Ron Brownstein: "Clinton's New Job: Defining the Center"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dlc26jul26,0,6130860,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines

<>"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire too," she told the gathering in Columbus. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire — time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."

<>The DLC helped formulate key "New Democrat" ideas for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, such as welfare reform and national service. Clinton was the group's chairman from 1990 through 1991 and brought many figures involved with it into his two administrations.

Since Clinton left office, a broad array of liberal activists, many of them clustered around left-leaning websites such as the Daily Kos, have accused the DLC of weakening the party by advocating positions they say have blurred distinctions with the GOP. These include support for the Iraq war and free-trade policies.

David Sirota, a Democratic consultant who has his own liberal Web log, responded to news of the "American Dream Initiative" by warning that Democrats would be doomed to "permanent minority status" if they followed the DLC direction.

"The fact is, the Democratic Party has to make a choice: Is it going to continue to follow the DLC, be a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, and lose elections for the infinite future," he wrote in an e-mail. "Or is it going to go back to its roots of really representing the middle class and standing up for ordinary people's economic rights?"

_______________

I'm with Sirota.

[Fovea]

1. The DLC has hitched its wagon

to an elephant, and they continue to be surprized when they get shat upon.

[Pithy Cherub]

2. Sirota speaks for me.

This really seems as if the DLC has just awoken to the sobering fact that they have corporate cash, but no votes.

They need the Left. The Left clearly is not going to be culpable in settling or compromising on liberal values or further compromises on the Iraq War Debacle. It's going to be a tough primary season and the Left has proven it has cash and votes.

The center is a vaporware project - what does it stand for that doesn't put it in republican ideology? :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

Votes?

I think with all of her cash and union endorsements, Hillary has the votes that she needs to insure her the nomination. That's why Ickes took over ACT. She's running right because they intend to go right. Unfortunately, this is not selling in the 'heart land' who are reading this as pandering.

If they cared about the Left, they might actually throw out a few bones, but that is not what I'm seeing happening. Her AIPAC speech was disgusting, and should have served as a warning.

Sure we're suppose to get in line and while we're there bend over, but this speech was a kick off of her campaign.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Hillary is using her "political capital" to project an air

of nominee invincibility. Many a political front runner has succumbed to this perception and then the inevitable disappointment happens. I accept that her name recognition has given her an advantage at this particular point in time. Her husband also gives her some elbow room. But that does not mean it is sustainable with the future needs of people.

The Iraq War is shifting a majority of attitudes and opinions from being in favor to saying it is a radically wrong direction. Kind of hard to hold that ten ton anvil gallantly over your head while constantly defending a vote for a debacle. This is what is happening in the heartland which is causing true fear for bushies and the DLC alike.

The Left who was much more tolerant of Hillary in the past, is stiffening while she is trying to hold us closer. She is also campaigning in a traditional way while others are embracing the 'net and grassroots activism. The grassroots is where the real work is done, they tend to be us, the Left.

Hillary is trying to "marshall" the troops and demonstrate she has clout with the Left. It's not off to the fine start she would have wished. The DLC types are getting clobbered on the internet(s)and she seems to have generated just a touch of ill will from the Left. She has had the opportunity to say she is sorry, she hasn't.

[Donna Zen]

14. I hope your read on this is the correct one for several reasons:

The money--any that the country has left--is currently squirreled away in pork, and especially the Pentagon pork. Hillary will never be able to access that money because she will be seen as questionable on defense. Therefore, Hillary means an equally militaristic if not more militaristic America.

Hillary also denies us a chance to talk openly about the war, because she will not want to have her vote thrown back at her. This will limit our ability to win.

Ditto that in 2 years the country will be looking for a change. Again, an issue that should be ours is snatched from table by her last name.

There are many things that Hillary will not talk about because she sees them as detrimental to her presidential aspirations. Among them is foreign policy, a real weakness for her. Oh sure, we will get the occasional speech, but with her hawkish stance and her lack of true depth about the issues, she will not make that the center piece of her campaign.

