Reply
Fri 17 Jun, 2005 10:25 am
This is a spin off of the Democrats gloat thread (and hopefully not a bad omen). I intend this thread to have a liberal/progressive point of view and my support my view of what the Democratic party should be... but any are welcome to join in.
Hillary Clinton would not only be a terrible candidate for the Democratic party (i.e. she would have trouble winning) she would also make a terrible president should she happen to win.
The Democratic party doesn't get it. They need to stand for something and they need to figure it out fast.
I am to the left side of normal, and I couldn't stomach voting Kerry... a lot because the Bush attacks on his character (i.e. flip flop) where spot on. I want to vote for someone who will stand up and tell me what he believes. As much as I hate Bush, I have to respect the fact that I know what he stands for, and I know he won't flinch. Why can't we find a Democrat like that.
John Kerry wasn't really a liberal... at least not an unmoveable liberal. Actually he wasn't really anything. If he was willing to come out against the war, for civil rights etc. etc. who knows what would have happened. He didn't. Some of us didn't vote for him, and many voted with the most lukewarm of support.
Kerry did the amazing. He was painted an mocked for being "liberal" without standing for liberal causes. He somehow gained the disadvantage from both sides of the liberal question.
So here comes Hillary. What is she doing? Just like Kerry she already has the "liberal" label which will stick pretty strong. But, just like Kerry she is pissing off those of us who would like to support a progressive candidate, by cloying to the "extreme middle"
She is supporting war, she is attacking immigrants, this week she even suggested a national ID for citizens. If she is the liberal candidate, who the heck am I supposed to vote for.
I believe things are lining up for the Democrats. The president has unusually low approval ratings, the Republican congress is largely despised. The Religious rights transparent attempts to exert more and more political influence is causing a blacklash.
This is the time for the Democrats to find a voice. They need to be Democrats-- stand up for civil rights, immigrants, education, peace and prosperity. This is not the time to put up a mediocre candidate who tries to cloy to the middle.
Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats... Kerry II.
Hillary would make a horrible president.
In the off chance that she could win the election, Hillary would be a disaster for any American with progressive ideals. A president doing extremist things with a centrist rhetoric is very dangerous.
Like him or hate him, everyone knows where Bush stands. I feel very comfortable opposing him since everyone knows he point of view, his beliefs and where his policies are from.
If Hillary is elected-- the so-called "liberal" Democratic president-- and starts instituting a national ID or dismanteling social-security or escalating our involvement in the Middle East....
What a disaster.
I vow, no matter who is running against her... I will never cast a vote for Hillary.
I am a very progressive voter and part of those who the Democrats claim is their base. I hope they are listening.
ebrown_p
You say you are "progressive".........I don't know what a progressive votes for and against. Please tell me what you are strongly for and against. Then after you have done that ...... where would your positions put you relative to the average red state voter. Perhaps your answer will give us a forcast of the next presidential election.
Thanks
Believe it or not, ebrown, I have similar but opposing concerns over a recent Republican candidate for the same office.
Seems like some days, all we can agree on is frustration.
Re: Hillary is Poison!
Interesting point of view and topic.
ebrown_p wrote:As much as I hate Bush, I have to respect the fact that I know what he stands for, and I know he won't flinch. Why can't we find a Democrat like that.
I believe Joe Lieberman to be in the ballpark, though I suspect he isn't your kind of Democrat. (Going on your description of yourself as left/liberal; apologies if I'm wrong.)
Howard Dean is probably about as brazenly and openly liberal a Democrat as you're going to find at that level, but I think just being himself he is imploding from the external pressures he's under due to his inability to hide who and what he really is.
So, my take on this is that someone like you has a "Sophie's choice" between a principled candidate with whom you disagree or a principled candidate with no chance of winning.
(There are likely other Dems that others could point to. This is just my take on my limited knowledge of the Dem "field".)
Lieberman is squarely in the center and Hillary is trying to edge in that direction because she knows it's the only chance to win. At least going by the word of both parties' spin artists. I also had strong reservation's about Kerry's positions (I think one of them was bend over forwards and let the radical liberals insert hand, but we've had puppets of their party Presidents ever since I can remember). I don't know who will end up with the Democratic nomination but if McCain runs, IMO it's all over.
