Hillary Watch '08

Speaking of Hillary, I note that Ed Cox, Dick Nixon's son-in-law (Tricia's hubby) has all but announced that he's running against her for Senate in NY. This will be rich...

HILLARY IS SMART TO ZIP HER LIP By DEBORAH ORIN

RIGHT now, Sen. Hillary Clinton seems to be the only Democratic White House wannabe with the smarts to understand that President Bush won't be her 2008 opponent, so Bush-bashing isn't always smart.

After Bush's big Iraq speech Tuesday night, Clinton didn't issue a reaction statement and skipped the chance to make high-profile TV appearances lambasting him.

By contrast, other Dem hopefuls, like Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.), blabbed everywhere they could. Kerry even flip-flopped, raising "the specter of quagmire" in a New York Times op-ed piece that ran before the speech, and then admitting after the speech that "we've made progress" in Iraq.

No one can say now if Iraq will be deemed a success or a mess in two years, when the 2008 race heats up. Clinton is doing a better job of hedging her bets than her rivals, possibly because she learned the hard way.

In December 2003, she went to Baghdad and came back second-guessing Bush's military strategy, claiming he sent the wrong "mix of troops" and saying victory "is not assured."

That didn't play well, and since then, she's avoided playing armchair general, a lesson Kerry has yet to learn.

When she blasts Bush, it's mostly on issues other than Iraq. If things go badly in Iraq, she can always step up her criticism, but she'll have a lot less fancy footwork to do than Kerry if things go well in Iraq.

After all, any Dem eyeing 2008 has to plan on the assumption that the most likely Republican nominees are Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rudy Giuliani.

Both McCain and Giuliani would run as staunch backers of the war on terror, with a personal track record ?- Giuliani on 9/11 and McCain as a Vietnam POW hero ?- but they won't have to defend Bush's specific actions in Iraq.

A Democrat who second-guesses Bush all the time over the war runs the risk of looking weak on defense. That would be of particular concern if you're seeking to be the first woman president and likely to run against a war hero or 9/11 hero.

Clinton also has to be especially wary about choosing her times to blast Bush, because she's so polarizing. A new Rasmussen poll found 30 percent of Americans say they'd definitely vote for her in 2008, but 39 percent would definitely vote no.

That means she'd have to win over a lot of undecided voters to capture the White House, a very dicey prospect if you're eyeing a race against McCain or Giuliani, neither of whom is as polarizing as Clinton ?- or Bush.

Source

My fondest wish is a race between Giuliani and Clinton. That would make it a win- win situation. They are idiologically not too far apart. It would be made even more sweet since it would leave the conservatives and religious right without a candidate.

BUSH-BASH HILL MAKES LEFT TURN
By DEBORAH ORIN

MAYBE Sen. Hillary Clinton has come down with a bad case of tone-deafness. Or maybe she's caught MoveOn disease.

But over the past week the wannabe moderate with an eye on a 2008 White House race suddenly sounds shrilly left wing.

Just hours after last Thursday's London terror bombings, Clinton tried to score instant political points off those deaths by accusing President Bush of failing to protect U.S. mass transit.

A few days later, she compared Bush to Mad magazine's goofy Alfred E. Neuman, painting him with a "What, me worry?" world view.

"That's not how people want to hear a president or a first lady speak," says a veteran Democratic fund-raiser. "It's just not ladylike."

Nor does such language convey strength or sound presidential.

Then Tuesday she copy-catted Sen. John Kerry and nodded to echo his view that Bush guru Karl Rove must go even though the special prosecutor probing who leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's name has yet to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Clinton of all people should be wary of jumping to conclusions before a probe is done.

And why look as if she's letting 2004 loser Kerry chart her course? His 2008 chances are seen as zero by just about everyone but Kerry.

A Clinton ally says echoing Kerry was just circumstance, she has used the Neuman zinger before, and mass transit has been a top concern ever since 9/11, adding, "She says what she says and people apply a different prism."

But a veteran Dem activist scoffs, "Everything she says is very calculated. It's all about playing to the liberal base. They know that most people will forget, but she keeps the base happy. And the base picks the 2008 nominee."

By this theory, Clinton trumpets centrist talk on abortion as "boob bait for the bubbas" ?- the late Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan's term for Bill Clinton's welfare-reform tactics ?- while quietly making sure the base gets its red meat.

But does this double dealing work in the Internet era?

Independent pollster Scott Rasmussen said, "It may be that the rhetoric within the circle of activist Dems is so harsh that Sen. Clinton might not recognize how some of these things seem to others."

His latest poll found just 30 percent of Americans would definitely back her for president while 35 percent say they'd definitely oppose her. She always has more foes than fans and her fan base isn't growing.

Maybe she's still learning how to do the balancing act that it takes to be a national candidate ?- just as it took her a while in 2000 to fit comfortably into being a Senate candidate.