Finally, the Clintons have a way of constantly "running" for office, and Hillary has done exactly that. She knew that Saddam was never a threat, but cast her vote thinking about 2008 and not about the damage it would do to the country.

This latest manifesto was her first draft of the Hillary platform.

I hope you are correct that the base will resist this shame, but I do think with the money, the political endorsements (nearly everyone of them) and the media circus about to hit the airwaves, Hillary has the nomination. And she wants it. Of course, it most likely spells a loss for Democrats. I am amazing at how strongly people feel about her, including myself.

[JDPriestly]

15. Hillary's stance on the war is likely to come back to bite her.

The war is a wild card that could work for or against any potential candidate who has taken or takes a stance on it.

[Donna Zen]

18. Who gets bitten?

Hillary's money and power in the party will keep her bite-free on the way to nomination. If there is a anti-war candidate, I don't see us able to come together in opposition, and split as we are we will repeat our 2004 fiasco.

But in the end, the Hillary message during the 2008 campaign will sound like milktoast republican war rhetoric, because to admit she was wrong is to admit she is not smart enough to be CiC. Unfortunate as I may think it is, a woman interviewing for CiC is going to be a hawk. Really a hawk.

Hillary's position takes away a huge campaign issue for the Democrats. We give up our chance to take a bite out of the elephant, in exchange to limp away as the bitten. IMO, we lose no matter what happens.

[Pithy Cherub]

17. Hillary and the DLC sychophants have another strategic problem.

The rhetoric used by Bush duing his hilarious, yet disastrous prime time used-Edsel terror speech, is the same rhetoric denounced by Democrats across the spectrum as using 9/11 for political purposes. New Yorkers and the families made it clear that it wasn't flying. And when the military hand picked audience didn't applaud well that is one for the ages.

But how in condemning using 9/11 for political propaganda do you hypocritically not get ensnared in the same net because Hillary from NY and DLC supporters voted for it! Those are not conveniently tied together in the public's mind any longer as they still are with Bush and the DLC leadership. This means having to be really careful getting elected in 2006 and what she says in her own very deep blue state will be used going forward for good or for ill. Will she flip flop?

The Clintons embodied a certain intellectual capacity and political savviness that I have admired. Very long ago, I would have been one of her supporters had not she willingly climbed on the back of the corporate bush/DLC manure truck and flung herself in with wild abandon. She needs some serious cleansing. My attention, time and money will be very happily directed elsewhere to greater effect.

[sandnsea]

3. Question is, who will define the left?

This is actually what we need. If Hillary wants to define the center, good deal, I want her there. But universal access to health care is not single payer health care, in other words, not left. Who is going to rise on the left to truly advocate the "Democratic Wing"? Basically, who is going to take Paul Wellstone's place? A strong left and a strong center would help label the Republicans as strictly far right, and that would be good. But we need a strong left to complete that process, and I don't see anybody on the horizon to do it. And Howard Dean ISN'T IT.

[CWebster]

5. Part of the problem

Is the Clinton-DLC monopolization of the levers of power and the marginalization and ostrization of all those who do not curry to their agenda. Yes, it results in a widening disconnect and no LOUD opposing voices to the current crop of Republicans.

I would suggest that is why so many are so strident in their denunciation of triangulating DLC enablers--precisely because we do stand for what it means to be Democrats and fight for it.

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Apparently, Republican is the new Center. n/t

[sandnsea]

6. No, Democrat will be the new Center

and Republican will only be radical right. That's what she's trying to accomplish, and she's exactly right. If you want to push the country to the left, you have to marginalize the right. Democrat has to become the party of the center, not Giuliani Republicans. That's why I keep begging the left to make a strong Green Party, it will help those moderate Republicans to find a home with centrist Dems and make Republicans the party of the radical right. She is right, we need a cease-fire. We need the left to advocate for itself without attacking the center, and we need the center to do the same thing.

[CWebster]

9. She is NOT marginalizing the Right

She is triangulating and adopting a watered down version.

That is the problem--she does not offer a clear and articulated stand or opposition and a time when the issues desperately need to be addressed.

[ladjf]

7. There has been a coup d'etat and Democrats are still trying

to define the "Center". We don't need a stinking center.

[JDPriestly]

8. Hillary started out as a Goldwater Republican

and is still a Goldwater Republican.

The DLC platform is better than Bush's but I have a feeling that events are going to overtake Hillary and push her to the side.

We are the guys who join the local Democratic Party clubs, attend local meetings, make the phone calls and walk the precincts. Very few DLC types are doing that. Why should they? If they cared enough about what is happening to our country to work for change, they wouldn't be DLC. There are some nice people including Hillary in the DLC, but they are not going to change the country.

And, furthermore, I have read Hillary's comment about how the Democrats need to get a platform and need to stand for something. Excuse me. Where has she been? We Democrats stand for many things and we all know what they are. I'll bet all the regulars on this board will agree with me that we stand for
the right of all Americans to good public education,
freedom of religion including freedom from religion,
single-payer healthcare,
fair trade not free trade,
immigration policy that doesn't lower the wages of those of us who were born here or who came legally,
rights for all workers, not just for those who belong to trade unions,
honest government,
environmental protection,
open government administered with a minimum of secrecy,
strong OSHA regulation that protects the health of working people,
the right to privacy,
transparent, fair, reliable law enforcement,
a national security policy that respects justice and human rights while ensuring our security,
a fair, progressive tax structure that demands the same sacrifice from the trust fund bums as from the minimum wage workers,
a foreign policy that genuinely seeks to resolve conflicts through peaceful means and focuses on cooperation with allies not confrontation,
rational use of our military power,
reality-based not ideology-based foreign policy and honesty in government,
fair law enforcement and no use of law enforcement for political ends,
respect for the democratic process, fair elections and campaigns,
a free press with equal access to information to reporters regardless of ideology,
equal time requirements for media that is licensed by the government,
an end to the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few.
Add your own platform plank.

If the DLC doesn't know where it stands, that's its problem. We know where we stand. From what I read here, I bet most DUers agree on the above principles. There is nothing radical about that platform. It is just common sense, and I could rattle it off in a few minutes. That's how basic and uncontroversial it is.

[dolstein]

10. As soon as people like David Sirota can figure out how to win

elections outside the deepest of blue states and the most liberal of Congressional districts, I'll start paying attention to what they think.

[CWebster]

12. Wonder how long DLC strategy will lose

before they figure out how to win?

DLC doesn't want to win as Democrats,sell the Democratic band or serve the despised Democratic base- they just want to keep their cushy jobs and fat corporate coffers full.

[mattclearing]

13. A little testy, eh?

Truth hurts. And the DLC isn't winning in Red States either, last I checked.

Howard Dean looks more promising to change that than any DLC'er.

[JDPriestly]

16. That is the real problem.

The middle-of-the roaders lost the 2000 election, not at the polls but in the Court. And when they didn't continue to fight after being cheated out of the White House, they became irrelevant. Hillary's attempt to resuscitate the center is laughable at this point. Where were the centrists in January 2001? That's when they should have been speaking out, setting up a centrist opposition government with a cabinet, etc. That's when they should have been talking about positive alternatives. They missed their chance. It may be difficult for them to get another one. It's tough but life is like that. You have to grab the ring when it comes your way because it may not come back again.

If Hillary runs as a moderate, she will meet a big obstacle: the expectations of voters. However unfair or unfounded, the neural pathways between the words "liberal" and "Hillary" are well traveled in a lot of minds. Voters view her as a liberal. Her attempt to recast herself as a centrist will contradict the view voters have adopted of her. If you think Republicans had an easy time labeling Kerry as a flip-flopper, it's going to be even easier to do the same to Hillary if she tries to recast herself as a centrist. She's making a huge mistake. She needs to work with voters' expectations, not against them. She is just going to cause conceptual discord in her voters. That will be uncomfortable for them and make it tough for her, even tougher than for Kerry who wasn't as familiar to the public.

[mattclearing]

20. It doesn't really matter.

She doesn't have a chance in Hell with Democratic primary voters like myself.

[Skidmore]

19. I thought his new job was being

Poppy's golden boy and part-time caddy.