Redstate

Supposedly, Attention Deficit Disorder is at epidemic levels in America these days. So, with that missing piece of the puzzle in place, I'm afraid Hillary might pull it off. "Hillary the Hawk--here to protect our national borders and hold the line on spending. Yesireee!" If A.D.D. isn't enough to pull this off, maybe they'll have to drug the drinking water.

Everytime I say this, people here just don't see it: Watch out for Hillary. She will turn in Bill, and in the next election.

Bill Clinton's "triabulation" was not just good politics, but had good policy underneath it. He took the good parts of Republican positions and adopted them with other Democratic ideas, and Republicans retreated further to the right to try and differentiate themselves. They ran off the edge of the cliff though trying to put distance between themselves and Bill.

Hillary learned from that and will do that same thing. Her healthcare initiative might have been unpopular, but she didn't have to worry about her re-election. Now that she does, she won't make the mistake again.

She doesn't have much cred with the lefties of the Democratic party though. They don't like her. When her name comes up at dKos, it is mostly negative. The more the right attacks her though (such as that recent book), the more they will rally behind her. Is the right were to embrace her, she might not even make it out of the primaries.

If the Republicans try the same thing as against Bill -- moving further to the right as Clinton coopts planks -- they are going to set themselves up for a loss again.

As for the CAFTA bit, it will be very easy to spin that. She will still claim to be a free trader, but insist that Bush didn't make any effort to contact Dems. Even soem conservative columnists (such as Kudlow) were upset that Bush didn't bother to bring in the the pro-trade Dems and seemed to just antagonize them. That is just terrible leadership, and he might pay for it by losing on CAFTA in the House. (Somebody said that Republicans have become very good at winning elections, but terrible at the actual governing part. I wish I would remember who.)

With respect to Hillary's opposition to CAFTA, I don't think the excuse of a lack of coordination from the Bush administration will explain her anti-CAFTA position.  The dems have used that excuse for darn near every opposition vote they cast, and the public is going to pick up on it sooner or later.

Eventually, people are going to ask why the democrats are content to sit and wait for the President to come to them for everything - that's not his job, especially if you believe Congress is a co-equal branch of government.

The democrats have lost elections recently precisely because they oppose everything and develop new and different excuses each time - all the while maintaining that they are pro free-trade, strong on defense, strong on terrorism, etc.

The Democrats do not have philosophies, they have constituencies.

With Labor fracturing and Abortion Rights declining in importance, and with some degree of loss in most ethnic groups in the last election, and not a thought in their heads, the Democrats must do something.  But Republican lite???

But, yes, if the Democrats start to make plans and programs, this should raise the level of political debate in the country. It will bring both parties toward the center, which could be unfortunate timing for the Repubs, because we have more judges to appoint, more programs to enact, and the all important War for Democracy to pursue.

Hill's problems make this a risky course of action for her, and for Democrats.  Even with our short attention spans, most people remember Hill as a flaming Liberal, and they can always be reminded again.  The Democratic Party has been running almost exclusively on constituency politics and Liberal money.  Not only are the constituencies restless, the money has not accomplished anything, and may not follow Hill if she makes a right turn.  Verrrry interesting, as the character used to say.

Is not going to be happy. He and Moveon.org (same thing) are waging internal jihad against the DLC and Clintons. Allied with Kossacks and the other groups, such as Soros, who figured Kerry wasn't liberal and leftist enough.

Current Democratic thinking is that appealing to the hard left base will get it done, if you can just stop evil Republican plots with Diebold, hanging chads or whatnot. The Cynthia McKinney loon strategy.

Hillary injects some realism and common sense into that debate, she'll be as thanked as the street people who talk to themselves thank folks who suggest meds. I honestly don't see Hillary getting past Iowa or New Hampshire. I fully expect Dean to win this time, with Hillary trailing Kerry and Biden.

People just don't like Hillary. Personality wise she's the anti-Bill.

mostly because many moderate dems and swing voters are content to have their ears tickled, rather than actually use their heads.  Bill Clinton was a master at appealing to the left then moving to the center, and Hillary just has to follow that (Kerry tried it though and failed miserably, but he moved center still playing the "Bush is bad" drum).

I think Hillary still has a lot of baggage, I can already see lots of commercials about "Hillarycare" and her ethics are going to have a big target on them as well.

