The far left: How vital to Clinton's campaign?

[TechBear_Seattle]

The far left: How vital to Clinton's campaign?

At the annual Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday, Senator Clinton did not get the rousing reception that her nearest competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination did the day before. And when she got to discussing Iraq – specifically, when she stated that "the American military has succeeded" and "it is the Iraqi government that has failed" – a handful of activists took to their feet, waved signs, and booed.

Clinton was booed at the same convention a year ago, leading to questions of whether her expected presidential run would be hindered by tepid enthusiasm among many on the Democratic left. Now, as front-runner for her party's nomination both in national polls and in some polls of early-primary states, she faces a more acute question: Can a candidate perceived as a centrist by many in the party's activist liberal wing win the nomination?

The booing "reminds that relatively strong ... portion of the Democratic primary electorate of her apostasy, so to speak, with respect to an issue that's very important to them," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, referring to Clinton's vote in 2002 authorizing the Iraq war. "I guess that can't be good for her. On the other hand, she's still ahead in the polls and is climbing, so it obviously is not fatal among Democrats at this point."

The article continues at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070621/ts_csm/aprogressives

[madrchsod]

1. it`s not vital at all

what ever she loses from the far left she`ll take from the center. actually she never considered courting the far left in her campaign.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. And so the question becomes...

Who should those of us on the left support? If Clinton won't give us the time of day, why should we not support a candidate who will?

[liberalnurse]

10. Exactly, this campaign is beyond prepared....

Hillary's campaign will take the election process to a whole other level.

[Dhalgren]

2. This is why the "Left" should seriously think of a new party.

The left is neither wanted nor needed by the Democratic Party. The left gets very little from the party as far as its core concerns go, and as many (even here on DU) say, the left is a liability to the Party. So, maybe the left should look elsewhere for a home - the Democrats don't need us...

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. And yet when we do...

We are told to shut up and vote as ordered. It has become an entirely no-win situation to those of us who still believe in peace and equality.

[ShortnFiery]

33. "The Far Left" is what the Democratic Party used to be before the DLC touch.

The tired old shrill VH1 memes of "The Clinton Machine" are growing increasingly lame now within a foothold of the 21st Century. But WTF it worked for "Big Dog" and his posse before - so the DLC is asking us to "buy into" their Delusion of a sound economy and party like it's 1995.

Problem is, this is 2007 and *the people* are sliding into increasing debt, no increases in pay and ever increasing lay-offs and outsourcing of work to CHEAP overseas countries.

So you claim that we're the far left? B.S. we are merely "for the people" vice "for the corporate masters."

The DLC's Clintonians need to realize that their so-called machine is in a vacuum and their reign has nearly run it's course. :thumbsdown: Despite having the corporate M$M on their side, if there's fair elections, no amount of belittling, intimidation and threats will make *the average struggling American* (not just the far left) vote for a DLC Corporate Shill, i.e., equivalent to a moderate republican of the 80s.

[MrModerate]

3. Excuse me? MoveOn is "the far left?"

That's a 'Lican talking point with approximately zero correspondence with reality.

MoveOn is, at its core, a collection of upper-middleclass progressives with money and motivation to prevent their own destruction. Not by any stretch of the imagination the "far left."

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. They are far left of where Clinton stands on most issues

Then again, hard-core Republicans are pretty centrist from where Clinton stands on many issues.

[wyldwolf]

7. "hard-core Republicans are pretty centrist from where Clinton stands on many issues." Such as?

[MrModerate]

12. I think perhaps you dislike Clinton . . .

I think also that you exaggerate -- hugely -- the distance between her positions and that of those who cluster around the MoveOn worldview.

I think most of all Clinton is trying to get elected, and has adopted a strategy of straddling so many fences that she almost can't appear in public wearing a dress. I also think her hyper-caution could ultimately cost her the election. But I don't think she strays very far from the center-left on most of her positions.

[Sparkly]

14. The term "left" has become practically meaningless.

Seems to me the word itself has become a mantle people are eager to wear, like the latest fashion. It's more about a posture of emotional self-identity than a set of political beliefs, imho. (More about one's feelings about one's opinions than about one's actual opinions -- and the same goes for evaluating others' opinions, too.)

[w4rma]

19. All non-corporatist Democratic activists are "far-left" in Hillary's, and her supporters', minds. nt

[LWolf]

8. Not vital at all.

Which is why the Democratic Party, should they nominate her, will have consciously chosen to leave the "left" votes behind.

