Hillary: A Bit Angry and a Bit of a Leftie says...

[RogueTrooper]

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman "offered a broad attack" on Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), "describing her as a Democrat brimming with anger and a representative of the far left wing of her party," the New York Times reports.

Said Mehlman: "I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates."

"Mehlman's remarks were some of the strongest statements he has made about Mrs. Clinton, and they reflect an effort by Republicans to tarnish her credentials when she is thought to be preparing for the 2008 presidential race. To some extent, Mr. Mehlman was filling a void created by the failure of the Republican Party, so far, to find a strong candidate to run against Mrs. Clinton as she seeks re-election to the Senate this year."

From Taegan Goddard

Angry, Left Winger? Any Dean supporters getting a feeling od Deja Vue?

[SpiralHawk]

1. "A littel bit nutty, and a little bit..."

Where have we heard this before?

[BrainRants]

2. Get used to it Ken.

We're all a bunch of pissed of motherfuckers and our goal is to send you and your boss, and your party to the annals of history as the most corrupt, worst administration and party EVER.

If you got out of the closet more often you might be inclined to see that.

[drm604]

3. Angry left winger?

Sounds good to me!

[MrModerate]

4. Hillary the "far left wing of her party . . .?"

What planet is this twirp from? Hell, she's almost a Republican!

[waiting for hope]

8. My thoughts exactly......

They conveniently forget all of her posturing to the right......flag burning ban, keeping silent about the occupation for a LONG time, no filibuster vote for Alito....I know there are more than that but I'm only on my first cup of coffee...:boring:

[WePurrsevere]

12. Like her not but she was FOR the filibuster of Alito & voted against him.

n/t

[mtnsnake]

16. That's bullshit. Prove that "she's almost a Republican"

Give us some links, and while you're at it, explain why her track record on voting on all the issues in the Senate is right near the top, PROGRESSIVELY.

[MrModerate]

36. The term "almost a Republican" was not intended to be precise . . .

But what I was alluding to was her consistent tacking toward the center, her debatable flag desecration stand, her apparent waffling on unconstrained access to abortion, and most particularly her hawkish stance on the Iraq war.

Don't get me wrong -- what I define as "tacking toward the center" is probably essential to winning in 2008, since collecting the votes of the left-of-center crowd I include myself in will not be enough. I also think there are a lot of so-called Republicans (among voters if not among politicians) whose more moderate views make them capturable in 2008.

The flag thing is a clear misstep, however, and hopefully not very important in the grand scheme.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Hillary left?

When you think of how she gets hammered here for her DLC activities, that's funny.

[mtnsnake]

17. She gets hammered here because she's not as extreme as some

would like. Remember, if you're not sitting on the edge of the far left spectrum, you're "almost a Republican". LOL

[TallahasseeGrannie]

31. Sometimes I wonder if she has a big ole'

streak of left she keeps well hidden and will drag out if/when she gets in the WH.

[mtnsnake]

32. I don't doubt it at all, and it scares the rightwingers to death

It seems the only people who DON'T know she's got "a big ole' streak of left" in her are all her many naysayers here on DU. It's pretty funny, actually.

[abluelady]

6. Howard Dean better get to work

It is starting--where's a spinning icon when you need one?

[Lerkfish]

7. my wife asked me this weekend why Hillary was being talked up on tv

as a presidential candidate. She doesn't get on democratic underground, she's not normally a political animal and cringes when i go off on some tirades (I can be too passionate).

What I told her was that the only people I hear pushing her as a candidate are republicans, the media and the DLC. I said, nothing against Ms. Clinton, but we have a lot of better potential candidates for president (in no particular order): Conyers, Clark, Dean, Gore, etc. AND I noted that if we run a woman, and we should, Barbara Boxer or Ms. Mckinney have been far better democrats in word and deed than Ms. Clinton, to name two.

My wife said: they why are they pushing her?

I said: you have to wonder when your opposing party keeps pushing you to pick your own candidate, what is their motivation? I told her I am wary of that.
Republicans have spent a GREAT DEAL of energy both treating her like a candidate and smearing her at the same time.
I said I felt Ms. Clinton was who they PREFERRED to run against. Why? I answered I would guess either they want her in because they already control her, or they want her to run because they feel she can be easily defeated.

Either way, an awful lot of journalist's ink and broadcast time is spent on Ms. Clinton, to the exclusion of other more viable (in my opinion) candidates.
We have to ask ourselves WHY.

I personally think they are trying to forestall defections from their base. They KNOW their base hates her, and will vote ABC (anyone but Clinton). But a lot of republicans are starting to not like this administration. If a viable democratic candidate should run, they fear that many more moderate republicans will jump ship.

Keep in mind, Bush's 34-39% approval rating are the diehard base. That's not enough to win elections. They have to have more fence sitters. I believe that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that the fence sitters will vote against Ms. Clinton.

[waiting for hope]

10. Another question.....

Is this country ready for a woman president? As much of a feminists that I am, I think not. We are in a "war" time scenario for one and all the religious, family based, let's keep the "family" together lefties wouldn't tolerate a woman, much less a woman who has been outspoken on many occasion.

