May 30, 2006

Liebermanhandling Hillary.

The Daily News reports:
Some Manhattan Democratic clubs are launching a backlash against Sen. Hillary Clinton amid some of her recent shifts toward the right. Once a liberal favorite, Clinton is being shunned in her reelection bid by four local Democratic groups furious over her vote in favor of the Iraq war and her newly cozy relationship with conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

"She is not in Arkansas anymore," said Yayoi Tsuchitani, campaign chairwoman of the Village Independent Democrats, which voted this month to back Jonathan Tasini, Clinton's little-known Democratic challenger for her Senate seat.

"This is New York we are dealing with, and the majority of New Yorkers are against the war," Tsuchitani added.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a big Hillary article, analyzing her supposedly elusive political persona. Key paragraph:
On balance, most of those around Clinton say her hard-to-pigeonhole profile is a political asset -- the product, they say, of a curious intellect, the absence of rigid ideology, an instinct for problem solving and a willingness to seek consensus even across party lines. Her detractors see her career as the work of an opportunistic politician who has sanded the sharp edges off her views, so much so that there is little sense of authenticity when she speaks.

30 comments:

Seven Machos said...

I say: politically brilliant on Hillary Clinton's part. If I were her, I would want to be thrown in that briar patch all day long.

She is not going to lose the Senate seat if she runs, certainly not in the primary and very probably not in the general election. Should she get the Democratic nomination, she will still win New York, but she will look a lot more moderate in the minds of Americans in other, redder states.

The only place this hurts her is in the Democratic nomination process. But I don't think it hurts her that much. She can read the political tea leaves. Look what happened to the last anti-war guy, who was a shoe-in (shoo-in?) for the nomination until he finished third or fourth in Iowa and only won his own state's primary (which any remotely competent politician ought to be able to do).

The Drill SGT said...

A Tuesday morning chuckle here with this small Sista Soljuh moment.

In the greater scheme of things Hillary can use a bit of complaining by Greenwich Village liberals. It makes her more attractive upstate and later nationally.

The Drill SGT said...

The true test of a person's brilliance is how much they agree with you.

Brilliant Seven

Ann Althouse said...

It's not a Sista Soljuh moment, because she's done nothing. If she talks back to people like that she can get credit for a Sista Soljuh moment, but it seems to be her way not to confront anyone. Not yet, at least.

Carlo said...

Hillary got her party's nomination due to her celebrity status amongst the "true believers". persisting in your "support"[long after yor garden variety yellow-bellied perfidious[=Democratic] politician "rescinded" his/her own vote] of a "white, imperialistic" war waged by a "theocratic" president would be a quite reliable way of losing your celebrity status

- no news there

Dave said...

The point at which I stop reading, "Some Manhattan Democratic clubs" tells me all I need to know.

As a Manhattanite I can say with authority that the members of such clubs in Manhattan suffer from a debilitating form of the Pauline Kael effect, wherein, despite their money and education, they are nonetheless convinced that all people think as they do.

Simon said...

"most of those around Clinton say her hard-to-pigeonhole profile is a political asset . . . the absence of rigid ideology."

Is that damning with faint praise, saying she has no ideology, or is it evasion, saying that she has an ideology but that it is not "rigid"?

ALH ipinions said...

I think you have it just right Carlo.

Anyone who is shocked, shocked that there's no there there with Hillary must have been in hibernation for the past 16 years!

Because, despite his visceral hatred of her, Hillary is just following the patented Dick Morris "triangulation" path her husband took all the way to the White House.

SteveR said...

Nothing she says or does will not convince me that everything she say or does is designed to give her the best chance to get elected president.

Nothing she says or does will convince me she is not a true blue liberal to the core. Albeit not an honest one.

reader_iam said...

She's not in Arkansas anymore.

Real creative, and so early '90s! She's not been there in a darn long time, after all. This woman probably thinks this quip is so clever, when in reality it's so clueless.

Jacques Cuze said...

How do you launch a backlash?

If the majority of New York and Connecticut Democrats are against the war then exactly what is wrong with New York Democrats demanding their Senator listen to their views and explain her views and votes? Or Connecticut Democrats demanding the same of their Senator?

Seems like representing their consitutants that is the basis of a governance in a Democratic Republic.

But then I am not as smart as a conservative blog diva concern troll.

By the way, since you are on a sexism alert these days, would you ever write that "The Washington Post has a big Joe article? A big George article? A big Karl article? A big Bill article?" or "A big Madonna article?" Why would you refer to Senator Clinton, a grown woman, in this manner?

WhatsAPundit said...

If you can judge a person by the quality of her enemies, Hillary! has maybe started cultivating the right ones.