[CTD]

9. It is true that the Dem party treats true progressives similar to how the GOP treats fundies

Exploiting us for our votes without ever actually doing anything on the issues important to us.

If Hillary gets the nomination, it should be a sign to all of us that it's time to leave the party - even if that means another Republican president (because, really, how is Hillary any better than an actual Republican - lip service aside).

[Sparkly]

11. "how is Hillary any better than an actual Republican"

Women's reproductive freedom, health care, stem cell research, and yes, even foreign policy, to name a few ways.

[CTD]

13. The GOP has had the chance to attack reproductive rights and they haven't

They'd never kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Without the abortion issue, the fundies wouldn't be motivated to turn out.

Health care, she's caved. And with respect to foreign policy, she's as in bed with Israel as any GOPer and just as willing to bomb Iran.

And even Nancy Reagan is in favor of stem cell research. I can't see a future GOP president vetoing stem cell funding like Bush has.

Hillary? No thanks.

Give me an actual progressive candidate or why bother.

[Sparkly]

15. Oh yes they have!!

This is just flat-out anti-Democratic mythology.

Both her voting record and her policy platforms on all these issues are VASTLY different from that of the Republicans who are running. Why can't you see a future GOP president vetoing stem cell funding? Have you heard what they say in debates? These are people who claim to believe Genesis is fact!

(And what does Nancy Reagan have to do with ANYthing??)

"Give me an actual progressive candidate or why bother." -- Why bother? Because there IS a difference. It's the difference between a moderate like President Clinton and his disastrous successor, George W. Bush. You don't see a difference there?

[truebrit71]

25. What's the difference?

We were told to accept the 'blue-dog' DINO's last year and look what that got us, a gutless, spineless majority of chimp-enablers...

I do NOT want the gop to pick my candidate, and right now with the help of the corporate media lapdogs they are doing EXACTLY that by foisting Hillary on us 24/7....

She CANNOT win.

[Sparkly]

39. You mention several things there...

First, state-by-state Congressional elections are something else; and, the primaries in those states ("DINOs" vs. other Democrats) are different from the races of Dem vs. Republican, in which our party did win big!

The balance of Congress, too, is a separate matter.

The media foisting Hillary -- I think several things about that. First, months and months of this breathless horse-race blabbering doesn't add up to anything compared with the three days before the Iowa caucuses, so take it all for what it's worth. Second, media hype is a double-edged sword. Remember the constant assurances that Howard Dean was our "presumptive nominee," along with constant attacks to tear him down? Clinton's getting the same treatment right now. Third, this is just one reason it's not so clear that it's the GOP choosing our candidate.

And, I think almost any Democrat has a good chance against any Republican. I sure don't think she's our best chance, but I wouldn't predict that she'd lose, either.

[ShortnFiery]

35. I wouldn't bet on it - women's reproductive freedom. Especially when the Senate Majority Leader

remains Pro-Life. :shrug:

Also, health care will only be adequate for the upper 1% of the country. The rest of us will have to scrounge around among her beloved HMOs who will continue to rake in the cash while grandma dies of cancer due to inadequate treatment options, i.e., health care - HMOs - are Big Business. :(

[Sparkly]

36. NARAL gives both Reid and Clinton 100% based on their voting records.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/hillaryrodhamclinton.html
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/harryreid.html

[ShortnFiery]

45. I do genuinely respect you Sparky but check your references? Harry Reid scores 29% by NARAL.

Senator Reid offers something special for the minority spot, because he is one of the first powerful Democrats in a long time who is devoutly pro-life:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Harry_Reid.htm

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

But Senator Reid also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

He voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)

----------------
I suggest that NARAL is not being 100% genuine with their voters as Reid's past voting record is anything other than pro-choice. :shrug:

Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Reid scores 29% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

[Sparkly]

46. I linked to NARAL's website.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/harryreid.html

It's a more recent (and primary-source) evaluation.

Their other links for Reid are here:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/search.jsp?query=harry+reid&x=18&y=7

[ShortnFiery]

48. IMO, It's disingenuous to the max., in that, it does not tell the FULL story.

:(

[wyldwolf]

52. but I bet you know the FULL story, huh?

[martymar64]

56. When it comes to:

The War in Iraq
Outsourcing
Worker's rights


No difference at all.

