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

[dissention]

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.

[dissention]

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

[GateandGarden]

That's not my dream at all.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

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.

[StevieNicksEO17]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

That's not my dream at all.

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

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by StevieNicksEO17

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

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

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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'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.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by dissention

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 pandering to the fundies isn't enough?

Yeah, this is very discouraging. People thought there wasn't a good candidate to vote for in the last election. From what I've seen so far, 2008 would be much worse! I imagine I might be hearing even more people saying they're just not voting.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Yeah, this is very discouraging. People thought there wasn't a good candidate to vote for in the last election. From what I've seen so far, 2008 would be much worse! I imagine I might be hearing even more people saying they're just not voting.

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.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.

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

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

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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

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?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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.

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

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

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?

Then why isn't Hillary going for the jugular with W Good Luck answering that one 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.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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?

Arianna left the Republicans and her husband years ago. 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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Arianna left the Republicans and her husband years ago. 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 BTW - still smoking