"Clinton Rules"
It's quite true as GFR and Greg Sargent point out that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, seems to get uniquely bad treatment at the hands of the MSM. Since a big part of what bloggers do is attack the press for being unfair to Democrats, one assumes this means we'll see many newspapers articles being unfair to Clinton and many blog posts complaining about them.
Still, I think it's important for liberals not to let Clinton's good fortune in her enemies distract people from basic realities. The precise nuances of what everyone's said about Iran so far aside, it's pretty clear that Edwards and Clinton have similar records as officeholders, that Obama has a somewhat more liberal record than those two, and that Edwards has positioned himself to the left of Obama and Clinton in terms of what he's laid out so far in the campaign. Precisely how one should evaluate Edwards versus Obama in that context isn't obvious to me. And, again, it doesn't just follow from the fact that Clinton is clearly the least liberal of the three that she shouldn't be the Democratic nominee. Perhaps you, like Clinton, have views that aren't especially liberal. Alternatively, perhaps you think Clinton's less-liberal positioning is a price that needs to be paid for electoral purposes. I can think of any number of things one might say about this and, obviously, there's more to life than just ideology -- competence, intelligence, judgment, character, etc. all matter.
But insofar as we're talking about ideology, we should be clear. Clinton, like her husband, is both hated by the right and treated unfairly by the press and a not very liberal politician, coming from the party's more centrist wing and flanked by advisors from the same. In a general election, she'd clearly be the progressive choice against Giuliani, McCain, Romney, etc. but is clearly the less progressive choice vis-a-vis Edwards and Obama. I don't think the fact that she's mistreated by the press should distract people from this basic point. What's more, garnering bad press is a bug, not a feature, when you're looking for a candidate. Which is all, I suppose, by way of introducing my Guardian piece about Clinton's Iraq War revisionism.
Comments
I don't think there's any reason to fear that liberal primary voters will be drawn to Clinton specifically because of the bad press that she and her husband receive from the Falangist media and the rest of the Republican Attack Machine. That journalistic corruption forms a big part of the founding ethos of the blogosphere, but it was never borne of loyalty to Clintons as people or ideologists, but as Democrats.
What drives me crazy about her justification for her vote is that she abdicated her senatorial role out of her belief that presidents need war powers. Perhaps she was projecting back from her husband's tensions with congress, perhaps she was projecting forward to her own hoped-for presidency, but that vote was the opportunity to assert the people's control over the impending Iraq war, and she voted to cede authority. She has not rescinded this aspect of her vote, and she won't. Today, she talks about having had her trust mishandled, the power abused, but she won't touch the balance of powers question.
Hillary talks a more conservative game than Edwards and Obama. But if you look at the differences in votes in the Senate between Hillary and Edwards, in just about every case Hillary's vote is more liberal. So it is not clear to me whether she is actually the more conservative choice.
Yes and no. She's treated unfairly by the press, but she's treated one way or the other by the press every second. That's a real advantage. Coverage of her in some organs upstaged Obama's every entry into the campaign; in other organs it got equal placement. Meanwhile Edwards has been marginalized entirely, and he doesn't even have Kucinich's marginal image. There was nothing like this in 2004, when Dean got very negative coverage but not the perpetual harping on expectations that he exists and will assuredly win.
A query:
Do you get paid for these Guardian/Comment-is-Free pieces or is it a youtube like upload system for the masses?
On the issue of comparisons between their records as officeholders, it's important to bear in mind that Hillary is a Senator from New York, while Edwards is from North Carolina. Edwards was as liberal as a North Carolina Senator could possibly be.
I second Neil's point, but I'll go even further: Hillary could be even more liberal as a Senator from New York than she appears to be, and Edwards may have been too liberal for North Carolina in 2004. North Carolina is catching up with him, though.
Hillary also gets mistreated by liberals.
There was a post on Huffington that said it could be discerned from HRC's choice of favorite movies that HRC was obviously insincere!
Re HRC & Iraq, Bob Somerby summed it up nicely:
"...those who planned to run for president voted yes on the resolution (Kerry; Clinton; Edwards; Gephardt; Daschle). Those who didn’t plan to run voted no (Kennedy; Durbin; Levin). In short—though there’s no way to know—we’d guess that Edwards cast his vote “to maintain his viability within the system.” Ditto with Kerry. Ditto Clinton. "
HRC is the top polling Dem. Myself, I'd be happy to have any of the Dem candidates become Pres, but if HRC is the one who'll get the votes, then fine. These attacks are so much wasted energy, IMO.
