Seattle Times Op-Ed: Democrats shouldn't settle for momentum-killing Hillary

[ClarkUSA]

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her re-energizing a depressed Republican base while
demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the Iraq war... But there's a further danger if Clinton is nominated, beyond
losing a winnable election — that she'll prevail but then split the Democratic Party... Much of Hillary Clinton's support may be nostalgia for when
America's president seemed to engage reality.... remember that over the course of Bill Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost six Senate seats,
46 House seats and nine governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior.

Given Hillary's protracted support of the war, her embrace of neocon-servative rhetoric on Iran and her coziness with powerful corporate interests,
she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum...
To prevail in close races, Democrats need enthusiastic volunteer involvement. This happened in 1992, and again in 2006. If Hillary Clinton is the
nominee, she'll most likely significantly damp this involvement, especially among anti-war activists.

She'll also draw out the political right in a way that will make it far harder for down-ticket Democrats in states like Kentucky and Virginia, where
the party has recently been winning. She might not win at all, despite Bush's disastrous reign... even if she does win, she's then strongly likely to
fracture the party with her stands. She talks of staying in Iraq for counterterrorism operations, which could easily go on indefinitely. She backed
the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment that James Webb called "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." She supported a regressive bankruptcy bill and the
extension of Bush's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

If Clinton's contributors are any guide, like the homeland-security contractors she courted at a $1,000-a-plate dinner, she's likely to cave to
corporate interests in her economic policies. The relative party unity created by Bush's policies will quickly erode... I'd vote for Clinton if she
became the nominee. But I'd do so with a heavy heart.

With Republican polling numbers in the toilet, this election gives Democrats an opportunity to seriously shift our national course that we may
not have again for years. It would be a tragedy if they settled for the candidate most likely to shatter the momentum of this shift when it has
barely begun.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004064151_loeb11.html

Bush I -Clinton I - Bush II - ?

[aquart]

1. Oh, look, you remembered to include the tired meme.

I'm fascinating by the Seattle Times' "anti-corporate" stance. Are they owned by little fluffy bunnies?

Oh wait, it's an OP-ED. My mistake. PAUL ROGAT LOEB. SO important to include the name of the op-ed writer lest the unwary innocent mistake the rant for the paper's own editorial.

This man worries about Hillary splitting the Democratic party...right after he has suggested that Edwards and Obama stop trying to stop Hillary's MOMENTUM and instead support each other by promising that each will appoint the other as Veep if he wins....showing his total ignorance of basic human behavioral reality... <http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10325>. So he acknowledges that Hillary is winning right before he writes that she'll cause us to lose. Well, all righty then.

Paul Rogat Loeb is an Edwards' supporter, as am I. He doesn't seem to remember that Senator Edwards has already run for Veep and is most unlikely to do so again.

[depakid]

3. Loeb simply remembers what Hillary supporters willfully forget

or try to brush under the rug.

Sometimes, I think people like that have a sort of death wish.

Consider a previous Loeb's article (which includes some VERY unpleasant facts) here:

Hillary and the Politics of Disappointment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[wyldwolf]

2. yet another politically naive piece full of the same tired "progressive"* revisionism and...

... very few facts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Thought That Was A Seattle Times Editorial Not A Guest Piece

And then I realized it wasn't...

Then I checked the OP and it all made sense...

[Armstead]

10. Another tired ad-himinum

full of nothing but empty contempt for anything that is not conservative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Wyldworld Is Pro Gay Marriage, Pro-Choice, and Pro Affirmative Action

If he went to Freak Republic or the site that shall not be mentioned he would be lambasted...

How is he conservative?

[Armstead]

12. I was overstating in the same spirit

The constant dismissal and blanket insults of "the progressives" (anyone even slightly more liberal) tends to make the targets of this factless ire respond in kind.

(P,S, See below :) )

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Would Humbly Submit That Folks Like Wyldworld

I would humbly submit that folks like wyldworld are closer to the views of rank and file Democrats, read non-activists, than many at DU... I suspect his views on social issues might even put him a bit to their left...

DU is pretty skewed to the left...That's an empirical observation and not a normative one...

