Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You
 

Arianna is always good, and I thought this was a particularly good read.

Hillary’s ‘American Dream’: Stuck in the Middle With You
07.27.2005 by Arianna Huffington

So there's a fight brewing in the Democratic Party. And it has nothing to do with John Roberts. Instead, it was prompted by Hillary Clinton assuming her role as head of the DLC’s “American Dream Initiative” and immediately calling for a “ceasefire” in the fight over the direction the party should be taking.

Right. Sure. I believe a little translation is in order. Because in almost every instance where a politician or political group calls for a "ceasefire," or "a stop to the mud-slinging," or "unity," what they’re really saying is: "I'm calling on the other side to stop disagreeing with me, so we can move forward in the only right way. Which is my way."

That’s exactly the tack taken by John Sweeney in trying to keep the AFL-CIO under his sway, calling on workers to maintain “a united labor movement”. But Andy Stern and James Hoffa didn’t take the bait -- and are moving forward with their efforts to remake the labor movement. And does anyone doubt that it will be for the better -- both for working people and for the country -- to have a reinvigorated union movement instead of a united status quo that, over the last 50 years, has gone from representing 35 percent of working people to representing 12.5 percent?

The same holds true for the Democratic Party. What better time to have a battle for the soul of the party than now, when it is faced with the prospect of becoming a permanent minority party -- and still over a year before the 2006 midterms?

According to the DLC, Democrats need to show their willingness to fight terror...by capitulating to the Republicans on pretty much every front. In fact, what the Democrats need is to ignore the siren songs urging them to move toward the victors and, instead, reclaim the Party’s true identity and challenge the GOP head-on on its disastrous pursuit of the war on terror.

It’s hard to have an “American Dream Initiative” headed by someone whose every recent move has been driven by triangulating calculation.

“I have always tried to strike a balance,” Hillary once said. “I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.” That's a long, long way from RFK’s famous line (quoting Shaw): "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

The good news is that the DLC’s disingenuous call for unity was a bust… except in the way it united the progressive blogosphere. Because if there's one thing that can bring progressive bloggers together, it's another clueless call by the DLC for capitulation "unity."

Long gone are the days when the DLC was the only game in town. Now the pushback was instant, with bloggers tearing into the DLC, each sounding different notes but together creating a clear chorus of dissent.

Among the highlights:

HuffPoster David Sirota, nailing the fact that following the DLC path hasn’t exactly paid big dividends at the ballot box over the last 10 years.

Pandagon pointing out that Democrats have been "moving to the center" since 1992. And that, as an electoral strategy, it's failed since 1993!

Markos on the disingenuousness of the "ceasefire" language.

Steve Gilliard making the killer point that “a drunk monkey could have made a mockery of the GOP’s claims to any sort of stewardship on national security."

Matthew Yglesias on the lose-lose nature of Hillary. If you're going to get a nominee who's attacked for advocating progressive policies, it'd be nice if she advocated progressive policies.

Oliver Willis dressing down the DLC for playing the blame game while ignoring the major errors of their electoral approach.

Athenae from First-Draft offering the DLC's Will Marshall some loving advice: “What we have to do, Will my love…”

And Chris Bowers at Mydd advising potential Hillary primary opponents that taking her on now means taking on the DLC.

In other words: No, DLC, your call to show how tough we are by capitulating to the Republicans has not gone over well. If the blogs have any say -- and they increasingly do -- we're going to show how tough we really are by being... tough. And progressive.

Ready to rumble?

Posted at 12:16 AM

If she runs in 2008, be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Sam Seder is going ape**** tonight on The Majority Report, tune in if you can. :woohoo:

That's not my dream at all. :shrug:



















:laugh:

Much in this proves my point that although W should be impeached for lying about Iraq, the D's NEVER wil do it because in general their hands are as dirty as the R's and they are not about to give up Bill Clinton to rid us of W.

I thought of you too when I first read the title!

:lol::lol: I wind up doing that every time someone mentions her! :lol: I'm like, Huh? What about me? And then I realize. :lol:

By the way, y'all, I thought High Priestess was banned but he or she is online looking at The Ledge right now! :shrug:

I've agreed on that point for months. The spineless Democrats are just as responsible as the Repugs. Where were they when they should have been fighting this administration tooth and nail?

I am so sick and tired of the Dems running to the middle, more and more every day. The party has changed so much that it's scary. Hillary Clinton, someone that I had a good amount of respect for, has proven herself to be someone who will sell out without batting a single lash. Ceasefire, my arse. Just recently, she said that we should send more troops to Iraq! What is this woman smoking? Her constant pandering to the fundies isn't enough?

There's nothing in the middle of the road but dead armadillos and a yellow goddamned stripe.

I'm telling you, if she is nominated, I'll claw my eyes out. I hope she loses her Senate seat in a landslide, too. She's insane with all of this DLC garbage and, honestly, never in my day did ever imagine that it would be Hillary Clinton to move the Democratic party to the right. If you had predicted that a few years ago, I would have asked you what you were smoking.