Clark is right .... but it's also true that Clinton's less-than-liberal Senate record cost her approximately no votes in her 2006 reelection. She won huge majorities almost everywhere, but the biggest ones in the most liberal and Democratic districts in NYC. Interestingly, her anti-war primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini, actually got his strongest votes in the most conservative districts (e.g. Staten Island was by far his bes NYC boro), where people presumably thought they were voting against her because she wasn't pro-war enough.
So based on her NYC record, her advisors are probably right to think she has little to fear from liberals and other anti-war voters in the primary. When it comes to Clinton, there is just a total disconnect between self-identified progressives (a very small group) and any significant voter bloc.
The notion that the Clintons are treated unfairly by the mainstream press is pure fantasy. The mainstream press is populated overwhelmingly by liberal Democrats, who adore the Clintons and give them mostly fawning coverage.
What drives me crazy about her justification for her vote is that she abdicated her senatorial role out of her belief that presidents need war powers.
A key point, jackmormon. This is the dynamic that probably made that vote doubly agonizing for several senators - especially including Kerry, I would think. Presidents would never vote to constrain their own power, and you can understand a bit how a proto-pres might think twice. But this is now, not then. Balance of power issues are a little more..er..manifest at the moment. And then there how the Iraq war has actually turned out. HRC doesn't seem to have come to terms with what's happened since 2001. She's yesterday's candidate.
journalistic corruption forms a big part of the founding ethos of the blogosphere, but it was never borne of loyalty to Clintons as people or ideologists, but as Democrats.
True, but....Clintonism is alluring to some people. It's a worthy cautionary note. We don't want to get caught in a dumb feedback loop wherein we're defending a pol who is not really what we want anyway - wherein, in other words, our side is defined by the other side, and we're stuck with it. The DLC is a defensive POV, better suited to the 80s-90s. Is that what we need in 2008?! I think the wheel wants to turn no matter what we do.
Wow.
Hillary could be even more liberal as a Senator from New York than she appears to be, and Edwards may have been too liberal for North Carolina in 2004. North Carolina is catching up with him, though.
I was and still am a big Edwards fan. But another thing to think about vis a vis his voting record in N. Carolina: he stood a very good chance of losing his seat anyway. The state is going his way, but it probably wasn't there in '04. That seat had gone back and forth between the parties over and over.
Jonny, Edwards probably would have won re-election had he not chosen to run for President. He was leading in early polls.
lemuel pitkin, Clinton has a very liberal Senate record - except or the war. Even there, when 60% the public finally turned against it, she started becoming more critical. She showed no leadership in the run-up to the Iraq war, why should anyone follow her now? This last election, she ran against a true nobody. For the presidential primaries, the anti-war voters will have real choices. This could be a long, tough primary season.
The notion that the Clintons are treated unfairly by the mainstream press is pure fantasy. The mainstream press is populated overwhelmingly by liberal Democrats, who adore the Clintons and give them mostly fawning coverage.
It may be that there are more liberals than conservatives among reporters. But the editorial staff, the punditocracy and most importantly the media ownership are overwhelmingly conservative.
Jonny, Edwards probably would have won re-election had he not chosen to run for President. He was leading in early polls.
I don't want to belabor a small point - as I said, I like Edwards a lot. But it had to enter into his calculation - both in his voting record and his decisio to run for pres. - that his was by no means a 'safe' seat. Early polls don't mean much, especially in that situation. What I mean is that the power of incumbancy was not much of a power for him in that seat.
Hillary! actually surviving bad MSM coverage would be interesting in that one must remember that Hillary! as a politician is the creation of the press just like Frankenstein's monster was Frankenstein's creation.
If one is old enough to have been reading the newspaper in 1992-1994 one remembers 'Social Engineer' Hillary!, who was supposed to create Health Care Utopia, 'Master of Legislative Maneuver' Hillary!, who was engineering the passing of a huge piece of legislation, 'Brilliant Lawyer' Hillary!, who successfully represented Arkansas corporations in front of Arkansas state entities, while her husband was governor, and my personal favorite, 'Creator of Meaning' Hillary!, who, through the 'Politics of Meaning' was going bring meaning to the lives of all of us poor blighters. They never went for 'Greatest Orator since Cicero' Hillary!, since that would have been too ridiculous even for the press.
I think, given the fact that Hillary! almost defines mediocrity in just about every meaningful way, and would be a political nobody except for who she married, she's actually not been all that bad of of a US Senator for NY, if one didn't hold Al D'Amato's 'Senator Pothole' stuff against him.