(Personally, I’ve been anti-Hillary ever since the Hillarycare debacle – secret policy meetings, convoluted social engineering hidden behind Byzantine management structures, and a general disdain for democratic procedures. God help us, though, the recent history of Congress makes that whole mess look like a precursor to today’s business as usual. So maybe being correct on the Long War will be enough in ’08.)

WhatsAPundit said...

"By the way, since you are on a sexism alert these days, would you ever write that "The Washington Post has a big Joe article? A big George article? A big Karl article? A big Bill article?" or "A big Madonna article?" Why would you refer to Senator Clinton, a grown woman, in this manner?"

Talk about convenient indignation. Remember the Junior Senator from New York's bumper stickers? Did they say "Clinton!"?

I don't think so. Any any marketing person alive would kill to get a client on a first-name basis with America. I'm sure Hillary! will only start worrying if she becomes just another Clinton.

When did Progressives become knee-jerk church-lady scolds?

reader_iam said...

By the way, since you are on a sexism alert these days, would you ever write that "The Washington Post has a big Joe article? A big George article? A big Karl article? A big Bill article?" or "A big Madonna article?" Why would you refer to Senator Clinton, a grown woman, in this manner?

A big laugh from little Quxxo.

Mr. Snitch said...

"As a Manhattanite I can say with authority that the members of such clubs... suffer from a debilitating form of the Pauline Kael effect, wherein, despite their money and education, they are nonetheless convinced that all people think as they do."

AKA the Saul Steinberg effect, in which reality is warped to look something like this. It's amusing, of course, but too few in certain circles understand its implications as a political liability. (And they never will, either.)

Tom Paine said...

Jacques Cuze 8:57 AM

"...I am not as smart as a conservative blog diva concern troll."

No you are not.

You are a tendentious buffoon and will remain one until the end of time.
.

M. Simon said...

Hollary was a Goldwater Republican back in the day.

Mr. Snitch said...

'Jacques Cuze' on his site makes an issue of Ann removing one of his comments. His site does not allow comments at all.

The irony of this is surely lost on him.

"You [Jacques] are a tendentious buffoon and will remain one until the end of time."

I don't make predictions that far out. But it does seem clear that he merely wants attention, and isn't terribly fussy as to how he comes by it.

kmg4 said...

The far left is making thigs very hard for the Democrats. One of the best examples is that The Patriot Act renewal passed 89-11 recently, meaning most Democrats voted for it, despite how much the far left hates it. That is funny.

Drew W said...

Regarding dave's comment about the political parochialism of "some Manhattan Democratic Clubs."

As a New Yorker and a Democrat (although not one who belongs to any such club), these anti-Hillary Dems realize that their Senator is threatening their God-given right to lose every election (and lose big), thus potentially depriving them the comfort of such tried-and-true fall-back positions as: "The Republicans stole another election/The American people are all rubes/It's all Fox News' fault/I'm moving to Canada/etc."

Have you no compassion?

WhatsAPundit said...

Drew, you have a point; how do you know you're a member of the elite if the rubes start agreeing with you?

Guess it goes hand-in-hand with being too far in front of the news cycle....

Drew W said...

WAP--

The last thing that my friends and neighbors on the Loser Left would ever admit is that the Democratic Party has gone from the party of the average American to the party that holds the average American in nothing short of sheer, sneering contempt.

This is not to say that I think that the American electorate will consider Hillary Clinton's centrism to be authentic (or that I'm sure it even is authentic), but to judge by how the leftier-than-thou have turned on her . . . well, I can't put it better than Bissage did in a previous post about some Democrats' efforts to derail the reelection of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut:

Look! It's a grownup! GET HIM!!

Or her, as the case may be.

Adjoran said...

I blame Bush!

The whole thing about his close election in 2000 - with Gore actually "winning the popular vote" - followed by his 90% approval after 9/11, which made them unable to stop the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, added to the cruel trick played by the exit pollsters in 2004, not to mention Republican success in Congress in 2002 and 2004, and the crashing disappointments of "Fitzmas," have simply driven the left completely mad.

Somewhere, Karl Rove is lighting a cigar, putting his feet up on his desk, and asking an aide, "Hey, did I get indicted yet? Hehehehehe . . ."

David said...

A lot of pundits aren't using their heads. They argue that democrats bashing Clinton will make her appear more centrist to the electorate. That, of course, presupposes that the electorate is paying attention to the news, to learn of this bashing. But, if they're paying attention to the news, they'll also know that all these "appearances" are sheer nonsense, and that she's the same leftist she's been her entire life. You can't just absorb some media; it's all or nothing.

In general, most people's minds have been mde up long ago. Hillary's posturing isn't going to help her.

XWL said...

Rather than sitting around and whining that Representatives (and in this case Senators) aren't being Representative enough in our Representative Democracy, I went out and did something about it.

And when I say "did something" what I really mean is that I blogged up a Modest Proposal on how to reform the system to make it more representative.

(sometimes the illusion of action beats real action)

(oh, oh, I must be becoming a Liberal Democrat, that's their M.O.)

Blue Texan said...

Um, excuse me, but doesn't like two-thirds of the entire country believe the war was a mistake? And better than 80% of Democrats?

So to go after Dems like Lieberman and Hillary for being so out of the mainstream in America and in the Democratic party is wrong?

I'm confused.

Bruce Hayden said...

No, 80% of the people in this country don't think the war in Iraq was a mistake. And some of those who don't like the conduct of the war think that we should have put more resources into it, not fewer. So, beware of misleading polls.

That said, I still think that she is on-track for the Democratic nomination, and has a decent chance at winning the election. Blue Texan may believe that the average voter is this country is not worried about national security, but I think him/her highly mistaken. And Hillary is one of the only Democrats who can come across as even somewhat serious here. Clearly neither Gore nor Kerry can any more.

I think that their problem is that they played their cards way too early in coming out against the war and sounding irresponsible while doing it. Hillary has kept her cards much closer to her chest, and probably needn't really take a stand until the general election, if then. She can look somewhat hard line to those who are in favor of national security, and not so to those with other beliefs. All things for all people.

I frankly don't see the Democrats having anyone with nearly the chance of winning that she has, and, in the end, that will probably get her the nomination, if nothing else - remember, that was the big reason that Kerry was nominated - no one really liked him, but he was considered electable.

I don't want the Clintons back in the White House, and, in particular, Hillary, but as a conservative, I would still feel better about her there than most of her other competitors - I would just attribute the missing silverware as the cost of having her, instead of a Kerry or a Gore.

knoxgirl said...

I would just attribute the missing silverware as the cost of having her

LOL! Isn't it sad, when you're like, "well, given the choice, I guess I'll take the petty thief."

WhatsAPundit said...

"I don't want the Clintons back in the White House, and, in particular, Hillary, but as a conservative, I would still feel better about her there than most of her other competitors - I would just attribute the missing silverware as the cost of having her, instead of a Kerry or a Gore."

And on the topic oh how Hillary! differs from Kerry or Gore, she has the advantage of what appears to be a triple-digit IQ.

Seriously, when you think about the "American Aristocracy" (of which both Kerry and Gore are undoubtedly members) it's hard to be impressed by the intellects it has offered up for national leadership.

(As a bone I'll throw Bush into that bunch, but he at least displays the saving grace of not trying to look like an in-tel-leck-cho-all. The posturing of Gore and Kerry is simply embarrasing.)

ChristianSoul said...

This is what I predict, based upon what I think the Hillary strategists will do and why this article is completely worthless, and is of no consequential value to the Clintonites (did she ever care for New York?).

They know they need votes from the moderate side of the rightwing ideo-political spectrum at the national level, (which is besides young adults whose care for anything outside their own spheres of influence are nil, and their ignorance as to the powers of authority when it comes to the media and education system are immense)so they have to show her to be for the war, calm down her rhetoric against abortion (made a speech in Albany which seemed to renege on the principles she formerly stood for--shortly after the 2004 contest) and throw other bones which one could easily argue based upon the timing, and her former affiliations with PINK, is a load of horse manure. In principle, you still have to be for the war in order to garner votes from moderate and more rightwing patriots in this arena, so she is. The strategists will continue to do this, as well as not divulge the particulars of anything substantially worth something to actual commoners. Instead, their politburo will maintain the constant barrage of anti-Christian, anti-republican sentiment, (perceived by a lot of youngsters as their conceptualized authority) through their media channels, most affectively our current pop-culture, and our educational system (an atheist worldview with a Marxist subtitle). This now brings us to the reason why The Daily News piece is of no importance to Clinton and her strategists. The democratic power structure will simply make a shift in the primaries over which states get to go first. You see, by changing the primary calendar and allowing the more moderate states to vote first, the Democratic socialist power structure can gauge their willingness to throw their weight against her in two ways, seeing how she reacts to the moderates in the more rightwing states, and if successful, will in the strategists minds, cause a chain-reaction for the more leftwing states to vote for her—That to include New York. BTW, there is no serious contender against Hillary’s primary seat. Jonathan Tasini, good luck with that one, I think the Daily News is just throwing a bone to you because they would like to see you win in any local or state election, so you get some exposure for your lefty leanings.