An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Lessons of war forgotten, although all too recently taught
Memo Shows Republican Game Plan For Thursday’s House Iraq Debate »
Hillary’s Stand
For my money, Hillary’s opinions about not pulling out of Iraq anytime soon make a lot of sense. That some in the left-wing can’t accept this is understandable, but ultimately disheartening.
However, what will this mean for her chances in 2008? Will the Dem base cast her aside because she doesn’t agree with them now?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “Hillary’s Stand”
I made this comment to Dave Shuler yesterday:
[Hillary]’s walking a definitional tightrope. In Red States, she’s still seen as a socialist. In her own party, she’s seen as a quasi-reactionary.
Which means she sounds like an aggrieved moderate. So I like her.
The real question is whether she have a Sister Souljah moment with her party’s far left. Or will she duplicate John Kerry’s effort to accomodate both wings?
She has been trying to paint herself “moderate” for some time now. She may indeed be a moderate. It was First Lady Hillary Clinton that was the greatest proponent and spokesperson for a national healthcare system, or socialized medicine, during her husband’s first term. Twenty five years ago that would have made her a moderate, seventeen years ago it made her a liberal. This nation’s Healthcare/Insurance system sucks bad and conservatives were absolutely wrong to oppose the Clinton’s healthcare reform proposal. Then again it is pretty clear that conservatives can be easily bought by corporations, such as insurance firms, wanting more than their share of legislative attention. Thus we have the healthcare mess we have today. Hillary has always been quite strong on defense issues, but conservatives have consistently attacked her in a manor that would paint her weak on defense. They do this because they are indeed afraid of her. If she is elected president, the weakened neo-conservative platform will collapse. Personally I think it is important that we help along this neo-con collapse before it gets out of hand and is allowed to finish it’s mutation into corporate totalitarianism dictating legislation through the lobby.
I applaud her for her courage, for her forthrightness, for her consistency, for her sense, for her patriotism.
I wouldn’t vote for Mrs. Clinton, ever, for anything — try to imagine what her 100 days would be like if she’s elected President. Every liberal dream, starting with higher taxes and ending with higher taxes with lots of new programs in between, would be on the list.
That said, I expect she will be sworn in come January 2008. She’s very smart, almost as politically savvy as her husband, ruthless (this is a key requirement for any prospective president, which is why you ought to keep an eye on Elliot Spitzer) and opportunistic. She’s doing a fine job of triangulating between the moonbats on the left of the Democratic Party and the hawks in the Republican Party, and I predict the 10-15 percent in the middle will find her acceptable, even attractive. That plus her hard-core 40% support equals victory.
Every liberal dream, starting with higher taxes and ending with higher taxes with lots of new programs in between, would be on the list.
Exactly my (only?) problem with her.
I posted over on the other post you link to so I wont repeat myself here, but I do agree with you. As Ted Koppel said this AM on NPR, we stirred up a hornets nest over there and for strategic and moral reasons we cannot just cut and run. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence at all that what you will get with Hillary is a free spening liberal: none. She was a Goldwater Gal after all which means her roots are in libertarian conservatism. I do not see her current positions as straddling the fence or trying to have it both ways. By sticking to her beliefs on Iraq she risks the anger of her own party: thats not straddling the fence. That is courage. As to the healthcare issue, she was right then and right now to try and tackle that issue. Maybe it could have been done better and differently but lets recall that the insurance industry and the Repubs shut down ALL efforts to do anything for their own selfish reasons. Our healthcare system is a disgrace; even today an article about lousy emergency room service because our system is broken, on top of a steady diet of bad news about our lousy system. Forcing employers to pay the bulk of healthcare is absurd and puts us at a definite competitive disadvantage around the world. The fact that 50 million are uninsured is a national embarrassment. The idea that we have any real choice left and that we arent being rationed already by the insurance companies is simply wrong. Her program back then of a mix of market forces and government oversight could have been a great starting point for a real debate and a real solution. That having failed, we are headed to a single payer system whether you like it or not. What I cannot understand is how anyone can defend our unhealthy health system at all. No, Hillary has been courageous throughout it all, including dealing with her husband’s personal issues. She could be our own Iron Lady if we would give her the chance. If you think she would be as incompetent as the current bunch, well…I think that is poor analysis.
I really like most of what she says, but I liked her during the campaign leading up to the 1992 election, too. Then came 1993-1994 which I remember watching in horror. It was straight out of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
She’s in the Clark and Warner wing of the party, which I tend to side with. Clark’s got his stuff together, and is saying basically the same thing–and funny thing, they both got a positive reception from the DailyKos folks.