I must say that I'm thankful there isn't any sort of buzz about Obama running (oh, have mercy on us if it happens!), but with our luck, he'll get the VP slot on the Hillary ticket.

Truthfully, I think it will happen.

Yep. and I get the theory on playing the middle - I mean Kerry almost won. In fact, I could even respect playing the middle if they were at least consistent in what they say. I and anyone with an ounce of a brain should know the D's hedged on Iraq and they played right into Rove's web by doing so - flip flop flip flop. The D's thought they could stradle the fence and if W's inane plan had worked, they thought they could have basked in that glory :rolleyes:

Jason, you're loony~ in that ENTIRE article there wasnt ONE thing that proved any such point you've been propounding, tho you ardently wish it did.

By the way Comparing Bill Clinton's Iraq antics to GW's is like comparing apples and oranges. give it up. You're NOT making the case. Nope :distress:

As for Arianna, she's sure singing a different tune than she sang many years before when she was running. Now, she almost sounds as though shes urging the Dems to fight (and coming across as a closet "roots" Dem herself contrasted with her old position......I must admit, Im a bit surprised at her newfound popularity. Isnt she married to one of the GOP OLD GUARD? or wasnt she?

How about this line:

Remember, Hillary is the one who, before the 2004 election, cited the president as someone “we owe a debt of gratitude” to for capturing Saddam. Which is playing right into the GOP’s hands. The Democrats will never return to power so long as they allow Republicans to present themselves as the party best suited to keep us safe from terror, instead of exposing all the ways in which they have actually left us much more vulnerable and unsafe than before.

Boy - she sure sounds pissed at W and the fact that we went to war with Iraq at all :rolleyes:

Then why isn't Hillary going for the jugular with W :shrug: Good Luck answering that one :laugh: Instead, she praises W for completing what her husband and the D's continued after Bush I started it. That you in any way defend the D's action in Iraq is blind partisanship.

Arianna left the Republicans and her husband years ago. :shrug: Go read her book Fanatics and Fools, she calls out the Republicans and the Democrats for the swine that they are. She's one of the few people out there that doesn't have blinders on.

Well, there's you and me :wavey: BTW - still smoking :eek:

I personally dont see Hillary running, but IF she decided to run, you'd see such a furor from the right...they cant STAND a strong intelligent woman in POWER :mad: and she is savvy.....for all you know this current stance is smoke and mirrors to lull the right wingers and everyone else into a false sense of security. Once she attains office, then OFF COME THE GLOVES BABY :blob1: Bush is so transparent, that he couldnt possibly fool anyone. (maybe Jason!)
I for one knew what we were in for because it isnt hard to read the writing on the wall....(WMD anyone?) At any rate, I wish Barbara Boxer were interested in running, she'd kick ASS. She makes me proud to be a Californian. Especially in a state that seems to have a fondness for celebrity mayors/governors....how sad.:distress:

Because she's pandering, wants support from the moderates, and is hoping that all of this insane **** she's spewing will do something for her. But if she keeps it up, she's toast. She'll lose re-election and her prospects at '08 will be even more dire than they already are.

Hillary Clinton is a kiss-ass.

W has not fooled me - I have repeatedly said I disagree with his lying to go to war in Iraq and his mess afterward. I think he should be impeached for those. I am just saying the D's are right there in the middle of it with him and they cannot get out. Please get your facts correct before asserting them.

I agree except that the nomination as of now is her's if she wants it. Remember she and her husband can raise more money that most other D's combined - and it is the money that talks. Personally, I do not hate Hillary - I just see her for the full of crap person she is. Having said that, her crap is better than most.

NOWHERE in there do I find anyone saying the Dems are as guilty based on what Clinton did....Give me a break...

As I said: smoke and mirrors, false sense of security....and I DEFY you to show me ANYWHERE where I defended any action in Iraq. All I said was Clinton had faulty info and didnt know it. Much different than Bush KNOWING the info was faulty. PUH LEEZ :shrug:

Oh, dear. You know I love you, but I'm so sick of that "scared-of-strong-women" line of talking that I could ralph. It has nothing to do with her skirt, it has everything to do with losing the office of the presidency and having to put up with such a high profile Democrat.

Sorry, but I'll actively campaign against her if she runs. Her campaign will be the death of the Democratic party. One could argue that it's already dead, but her campaign would finally seal the coffin.

Hillary Clinton is so transparent that she couldn't possibly fool anyone. Her lips are too **** brown from kissing ass for my liking.

Barbara Boxer would get my vote in an instant. SHE is a Democrat.

OH Jason! you originally said there WERE WMD and that we needed to get Saddam before he used them to be on the SAFE side. !!!!! you only admitted you were wrong after the UN inspectors and everyone else said there WERE NO WMD and that the info was faulty! YOU ARE PULLING A JOHN KERRY! :lol: :lol:
I can go find your old post if you want to be humilitated again.........

For the last time, hundreds of thousands and by some estimates millions died under the Oil for Food Program. I suppose you are okay with that because Clinton did it - murder is murder. Then he does a missle strike to take the heat off of his impeachment. BTW - I suppose you were okay with those :rolleyes: Your blind faith in him is astounding. But, I really do not want to talk about it anymore because you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong and you most definitely are here. I mean W is a lying ass, but Clinton and the D's were not any better.