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/25957.htm

HILLARY GOES CONSERVATIVE ON IMMIGRATION



HILLARY VOTES AGAINST BORDER PATROL BILL



<So much for Hillary's feint to the center>

JustGiggles...you really ought to get out more often. Perhaps a play or a ballgame. Libraries, I appreciate, aren't your thing but, golly, there must be lawn-bowling or birdwatchers club in the neighborhood.

JW

Thanks for starting this thread.......I just want to add a sincere thought.....the only woman who would terrify me more than Hillary, as CinC, is Jane Fonda.

"Hillary Watch"? Didn't Rupert Murdoch's New York Post install that as a permanent column in the paper as soon as Hillary took office?

Funny, the New York Post never ran a "Watch" column over any other Senator from New York in it's history. But Hillary takes office, and bingo! - we have "Hillary Watch".

And now JustWonders gives us Hillary Watch on Able2Know as well.

When I first heard that Hillary might run in 2008, my first reaction was that after all the bashing the Right has committed against her, she was probably too "controversial". That, in addition to her being a woman, would make the odds long.


But now, with all this hysteria against her, I am beginning to change my mind. I think the Right is afraid of Hillary. Not because they think she would make a bad President-because they sense she would make a great candidate.

If the Right were not afraid of her candidacy, then why all the heavy artillery? Heck, you would think they just lay back, say a few mildly disparaging remarks just for the record, then let her lead the Democrats into electoral failure in 2008.

Why are they putting up such a fuss? The Republicans should love the idea of a Hillary candidacy-if they really felt she had no chance to win.

Great thread, JW.

I nearly fell out of my chair a couple of days ago, when I read her recent remarks about abortion.

She's in full Rightward Shuffle mode. Her mating dance with Middle America will be interesting to watch.

I'll go get the article.

Yes, Dad. By the way...you might want to think about taking your own advice, rather than searching for and posting expired links just to show Dubya in a bad light. Surely there must be better uses for your own time.

Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity
Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A03

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.

Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.

The reaction highlighted the dilemma Democratic politicians face trying to satisfy energized activists on the left -- many of whom are hungering for party leaders to advance a more full-throated agenda and more aggressively confront President Bush -- while also cultivating the moderate Democrats and independents whose support is crucial to winning elections. The challenge has become more acute because of the power and importance grass-roots activists, symbolized by groups such as MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers, have assumed since the 2004 election.

The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.

"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda. Well, that effort is dead on arrival. The DLC is not a credible vehicle for such an effort. Period."

Other blogs noted that the day Clinton was calling for a truce, one DLC-sponsored blog was writing disparagingly of liberals. Marshall Wittman wrote from the DLC meeting in Columbus, "While someone from the daily kosy (misspelling intended) confines of Beserkely might utter ominous McCarthyite warnings about the 'enemy within,' here in Columbus constructive committed crusaders for progressivism are discussing ways to win back the hearts of the heartland."

Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, said Clinton had badly miscalculated the current politics inside the Democratic Party and argued that she could pay a price for her DLC association if she runs for president in 2008.

"There has been an activist resurgence in the Democratic Party in recent years, and Hillary risks ensuring that there's a candidate to her left appealing to those activists who don't much like the DLC," he said.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson tried to deflect the criticism. "Her point was simply to say that the goals and issues that divide us are less consequential than are the ones we share in common, and that unity is needed in the face of our shared challenge," Wolfson said.

John D. Podesta, who was White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he interpreted Clinton's remarks as critical of those on both sides -- centrists as much as liberals -- who would devote more energy to internal party battles than to confronting the right . But he said Clinton may have underestimated the bad feelings within the party. "I think she was trying to push the DLC back a little bit, but she walked into a crossfire maybe she should have realized was out there," he said.

Meanwhile, Jesse L. Jackson reopened his decades-old battle with the DLC by accusing the group of fronting for corporate interests while ignoring labor and civil rights leaders. "The DLC embraces CAFTA and sells admission to its conference to corporate lobbyists," he said in a speech to the AFL-CIO convention in Chicago.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072601645.html

-----------------------------------------------------

Popcorn's popping

That is a shrewd woman. She just kicked Howard Dean, Conyers and the fruitier nuts of the Dem party in the teeth.

She may have given the limping Democrat party an eleventh hour reprieve.

Next question: Will the libbier libbies cannibalize her?

Tune in next week, when we'll hear Howard Dean say: "The Clintons aren't real Democrats."

I just can't picture the Move-on.org faction and Howard Dean ever assimilating into the mainstream Democratic Party. Perhaps Brother Dean will start a third party with his crowd and further fracture the Dems.

Wouldn't that be heaven on earth?

Hillary's cease-fire is, like, so not going to happen

So Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) wants to make peace between centrist Democrats like those in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), who helped her husband win election, and then reelection, to the White House ?- the first Democrat to do so since Franklin Delano Roosevelt ?- and the world of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, the coalition of MoveOn.org, liberal bloggers, Michael Moore, Air America radio and others on the left who helped John Kerry win election to the White House.