Ah, politics, such a lovely business. Monkey business, that is.
We should all be so lucky to have McCain run. He should have won in 2000.
I agree with the theory that Hillary is poison though. I know, shocking, eh?
It suprises me that you would vote for McCain, McG.
I don't know why he even calls himself a Republican. He has sold his party out so often he may as well just make it offical and change parties. Although I admit that he would have a good chance to win running as a moderate.
I actually think Hillary has a good chance of winning. The Repus are under estimating both her and the American public. As polarizing as she is, I think she is doing a good job hiding her stripes for the moderates out there while the die-hard libs realize what she is trying to do and will still vote for her.
McGentrix wrote:We should all be so lucky to have McCain run. He should have won in 2000.
I agree with the theory that Hillary is poison though. I know, shocking, eh?
I most definitely would have voted for McCain if he'd run (on any ticket). I actually did vote for him in the Republican primary (love Virginia for that), but to no avail.
I'm going to register, once more, my disgust for the two party system which prevents any candidates that are worth a **** from getting anywhere close to the presidency. And frustrates us all with the pathetic choices it gives us. Holding my nose when I vote doesn't even cut it anymore. The stench permeates everything.
First the loose ends... Lieberman is worse than Hillary, but isn't as dangerous because I don't think he has a shot in hell at the nomination. Progressive is what is traditionally "liberal" -- anti-war, pro-labor, pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-gun control. I don't want to argue issues here and I think what I mean is clear. The Democrats should support their base.
Let's talk about red state/blue state (since rayban brought it up).
The Democrats are following a losing strategy by ignoring their base and trying to put themselves as "centrists".
Look at the last election. We have a pretty evenly divided country. About 30%-35% of us are rabid "conservatives"-- fervently pro-life/ pro-guns/ pro-religion/ pro-military. About 30%-35% of us are rabid "liberals" pro-choice/pro-gun control/ anti-war. That leaves 30% - 40% in the middle.
There were two strategies to get at the middle to win the election.
One side put forward a simple message that did not shy away from the core messages of the base. This candidate talked said war was a good thing, said that he would put security over rights in an aggressive fight against terrorism, sponsored an amendment against gay marriage and said religion should be a greater part of public life. Bush went for his base, was clear on his message and let the middle decide-- but made his positions very clear.
The other side went for the center. Supported the war but didn't support it. Went for this stupid civil unions thing but said that gay marriage was wrong. Tried to play a religion but no religion card. In trying to not offend anyone in the middle/ he left them (as well as his base) completely uninspired and unsure about why they should support him.
So which strategy wins.
Polls show (contrary to what some conservatives are saying) that Americans are not any closer to Bush and the Republicans than to the Democratic base on issues.
The results of the past two elections are an indictment on the unwillingness of the Democratic party to stand for anything. I am sure that if they were less concerned about the "center" and more concerned about convincing American that key progressive values are right (which isn't that hard), they would have much more success.
My point is this... the Democrats don't need more Kerrys, Hillaries or Liebermans.
The Democrats need a Democratic Bush... someone who can present the core values of the party... his core values... simply and forcefully to the American public.
ebrown_p wrote:The Democrats need a Democratic Bush... someone who can present the core values of the party... simply and forcefully to the American public.
And those are what, specifically?
That is a fair question, Scrat. I was thinking about answering "my point exactly.." (which is a valid answer). But I will take a shot at a more thoughtful response.
But my point main is, it is more important for a candidate/party to take a stand, than it is for them to have the most popular position on each issue. Bush has shown us this by taking unpopular stands on some issues (i.e. social security and Terry Schiavo). Much of the middle forgives him because he is consistant.
I will give you the values I would like to see a Democratic candidate stand for. But others will give slightly different answers.
But what I really want is a Democratic candidate who stands for something. What we are getting now is Republican lite.
Here goes.
The Democratic candidate should be clearly and forcefully anti-militant. They should say they plan to truly work within international institutions (i.e. the UN) respect international norms (Kerry tried this, but it was awfully anemic). They should stop nuclear development.