[Armstead]

16. See above

I replied to the otehr post before you posted this (I think)

I would not disagree that in some respects DU is more to the "left" than the average rank and file Democrat.

However, I frankly get tiored of the left/right labels because I believe most of the core issues transcend such labels.

I'm probably to the right of many Democrats on some issues, and to the left on others and smack-dab in the middle on others. And there are issues on which I am a libertarian in some respects, a socialist in some respects and a pragmatist in otehrs.

I think most people are a similar mix. if the so-called "centrists" would be open to actual discussion, instead of always dismissing "progressives" these divisions would probably have not become so pronounced.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I Took The Political Compass Test

And got -3's on both dimensions... The results put me to way to the left of Dennis Kucinich and to the left of Gandhi and Mandella yet I often find myself on the "right" here... I think it's because I distinguish bewtween practical everyday politics and ideology...

[Armstead]

23. Many of us here try to do that....

But there is a lot of room for intrepertation ofg the difference between practical everyday politics and ideology.

In my opinion, I believe they are not mutually exclusive, and they should be looked at in terms of accepting that what you (the generic "you") believe in personally is valid enough that others would accept it too.

The problem with too many Democrats (in my opinion) is that our side has lost that basic self-confidence. Instead we've accepted a lot of right-wing propaganda about what the actual mainstream center of the American Zeitgeist is. They've bought into the GOP/Corporate/Mainstream Media nonsense about what is "far left" and what is mainstream values and beliefs.

Hell, the views of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are no more "radical" than what was considered mainstream lunchbucket liberalism and a majority opinion and values in the mid 1960's. What passes for conventional wisdom today (the Corporate Conservative line) would have been considered outrageous to the average American in 1965.

[wyldwolf]

14. sorry, guy. We've been down this road before. Want to again?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. This Is Where I Exit

I'm a Democrat, nothing more, nothing less ...

Both of you gentlemen should read about the narcissism of small differences:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

[wyldwolf]

28. with all due respect

Being politically and historically accurate in regards to the reasons behind the Democrat's losses on 1994 does not amount to "narcissism of small differences."

If "progressives"* continually insist on blaming Clinton for that election loss, I'll continue to set the record straight.

[Armstead]

19. Not really, unless it were to be an actual two-way discussion...

Don't have time for empty tit-for-tat exchanges right now.

[wyldwolf]

25. what you call "tit-for-tat" I call examining the circumstaces surrounding the 1994 elections

"Progressives"* continually fall back on this post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy in regards to that election. The author of the piece in the OP is just another example.

[SIMPLYB1980]

5. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. That's A Great Picture

Hillary with our next Secretary Of State... Richard Holbrooke wants that job... Holbrooke and Wes are close friends from the Dayton Agreement...I hope there's no ill will...Maybe Holbrooke at NSA...

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. That sounds good to me.

:toast:

[Kucinich4America]

21. You mean THIS Richard Holbrooke?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

Sorry.... I don't want PNAC'ers in my party or a Democratic administration. BTW, Biden fans, this means Joe is also off the list.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. They Were Prescient

They realized Putin was a diabolical despot before others did...Good for them...


Madeleine K. Albright, Mark Brzezinski, Vaclav Havel are also on the list...

[Perry Logan]

7. Given the extreme divisiveness of the anti-Hillary people, it's odd to say she would divide the Dems

[Armstead]

9. Divisiveness is a two-way street

People like you don't seem to get it.

The Clinton/DLC/centrists have been truing to push out and marginalize liberalism and insult whatever they perceive as "the left" for years, instead of trying to actually find common ground.

[BeyondGeography]

13. Should we push the boulder up the hill or have the wind at our back?

A toughy.

[insanad]

17. She'll have a polarizing effect on the entire government

While many of the things Hilary Clinton is so well practiced at are viable in the leadership skills necessary to be a president, she is also vehemently loathed by most Republicans, many insecure men, and lots of traditional women. The potential for the Democrats to win the presidency and other important positions is very very good, especially after years of what the Republicans have done to take the position to absolutely new lows. I think even many Republicans would vote for a good Democratic leader if given the choice between Romney, Guliani, or Edwards and Obama.