But I think it would be a mistake to underestimate her, and the electorate may be ready for some more divided government by the time '08 comes around.

Phony Purple Heart Taken Off Film Web Site

By JENNIFER TALHELM, AP

Monday, July 25, 2005; 7:46 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR200507250
1291_pf.html

excerpt:

Wearing, manufacturing, buying, selling or trading a Medal of Honor is a crime. [US Representative John] Salazar's Stolen Valor Act, introduced Friday, would expand the law to include more medals and would allow prosecution of anyone who falsely claims to have earned a military medal or a Purple Heart.

HRC is a canny political operative.  She's got the media wrapped around her little finger and she knows exactly how to dance around issues so that she seems like a caring, concerned moderate which is only masking her liberal impulses to have the Village take over the country.

While it is hard to think of any state that she'd be able to flip from red to blue, it wouldn't take much to target and win in a state like Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, or Arizona.  Heck, I could picture a scenario where she manages to take Arkansas back.  If she picks a slick running mate--Warner of VA or Wesley Clark of TV-- she could even possibly put some of the southern states in play.  And if I've thought of it, you know that the government in exile has already plotted this out.

This is especially true when you look at the crop of candidates we're likely to have.  Can you imagine people rushing out the door to vote for Frist, Allen, Brownback, or Hagel?  All of them are good guys, decent Senators, but ain't none of 'em that has the ability to charm a crowd outside of the base.  Have you actually watched Frist give a speech?  shudder That leaves us with McCain to counter the media frenzy that Hillary will generate.  And that's not much of a happy thought for so early in the morning.  (I'm not advocating him, just pointing it out that he's a big name out there.)

All that being said, she's a horrible politician.  She's not accustomed to being challenged, and she is used to being fawned over.  We have to be smart and challenge her on her ideas and her propositions, not go back to Whitewater, Travelgate, Foster, Monica, or whatever.  It would be even more helpful if people like Newt and Lindsey Graham would stop adoring her in public, but they can't deny themselves the pleasure of being on camera long enough to think about the good of the party.

...is immense.

BTW, I wasn't surprised when Salazar beat Coors.  Smart guy.

Your comment is unkind to loons.

Hillary doesn't have to be Bill.  Bill blazed the trail already.  Hillary just needs to make people think that they can have their Bill back.  Personality by proxy...

That's his brother, Ken.

do you see getting past IA or NH if Hillary is in the race? Clinton is a name Democrats know, and even if I would never vote for her in a primary that doesn't mean other Democrats won't. At least that's what the polls say.

I think if another Dem is going to win the nomination, he or she will have to win IA/NH or come in a close second then hope for the best in the South.

Oops.

on this site because there is no edit.

Republicans have won.  With the breakup of the afl-cio, the Democratic Party will never be what it was.

Fiscal Conservatism has not won with the Republican victory though.

This is why Republicans should consider the idea that we need a strong second political party.

If Hillary goes too far to the center, she gets primaried out of contention.

The DailyKos/DU/MoveOn wing has control of the party.  Hillary will be fighting the party establishment.  She could win the nomination, but it leaves her weakened for the general election.

The DailyKos/DU/MoveOn wing has control of the party.

Most people in Iowa and New Hampshire don't have the foggiest idea what Daily Kos is. Name recognition counts, as do perceptions of being the front-runner, of being a winner, which the Clinton name and Hillary in particular inspire.

That is what she needs to do, just as Bubba did.  You pay lip service to the

looney left, portraying them as that well intentioned uncle that everybody knows

is a whacko.  Then you move just far enough right to get more than half the

independent vote.  While she certainly won't convert any Republicans, if she

can soften her image enough not to be preceived as the witch (insert your

favorite adjective) that she is then she would very much have a chance of winning.

Never underestimate the irrational love affair people have with the Clintons.

how this can work for Hillary. She has no moderate credibility, despite trying to build it for years in the Senate. The American people won't care about her centrist credentials in the Senate, all they'll care about is the radical rap she garnered when Bill was in the White House. If they want to nominate a centrist, it should be someone with real cred like Mark Warner.