[ToeBot]

60. Worse actually, at least the Republicans throw the fundies a bone once in a while. nt

[eridani]

65. And they do take the trouble to hide their contempt for their base

--to the point where it takes a Kuo expose to even get it on the radar.

[fed-up]

16. I will only vote for a candidate that voted NO on the IWR-and will BRING Troops Home NOW nt

[elocs]

17. How about these questions: How big is the liberal left compared to the rest of the Democratic Party?

How much should any centrist Democratic candidate pander to the left wing? How much do we believe that we should be pandered to? Do we, as Liberals, believe that centrist and conservative Democrats have valid points of view that deserve consideration? Could any centrist Democratic presidential candidate win without the Liberals by aiming at the middle, conservative Democrats and socially liberal Republicans? Do we, as Liberals, have an "our way, or the highway" attitude and are willing to bite off our noses to spite our faces and willing to see a Republican elected as opposed to a Democrat who does not pass our litmus tests of Liberal perfection? Do we believe that somebody other than a Republican or a Democrat will be the next president? Are we willing to put up with 4 or more years of a Republican president because we didn't get enough of our way? If we indirectly aid the election of a Republican by not supporting the Democratic candidate, how much will we howl and complain about the next war, the next series of Constitutional abuses, the appointments of conservative justices to the Supreme Court?

I am a Democrat and I vote for and support Democrats. Although I consider myself to be a Liberal, I realize that it is very unlikely that any candidate who espouses most of my liberal beliefs would ever be elected president. I am happy I have a great maverick senator in Russ Feingold. Reality is not only a harsh mistress, she can be a bitch at times (even if reality was a harsh master he could be a bitch at times). You do your best with what you have and who is available and ultimately the presidential winner will be either a Democrat or a Republican. I will be voting for the Democrat.

[wyldwolf]

18. Let me give you a restaurant analogy

Once there was a restaurant - a very popular one. It was called The Donkey Diner. The owners and managers created a menu that catered to a wide variety of people. You couldn't find everything on the menu you liked and no one was completely happy with it, but there was enough selection to keep you coming back and that is what made it a success. And the prices weren't that bad, either. Not surprisingly, the eatery attracted people from varying walks of life, ethnic backgrounds, and economic classes.

At some point, a few of the patrons felt the menu lacked a sufficient amount of items they liked and some of the dishes weren't prepared they way they thought they should be, so they began complaining to the management. The management said, "hey, look, we're trying to make everyone happy. But naturally, if a type of menu item is popular, we feature more of it. If a dish just isn't selling well, we're not going to push it."

This explanation didn't set well with the dissatisfied patrons, so they decided (in the spirit of true competition) to start their own restaurant. But they really couldn't agree on how to do it, which resulted in several little diners opening and closing on various street corners. Soon, the complaining former patrons began to think it was unfair that the big restaurant they used to go to was so popular that it prevented other ones from having a chance at success. So they hatched a plan.

They began returning to the big restaurant. Eventually a few of them applied for, and got, management positions. Soon thereafter, they began calling themselves "the real managers" of the restaurant and tried altering the menu to better fit their tastes. This experiment, though successful at times, ultimately backfired. The rival restaurant across the street, the one they'd competed with for years, began to attract more customers. Soon, that shiny eatery with the assorted menu began losing money. The newer managers, the original complainers, looked to blame everyone else but themselves. Their justification was if the restaurant had concentrated even more on the items they'd wanted, instead of making a few concessions here and there, the business loss wouldn't have happened.

But the original owners and managers knew better. Which brings us to today. The newer managers, and the newer patrons who like them, are wondering whether to support a manager applicant who does things the old way or support one who does things their new way.

Some are even suggesting they start their own restaurant. Again.

[truebrit71]

20. Let me give another restaurant analogy...

Hillary's Diner likes to serve up the same ol shit, day after day, and call it something new and inticing to try and get folks to buy it...but in the end it turns out that all she is selling is the same old shit-burger she's been peddling for years...Sure she might add the odd garnish of liberalsim once in a while, but that burger still has the stench of her war vote, her pro-isreal stance and her pro-corporate votes all over it...

[Sparkly]

21. Yet it's one of the top favorites at the restaurant. So what do you do about it? nt

[truebrit71]

22. Shake my head in amazement at the collective stupidity...and go look for somewhere GOOD to eat..

;-)

[Sparkly]

23. Staying with the analogy, you've got the competing restaurant across the street...

... or you can start your own, which doesn't work so well either.

