Hillary Clinton: For Serious Political Junkies Only

I agree (I think) (0.00 / 0)

She doesn't deserve to carry the DLC baggage, that's for sure.

For the record, I think the DLC got sort of a bad rap. Sure, they had Sam Nunn, never my favorite senator, and they are probably at least partly responsible for the rise of Lieberman. But Clinton himself was fairly liberal, except for "welfare reform," "defense of marriage," and a few other dings. I well remember the breath of fresh air in January 1993 -- very early on, he lifted GOP restrictions on funding, reversing the policy of excluding pro-choice organizations. And while we now see "Don't ask, don't tell" as a failure, at the time it seemed OK. He could simply have continued the ban.

I'm rambling a bit, but Clinton himself (according to The New Yorker) always saw the Democratic Party as the centrist party. In other words, America's natural shape is Democratic.

And even ... progressive.

Senator Clinton has said some things that bugged me -- the flag burning thing, and talk of compromise on choice. You know why you can't compromise with them? Because they are only doing it to buy time -- they want a COMPLETE BAN on abortion.

But we have to look at Senator Clinton in toto, and in toto, she's fine.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 11:40:28 AM CDT

I disagree... (0.00 / 0)

partly, at least.

The so called 'centrists' in our party have been wrong time and again, particularly on Iraq.  That's a very broad brush, but a correct one, imo. That they're FINALLY BEGINNING to come around... with 70% of the American Public ahead of them and with electoral proof that the progressive calls to get out are politically safe...  is most definitely NOT indicative that they have made any significant changes in their political views.

Or, will President Clinton introduce the anti-flag burning amendment again?

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:46:22 PM CDT

Senator Clinton voted (4.00 / 1)

against the anti-flag burning constitutional amendment which was stopped short by one vote from getting the two-thirds necessary to pass.

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 21:13:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thank you for that (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 21:59:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe I misunderstood the question (0.00 / 0)

Chaz, as I read the diary, your question seems to be this: Should we see Senator Clinton as a DLC centrist, or judge her based on her current positions?

If that is the question, I say her current positions are much more relevant. If it is not the question, please clarify.

I agree with Nick that the so-called centrists are often wrong, but I also think we are too quick to condemn attempts at centrism and/or reaching across the aisle. Case in point, nobody does it better than the great Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. Does anybody think he's conservative?

---

by: JimC @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 09:10:44 AM CDT

Interesting Article (0.00 / 0)

A couple of months ago I read an interesting article on the issue of "reaching across the aisle" in USA Today in an op-Ed piece by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. They called it their "Common Ground Index" and they rated certain of the Democratic presidential candidates.

The closer you are to a "1" rating indicates a "my way or the highway" approach and the closer you are to a "10" rating indicates a higher tendency to work toward a consensus.

Richardson  8.50
Obama  8.25
Clinton  7.25
Biden  6.00
Gore  5.25
Edwards  5.00

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 21:34:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about the DLC types on her staff? (0.00 / 0)

I understand that despite the public face, which is women, there are some of the old gang advising her, James Carville, Mark Penn, for example.  Can you check that for me, Chaz, and let us know how much influence they have? 
For reference, you can read this:  Kos on Clinton.

And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' "

Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party's netroots activists as "irrelevant." (After all, didn't Dean lose?)

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 05:56:26 AM CDT

"The Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party?" (0.00 / 0)

That is just absurd. Does it invaliadate the rest of the piece? Not necessarily, but it certainly reveals bias.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 09:39:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Known by your enemies. (0.00 / 0)

The Pentagon has issued a stinging rebuke of Senator Clinton, claiming that questions she raised about U.S plans to withdraw from Iraq are boosting enemy propaganda.

Senator Clinton had asked the Pentagon to detail how it is planning for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. She first raised the issue in May, pointing out that whenever troops leave, it will be no simple task to transport the people, equipment and vehicles out of Iraq, possibly through hostile territory.

Eric Edelman, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy and a former aide to VP Cheney, offered a sharply worded response in a written letter dated earlier this week, saying such discussions boost the enemy. A copy of the letter was obtained by the Associated Press.

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

Clinton responded Friday in a letter to Edelman's boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, asking if he agreed with Edelman's charge.

The New York senator said Edelman had ducked her questions and "instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning."

"Undersecretary Edelman has his priorities backward," Clinton wrote, calling his claim "outrageous and dangerous."

She repeated her request for a briefing ? classified if necessary ? on the issue of end-of-war planning.

---

by: gradysdad @ Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 14:59:06 PM CDT