Get Ready for Hillary....Tough Choices for the Right

[KoKo]

Get Ready for Hillary
Tough choices for the Right.

By Bruce Bartlett


As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.

Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one party’s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can’t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.

If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next president by becoming involved in the Democratic race?

-snip-

On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush’s. While Clinton raised taxes in 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no worse than the current administration and probably better on net.

Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like Bob Kuttner, are attacking Sen. Clinton for being a clone of her husband on economics and criticizing her support for “Rubinomics,” named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization — which are both anathema to the Democratic party’s liberal base. It wants a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs.

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

more at........
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzgxMjNlMWMzNzQ1NjlhMWI5YzNiYTM5YzdmZDdiNTQ=

[primative1]

1. whoo - hoo

I can hardly wait

[Tellurian]

5. Except, Hillary's Voting Record calls your OP a LIE!

According to Hillary's voting record she is a:

"Moderate Liberal"

standing just Left of Center.

http://www.issues2002.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm



Sen. Hillary R. Clinton

"Moderate Liberal"

[primative1]

30. What a joke ...

I had to view the link to see what it claimed her economic views were. Oddly, from the year 2000, when she ran for the senate, until just recently in February of 2007, not a single comment was made by her with regards to the economy .... Not a single frigging word.... Speaks volumes doesnt it?

[Tellurian]

33. ...And you wonder why, we don't put much stock in your opinion!

Highlights of Senator Clinton's Economic Initiatives

January 7, 2003

Floor Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Insurance Extension

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233781


March 3, 2004


Keep America Working: Restoring Jobs to Ensure American Prosperity

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233755


February 10, 2005

Clinton Calls for Common Sense Action on Mounting Trade Deficit

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233855


Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.

Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act; Bill S. 1932 ; vote number 2005-363 on Dec 21, 2005

June 27, 2006

Senator Clinton Reiterates Call to Tie Increasing the Minimum Wage to Congressional Pay Increases

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=257945&&

[primative1]

39. Nice of you to provide updated link ...

The link you originally provided left her views during the 6 years in question blank, I feel appropriately ...

Of all your impressive cut and pastes, I am drawn to her particular view on keeping the US competitive by investment in infrastructure ... This is a very sound approach and it is echoed by almost all the candidates on either side of the aisle.
But what I find most interesting is her particular personal view of what this catchy phrase entails.

To quote:
"The second way we can improve our strategy for success is to prepare our infrastructure to compete in the global marketplace and I have worked very hard to ensure that all of New York is wired with next-generation broadband technology".

Amazing how one can take a universally accepted theme and reduce it to such negligible localized pandering. Whoo-hoo, with Hillary on the job we can count on getting to subsidize Verizons in their unending quest to profit handsomely by cornering the market in bandwidth. Now thats a new twist.
When most people think of infrastructure investment they envision our crumbling highway system, our 19th century rails or our chaotic air transport. But not Hillary, she will twist the topic into padding the bottom line of her corporate partners. Any wonder why the bulk of upstate resembles a wild west ghost town.
What other innovative themes will we get to witness?
Like the saying goes, there is pork and then there is PORK. People draw the distinction by whether or not they are getting their cut.

[Tellurian]

42. My original link.-

to put things back in their proper perspective, was addressing the OP, not you. Strange, you used the opportunity to attempt a ham-handed smear only to be dealt the "Joker Card" for your efforts.

Am enjoying your attempts to hold Hillary responsible for all thats wrong with world. You may carry on now.. to your next embarrassment.

[primative1]

46. Who's the joker ...

Whatever your intent, you addressed your comment to me.
So be careful who you call a joker or else others may feel more free to reciprocate.
By the by ... are you now to busy to address my critique of Hillaries innovative economic plan? That is my guess as it seems to be your standard approach. I am remembering our last encounter when you referred to Obama as a man who "emanated a foreign culture that rang un american". Such profound words.
My guess is when it comes to policy issues your answer to every topic is "Hillary". With that understanding, it would seem more appropriate if you would have her name tattooed to your forehead and leave it at that. You add little else to the conversation.

[bunkerbuster1]

2. Straying off the reservation?

I didn't know Rethugs were allowed to state the obvious: that "the Hildebeast" is the farthest to the right among Democratic presidential contenders.

Figured they'd wait until at least a few more months' worth of fund-raising...