[iconocrastic]

37. Well said. n/t

[mtnsnake]

40. "They KNOW their base hates her and will vote ABC". Thats not always true

"They KNOW their (the republicans) base hates her, and will vote ABC (anyone but Clinton).

Then how do you explain how she won over so many voters in my area of rural upstate NY which is more Repug than Democratic. Many of these voters never voted for a Democrat in their lives until they voted for Hillary in the Senatorial race. I personally know of many people in my area who didn't like Bill, but who had Hillary's signs up in their front yards. Not only did she score big with the Dems in my area but she won over many repukes, too, because she gave special attention to our area when even Republicans failed to do so in the past.

If anything, I think it's the opposite of what you're saying in that one statement I quoted. I think the Repukes are DREADING the day she runs because they know she can win over a few too many Repukes, many of them wives of Repukian voters.

Say what you wan't, but the lady knows how to win and she doesn't back down from the rightwing blowhards. Is she my first choice? No, but I sure as hell would not underestimate her chances.

[Lerkfish]

42. your area and the entire US are different places.

[mtnsnake]

43. Republicans are republicans

Whether it's upstate NY or southern Texas, the repukes are worried to death she might steal some of their votes, especially from the wives of staunch repugs. Otherwise they wouldn't be giving her so much attention.

BTW, I agree that my area and the entire US are different places. The same can be said about any area. I'd be a fool to think otherwise.

[zbdent]

9. Remember, anybody left of Rush Limbaugh is

considered a flaming liberal extremist leftie . . . so all the "rightwing" courting that Hillary seems to be doing is just "a leftie plot" . . . you know, voting for the war . . .

[rexcat]

11. They are framing the debate...

If the Democrats don't take notice and fire back and effectively re-frame the debate we lose again.

[LincolnMcGrath]

21. ding ding ding

We have a winner folks. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

13. It should tell you about the politics of that Party that ...

they could look to a right-of-center candidate like Hillary and characterize her as "angry left wing". They may be delusional, they may be trying to frame the debate, or -- and this is what I think -- they are trying to get the REAL "angry left wing" to rally behind her against the big, bad Bushies. Don't fall for it. Any candidate they want this bad has got to be A TRAP. Even if her politics weren't just to the right of the last Tsar at this point, I wouldn't support her for that reason.

Hillary is the RNC's choice for Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2008. That ALONE should be a huge warning sign.

TC

[Village Idiot]

14. I think THAT'S a stretch, too...

SHrillery, RIGHT-OF-CENTRE? Not quite. She tends to sail as close to the dividing line as she can and still attract votes...

If she is all the Democratic Party has to offer for POTUS in 2008, it is undoubtedly time to vote elsewhere.

[MrBenchley]

15. Wow...the view must be stunning that far from reality....

The RNC launches an out of the blue attack on Hillary Clinton, which indicates to YOU that she's the RNC's choice....hokay.

[mtnsnake]

20. If shes so right of center then explain why she's left of Kerry & Feingold

when it comes to progressive voting in the Senate.

"Don't fall for it. Any candidate they want this bad has got to be A TRAP. Even if her politics weren't just to the right of the last Tsar at this point, I wouldn't support her for that reason.

Hillary is the RNC's choice for Democratic nominee for POTUS in 2008. That ALONE should be a huge warning sign."

Wow, talk about paranoia!

[Mass]

22. Where did you get that - to the left of Kerry and Feingold?

On which planet?

[mtnsnake]

23. Just what I said. She's left of them when it comes to her track record on

voting progressively in the Senate. Would you like a link?

[Mass]

24. Sure.

and actual votes, not a lifetime rating based on 24 years for one and 4 for the other one, please.

At least Kerry and Feingold did not vote for the tax cuts Clinton voted last week.

I am not saying that she is a conservative like Nelson or Landrieu.

[mtnsnake]

25. Here. Notice she's 9th out of 100 Senators on voting progressively

on all the issues:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=43&y=6

[Mass]

27. Still looking for Feingold - For Kerry, you should look at the individual

decision - Kerry has taken the progressive position virtually everytime he voted, but his rating is largely driven down by the fact that he missed votes in 2004 while he was campaigning for the elections.

[Mass]

28. Globally, Feingold is a good progressive as well

There may be a few issues where the person who made the rating disagreed with him, but globally, it is difficult to see how you would rate Clinton more progressive than Feingold.

Once again, I am not saying she is very conservative, just that she is not far left (neither are Kerry or Feingold for the record).

[mtnsnake]

30. I'm not the one rating them

They're rated "progressively" according to how they vote.

Perhaps the reason you're wondering how Feingold could possibly be rated lower than Clinton on the overall progressive scale is because you're considering one issue, his track record on "War & Peace", much more than all the other issues. On that single issue, "War & Peace", he's more progressive than Clinton or Kerry.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. here is a run-down from vote smart

Hillary's overall record is fairly liberal -- I have done this before with Feingold and Kennedy, Clinton and Lieberman vs. Allen and McCain.