See what those spazoids are saying about how they hate how 'moderate' she is.  Now give her 3 years with a ton of camera time.  Re-election for senate in 06, presidential speculation in 07, full on presidential news blitz in 08.  She's talented.  If she can keep it together and get good messages out there (looks like she's starting work on that now) for 3 years, she'll be in good shape.

Eventually, people are going to ask why the democrats are content to sit and wait for the President to come to them for everything - that's not his job, especially if you believe Congress is a co-equal branch of government

With Frast Track it pretty much is his responsiblity.

Bush has been a disaster on trade and trade leadership. All the Blue Dogs were ignored, and they were easy votes to pick up that Bush didn't even bother with.

Gack! Gack!

Warner rescinded previous-Gov. Gilmore's car tax cut, which was supposed to be phased out over 5 years (20% reduction each year) by claiming a billion dollar deficit. As soon as the car tax was frozen, the State budget revealed that in fact, the budget balanced, and there was actually a surplus.

To the objective observer, it looks like Warner balanced the budget by raising taxes. Do you have clarification otherwise?

I am in Virgnia, here is the scoop.  Gilmore won the election because Beyer (who ran against him) said that Gilmore was weak on sex offenders and tried to smear him.  Gilmore got a large number of Democrats and Republicans to say that Gilmore was not weak on sex offenders, and it turned out making Beyer look dishonest.  The car-tax was not why Gilmore won.

The car tax is also not why Virginia has fiscal problems.  The reason for the fiscal problems is Gilmore spent hugh sums of money.  He increased the Virginia Budges 40% during his 4 years in office.

Warner came into office, and acted like the problems was because of a funding shortfall caused by the tech-boom.  Really, the problem was excess spending.  Warner got a bunch of people together to "restructure taxes."  

Warner still plans to end the car tax, but rased user fees to pay the money.

Warner also greatly increased tuition at VA colleges.  Gilmore had held them flat (actually down 5%).

Warner, is now popular in Virginia.  Virginia likes to vote Democrat locally and Republican Nation-wide.  Allen was an exception because Allen wanted to be tough on criminals (he accused the Democrats of putting criminals on the street).  Gilmore, because Beyer's attack back-fired.

Kilgore is going to win this year because he is suggesting a law to prevent localities from increasing realistate essesments by more than 7%.  That is VERY popular.

Hillary will always be an ideological lefty, but hopefully has learned enough pragmatism from her husband. I really think there are quite a few centrist Democrats out there plus Independents who lean Democrat. The problem, as well all know is that MoveOn.org, Soros, the Kossacks and the Deaniacs have become so front and center that many of these more moderate Democrats feel as if they have no political home. A Hillary move to the center will attract many of these people who are weary of having been left out in the cold for so long. The two question I have: Does she have enough time to really pull it off and solidify a moderate base from within the Democratic Party and how fast will her reputation of insincerity begin to fade among these moderate Dems and Independents.

Kerry was not their darling -- Dean was.  Perhaps Edwards as the secondary.  Kerry was chosen for name recognition and because he had the traditional Democrat machinery lined up.  MoveOn can mostly raise money -- Hillary's fundraising makes them look like amateurs.  DailyKos is a bully pulpit that might reach 100,000 voters or so.  Largely inconsequential in the big picture.

If Hillary runs -- name recognition, attractive positions to all but the lefter wing, and huge bucks, she is the dominant favorite.  Only her own missteps could probably derail her.  Getting wiped up in debates, saying something idiotic, etc.

....and from the Democratic perspective, those are many of the qualities that McCain has, including annoying adorers in the opposite party!

centrist Democrats is that they've left the Republican Party and are still ideologically in the center. I think you overestimate the influence any of these groups have on the Democratic Party overall (there is much more attention paid to Soros and Moveon for fundraising purposes by the GOP than there is in the Democratic Party). And I think you are underestimating the ability of Dean, Hillary, Reid et al to work together to provide a cohesive message. And for that last one, for very good reason, since the Democrats rarely DO provide a cohesive message. However, Dean, HRC and Reid actually ARE working together to do that.

....what you say is the truth, but it's more fun to scare the base into thinking that MoveOn is threatening to take over the country, isn't it?

Hillary needs her own "Sister Souljah" moment, and a perfect opportunity would come from the moveon.org/Dkos types.

If this fails to materialize, she will not win in 2008.

