Doves could destroy Hillary's '08 hopes

[peace frog]

Doves could destroy Hillary's '08 hopes

James P. Pinkerton
December 6, 2005


Could Hillary Clinton's presumed presidential aspirations be derailed by dovish fellow Democrats? It's happened before to Democratic hawks.

In 1966, during the Vietnam War, a group of Democratic doves, including the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and the historian Arthur Schlesinger, gathered to oppose the hawkishness of their fellow Democrat, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Galbraith, Schlesinger and Co. were not street-protester types out to trash "the establishment." Instead, they sought to transform the establishment; one tool was the encouragement of new candidates to get into Democratic politics pushing an anti-war agenda.

Within two years, these Democratic doves had managed to derail the presidential re-election ambitions of Johnson, and also the White House hopes of Hubert Humphrey.

Today, another Texas president is overseeing another unpopular war, and so history might be repeating itself. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) finds herself uncomfortably close to George W. Bush on Iraq. She supported Bush's war resolution in 2002, and although her words have wavered since, her basic support has not.

Clinton made her bed, and now she has to lie in it. Knowing that much of the country regarded her as a scary liberal in the '90s, she resolved, once she got to the Senate, to position herself as a moderate-conservative on issues such as video game violence and the Iraq war. No doubt she's correct in her overall strategy: She can never hope to win the White House without winning over some red states.

But in pursuing this plan, she has taken her blue-state base for granted, and the blues have noticed. A sign that it's 1966 all over again came in a Nov. 22 blog item by Jeff Cohen, which appeared in The Huffington Post, entitled "Hillary, You're Not Listening." Cohen, a well-known media critic, wrote that although Clinton claims to be a "good listener," the truth is that she "simply doesn't want to hear about one of the biggest issues dividing our country, draining the federal budget, destabilizing the Middle East, undermining international law and institutions, and spreading fear and hatred of our country."

In a subsequent interview, Cohen recalled that the posting generated "one of the biggest Internet reactions I've ever received." It was rated "most forwarded article of the week." That's activism in action. Cohen adds: "If most Americans think the Iraq war is a mistake and half want a quick withdrawal of troops, imagine how big those numbers are among New York Democrats."

Eight days later, columnist Jimmy Breslin launched an even fiercer broadside in the pages of Newsday. He accused Clinton of "fakery" on the war, adding that if she wants the war to continue, "she should send her own daughter to fight in Iraq." Back in the '60s, Breslin was inspired to put aside journalism for a while so that he could run for elective office - the presidency of the New York City Council - on a lefty anti-war platform.

And now two anti-war New Yorkers, Steven Greenfield of New Paltz and Jonathan Tasini of Manhattan, have emerged to challenge Clinton in the Democratic Senatorial primary next year.

It's hard to imagine either man knocking off Clinton in the primary, especially with the two of them competing for the same anti-war vote. But the primary is not until Sept. 12, so there's plenty of time for a stronger candidate to get into the race, although Clinton would be the big favorite against anyone.

Anti-war activists, however, are thinking in the longer term. They remember that the last time they opposed their fellow Democrats over a war, their big impact was not in the "off year" of 1966, but rather in the presidential year of 1968.

Now, 40 years later, that same sequence of political lightning could strike twice. And that could torch Clinton's White House ambitions to a cinder.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin064540819dec06,0,490981.column

[ixion]

1. Personally, I think Hillary makes a lousy candidate

more and more, she's becoming a DINO, and what I'm hearing from her on Iraq is the LIEberman line, which is a bunch of hogwash.

[bowens43]

2. Hillary will say or do anything to get the nomination.

She has no discernible principles and no integrity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. On a side note, I hate the idea people "should send their children to Iraq

or "into the Army" or whatever, if they're hawks. Those children are individuals, who are solely responsible for the choices they make. I don't think the people who say it really think a parent should be able to force their 18 year old child (let alone a 25 year old like Chelsea) into any career, whether life-threatening or not. Unless they are actually advocating a law declaring adult children to be dependents of their parents, to be disposed of as they see fit, until some age (what: 25? 30? the maximum recruiting age?), they themselves are hypocrites.

[CTyankee]

4. Your sig line is funny!

And I have always loved Blake's "New Jerusalem." Reminds me of one of my classmates in a graduate writers' workshop who penned an entire sonnet, "Shall I compare thee to a creme brulee?"

[Selatius]

5. How about "vigorously encourage" then? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Yes, that's better.

Though we'll never be able to realistically know how vigorous the encouragement was (or wasn't) unless we know the people concerned really well, so it's not a particularly useful thing to be talking about for public figures. It might be valid if you are talking about your own relatives or close friends.

[deacon2]

7. Please let it be so... Hillary Sell-out Clinton. Just say no! n/t