[wyldwolf]

3. "the Hildebeast?" Neal Boortz phrase right there. Will you be saying "feminazi" next?

[Dogmudgeon]

9. I think it was sarcasm

The Right has spared no expense in brewing a vile civic potion, so it is fitting that they should be obliged to drink it.

Every drop.

The Hildebeast. Hitlery KKKlintoon. The cigar-smoking lesbian cartoons. The stories about witches' blood orgies. And all the rest.

Drink up, boys. And none of your backsass, either. Don't make Big Mama Hillary have to cut herself a switch.

--p!

[wyldwolf]

15. oops! Yeah, probably. Aplogies to bunkerbuster1

[bunkerbuster1]

23. No problemo.

For the record, I would never refer to the Senator Clinton in such an impolite fashion, no matter how much she might annoy me (at times.) I was, of course, adopting the preferred AM-gasbag/RW-blogger usage for comic effect, but after posting I thought it might be misunderstood.

I should probably elaborate just a bit about the "fundraising" line. Right-wing knuckle draggers have generated untold millions of dollars from gullible, testicularly-challenged fools by simply invoking fear of a Hillary presidency. To come out and say, "gosh, of the Dems running for President, she'd probably be the least objectionable" is to cut those efforts off at the knees.

Let's be honest here. I can't stand any of the Gooper candidates, but I will be honest and acknowledge that if we simply couldn't win and I had to hope for the least objectionable one, it'd probably be Guiliani. He's a bandwagoneering publicity whore (I remember him back when he was just a hotshot prosecutor) with little or no scruples, but on paper at least he'd probably be preferable to one of the true-believer RWers.

I figure that's all the National Review guy was acknowleging--I was just surprised he was doing it this early in the race.

[bunkerbuster1]

24. see also my sig quote...

It's intended as mockery--I hope nobody thinks I actually believe Bush takes that line to heart.

[Dhalgren]

4. Clinton may be the most conservative candidate on the Democratic side.

She seems to be reasonably liberal on social issues, but on foreign policy, economics, trade, etc. she comes off as quite conservative. If the US is still in Iraq when she assumes office, I have my doubts as to what her actions would be. I would not be surprised if she opted to maintain troops in Iraq.

[primative1]

6. Thats the way ...

If you check out most of "mainstream" Washington supposed liberals, you will find that invariable they will all lean liberal on SOCIAL issues but never yield an inch on anything that resembles economic justice.
Thats their M.O.
Its the crumb that they are willing to let fall off of the table, concessions on social topics that are only considered ISSUES because they made them so.

[bread_and_roses]

17. exactly. i suspect big $$ has spoken - time to throw the serfs a few crumbs

because they have put a finger in the wind and know the serfs are thinking about pitchforks. They have to protect their fat global asses; what's a few paltry $$ to a few popular social programs for a few years? It'll quiet down the rumbling and then they can revert to their assault on anything resembling fair, not free, trade internationally and anything resembling fair progressive taxation and labor and environmental regulation domestically.

[Tellurian]

25. A few debunkments of Hillary Myths..

I have an entire thread on the Myths and Misconceptions of Hillary's policies

Clinton has refused to "come out against" the Iraq war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3147757

Clinton lied about why she voted for 2002 Iraq war resolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3147775

Hillary's Stand on Trade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704#3151366

This is just about all the information you should need. But I have more, if there is a question you have that is not answered on this comprehensive thread.

[Jimmy Hoops]

7. ^ I agree with everything

except the Iraq thing. It seems like she's on the"bring the troops home soon" bandwagon to me.

[Dhalgren]

16. I feel very sure that she would seriously reduce the number of US troops

in Iraq, but I am not sure that she would not keep US troops in those nice, big, new bases that we have paid through the nose for. I just can't feel confident in what she would determine, once she is in office.

[SaveElmer]

8. Care to detail her conservative economic views?...nt

[Dogmudgeon]

11. What details? They just make stuff up as they go along.

Hillary haters from the Left only need three words:

1. Traitor.

2. Whore.

3. DLC.

And most of them don't know what the initials in "DLC" mean.

--p!

[Dhalgren]

13. I have never called Senator Clinton any pejorative name. I have never

lied about any of her positions on any issue. If you are saying that I have, you are a liar.