I don't have Kerry here, but from what I have seen, both Feingold and Kerry have slightly more liberal voting records than Clinton. Although Clinton's record is reasonably liberal/progressive overall.

One can argue that this is only part of the picture.


This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

“Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 67 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 33 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 0 percent in 2004.
_________________________________


2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Peace Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Peace Action 38 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Peace Action 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Peace Action 13 percent in 2004.
______________________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 86 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 15 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 17 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the National Education Association 80 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Education Association 25 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 13 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 96 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 80 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 92 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 56 percent in 2003-2004

____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Feingold supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kennedy supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004..

2004 Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.”

[mtnsnake]

34. Here's a link to the "progressive" list

that rates their progressive score based on how they vote on all the issues in the Senate:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=43&y=6

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. thanks

according to their website they base this on 160 different issues which gives an reasonable idea. I don't think that any single rating system can give a full-concise picture. It takes a preponderance of them. One has to also consider the philosophic base they are coming from. For instance, both Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders as well as Dennis Kucinich opposed the Clinton Health Care Plan -- not because they oppose universal health-care, but because they felt it was completely inadequate and insurance company oriented. While they insisted on pushing for single-payer universal coverage. Yet, many rating systems might misconstrue their opposition as a conservative vote. I see that this system rates Nancy Pelosi higher than Bernie Sanders or Sam Far. I suspect this is because of a specific choice of which 160 issues they are dealing with and specific votes. I doubt that one can really say that Sam Far and Bernie Sanders are to the right of Nancy Pelosi.

linkhttp://www.progressivepunch.org/
"We show the performance of members within 160 different issue categories, and detailed vote descriptions, thereby empowering you to zero in on what matters to you. To see how progressively your member has voted or explore a policy issue that interests you, select from a search option below."

[mtnsnake]

29. Feingold is right there, too. He's 18th on the list

as far as voting progressively "on all the issues".

[robcon]

18. Classic right wing spin

When the WANT a particular candidate to be the nominee, they attack him/her to get the usual sympathetic response from the opposition.

I'm a strong supporter of Hillary - she's my senator - and I'll be volunteering to make Hillary the next president.

[SaveElmer]

19. I thought the DU CW was that the Republicans were talking up Hillary...

Cause they wanted her to get the nod...

What explains this reversal?

[RogueTrooper]

44. It depends

It depends on whether the DUer in question supports Hillary or supports another candidate. If the DUer does not support Hillary then she will either be a DLC sell out ( if they want their candidate to be percieved to be left of HC ) a stealth ultra-liberal ( if they want to promote their candidate as a "moderate" - granted this is probably not the most common view currently espoused on DU but I would be unsurprised if either Mark Warner cheerleaders or Biden boosters do not try to forward this piece of sophistry ). Either way some sort of RNC\Media conspiracy whose hidden agenda is a desire to have HC as the Democrats candidate will be cited.

If the DUer supports HC then most likely they will say that the Republicans are scared of Hillary. The will no doubt cite an RNC\Media consipiracy that seeks to define HC as the devil incarnate. Alternativly Jerry Falwell, or one of those other POS right-wing assholes, could be getting the Ken Doll help in boosting the bottom line of their publishing company. Those HRC as Devil Woman Tapes\CDs\Videos and DVDS must be needing a sales boost round about now.

As for DU CW. Well to put this correctly: Some, quite possibly a majority, of DU posters have issues with HC. DU, itself, is neurtral on the issue*.


*But there will be a few posters who will claim the DU admins and moderators are DLC sellout types secretly doing work of HRC ( mendacity towards competing campaigns\subtely boosting HC )

[FrenchieCat]

26. Reverse psychology....Bait and Switch.....

"They" see that Propping up Hillary is not working in generating support from Democrats for Hillary....

so they've decided to "attack" her instead by calling her "liberal" and stating that she wouldn't make a good candidate.

Repugs "hope" that if they criticize her, Democrats will circle the wagon!

This is so transparent to the naked eye, it's not even funny!

They need to STFU....cause they shouldn't have shit to say about OUR candidates! They should be worried about their own instead! :eyes:

[mdmc]

35. Oh, the GOP chair cares how we Dems pick out candidate

Dean should give them some suggestions on how to pick their next pres candidate.

[iconocrastic]

38. They're looking for a reaction and want her to stake

out a position so she won't be able to triangulate the issues.

They hope she will make a misstep and offend either one end of the spectrum or the other.

[mtnsnake]

41. Mehlman proves how desperately afraid Repukes are of this lady

Whether or not she's as left as he says...or as centrist/right of center as her many naysayers here claim...this "broad attack" on Hillary by Mehlman simply proves that their internal polling is showing what a good chance she has at beating their own repukian candidate. They're worried to death that the Repug sheep are falling for the idea that Clinton is centrist enough to win some of their votes and the votes of many of the fence swingers, so Melhlman and Co are spreading their pitch that she's a loonie left wing liberal. Whether she is or she isn't is another story, but that's what they want the sheeple to believe in order to turn them off. Just some more fear tactics is what's going on here.