OxBlog

Monday, May 08, 2006

# Posted 10:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ANOTHER CHEAPSHOT AT HILLARY'S EXPENSE: This from Sunday's WaPo:
Afraid to offend, [Clinton] has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues -- such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq.

On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line.
That is the opening graf of an article by Markos "Kos" Moulitsas. I expect to see it quoted many times in Hillary's future.

Kos continues:
[Bill] Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Nothing? No balanced budget (the first in decades)? No economic boom? No victory in Kosovo? No 60% approval rating? And killing off the Jesse Jackson wing justifies the Clinton presidency all by itself.

Gee, I guess Kos' article was pretty effective if it has me singing the praises of Bill Clinton. Anyhow, I still think Hillary is in trouble because so many loyal, mainstream Democrats I know consider her unelectable. If she doesn't have the mainstream and doesn't have the "netroots" what does she have?
(7) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:
Scary. The "netroots" are always wrong about anything political. Expect her to be the next president.
 
Re: On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who believe we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line.

It may be quoted time and again, I suppose, but it's actually quite sensible. There's a bit of a straw-man involved, as I don't think anyone actually wants us to remain in Iraq for all time, but the ground she's indicating -- that she thinks we should remain, but not indefinitely -- is an eminently reasonable position. It's also one that most people (aside from, I suppose, Kos and his followers) are likely to support. It may seem a little vacuous as a result, but it's nothing like the blithering incoherence of "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
 
I don't fear her like other Republicans do. She has made the mistake of getting out front politically too fast and too early. With Hillary, familiarity breeds contempt. Notice that other contenders, Mark Warner, AlGore, Fiengold, and possibly Obama, are keeping their powder dry. Condi is slowwwly opening the door just a teensy bit, to. Look at this transcript, from NBC News:
--------
QUESTION: 2008 -- absolutely ruled it out?

SECRETARY RICE: I can't do it, Campbell. Can't do it. I have to work on this Iran, Middle East. I have things to do.
---------

Rice is a diplomat. Everyone in D.C. knows what she just said. No Shermanesque statement that...

Timing is everything in this business.
 
The list of Democrats I would trust with foreign policy is very short. But Hillary's on that list. That Kos is so anti-Hillary is just another feather in her cap.

I don't believe she is electable, but I also thought that about her Senate run. But she ran a smart, tough campaign and surprised a lot of people. I can't dismiss the possibility that she'll do it again.
 
Yes, the 'netroots' of the Dems are infuriating in terms of their second guessing the Right and the 'mainstream' all the time.

As someone viewing events from far off Australia (though I was recently in California and Oregon), it seems obvious to me that Hillary is going to be President - just look at the polls. There's no other way of reading them, that she is the most likely to be elected, and that her only credible challenger is John McCain.

This, from my point of view, is a wonderful scenario, because both would probably be good and competent presidents. Just as Hillary has confused some of her supporters by being centrist, so McCain has done the same in his praises of Commander Cuckoo Bananas (Thank you Homer Simpson!)

All we wish for at the helm of this empire is a modicum of competence. Hopefully they can then lead by example our own sorry mess of a government.
 
Kos of course only thinks about what Bill Clinton did for the party, which is not much, although that has less to do with Clinton himself than the liberal wing of the party rushing to claim credit for Clinton's successes while not being willing to support his actual policies.

Hillary Clinton has something a lot better than the netroots: the black vote, the union vote, and business money.
 
I think that when it comes down to 2008, Mark Warner is just going to sweep it up. However, I think that everyone does underestimate Senator Clinton.

This is a woman who has constantly defied the odds. Whether it was winning a Senate seat in unpopular times in a state she never lived in, to becoming popular in a state she never lived in, to making friends with the Republicans who wanted her dead--this woman is surely a force to be reckoned with. With Hillary, you never know. Do I think she'll pull it off? No. But could she? Absolutely.
 
Post a Comment


Home