[Dogmudgeon]

18. I was responding to SaveElmer

I was also referring to Hillary-haters, not critics of her positions and votes.

I have been critical of HRC, too, but I abhor the feeding frenzy that's taking place.

--p!

[Dhalgren]

21. Fair enough and sorry if I over reacted. I don't like the personalized attacks, either.

I think that all positions, ideas, policies, and issues are open for discussion - attack, even. Those are all fair game, but to call names or disparage a candidate (especially a Democratic one)on a personal level, is just counter-productive.
You and I may be on different sides of debates from time to time (maybe a lot!), but I trust we can be civil and respectful. I will always try.

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. What the initials in "DLC" really mean

Jesse Jackson said it best when he said DLC stands for Democrats for the Leisure Class.

[Dhalgren]

I was simply going with the idea that her policies would be similar to

President Clinton's. His economic policies were quite conservative - balancing the budget, reducing debt, reducing taxes, promoting globalization, etc. The various economic ideas and details that her website and her speeches have expressed have not changed my mind in this regard. If there are more and better explanations of her economic policy ideas, I would like to see them. My mind is not unchangeable.

[liberalKD126]

40. I could see that

That is an interesting point of view, what about her political views do you think would lead her to agree to keep troops in Iraq?

[Dhalgren]

54. I think that her policies (and her husband's before her) can be called Liberal Imperialism.

The whole globalization thing is imperial in its essence. The way Bill has come out so strongly over the past four years in support of Bush's policies vis-a-vis Iraq (and Hillary has too) makes me unsure as to what her final decision would be.

[w4rma]

10. Incredible. Republicans are so scared of Edwards that they are trying to convince Republicans to

vote for Clinton. :spray:

While there is a huge, competitive Republican open primary taking place!

[poverlay]

12. Every Repug I know is so scared of Hillary written they're all acting like they're going to

die. Getting their wills in order and such. It's really pathetic. Funny, but pathetic.

[Tellurian]

14. It's a ruse... Republiks are the greatest hypocrites on the planet..

unsavory and toxic to anything living..

[poverlay]

19. Can't argue with that. ... nt

[illinoisprogressive]

27. why do you think they are scared of him? they are not. They are too busy with finding a candidate.

[OHdem10]

20. You are probably correct--Hilafy will be our next

candidate.

What you are really saying is we must get Republican Votes.
Hilary will be obligated to them and we will continue
this Center Right Government that has us heading for the
Herbert Hoover Ditch.

Now you know why some of us have not selected a Candidate.

We do not have much of Choice. Obama seems to walk the
DLC Walk.

God bless America--we will need it. I am basing this
on your post and my knowledge.

[MGKrebs]

43. "Obligated to them"? I would hope so.

I want my President to represent all citizens. I will encourage that President to lead us to a more progressive future, but if we are not there yet I would not expect that we exclude everyone that is not as progressive as I am.

When we have done our jobs as citizen-activists and created a more progressive community, we will get more progressive elected officials.

[zulchzulu]

22. How was Bill Clinton's record on trade "outstanding"?

Maybe it should be "outsourcing"... with NAFTA, the WTO agreements, signing a weak agreement (normal trade relations) allowing China a free pass to trade with them imposing tariffs and other controls...

Also, why cite the righty fish wrapper National Review?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

28. Good To See The Hard-Core Throwing In the Towel So Early, Ma'am

Their despair knows no bounds, and that warms these cold old bones....

"No sight is so cheering as the backs of the enemy."

[KoKo]

29. I'm not sure Mr. Magistrate...but it's interesting...that's for sure. n/t

[MadHound]

32. Rather telling that a conservative magazine is openly advocating for Hillary

And basing that support on her economic policy and that of her husband. Very telling indeed.

And people wonder why so many dislike Hillary.

[Tellurian]

34. The "dislike" is a meme manufactured by the GOP Hate Machine in the 90's

when they were attacking President Clinton. Now that Hillary has been making contact with the general public first hand throughout the Nation, that myth is seeing the light of day for what it was...another Rovian lie in hopes of turning the public against the Clintons during his presidency. IIRC, President Clinton's current approval rating is at 75% while voted the most influential man on the planet. FWIW- I'm thankful, they are in our corner on "OUR" side of the aisle!