Okay, strike that last part.

Anyway, Sen. Clinton has decided to step into the growing war between the Democratic Party's center and its left.

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire, too," she said Monday at the DLC's conference in Columbus, Ohio.

"Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire. It's time for all Democrats to work together based on the values we all share. ..."

It sounded nice, but if Mrs. Clinton actually believes she can make peace between the DLC and the VLWC ?- well, she'd better think again. As they say, that is, like, so not going to happen.

Just look at the reaction to Sen. Clinton's speech from one of the most accomplished strategists of the VLWC, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos website.

"The poor, poor DLC forced to ?'return fire?'" Moulitsas wrote this week. "Please. The DLC has always been at the forefront of intra-party mud-slinging. They're just finally being called on it, and suddenly it's time for peace?"

No way, said Moulitsas. In addition to opposing centrist Democrats on a wide range of issues, Moulitsas and his Daily Kossacks are incensed that one prominent DLC type, Marshall Wittmann, had the temerity to suggest that the Daily Kos home base ?- Berkeley, Calif. ?- is a bit, uh, way out there on the left.

It seems Wittmann, writing in his own blog, disparaged those living in "the daily kosy (misspelling intended) confines of Berserkely." The Berserkelyites, Wittmann suggested, are obsessed with ideological battles and puritan purges, while "here in Columbus constructive committed crusaders for progressivism are discussing ways to win back the hearts of the heartland."

In the world of the VLWC, them's fightin' words. And Moulitsas is in a fightin' mood.

Sen. Clinton "plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda," Moulitsas sniffed.

Well, she can forget about that, Moulitsas continued. The DLC has "smeared" not only progressives but an entire city ?- that would be Berkeley ?- and shouldn't expect cooperation from anyone.

"Notice how he slams everyone in Berkeley?" Moulitsas said of Wittmann. "No good vital-center-seeking Democrats there! They're all ?'berzerk,' ha ha! I bet he called up his old friends at the Christian Coalition and his current friends at PNAC [the neoconservative Project for a New American Century] to share that gem. Cease-fire, DLC style!"

"It's truly disappointing that this is the crap Hillary has signed on to," Moulitsas concluded. "More of the failed corporatist bullshit that has cost our party so dearly in the last decade and a half."

By the "last decade and a half," Moulitsas apparently meant the period in which the DLC helped jettison the Democratic Party's soft-on-crime, soft-on-defense, soft-on-everything image, allowing Bill Clinton to win the White House.

Now that's some failed corporatist bullshit.

But that was long ago. These days, the activists of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy are fighting new battles.

Battles over causes like "media reform," which means freeing the media from its corporate ownership and control.

Battles over causes like "election reform," which means the continuing search for the mythical voter fraud in Ohio that gave George W. Bush his margin of victory in 2004.

Battles over causes like Wal-Mart, which means the left's ongoing assault on the nation's largest retailer.

They're all electoral losers, but they greatly, greatly excite those in some circles of the left.

And now Hillary Rodham Clinton finds herself in the position of trying to straddle the worlds of the VLWC and Democratic centrists.

If you're a Republican, you've got to be smiling about this.

A full-scale war among pro-Democratic activists has got to be good news for a GOP heading into 2008 with no clear successor to George W. Bush. It's almost as delicious as the prospect of Jane Fonda going on a nationwide anti-war tour in a vegetable-oil-powered bus. The anti-war movement would never live it down. All its legitimate objections to the Iraq war would be drowned out by 35-year-old images of Fonda in Vietnam.

Whatever happens, the next Democratic presidential candidate probably can't afford to be on the wrong side of the VLWC. The movement is simply too big, too rich and too organized to be ignored safely.

So let Sen. Clinton continue her calls for a cease-fire. It's probably an impossible task ?- when one side has gone, well, Berserkely.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/072805.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hilarious! If this keeps up, the GOP ads for '08 will practically write themselves.

BBB
bm

56% See Hillary as Likely 2008 Nominee

August 24, 2005--Most Americans (56%) say it is somewhat or very likely that Senator Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Presidential Nominee for the Democrats. While that's still enough to grant her front-runner status, that's down eight points from 64% two weeks ago.

Just 24% now say the former First Lady is "very likely" to win the nomination. That's down from 33% two weeks ago and is the lowest level recorded all year by Rasmussen Reports. (review trends).

Forty-seven percent (47%) say that New York's junior Senator is politically liberal. That's up from 42% in the previous survey. However, this is the eleventh straight survey that the number viewing Senator Clinton as liberal has been within two points of the 45% mark.

This week, as a larger portion of survey respondents see Hillary as politically liberal, the Senator's electoral prospects appear a bit bleaker. The latest edition of the Hillary Meter finds that 28% of Americans say they will definitely vote for Mrs. Clinton if she runs in 2008. Thirty-nine (39%) will definitely vote against her. Two weeks ago, those numbers were 32% for and 36% against.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm


Poor ole Hil.