Unfortunately, if the Democrats choose Hilary Clinton as their candidate, they'll in effect guarantee that Republicans will rally to vote against her, as will some Democrats and many independents. Even if she manages to win the election her personality and history will further polarize the whole Washington scene and the gridlock we've had for the last 20 years will only escalate. She is so vulnerable to whatever opinions and polls tell her to do that she'll be virtually paralyzed by trying to please everyone. In the end, she'll please no one.

I lost so much respect for Hilary Clinton while Bill was in his second term. It wasn't because of his shenanigans and the foolish way he took his role as the President of the United States so casually, but for her lack of forthright condemnation of his actions. One can still love and support their loved one even when they do something stupid, but she in essence took American women back 50 years by assisting him in denying, covering up, and minimizing the act(s) that he committed. She enabled him, not just then, but possibly throughout their marriage by not making him accept responsibility for what he did. It is that lack of consequences that he understood as "license" to continue to fool around, to see his acts as so easy to dismiss. They stood and lied together to the American people.

Her choice to not oppose the war, to give George Bush the money and support to start this war, to continue to fund it, and to never apologize or recognize her part in this mess is another reflection of her willingness to enable the very demons that we are all fighting to expel now. By not holding strong to the values that she should have represented as a Democrat and as an American, she in essence agrees with this war, if not by action, then by sins of omission.

In the past I've never been very interested in Politics. I always considered anyone who had risen through the ranks to be dirty, probably a corrupt player, and hardly worth giving my time or attention to. As our nation has reeled in the wake of Bush and his war and the horrible infringements on the Constitutional rights, the economical fiasco, and the heartbreaking loss of many of our best young people in Iraq I HAD to decide to care.

Three years ago I saw Barack Obama on some television interview, and then read more and more about him. I decided to do more research and inform myself so that if I chose to support someone, it was with all the information, all the history, and a balanced perspective into that persons choices. I did not choose to back him based on his appearance, his charisma, his popularity, or his rhetoric. I chose based on his leadership skills, his integrity, his compassion for the American people, and his intellect.

I had the good fortune to attend an event in Las Vegas and even to shake Barack Obama's hand. All the giddy little girl excitement was palpable as he approached, but it soon gave way to the deep respect and admiration for this Senator's strength, his commitment to stay on target of his purpose to lead our country.

After reading "Audacity of Hope" and his auto-biography "Dreams From My Father" I was even more interested in learning about the political endeavors of Barack Obama. His website provides some very clear and interesting points and is easy to read. For anyone curious about him I highly recommend browsing it.

Barack Obama not only opposed this "Dumb war" from the beginning, but he's been active and direct in his efforts to help us get out. He has encouraged his fellow Senators and political peers to engage in diplomacy, in holding George Bush accountable, and in doing all possible to stop and exit this terrible situation. He has not enabled, will not ignore or pacify, and is willing to strongly initiate and support the laws and political moves necessary to get us out. I'm so very proud of him. I hope others will see that his judgment, his strength of character, and his deep commitment to doing what's right whether it makes him popular or not is far more important than opinion polls.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Great post...Obama will restore and re-energize our democracy

and it's not something he came up with as a campaign narrative; it has been the work of his life. Here's just one example, which was posted last night:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

[insanad]

27. I first heard of him 3 yrs. ago on Oprah

That is an impressive article. When I read his books I was very inspired by the choice he made to commit his life to public service. Especially when he could have easily gone the other route as a wealthy lawyer or onto possibly more gratifying career as a professor. Being a politician can't be fun or easy and I suspect he has to have nearly iron clad undies to deflect the constant barrage of stupid attacks that come his way. I'm still in awe when I hear people of color claim that "A black man can't get elected". Their discouragement is so conditioned that they can't see beyond the darkness of the moment. I'm as pastey white as a person can be but it's not his polyglot racial and cultural background that impress me as much as his deeply intellectual and incredible ability to process diverse thoughts and ideas and use the best in others, even those he doesn't agree with to help get a cause promoted. I'm so very proud of him. I look forward to him being the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

[sniffa]

26. i never tire of recommending this thread

:rofl: