Hillary Gets It — And OH Will She Get It

Attention Hillary Clinton: You have stepped into a political buzzsaw.

It SEEMED like a plumb appointment when HC was named by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections — a high-profile role making her, in effect, Ms. Centrist of 2005 (and presumably 2006, 2007 and 2008 when she might want a nice title such as Democratic Party Presidential nominee).

As the LA Times reports:

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton — once considered a champion of the party’s left — with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

But the Times also noted that the scene was set for yet another conflict:

Clinton, emphasizing her links to groups across the party, said that she would reach out not only to centrists, but “progressive people from all perspectives” to prepare her blueprint, which is due in one year. But the remarks from Sirota show the challenge of devising a program that attracts broad support across the party.

Indeed, Al From, the DLC founder, said in an interview that the plan was not intended to “be a lowest common denominator agenda,” assembled simply by compromising among elements of the party.

All this suggests strains could develop between Clinton’s desire, as a potential 2008 contender, to write a plan popular with as wide an array of Democrats as possible and the DLC’s hope of crafting a sharply focused, centrist political roadmap.

But the bottom line is: Hillary Clinton does seem to get it. And in her new position, ohhhhhhh she may get it…

The Democratic party seems poised for ultra-fierce fighting between its liberal and centrist factions. Unless it bridges the gap one (losing) faction could be mad and decide to take all of its marbles and stay home on election day. Which seems to be what Karl Rove & Co are counting on. After all, some folks normally sympathetic to Democrats decided in 2000 and 2004 that the Democratic candidate wasn’t pure enough for them, so they followed Ralph Nader, who argued the two parties weren’t different. Here’s the present context:

• The Democratic party’s left, which increasingly seems to be inching towards becoming similar to the all-or-nothing McGovernite faction of the party in the Vietnam era. It believes the Demmies lost elections because they didn’t accentuate differences between the Democrats and Republicans sufficiently. They perceive DLCers, centrists and moderates (whether Democrats or not) as “me-tooers” when it comes to Republicanism, lacking political backbone and old-fashioned political courage to take the GOP right on. They believe if the party runs someone who adheres to strong liberal positions, the Democrats will win and new voters will vote.
• The DLCers and other centrists. They believe Bill Clinton had a winning formula. He was essentially the quintessential salesman — systematically overcoming objections and reservations many in Middle America and the center had about Democrats. Add to that Dick Morris’ (in)famous triangulation, and Clintonism equaled political pragmatism. But it worked. This faction of the party feels Al Gore blew it by reverting to the old, unsuccessful pre-Clinton Democratic nominee type and ignoring the lessons of Clinton’s DLC-aided triumph. They argue the winning formula is THERE but the party must follow it.

Into this mess steps Hillary Clinton. If she thought this was going to be a cakewalk, she will be disappointed because she has already come under fire, as the Washington Post notes:

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 Post notes some of the blog reaction to Hillary as a DLC figure.

But the bottom line for the Democrats truly is: the party is not going to win with half a party and the other half angry. HC is right in calling for a “truce” to bridge the gap between the various factions. The problem is: some in each faction don’t want a “truce” but want to fight until their faction runs the party.

So: will Hillary be a referee…or one of the boxers?

This doesn’t sound like a terrific position for someone to be in who is said to have plans for moving into the White House one day. But, then, stranger things have happened in 21st century American politics. Stay tuned…

SOME OTHERS COMMENTING ON HILLARY: Newshog, Pandagon, Ezra Klein, Oh, That Liberal Media, Matt Yglesias, Betsy Newmark, Donklephant, Suburban Guerilla, QandO, Booker Rising