It will be interesting to see if the press turns against her, if she lives on like Frankenstein's monster, or they can do her in.
I think, given the fact that Hillary! almost defines mediocrity in just about every meaningful way, and would be a political nobody except for who she married, she's actually not been all that bad of of a US Senator for NY
Considering the level of leadership we've had under GW, mediocrity would be a significant change for the better.
I think, given the fact that Hillary! almost defines mediocrity in just about every meaningful way
I'm interested in what meaningful ways you think she hasn't "almost define[ed] mediocrity." I ask because I wonder what you would be willing to give her credit for. Looking at her biography, she seems to have achieved a good deal before marrying Bill. While maybe not up to your high standards of rising above mediocrity, I think that she achieved more than a lot of people.
"But the editorial staff, the punditocracy and most importantly the media ownership are overwhelmingly conservative."
This too is part of the fantasy. It's ridiculous.
"Precisely how one should evaluate" candidates..
..is a simple matter of applied common sense.
"..competence, intelligence, judgment, character, etc. all matter".
Agreed.
"What's more, garnering bad press is a bug, not a feature, when you're looking for a candidate".
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. To me, anyway.
I opposed war upon the people of Iraq, Matt, because I'd witnessed the same swine warring 40 years ago in another evil episode. I knew better than those who equivocated in their judgement, and who chose to support the Big Lie War. I still can hardly believe any patriot's judgement could be so corrupted as to stampede to war. But, goddamn me, I thought wrong. H. Clinton (among others) knew better. But she lacked the judgement and guts to do anything about it. She still does. And if she truly doesn't know better, what else does anyone need know about her fitness for the presidency?
Regardless of his Senate record--which, I'll grant, isn't unimportant--Edwards has taken a leftward turn since leaving office (although we could probably argue about how sharp the turn has been.) With Hillary, her Senate record is what we've got to go on, and it's decidely less progressive that the policy positions now held by Edwards.
Per Hillary!'s pre Bill bio, I think she did well in school, and was an unexceptional staff lawyer for a Congressional Watergate committee. And married Bill Clinton. Looks pretty mediocre to me.
I forgot! 'Brilliant Legal Theorist' Hillary!, for creating a novel legal theory for granting standing to children who wanted to sue their parents. I think that's pre-Bill. Seem brilliant to you?
Also, congrats to Mr. Yglesias on going inter-continental.
So Hilary's basically doing the "conditional shuffle" as someone has referred to it. That's the idea of many in the media and Congress that they supported the war in Iraq but under specific conditions that the administration obviously had no intention of incorporating and which the practioner of the conditional shuffle knew as well.
Edwards has positioned himself to the left of Obama and Clinton in terms of what he's laid out so far in the campaign. Precisely how one should evaluate Edwards versus Obama in that context isn't obvious to me.
I think this is right. It seems to me that 2008 could be a golden opportunity for the Democratic nominee to pull the center back to the left. Not only should we see a fairly significant anti-Bush, anti-war backlash, but the time for issues such as global warming and universal health care seems to be at hand, as well. Unfortunately, Clinton's centrist positioning would figure to blunt the full opportunity for change that might be achieved by Edwards or Obama. Beyond style, what real difference is there between Clinton and Guiliani?
Naive question - In talking about Edwards, there is a refrain of the term populism. Now, I don't know about you all, but when I hear "populism" I - perhaps incorrectly, you tell me - interpret it as economic protectionism. I know that poverty is important to Edwards (which is good), but do we know enough about him to have a sense as to whether or not he has "protectionistic" (?) designs?
From MY's column:
"Team Clinton, however, seems to think that the liberal base - particularly African-Americans and women - are so entranced by her starpower that they'll swallow anything, including the bizarre up-is-downism implicit in her revisionist history of the war."
I think this is an important point. HRC has been treated unfairly by many people, but her campaign somehow expects the Democratic party to do the exact opposite--just forget about things in her record that are of serious concern. Moderate, sane critics of HRC within the Democratic party should not feel ashamed of themselves simply because there are immoderate and insane critics in other places.
Shall we put on the backburner the splitting of hairs regarding the policy instincts/theories of the leading candidates? Let's ask which candidate could lead the party to 60 Senate seats in 2008, 2010 or 2012.
I think Clinton's *advisors* have shown they are particularly bad at creating conditions favorable to the election of downticket Dems; they were Clinton 42's advisors after all.
Edwards or Obama would be much better at building a governing majority in Congress. Isn't that pretty damned important?