The Democratic candidate should clearly and forcefully speak about global warming. They should admit the consequences and strongly make the case that it is worth it. Again they should work with international institutions.
The Democratic candidate should stand up for the rights of immigrants, clearly and forcefully. They should support a plan that would resolve real economic and social concerns, but also treat immigrants, including those who are living here "illegally" with dignity and give them a chance to become legal residents.
I would include pro-choice and stem-cells (they were willing to stand up for stem-cells) as issues the Democrats can win.
I would also like to see a Democratic candidate stand up for rights of homosexuals to marry. Yes, I know that right now this is not a political winner, and I will forgive a Democratic candidate who is not willing to tackle this one, if he has a backbone on other issues.
But damn it. Why are Democrats such cowards?
Bush gets up and speaks his mind... even supporting issues that a majority of Americans oppose. But, he gets the chance to make his case and people have supported him, at times in spite of his positions.
That is why I want a Democratic Bush... You don't win by finding a weak non-confrontational position on every issue. This is a losing strategy.
The only person I would love to see run for president and WIN right now is Barack Obama.
He has spoken of taking that chance . Im hoping it will be sooner then later.
So far what I have seen from this man is no cowardice, no b-s , very upfront and honest.
How long will that attitude last? Ah.. who knows.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.obama.transcript/
Lieberman doesn't have a prayer. He's too conservative, but even worse, the least charismatic politician I've ever seen or heard. The man sucks the oxygen out of the room--or TV screen.
While I don't share the animosity for Hillary that others do, I agree that she's made to order for the haters out there. Not that they'd vote for any other Democrat, but why make it easy for the GOP? There's already a book coming out that seeks to destroy her, Swift Boat Vets style...
the repulican party is scared shitless of Hillary clinton so how bad can she be?
ebrown_p wrote:First the loose ends... Lieberman is worse than Hillary, but isn't as dangerous because I don't think he has a shot in hell at the nomination. Progressive is what is traditionally "liberal" -- anti-war, pro-labor, pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-gun control. I don't want to argue issues here and I think what I mean is clear. The Democrats should support their base.
Let's talk about red state/blue state (since rayban brought it up).
The Democrats are following a losing strategy by ignoring their base and trying to put themselves as "centrists".
I've never understood what distinguishes the liberal/democrat or conservative/republican "base" from your everyday dem or repub. Can someone take a second to explain this to me?
Hillary has been to only person that made me actively participate in a campaign. There are a lot of people like me that are not usually as involved in campaigns as we could be and Hillary will again motivate me to help whomever campaigns against her for any public office.
I personally feel that she does not have a clean enough background and is far too disliked to ever become president. I would actually fear for her life were she to run as there are some real nut jobs out there. Not the ones you find here on A2K, but the kind that really do the insane crap you read about.
Hey! Cool to see you back, Scrat!
Re: Hillary is Poison!
ebrown_p wrote:I am a very progressive voter and part of those who the Democrats claim is their base. I hope they are listening.
If I look at her record so far, the main thing I see a health care reform proposal that failed in the early nineties, but made sense. She might be throwing a few rhetorical bones, but in terms of where the meat is, she still seems solidly liberal. Are there any bills or other initiatives in her record that disturb this picture, or is it just her rhetoric that has shifted to the right somewhat? My impression is that it's the latter.
Not sure what her current voting record looks like, but I think e_Browns point is that the candidate needs to NOT shift to the center even in their speeches, guest appearances, etc. I've heard Hillary has done the shift to center in some of her statements over the past several months.
What about Joe Biden. I love what Ive heard him say, though I admit I don't know his record.
squinney wrote:Not sure what her current voting record looks like, but I think e_Browns point is that the candidate needs to NOT shift to the center even in their speeches, guest appearances, etc. I've heard Hillary has done the shift to center in some of her statements over the past several months.
Well, but ebrown also says he wants a Democratic Bush. If you watch the 2000 presidential debates, you will notice that Bush, too, presented himself as a much more moderate candidate than he actually was, while his record was consistently conservative before and after his election.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace