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.
Posts
19 comments:
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 true test of a person's brilliance is how much they agree with you.
Brilliant Seven
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.
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 persisting in your "support"[long after yor garden variety yellow-bellied perfidious[=Democratic] politician "rescinded" his/her own vote] of a "white, imperialistic" war waged by a "theocratic" president would be a quite reliable way of losing your celebrity status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
"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"?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.)
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.
.
Hollary was a Goldwater Republican back in the day.
'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.
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 . . ."
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.)
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.
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.
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."
Post a Comment