[MadHound]

36. Wrong meme friend

The meme that the RW spin machine has spun is that the Clintons are "hated", not disliked. Very few people excepting the rabid RW actually hate the Clintons. However many, many people actually do dislike the Clintons. One only has to take a look at the anti-war movement to find many, many people who dislike Hillary and her policies. Similarly one only has to remember the events at the 1999 WTO meetings in Seattle to see that there were and are many people who dislike Bill Clinton and his policies. And also remember that these are just two areas of controversy that have caused less than positive feelings for the Clintons, collectively and seperately.

Claiming that the dislike for Clinton is a media driven affair is disingenous of you. Certainly the media does influence public opinion, to a certain extent. But claiming that all of this sentiment is a media driven creation is simply being intellectually dishonest. Many, if not most of the people who dislike the Clintons are not subject to media driven hype, having too many brains and too much intellectual honesty to be fooled by Rove or the media.

In fact all of the candidates and politicians throughout history have been both hated and disliked by the American public to one degree or another. You act like pointing out this case vis-a-vis the Clintons is some sort of heresy that must be stamped out ASAP. It isn't, disagreement is actually healthy for a democracy. In fact given the current state of our politics, I would have to say that there needs to be more dislike and disagreement in our populace. Many of the problems that we face are a direct result of lockstep thinking among our politicians. Exhibit A and B can be the Patriot Act and IWR.

And while you may be thankful that the Clintons are on "our" side(whereever that is), many aren't. Those who were deprived of well paying jobs due to NAFTA. Those both within and outside of the military who have found Hillary's stance on the war less than acceptable. Even you yourself are critical of the state of our media, which was vastly helped by the '96 Telecom Act, supported by Bill himself.

So please, don't patronize people when they point out the truth. This is a tactic worthy of Rove himself, that man who you so heartedly detest

[Tellurian]

37. It would be good of you to point me to a GOP handbook of memes..

where the definitions and their attributions are spelled out as you described, friend.

[MadHound]

38. Ooo, more patrinizing responses!

I so do enjoy them.

If you don't know how the RW media echo chamber works, nor what memes that they're pumping out on a regular basis, then why are you speaking as if you are informed on this subject. After all, you are attributing this all to Rove after all:shrug: You cannot both know and not know at the same time.

Interesting though how you chose this particular point, and didn't address the others that I brought up:think:

[Tellurian]

41. It's the only point I care about..

you seem to think you have an absolute handle on just about anything and everything. Case and point. Do I have to live and believe your version of a particular array of facts, without empirical evidence to back it up, as you do? No I don't! Do I have to abide by what your version of what you consider IS as gospel? Hell NO, I don't!

So, friend, it's all a matter of OPINION..and I am entitled to view the world as I wish, as an American citizen, that is my prerogative!

[MadHound]

48. No, it isn't ALL a matter of opinion,

Some of it is a product of logical thought, some of it is actually fact, you know, the reality based world. It is a good place to reside now and again.

But yes, you are entitled to view the world as you wish, much as is anybody else, no matter whether their view is reality based or not. But while you have this right, don't be suprised when people call you on your bullshit when you try to push your world view off on others when there is little basis in reality backing your viewpoint up.

[Forkboy]

45. It would be good of you to point me to a GOP hadbook of memes..

The "dislike" is a meme manufactured by the GOP Hate Machine in the 90's

I'm assuming since you made the claim about it being a meme yourself,then demand evidence when someone else makes virtually the same claim with one word changed,that you actually have a copy handy yourself?

Thanks in advance.

[MGKrebs]

44. What does it tell us?

I am not sure I follow you.

[Forkboy]

47. It tells me that there are Republicans who either like her or want to run against her.

Neither one is exactly a flaming endorsement for Hillary.If it's because they like her it's probably because they see enough similarities to their own conservative view (not the neocons...Hillary has issues.Being just like the neocons isn't one of them).If it's the because they want to run against her they probably feel she's the one that would rouse their base more than any other,and that they think she can be beaten by them.

It's still damn early but so far the General Election polls would agree with them.

[MGKrebs]

49. I find the article confusing and contradictory, and therefore suspect.

It claims she is the most conservative candidate, yet explains her economic policy as "a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs". OK, maybe "more conservative" in a very narrow field of view.