Gus, I don't see any evidence that Edwards will push a Gephardt-style hard protectionist line on tariffs, though he will probably try to negotiate labor standards into trade agreements. His populism is mostly about domestic legislation that affects workers (raising the minimum wage and making it easier to set up unions) and expanding social service / antipoverty programs (universal health care, etc.).
USA Pat: Seek professional help.
This post (and the ensuing comments) really underscores how useless the "left-right" paradigm is right now.
I don't think there's a single common assumption shared by anybody on this entire thread.
good Guardian piece, Matt.
meanwhile, everyone else:
Draft Al Gore.
y'all pass it on now, o.k.?
Team Clinton, however, seems to think that the liberal base - particularly African-Americans and women - are so entranced by her starpower that they'll swallow anything, including the bizarre up-is-downism implicit in her revisionist history of the war."
They seem to be partially correct.
Just so that's not misread, I've yet to meet the black Hillary backer and the trend I've seen isn't male or female, it's how much time they invested into working Clinton/Gore 92 or 96.
Actually I'm rather surprised by this post, and would have thought you of all people understand the strangeness.
On a conservative voting scale, I'd put Edwards to the right of Clinton, and Obama to the left of Clinton.
However, on a how do they talk scale... Obama is the one sounding like the moderate, and Edwards is sounding like the radical lefty.
Which I think goes to a comment Yglesias made some time ago, that a successful Democrat is going to need to talk like a moderate, and govern like a liberal.
As for Hillary, I don't understand her and how she thinks she is positioning herself. While I don't think she'll flame out quite like Lieberman, I think she's polling as well as she is now on the basis of name power only.
I disagree about the press. All I have heard on the television by the msm is drolling over Hillary. The press has been throwing flowers her way for a year now. I just do not hear any criticsm of the woman.
Not even constructive.
Edwards and Obama are different in this way. Edwards was an almost right center dem who, after 2004 in one year remade himself into a populist - how you change your politics and thinking in a year I don't know but, this is what he has decided to be.
A look into the thinking and ideas of obama is best found in the excellent article right now in Rolling Stone. Shows the evolving of his thinking since he went to Washington and may answer for those who wonder why he did not go radical left, this may answer why. He's been steeped in new thinking in foreign policy. Not new in neocon, new in new generations.
vwcat, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. Edwards ran a populist campaign in 1998 for Senate.
And Obama's foregin policy thinking is "new in new generations"? WTF does that mean? He drinks Pepsi?
Also seriously Matt, GFR's post was based on the claim that liberal blogs never defend her. In fact, you do all the time.
None of the candidates has Howard Dean's self confidence, honesty and daring he showed during the last presidential campaign. If any of them would breakout and really speak their mind they'd have my vote. As it is I'd take any dem candidate over the repub but not enthusiastically.
"Clark is right .... but it's also true that Clinton's less-than-liberal Senate record cost her approximately no votes in her 2006 reelection."
Wrong, cost her my vote! She'll never get it again.
sohbet, chat, arkadaş
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
sadasd
sadasda
sdasda
sdsads
erotik market
kozmetik
thank you
thanks..
thanks a lot.
thanks..
thanks....
hank..
thank. u web page.
thanks bay...
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
Actually I'm rather surprised by this post, and would have thought you of all people understand the strangeness.
thanks
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
seks shop
hikaye
Thank you
almanca tercüman rusça tercüman fransızca tercüman arapça tercüman farsça tercüman tercüme büroları ispanyolca tercüman almanca tercüme japonca tercüman çince tercüman bulgarca tercüman yunanca tercüman danca tercüman hollandaca tercüman ibranice tercüman italyanca tercüman korece tercüman norveççe tercüman portekizce tercüman romence tercüman sırpça tercüman ukraynaca tercüman istanbul tercüme tercüme bürosu web sitesi çevirisi ingilizce tercüman fransızca çeviri fransızca tercüme tercüme italyanca çeviri çekçe tercüme fince tercüman prestij tercüme
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
Thanks you.Nice
oyun
mirc
son dakika haberler
thanks
Hello Men
gallery is fantastic "Sunset Waves" very good
I am Blog
Thanks you really perfect one writing.I m always follow you.
Alışveriş indir arkadas driver sohbet sohbet cinsel sohbet cet çet sohbet odalari sohbet cet odasi çet sohbet kelebekfm chat chat web tasarimkelebekfm kelebek fm kelebek radyo cet cinsel cet cet kanallari cet odasi muhabbet izmir sohbet script cet çet mirc chat sohbet sohbet odalari kelebek kelebek sohbet
izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas bacanak web tasarimci muhabbet
Post A Comment