The biggest policy difference I have with Hillary Clinton – and its a big one – is on the Iraq War. On the flip side, I probably share a lot of her policy positions and I especially admire her ability to fight the noise machine – a skill the majority of Dems don’t have/don’t understand they need to have/don’t want to learn. That said, I am still suspicious of her ability to win a general election, but I think she could win the Dem nomination. Mark Penn and James Carville, members of the Democratic establishment, make her case in Sunday’s Post:
We don’t know if Hillary is going to run for president, but as advisers who have worked on the only two successful Democratic presidential campaigns in the past couple of decades, we know that if she does run, she can win that race, too.
I do believe way too many people extrapolate the negative feelings towards Sen. Clinton on Daily Kos and assume its a majority position. In fact, Daily Kos just doesn’t reflect the broad strata of opinion on the Democratic side of the aisle and she remains quite popular with a majority of Dems.
I also want to note that I personally am neither pro nor con “establishment”.
The Democratic base chose Kerry largely because of the electability issue and also because they thought Kerry’s veteran background would neutralize Bush’s strength on the “war on terror”. Big mistake. If you look closely, the base was more in line with Dean and John Edwards. The base was strongly anti-Bush and tepidly pro-Kerry. It ended up costing us.
Two years from now, the progressive blogosphere would I think have more influence this time around. Or, if the same base that picked Kerry in ‘04 sticks around, there’s no question that they see Hillary with very weak electability numbers in ‘08. And that can’t be good for Hillary.
Progressive blogosphere is a very small subset of Democratic base. You’ll remember 2 years ago the progressive blogosphere (including me) supported Dean. The Democratic base chose John Kerry.
I think you are underestimating the lukewarm support Hillary has among committed activists. A large swath of the progressive blogosphere is pretty much against Hillary’s candidacy. The very committed Democratic activists are the ones who are tuned into blogs. These same people do the heavy lifting grunt work for candidates and likely presidential nominees.
The way I see it, Hillary Clinton is not going to run. She can see the writing on the wall this early with her getting booed left and right by her own base.
[...] Downsides? Oliver Willis calls it straight. What is the biggest issue facing the country? The biggest policy difference I have with Hillary Clinton – and its a big one – is on the Iraq War. On the flip side, I probably share a lot of her policy positions and I especially admire her ability to fight the noise machine – a skill the majority of Dems don t have/don t understand they need to have/don t want to learn. No, never, not gonna happen: Liz Sabater writes, No, she s not electable. [...]
Oliver, I will make no bones about it. If Hillary is the nominee of the Democrats, they are going to have a hard time getting my vote, mostly because of Iraq, but also because of her inexperience (dear leader excluded). But it s a long time in political terms until 2008.
Democrats first priority should be to have their act together for 2006. They need present a real alternative to feel-good-do-nothing issues that include worthless constitutional amendments, make-believe immigration reform, irresponsible tax cuts, verbal attacks on federal judges, and the outright lies of dear leader’s political hacks like Mr. Rove that question their patriotism. Simply pointing to the problems we face will not get it done. It is going to require speaking clearly to kitchen table issues that average folks understand. They will also have to be resolute to overcome the din of mindless talking heads in the MSM who, like well-trained magpies, are constantly repeating republican phrases like “democrats have no alternative” or “democrats are in disarray” and the like. So far most have succeeded in resisting media hype about presidential politics. They must continue to do so in order to stay focused on their goal. Gains in public confidence this year can be the springboard to electoral victory in 2008.
I can see Iraq, this year, being for the Democrats what Vietnam was earlier: such an overriding wedge issue that it drives the party to the left wing extremes and eventual decline. Note that even Gore has eschewed a firm withdrawal date: the bellweather ‘must have’ of the extremists. What happens then is that some semi-sane respectable Democrat on the far left of the spectrum like Russ Feingold similar to McGovern) becomes the party’s standard bearer; he loses big time and the party slides. A saving grace is that Republicans, even with totla power, can not handle success very well.
This analysis brought to you free of charge by
Dugger
Shorter Dugger: If the Democrats debate an issue, they’re giving in to their extremist wing; if Democrats don’t debate an issue, they’re stifling dissent within their ranks.
What “extremist” positions are you referring to Dugger?