It talks about all the candidates speaking to their base at this point in the process, which is "well to the left of the country among Democrats". If we are going to give this writer any credibility, then HC being on the right end of a spectrum that is well to the left of the center is not that bad a place to be for a successful Dem candidate who will need to speak for the whole country.

This strikes me as more of an attempt at a "go with the devil you know" kind of thing. They seem to think an H. Clinton administration would look a lot like a B. Clinton administration, but of course we can't make that kind of evaluation of any of the other candidates, and many factors make it a dubious claim anyway. In any case, the B. Clinton administration took place during pretty prosperous times by many measures, so if their assumption is correct, they might see it as a better risk than an unknown quantity like an Edwards or Obama.

Or maybe they are just running this up the flagpole to see the reaction.

Also from the article:

"If conservatives weren’t so blinded by their hatred for her, this would be obvious."

[primative1]

50. You Misread the Article ...

You stated that the article

" claims she is the most conservative candidate, yet explains her economic policy as "a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs".

The article does not say that. It said that her policies were in contrast to the party that would like to see these things.
Read again please.

Also, the bit about pandering to the party base which is so far left of the general public ..... This is becoming a standard talking point. It reads like the unity08 "polorization" theme. If it is repeated enough times will we assume it is true even if there is little empirical evidence to support it?
As to where the general public does in fact lie, is it not just as likely that in fact they are to the LEFT of the stated DLC positions?
I base this hypothesis (and thats what it is) on the recent and consistent "head to head" polling data that shows both Obama and Edwards fairing noticeably better against the GOP than Clinton in a general election, but yet shows Clinton leading by wide margins within the democratic party.
This, to me, says people outside of the democratic party are to the left of the democratic party. The leanings of INDEPENDENTS must not be being properly identified. We are not being represented.

[MGKrebs]

51. You are right, I misread that about Rubinomics.

Bizarre.

[KoKo]

53. I've read some stuff about "Unity '08" and it was started by some of Carter's

former campaign managers. I don't like it from what I've read. It seems to compromise too much and might have been better targeted to '04 Election than NOW where the ENEMY IS BUSH/CHENEY and it's clear as to what's been going on. Unity '08 seems to be behind the times...or they are going to TRY to TRIANGULATE the '08 Election like the misguided Nader did in 2000 and Ross Perot did in '92.

I don't trust "Unity '08" Party...because I don't want some damned "Compromise Candidate" being put forth to destroy another election. If we Dems can't at THIS POINT come up with a WINNABLE Candidate then it will be because our Dem Congress didn't go after the Voting Machines and Rove...but not because we couldn't come up with an electable candidate. :-( :grr:

[primative1]

55. At first they concerned me ...

When they first launched the unity08 move, I was immediately suspicious about their intent, but my concern has faded as interest in them appears to have dropped to zero.
They seem to be basically content to spew GOP talking points while masking them as "bipartisan" views but if few are reading it, why should we care?
At worst they might secure a right of center ticket access to the ballot which would be fine with me.

[Toots]

35. More delusional right wing thinking

"Its essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization — which are both anathema to the Democratic party’s liberal base."
I know of no Liberal anywhere that does not want the Federal Debt eliminated or the US Government to kick the Deficit Spending Habit. If the Debt were paid off there would be money for everything the USA needs. Schools, Roads, Hospitals, Safe food and water, modern sewage systems, everything........We are spending currently almost as much on Interest on our Debt as we are on Defense Spending. One should be eliminated and the other cut in half but it is the wing nuts who are increasing both and not the Liberals...We are spending this much on Interest now when Interest Rates are at their lowest percentage point in almost a century. Think what is going to happen if rates go up three points. That would almost double our Interest Spending and bankrupt America....No it isn't Liberals that wish for this to be...We may want to spend money on a lot of things that aid regular people such as Natioanl Health Care but we want to spend money we have and not put the burdon on our heirs. Republicans don't care about anyone except themselves, even their own grandchildren, but they probably believe they will leave them so much money they won't be bothered by the nation's financial crisis'.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Sadly, I don't think he's right.

I don't think that it's anything like a certainty that the Democrats will win the White House next year.

And while it's completely true that Clinton is the *most* conservative of the three possible Democratic nominees, that's a comparative claim - it's not at all the same as claiming "she's conservative".

I think that Clinton is perfectly liberal enough for her presidency to satisfy me (although I'd prefer Edwards or Obama).

[KoKo]

56. ...