However–I tend to think Hillary herself is, by her long established identity, polarizing. Democrats need a different middle of the road figure to pin their hopes upon.
Her biggest problem is going to be the baggage from her husband’s administrations. She was definitely perceived as much more of a liberal then-supporting the rights of gays in the military, and pushing for universal health care. She has consistently moved to the right since then, so her real personna will come into question by both sides.
Also, her unconventional marriage will probably hurt more than help. I think she’s great on a lot of issues, and she might even win the nomination, but I don’t see her winning against McCain or Giuliani.
She is a force to reckon with in the Senate, however, and can do a lot of good there, if the Dems win back the majority. IMO, she’s the strongest female in the House or Senate-too bad she can’t replace Pelosi!
I retract my previous statement.
I’m growing tired of appeasing these right wing slow learners and the so called progressive politicians whom are doing so in my name.
I agree with Jammer, we are in this like it or not. Leaving now would create a failed state and bring in Iran, Turkey, and a host of Sunni states. Kim is also right , the Clinton name will bring out the Republicans who might have stayed at home this election,. The Hannitized ditto heads would be spoiling for a fight. That having been said she is standing up to the left, a good sign.
I’m actually glad the left is standing up to Hillary Clinton. Not because I think the left is correct on Iraq vis-a-vis Hillary, but because it helps puncture the media narrative that builds Hillary up as the darling of progressives. Once the media turns on Hillary as the presumptive nominee, more electable candidates will replace her. I’m thinking especially of Warner, who is truly more conservative than Hillary, is highly electable, and yet will carry the nation in a progressive direction. Anything to derail Hillary now will help the Democrats for 2008. She cannot win a general election no matter how far she lunges to the right.
Michael van der Galien, uhmm aren’t you Dutch, and live in Europe?
“Every liberal dream, starting with higher taxes and ending with higher taxes with lots of new programs in between, would be on the list.
Exactly my (only?) problem with her.”
So how exactly are the posabiliy of higher taxes, and new programs in the US a problem for you, seeing as you don’t freaking live here, and aren’t a citizen of the US?
Yeah it’s you opinion of a political canidate I understand, but it doesn’t affect you on the foreign level.
Not only that, but yeah she’d probably have to raise taxes because the US gov. is so horribly in the red we run the risk of currency devaluation, inflation, and have a massive international deficit to pay off because of the guy in there right now putting our debts of the the gov. credit card.
Infact, any person that is the next president might have to raise taxes, while cutting spending just to avert a possible economic disaster.
Pyst-I agree. After Reagan’s tax cutting spree widened the defecit, as well as the gap between the rich and poor, Bush I was forced to eat his “no new taxes” pledge, which of course lost him his support with the conservative wing of the party. He did the unpopular thing, and is miles ahead of his son in my book. The next president will have to raise taxes, no matter who wins. Inequality is becoming a huge problem, and Bush II cut a lot of the programs that benefit the poor and middle class.
Pyst, frankly I find it a little bit awkward that you seem to make a hobby out of criticizing me.
When you use your undeniable intelligence you must be able to understand that I am talking from a political idealist point of view. The question is not whether or not I suffer from her myself, but whether or not I agree with her views.
My ‘problem’ with her, in other words, points on which I don’t agree with her views, are that she will probably favor more social spending than I would favor.
Somehow I think you must be able to understand that, and in fact I think you do understand it.
Pissed,
This is coming from a guy who calls himself pissed, sorry pyst (sounds the same to me) and has an e-mail that suggests we should be spinning on his finger all day long? Yeah right.
Are you not the same guy that said only the other day a similarly personal comment addressed also to Michael:
And umh, who the freaking hell are YOU to know anything about Michael’s private circumstances, why U.S.taxes may or may not be a problem for him, and furthermore spew a barrage of vitriol every time you cannot think of a better argument. You are making idiotic assumptions which do absolutely nothing to support your socialist argument, coming into every thread he is either authoring or commenting on, falling about knocking furniture around the room and making an ass of yourself.
So now if you take that er, straw hanging out of your mouth you may wish to know that higher taxes and costly new programs could become a problem for foreigners as much as they would be for you. Of course less directly than having less money each month to show for, but depending on the economic cycle, and allowing for a certain time lag, potentially just as significant. Economically, the past decade has solidified the doctrine of domestic consumption as the chief motor; higher general taxes is the surest method to choke off consumption. Clinton knows that of course, so does any other candidate.