Dean's the one IMHO. The guy who will manage his money better and build a ground force.

Hillary doesn't wave the bloody shirt enough on Iraq, War on Terror, Gitmo, Pee on Koran, and Christina Aguilera music. Plus her GTA San Andreas posturing pisses off the Primary Voters.

I expect a huge Deaniac wave in IA and NH, with Biden and perhaps Gore hanging on.

to be reality-based.

Look, Howard Dean was pushed despite his demonstrably uncongenial qualities for DNC Chair by Moveon/Kos; as they put it they own the Party.

Dean fell apart because he neglected his ground organization and spent money unwisely. Mistakes he won't make again.

Whereas Hillary is probably too Right to pass the Primaries. Kerry got the not because of the Beat-Bush mentality, despite being as you say not their guy. After trying that strategy my view is that Dems will go for the one who excites their base with raw, red meat. Iraq as an Illegal War, opposition to the Patriot Act and denying the reality of terrorism, closing Gitmo and releasing jihadis, calling troops Nazis.

Hillary is against all this; but even non-entities like Durbin embraced it. Cynthia McKinney and Conyers are whipping up the loon base and Howlin Howie has anti-semitic flyers at the DNC HQ. To me this paints a Party out of control and wanting pure left partisan red meat. Hillary by her triangulation just can't cut it past the Primaries.

It's no longer 1992, unlike Bill she doesn't have a restive base angry over social issues of War and Security. That will destroy her just as it did Kerry.

The primary system -- and the nature of the left wing base is such that the leftwing base has far less influence then their rightwing religious counterparts in the GOP system. Who won the primaries for the 2004 race? Not Clark, not Dean, not Kucinich. Kerry won, and by moving toward the center -- with a few slabs of red meat thrown out of course -- and away from his psuedo-liberal record. He won by being the most electable. I guarantee you that caucus attendees will absolutely not learn their lesson about treating blandness as a virtue, and if Hillary is the most electable and bland candidate then all the dissent in the world from Daily Kos, Moveon, and DU (though DU is unrespected and basically the opposite of influential) won't change their minds. It's about who's polling where at the time versus the GOP frontrunner combined with some irrelevant position on ethanol.

Does she have enough time to really pull it off and solidify a moderate base from within the Democratic Party and how fast will her reputation of insincerity begin to fade among these moderate Dems and Independents

(1) She's been moving right for a while. If you want to see the step by step movement, just go read any of the weblogs written by the left 5% of the Democratic party. They can't stand her, and every moderate words that comes out of her mouth is catalogued in another "I hate Hillary" entry.

(2) She doesn't need to start moving to the right until campaign season starts to come around. What people care about most is how she will govern, not what she has done in the past. To the extend that her past behavior will predict her future behavior is important, but people are willing to forget the her past if she seems like she will govern from the center. She's politician after all, and the public is used to 180-degree turns. Also, will a centrist Bill Clinton still in everybody's mind, she will get the benefit of the doubt.

(3) With a more conservative Congress, people are going to be willing to elect somebody more ideologically to the left than they would with a more liberal Congress. Just because she's president doesn't mean she will get everything she wants. She will still have to fight with a Republican Congress for it and that will bring her more to the center (and them too).

Think of her as just an extension of Bill Clinton. That is how she will run. She's already moved right on abortion, and if the Republicans fight it by moving to the right further, such as denouncing an a partial-birth exception for the health of the mother as too broad, they will run too far to the right. Given a Republican Congress too, Rs have less room for error. Good luck, but I think you are going to get wacked.

One of Hillary's advisors on her support of Roberts:

"Look, we're not thrilled President Bush is in office and gets to make these choices," said the source, "but we have to make the best of the situation until the next election!...[Hillary] is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG."

"If Hillary goes too far to the center, she gets primaried out of contention....  Hillary will be fighting the party establishment."

Dean is the model that you want.  And he is part of the establishment.  A fiscal conservative.  Someone that libertarians could be drawn to.  Maybe Hillary can fit that model, she will do fine.

The example is happening right now in Ohio - congressional seat 2.  Paul Hackett is running for what should be a safe Republican seat.  I can't find polling information so I don't know how well he is doing but the Cincinatti Post has endorsed him.  And he has raised a boat load of money.

He is an Iraq War Vet and is described as a "libertarian" Democrat.

