test, clearly, and let the opposition rattle her. Rather than taking the progressives on head-to-head, she has bowed to their whims in her best impression of formerly mighty and now ridiculous figures such as Al Gore and John Kerry.
I’m talking about the New York senator’s decision to support the Alito filibuster. Read the following (it need not be between the lines), and see if you can guess the intended audience:
“History will show that Judge Alito’s nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation,” Clinton wrote in a statement during a fundraising stop in Seattle.
Wow – that is nonsense of a rare degree.
Here’s how Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report saw it:
Analysts said Clinton had little choice but to back the filibuster, given Kerry’s Thursday announcement that he was reviving the stop-Alito movement. For all the talk of Clinton’s shift to the center on abortion, she can ill-afford to let a possible adversary outflank her on the left among liberals who favor abortion rights, according to Jennifer Duffy, who monitors the Senate for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
“It’s an empty gesture,” Duffy said of Clinton’s announcement. “What Democratic primary voter is going to vote for her if she didn’t do everything to oppose Alito? … She had to join John Kerry.”
Well, coming from a paid professional, that is astonishingly poor analysis. What Democrat, I would ask Duffy, will support Clinton because of the Alito vote? The hardcore progressive vote, miniscule as it is, is lost to her already…her position on Iraq has assured that. The average American wants Alito confirmed, as poll after poll has shown.
Indeed, I suspect that the rank-and-file Democrats will look askance at this blatant attempt to play it both ways…so we have a move that wins no votes, exposes Clinton to charges of pandering, and gives fodder to those like me who will surely remind everyone of the vote should Clinton become the nominee – and, of course, there is the futility of the gesture, as well.
Pretty bad day’s work, if you ask me…
Weekend (Open) Round-Up / USA
According to this Gallup poll, 51% of American citizens say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 (while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp). So, while the New York Sun writes that “Clinton…
“Wow – that is nonsense of a rare degree.”
One can only wish that that were so.
The relevant issue is not Hillary, but whoever can WIN the presidential election. If it’s a yellow dog, I don’t care. Even a flea-infested pooch can do a better job than Bush.
Which leads me to this:
We all know what Bush is going to say Tuesday night, and how he’ll say it. What’s more we know that immediately afterward Karl “turd blossom” Rove will get the propaganda machinery running at full speed to paint a rosy picture for that brain-dead 42 percent of the electorate who eagerly swallow this Fascist filth whole.
There’s one way to affect the news coverage of the upcoming Bush/Rove tap dance. And that is when Bush begins his SOTU lies, every Democrat in the chamber should simply get up and walk out. No shouting, no banner waving. Just a silent and dignified protest against Bush’s attempt to destroy the founding fathers’ conception of balance of power, judicial review, and congressional oversight.
Yes, I know. This will never happen. Bush will blather, and the conventional media’s stenographers will just repeat his bullsh** as if it isn’t bullsh**.
And then back to business as usual.
“brain-dead 42 percent”?
I take it. Mr. Palcewski, that offering you a Dale Carnegie course in how to win friends and influence people would be a waste of time
And the left wonders why, for all their faults (and they ARE legion), the GOP keeps winning elections. :~
I don’t wonder why the GOP wins elections –
a) they have a lot more money to spend
b) they play dirty: allied organizations, such as the Swift Boaters, combined with the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of political brawling, will confuse enough people to win elections
c) the House seats are gerry-mandered in their favor
d) when all else fails, they have the Supreme Court to bail them out
peter, I believe fatman was referring to the well-known and universally acknowledged Democratic tactic of alienating anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% – a tactic you yourself have done well with in your reply…
Why should anyone be alienated by what I wrote? These are all demonstrable facts — if I am wrong, then I am eager to learn why I am wrong –
They play dirty, the Supreme Court to bail them out…demonstrable facts, are they?
I guess that means you have proof that the Supreme Court acted on the orders of the Republicans – that would be a demonstrable fact. Otherwise, it’s an opinion…
As far as the playing dirty goes, well, gee, I guess the Democrats are little angels…Ralph Neas and NARAL certainly wouldn’t dream of distorting a Republican position and then feeding talking points to Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, now, would they?…
I didn’t say or imply that the Court acted on the Rebpublicans’ orders — however, the result was everything the GOP could have hoped for. The decision in Bush v. Gore was the act which put George Bush in the White House. That is demonstrable fact.
I don’t know who Ralph Neas is, and I’m not familiar with what NARAL did that you are referring to. I don’t claim that Democrats universally belong in the pantheon of saints. However, I don’t think there is a time in recent history (since 1960, anyway) where you can make the case that Democratic misdeeds caused them to win an election they should have lost.
It’s my opinion that the Swift Boat thing caused Kerry to lose the election. It was concurrent with his nomination and basically stopped him in his tracks for a few weeks. (You could argue that he could have responded better — but I don’t think that your ability to respond effectively to false smear campaigns is a very important criterion for how good a President you would be). You could also make the case that Bush won the nomination in 2000 because of Rove’s smearing of John McCain in the South Carolina primary. Politics ain’t beanbag — but I don’t see how anyone could deny that playing dirty played a significant, if not decisive, role in GOP wins over the past several years.
“I don’t know who Ralph Neas is, and I’m not familiar with what NARAL did that you are referring to.”
Then why on earth make the argument, Peter? Your cognitive dissonance on these threads are quite amazing at times.
What’s going on with Hillary is that her position on Iraq has so alienated the base of her party that she is forced to pander to it on every non-security issue she can in order to curry favor. And, as much as I prefer candidates who don’t pander to those who do, if you HAVE to pander to your base, better to do it on this issue than on our nation’s security. Joe Lieberman, every Republicans’ favorite Democrat, is doing the same thing, lets not forget.
Now, that’s not to say this isn’t extremely poor long-term planning on HRC’s part. By going 0 for 2 with Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, and backing the filibuster option, she has essentially handed the Republican Party veto power of any of her potential Supreme Court nominations — assuming her master plan comes to fruition. But traitorous? Not hardly.
All you have to say about the dems. is think Kennedy!
Vote for Hillary turn in your gun tommorow get robed or raped next week. Hillary will weaken this country and throw it into civil war. Do you want the UN patroling the streets of the USA? If you think Bush is bad just hope that Hillary doesn’t win in 08. You think she is in the best interest of mainstreem America? What has she really done to protect the children? Take daddys guns so he can’t protect his family. But she doesn’t support laws to put child rapists in jail for 25 to life. How can anyone that supports abortion say that they are doing anything for the children? If Hillary is elected I will move to Isreal or Switzerland until she is assinated. I think if she wins it will be the shortest presidency in history. I am not telling anyone to assinate anyone, but wouldn’t shead a tear if she was.