My concern is not so much a hike in direct taxation, as I believe it less probable, than the rise in indirect taxation, such as increasing tobacco and gas levies. Clinton appears to be an adherent of the economic school of thought favoring indirect taxation, versus that of a weakening dollar, widening deficits bands and monetary policies strictly keeping Inflation below impact. The current economic data suggests the latter is the way to go, with the former likely to stifle growth, thus causing much more protracted hardship for you and for the foreigners when US imports start dwindling away, which in turn will cause internationally rising unemployment, falling stock-markets. In short material adverse impact the world over.
So, make sure you understand what you wish for, especially when you are salaried and cannot comfortably ride out a protracted downturn.
Alexandra, thank you very much and some good points.
As might be obvious, I won’t go into the financial circumstances of me / my family, but it should make certain people think about it for a little while.
What do we lose if we “pull out” of Iraq? Nothing.
Whatever government that gets set up there will soon collapse right after we leave. The world knows this.
No one has YET been able to describe to me just how we will lose any “war on Terror” if we leave Iraq.
Why Hillary Clinton wants to become president and continue an UNPOPULAR war is beyond me. I predict…she will not be president.
“Pyst, frankly I find it a little bit awkward that you seem to make a hobby out of criticizing me. ”
You have posted about 20 times in a day and a half, aren’t anywhere close to moderate in many of them, and written as if you are here rather than where you actually are. Thats why I’ve answered, and answered the way I have.
And, social spending as opposed to military spending when WE spend more than the rest of the world combined militarily, might be a damn good place to start. That is unless you think 400+ billion a year on military is normal for a supposedly peace loving nation.
Joe could have done alot better by keeping the posters he already had.
“This is coming from a guy who calls himself pissed, sorry pyst (sounds the same to me) and has an e-mail that suggests we should be spinning on his finger all day long? Yeah right.”
Alexandra, if you are so put off by my signature, or my obviously fake e-mail addy, I am so very sorry since it’s of such great concern, and importance to you.
“So now if you take that er, straw hanging out of your mouth you may wish to know that higher taxes and costly new programs could become a problem for foreigners as much as they would be for you. Of course less directly than having less money each month to show for, but depending on the economic cycle, and allowing for a certain time lag, potentially just as significant. Economically, the past decade has solidified the doctrine of domestic consumption as the chief motor; higher general taxes is the surest method to choke off consumption. Clinton knows that of course, so does any other candidate.”
Our president is charged with making life for foreigners better now too? Wow, this is major news, I’ll pass that on.
Well since Clinton doesn’t plan to remove us from Iraq, thus freeing up a 80 billion dollar a year hole to throw taxes down, that obvious deficit reducer is off the table eh?
I said some, SOME social spending wouldn’t hurt, with cuts made elsewhere. I never championed massive social spending, so stick the socialist remark back where you got it from.
Domestic spending is starting to lag already, that is unless you have noticed? We cannot continue to soak up the world’s goods since manufacturing is moving out of country, unless selling them here as a Wal Mart “associate” suddenly starts earning more than the old manufacturing jobs did.
Highers taxes hmm, ok try this on… how about we collect taxes from the top 10 companies in the US? They always get rebates, or pay little to nothing so we decide to collect the taxes for a change? We don’t repeal the estate tax, reinstitute the capital gains tax since it is really gambling, and we tax the heck out of that without people complaining. And roll back the tax cuts for the upper 10%, and we might have some real DEFICIT cutting. Because anyone that is paying attention knows we cannot continue to spend what we don’t have or we’ll be a broke nation anyways.
It’s the deficit stupid, remember that line? Well it still is, with no end in sight because of some really ignorant moves by some fake conseervatives. When was the last time we came close to a gov. that was solvient? That’s right with some actual fiscal coservatives running the gov., and the economy boomed like a giant bass drum didn’t it?
Now if that’s socialist point it out to me, without your need to mimick freerepublic/DU people.
“She’s in the Clark and Warner wing of the party, which I tend to side with. Clark’s got his stuff together, and is saying basically the same thing–and funny thing, they both got a positive reception from the DailyKos folks.
However–I tend to think Hillary herself is, by her long established identity, polarizing. Democrats need a different middle of the road figure to pin their hopes upon.”
Kos likes Clark cause he fits the model kos likes, an ex-GOP, ex-military “tough guy” whos military background and GOP roots provide cover for attacking the Iraq war, and anyone, neocon or liberal hawk, who supported it.