How do you know what Clinton knew? Plus, sending missles during the impeachement - nice and it sure sets him apart from W :rolleyes:

Of course the nom is hers, but she'll sink faster on Election Day than Say You Will sank on the Billboard charts! Her nomination will spell sudden death at our prospects of ousting the Repugs in three years.

I don't hate her, either, I simply have next to nothing in terms of respect for her. She's a kiss-ass and a sell-out who deserves that sell-out louse of a husband that she's got.

Diss: what do you mean:
She never lost that office? she never ran...whatchoo smokin???? :cool:

BTW: Barbara Boxer IS the BOMB.

I said the world via the UN though there were WMD. I also said SH had WMD because we gave them to him and he used them. Those are factually correct statements unless you live in fantasyland.

I also still think SH is responsible for his downfall because SH refused to comply with the UN until the very bitter end and by then it was too late to trust him - he made it so easy for W and his cronies. I also think SH hid some of the crap he still had and we will never find it. But, we did not find any and that is that. Nice try though :rolleyes:

BTW - Clinton killed probably millions based on the wrong intelligence and he still stands by that - how humiliating for you to support that.

The Dems are as guilty as the Republicans are for Iraq because THEY ENABLED THEM.

Forget Bill Clinton, his Iraq policies were ten times better and 180 degrees different than Bush's. What people are getting at is that the Democrats are spineless cowards who did next to nothing when it came to preventing Iraq and then after we invaded, they praised it to the heavens for the most part. Wasn't it Kerry that said four months before Election Day that knowing what he now knows, he still would have authorized the war? Didn't Hillary Clinton call for more troops in Iraq last week? What a bunch of numbnuts.

Clinton wasnt responsible for the Oil for Food scam, Saddam was! he figured out a way to capitalize even during an embargo! Ya gotta hand it to the man, hes crazy like a fox! You cant blame Clinton for that one dear so sad :p

As for his missle strike, I dont for one minute believe it was to divert anyones attention. Nobody paid any attention to that missle strike at the time because sex was a much more compelling topic. And just because YOU say Im wrong doesnt make it so. Get over yerself! All Im pointing out to you is Arianna didnt say word ONE to back your silly impeachment argument. It wasnt even on the radar of her blog. The truth is, its YOUR pet argument and you can HAVE it :shrug:

That isn't the point I was making. My point was that they've tried to assassinate her character for ages because her husband was Clinton and, partly, because in the later stages of his presidency, they knew she was going to run for public office as soon as her louse left office. The prospect of her getting back to the White House pisses them off, not because she's a woman, but because she's a DEMOCRAT and a CLINTON.

I think they did worse than enabling - I think they tried to play both sides against the middle and it backfired on them. They were hedging in case W actually easily won over Iraq, which very well could have happened with a little luck and given that much of the Iraqi refused to fight in 1991. They wanted to be able to say "Hey - we were with W" now reelect us. It backfired - pure and simple.

As for Clinton's policies - they were not that much different in that they both have killed in the name of political gain and under the guise of WMD. To be that makes them more alike than apart even though Clinton never advocated a preemptive invasion.

Well, Id hardly call it enabling when you're outnumbered? :shrug:

Even if the Dems DID vote for it, apparently they were fooled by the White House Spin machine anyway.......I think this is the first time in our Nation's history that we've actually been fed outright LIES. MANIPULATED by PROPANDA to rival the old USSR!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

There's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well :laugh: :laugh:

Ouch, that's below the belt. :laugh:

I'm crossing my fingers that a kick-ass candidate runs against Kerry in the next election, I want that ****er out.

Then why are the leaders of that party still doing it :shrug: I guess they are still being manipulated by essentially the same evidence Clinton and they used to bomb Iraq and support the Oil for Food program, which though they killed probably millions, are just radically different than W invading Iraq on the same pretense :rolleyes:

Where did I ever say I supported the killing of innocents? WHERE?
All I said was Clinton acted on faulty info. There's a WORLD of difference between finding out your info was faulty AFTER the fact and going into a situation already knowing the info was faulty as Bush did.....two completely different things and THAT is what I am saying so stop putting words in my mouth!

But they gave up and did nothing. :shrug: I'm sorry, where were the other Ted Kennedy's, screaming about not going into Iraq? They were pushovers and with the exception of a few lovely Dems, they bent over for the current regime.

BULL**** ALERT.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

and its untrue as well. She can spin it all day long. I never said that. I said the world via the UN thought SH had WMD and that we gave SH WMD and he used them in the, I think, late 80's. Thus, I was making a factual statement, but facts are something she cannot stand when they go against that saint known as Clinton.

nobody said he was innocent. Im only saying he could be forgiven for what he didnt know. PERIOD. Bush on the other hand KNEW.
Again, world of difference.

Again, Clinton used that info to his political advantage by bombing during his impeachment - that it did not work does not belie his intention. But, blibdly support him you will :rolleyes:

Amen!

By the way, we have been agreeing a lot lately and it is a little scary.