Quaker,
Nahh. The problem is that the debate is within a leftist political bubble- between the extreme left and, the now rightists, the plain old left. Think of the French Revolution and the Girondists and the Montagnards (HoDean holding up la cabeza de Hillary and the mob of Kossacks go wild – sorry). And the funny thing is that no one, except the ex-communicated, will come out and challenge the extreme rigid left orthodoxy on the war. The extreme left will be pandered to until the nomination is won and then like Kerry, the nominee, unless he/she is of the ilk of Kucinich or Dean, will start shedding those extreme positions that got him nominated.
IMO, Hillary is your only hope.
Dugger (That ought to finish her)
Dugger at 7:33 – Note that even Gore has eschewed a firm withdrawal date:
Dugger at 2:07 – no one, except the ex-communicated, will come out and challenge the extreme rigid left orthodoxy on the war.
Haw! Which is it?
frame,
How about ‘no’?
Dugger
factcheck
Number one – stategic rededeployment (Newspeak for surrender)in Iraq.
And Quaker, Gore has challenged no one on the left on the Iraq issue. My point exactly. If its Iraq, the surrender extremists rule the day. Is Iraq not important enough for Gore to come out and take on the Yahoos straight up? And Gore is still a complete alarmist idiot on the environment. Which reminds me, that the WSJ has a neat article by a MIT climate scientist saying there are a number of disputes about global warming – man’s impact included, contrary to Gore’s extremist assertion and the close minded idiotic “there is no argument” assertion emanating from here earlier.
Dugger
Hey Dugger how about a link or a name or something? Oh I see, because it isn’t an “article” it’s an op-ed. They’re different things dipshit. Also, here’s a response to Lindzen’s earlier June 26 op-ed in the WSJ:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/
News article? Or op-ed?
You don’t have to be Karnak to know the answer…
You are as dishonest as the day is long, my friend.
I’m sooo confused.
Gore has “eschewed a firm withdrawal date” but has managed to do so without challenging all those filthy hippie peacenik surrender-monkey extremists?
He’s a talented fellow.
Ok, Dugger, which national Dems have advocated surrender in Iraq? That YOU interpret it as surrender is your opinion.
Just so you are aware, according to a recent CNN poll, 53% of Americans want a pullout date set. Either they are all “extremists” or……maybe you are the one that is out of tune with mainstream thought.
Many national Republicans, like Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones, NC congressman, also advocate the “extremist” view that we should set a timetable for withdrawal.
Even if I were to concede your point, which I won’t, you only came up with one “extreme” view from national Democrats? That’s all you’ve got?
Quaker and frame,
Wait a minute. The charge here was that there was no debate on climate change – all man made. Do you deny the op ed debate piece was written by an MIT scientist – debating several points on global warming?
Or by ‘no debate’ do you mean that there is a consensus on the political left and thats all that counts?
The reason maybe there is no debate is that people don’t address people like the MIT scientist or Lomborg.
Another thing, why not insist your nominee suppport Kyoto.
factcheck,
Yes. I do regard ’strategic redeployment’ as proposed by leading Democrats as surrender. And if 99% of the American people said so in a CNN poll or a Fox poll, I’d still say it was surrender. So would most soldiers.
Socialized medicine.
Dugger
Dugger
Again, you evade the question. If a majority of Americans support the schedule for withdrawal, how can it be an “extreme” position?
BTW, what national Democrats are advocating socialized medicine? And again, 65% of your fellow Americans support universal healthcare, even if it means increased tax. Who is extreme, really?
If what you’re saying is “it’s extreme because I say it’s extreme”, well, you’re going to have to do better than that. Something tells me you can’t.
But it’s not a quagmire. No, no, no, no.
factcheck,
May be too late on this. out of town for a day.
Some positions are ‘extreme’ regardless of how the public polls on them. And I will gladly address your question if you can tell which CNN poll and when. But I would caution I can get you a polled majority on just about anything by how and when the question is phrased.
Nevertheless, if there is an unambiguous poll that indicates Americans favor cutting and running per a specified near term date (as opposed to a plan to withdraw when conditons are suitable), regardless of the military situation (which I highly doubt), I will say I’m wrong – which I have been before and will be again.
Dugger