Kos likes Warner, apparently, cause Warner hired a fellow blogger who cowrote a book with Kos. And cause Warner isnt Hilary.
Clark will, I believe, be just as polarizing as Hillary. Hillary, OTOH, is mainly polarizing to folks who wont vote Dem anyway. We dont need to win over the far right, we need to win over the fence sitting centrists.
“Her biggest problem is going to be the baggage from her husband’s administrations. She was definitely perceived as much more of a liberal then-supporting the rights of gays in the military, and pushing for universal health care.”
I dont think shes changed on gays in the military, and I dont know of any mainstream dems who disagree. Is this even an issue anymore? When we have trouble recruiting people, does it make sense to try to exclude gays? One issue where being a hawk and being a liberal come together.
As for healthcare, thats been in dem platforms since Harry Truman (you know, the guy the right likes to idolize). She was politically awkward in the way she handled it, but I think shes learned from that.
” She has consistently moved to the right since then, so her real personna will come into question by both sides. ”
I disagree. She has been consistenly moderate. Heck, if shed gone further left and supported single payer health care, she might have won that. She supported her husbands welfare reform, and shes been talking about morality in media for years. She hasnt moved to the right – its just that some Dems have forgotten how successful Clintonism is, and think “netroots” will work better.
“Also, her unconventional marriage will probably hurt more than help. I think she’s great on a lot of issues, and she might even win the nomination, but I don’t see her winning against McCain or Giuliani. ”
ANY Dem will have trouble against McCain. I dont see anyone who polls better, or would be a better campaigner. She can rally the base, and she can reach to moderates on issues. Who else can do that? Can Warner rally the base?
“I’m actually glad the left is standing up to Hillary Clinton. Not because I think the left is correct on Iraq vis-a-vis Hillary, but because it helps puncture the media narrative that builds Hillary up as the darling of progressives. Once the media turns on Hillary as the presumptive nominee, more electable candidates will replace her. I’m thinking especially of Warner, who is truly more conservative than Hillary, is highly electable, and yet will carry the nation in a progressive direction. Anything to derail Hillary now will help the Democrats for 2008. She cannot win a general election no matter how far she lunges to the right.”
shes never lunged to the right. Shes STAYED in the center. How will Warner hold the base? Cause of Kos? Yeah, right.
Warners only advantage is that as governor, he didnt have to cast a vote on Iraq, and so he can wait longer to see how things turn out there, before telling us that we was for/against it all along.
“Whatever government that gets set up there will soon collapse right after we leave. The world knows this. ”
no, it doesnt.
Pyst: I’m sorry you so greatly dislike my posts. I’m even more sorry that you seem to have the tendency to get personal about it.
Sadly, I do not write articles to please you, but to share my own thoughts about certain subjects.
Touche.
So don’t get all upset, or think I am out to insult you when I disagree, because I’m not. But your touchy ego is hurt defense makes you seem, like you think your position is untouchable, and it isn’t. nor is my position.
I wear a helmet because I know a few rocks are going to get thrown back at me (by you, and your supporters), so I don’t mind your slings and arrows. So don’t get upset, or think I am ripping my hair out when I post to you, because I never get that way about any of this. Nor do I let my blood pressure rise when someone calls me names, or insinuates I am ignorant, or stupid because I don’t have their opinion, as you and your backers have towards me in the last 2 days.
But, I do have an issue with you using the term “we” when referring to issues in this country of which you aren’t a member, like a right wing alternative to a French liberal telling us how we should think. Does that make more sense to you? See TMV has a new blogger here called Swaarj, and he posts from India, with a decidedly Indian look at the issues we have, and mostly on the issues of his own country, and how they might relate to our country and the world. He doesn’t tell us how to think, and when he comments about the US he has a gracious way of pointing out the difference in how the issue is handled in his country/ or his view of the situation, rather than as if he were here. We get the Indian view, but you leave out the EU view entirely from your posts as if you don’t live there, or don’t read your own news and instead are consumed by our goings on only.
I’m not trying to be snotty towards you, I’m not taking shots at you, I just don’t agree with some of your stances is all, ok?
But of course it is okay for to do disagree with ‘some of’ my ‘stances’ Pyst.
BTW, I use ‘we’ as in the West or allied forces. Not just as just in the US: it might suprise you but the US is not the only country in the world fighting terror, fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting Israel.
Try to see that difference. That you continue to interprete my words otherwise is yet again, not any of my business.