That's the model for Democrats.  Libertarians can swing either way.  It is just who wants them.  In Texas, the Republicans want them and they ran Ron Paul.  And in Ohio, the Democrats want them.

Only my opinion but that's what they should stick with.  Some of us are not loyal to either of the two parties.  What can you do for me?  What answers do you have?  Play to much to the base and you lose us in the middle.

imho,

Stanford

It's going to your head. Democrats are sometimes marionettes of special interests (see gay marriage 2004) but if you expect a "huge Deaniac wave" anywhere, you didn't pay attention to the IA caucus last year.

Here's a reminder. That's after all the oohing and aahing over his amazing "netroots" fundraising and incredible grassroots support, which was going to carry him to victory in Iowa, and in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina, aaaaaaahahhhhhhhh!

Third place. Eighteen percent.

Nobody knows who John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney are (and thankfully so for Democrats). Dean was elected chair of the DNC for any number of reasons that are not "The party is in the hands of MoveOn"...nobody else wanted the job, he's a good fundraiser, the people who elected him are the most activist in the party, the moon aligned with Pluto, etc. There's a good argument to be made that the perception of the party has changed, but that doesn't mean anything to Dem primary voters. They're voting for Hillary.

btw, you're assuming that Iraq--another big reason why Dean got all the attention he did--will even be an issue when 2008 rolls around. Seems unlikely to me.

It's scary to think about it, but Hillary has been setting herself up for a WH run for a long time.  She sees an opening in the Dem party to be the one who "unites" both sides.  She has slowly and systematically moved closer to the center on policy issues ever since 2000.  

She knows she's the Dem's best shot right now at WH'08.  Our job as Republicans is to find an equally qualified candidate who has the ability to connect with everyday Americans (a la GWB) because I see this as her biggest weakness.  Think about the type of people who live in swing states such as Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin...I just don't know how receptive they would be to a woman like Hillary. She's not your everyday person able to really get 'down in the trenches' like W was able to.  This is her Achilles heel and we need to expose her as a `crazy liberal in moderate clothing.'

is all fine and good.  And DLC and triangulation and all that is good too.

Thing is, does anyone actually like Hilary?

Speaking with my Democrat friends, they all respect Hilary, but none of them really like her that much.  She could try to emulate Bill, but she ain't Bill.  Bill is a gifted politician, a man of enormous personal charisma and charm.  He's somewhat like the Don King of politics -- no matter what, you somehow end up kind of liking the guy.

Hilary is... I don't know... colder perhaps is the right word.  I had an opportunity to meet her in person and hear her speak.  She gives off this impression of someone who is enormously bright, super-smart, and super-distant.  Her emoting comes off fake, unless it's emoting anger, in which case it comes off shrill.  Maybe that's just me, but in the cult of personality politics we have today, I don't think you can overlook personal qualities.

-TS

1). 2006 Election.  Chairman Dean - and, by extension, his supporters - are given a surprisingly free hand by the Democratic Party muckety-mucks.  This will include all sorts of loving peans of praise from the usual media suspects, all of which will include the usual bumpf about 'vision of the future' and 'rising tide of activism' and so forth.  The progressive wing of the Democratic Party will get to own the '06 election.

There are two results to this:

2a). Success: defined as 'the Democratic Party retakes control of the House or Senate'. Dean is vindicated; his way to a quick nomination in '08 is made smooth.  Clinton makes a deal; the VP slot is not entirely objectionable, and '08 will not be '84.

2b). Abject failure: Any scenario worse for the Democrats than 2a, up to and including pickups that do not retake either legislative branch.  The DLC will make sure that the Dean faction takes the blame; he may have the activists, but they have the journalists.  Expect a carefully-measured escalation of outrage that will culminate with Senator Clinton publicly gutting Chairman Dean, MoveOn.org, the antiwar movement and anybody else that she can hit.  The progressives fume and chafe... but they won't have quite the control of the narrative that they'll expect to have.  dKos can't beat CNN.  Heck, he couldn't even take on the New Republic.

Mind you, I'm guessing, and I freely admit that I could be smoking teh crack.

At least according to just about any male Democrat in New Jersey I've asked. They just could not bring themselves to vote for her. She may just be the best thing to happen to our party.