[truebrit71]

24. But why should I be forced to eat shit?

There HAS to be a better choice, surely?

[wyldwolf]

28. no one is forcing you to eat anything. You have your options

[truebrit71]

29. Not if the only restaurant in town is Hillary's Diner...

..

[wyldwolf]

31. there's another big one across the street. And several small ones, like the little Green one

[Greyhound]

64. So is McDonald's, doesn't make it good. n/t

[wyldwolf]

27. Yet, more Dems like it than what the alternatives are dishing. Go figure!

[ShortnFiery]

38. And HRC's going to use the DLC and a newly forming *think tank* to keep us war-mongering

and "loving it" - because, in the recent past, Think Tanks EXIST to *DUPE the Masses* into giving their tax dollars to the Military Industrial Complex in order to keep us safe. :eyes: ... OR else those EVIL *terrorists* gonna come to town and put a bomb under all our beds. :eyes:

Those a**holes within the Neo-Con's favorite Think Tank (American Enterprise Institute, AEI) have IQs in the Ozone. Therefore, these evil politcos could make a shit sandwich sound like fillet mignon. Now HRC is forming her own with the help of former Clintonian staffers and (Ta DA!) the DLC. :(

[DFW]

26. In the primaries? Not very vital at all IMHO

In the general, if she gets that far? Watch her campaign
remember who's out there, and who speaks their mind.

Don't forget, even Bush waited to lick the far right's
boots once the pressure was off. In his case, it was after
the general election, as he had no serious competition in
the primaries once they kneecapped McCain in 2000.

[paulk]

30. which "far left " is the article referring to?

I don't think "Take Back America" is "far left". Code Pink and groups like that - like the folks who heckled HRC at the conference - that's what I would call "far left". They do not represent a "reletively strong portion of the Dem primary electorate" - and there is no Democrat who will cater to that group who expects to win.

[truebrit71]

32. "Far Left" = anyone that disagrees with HRC/DLC

.

[paulk]

47. that's nonsense

and par for the course from you...

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quinnox]

34. I hope not

No offense but I don't want Hillary Clinton or any future Dem president influenced too strongly by the extreme left. I see too much stupidity on the extreme, no matter, left or right.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Yes, all us old women who belong to anti-war peace organizations like Pax Christi.

Yes, we are so stupid! All this "loving of thy neighbor" and such. :eyes:

You and Agent Mike have good reason to be afraid of us because IF EVERYONE truly knew how the ruling classes in all these nations are "making a killing and having a ball" watching us insignificant peasants kill off one another ... well, we might choose to discipline our Pentagon and pare down all those killing machine armaments ... maybe divert what would be used as "blood money" into enriching our *socialistic* Public School System.

BTW, I was in the Army and it was that SOCIALISTIC program termed Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) that gave 3 to 1 benefits. If it wasn't for VEAP, I would not have been able to afford my Masters Degree. Damn those socialistic entitlement veteran's programs like the foregoing and the GI bill, aye? Such a shame that these GOVERNMENT BENEFITS lifted the USA up to "the largest middle class" in the WORLD after WWII? :eyes: However, now we are losing our Middle Class because the lion's share of the entitlements goes toward corporate welfare vice the average American. :(

IMO, most people today are genuinely a small click or two "left of center" when not being constantly preached at by the M$M to be afraid of those evil-doing far left wingers ... to stay centrist. :thumbsdown:

[quinnox]

41. where did that come from

Jesus, you took some offhand comment I made so personally. I never said you were stupid, or anyone, just that I had seen stupidity on the extreme left as well as the extreme right. And that IN MY OPINION, a more balanced approach is best.

[ShortnFiery]

43. But I am, according to a centrist, present day definition "Far Left"

And for the life of me I can't understand why the M$M is running scared?

I think that Code Pink serves us proud. :patriot: After all, those who participated in the Boston Tea Party also dressed up for the occasion. :-).

Other than a very few, admittedly deadly eco-terrorists, what is so stupid about what the present day DLC define as the Far left? That is, what's so frightening about those of us who wish to end our imperial endeavors, make sure corporations are closely regulated and work toward "the common good" before aggressive maneuvering?

[HooptieWagon]

61. Well done, ShortnFiery! n/t

[Dhalgren]

42. You go, ShortnFiery! Damn right and well said!

I received my education via the GI Bill, as well, and as a peasant, I would not have been able to do so without it. At some point the peasants are going to get tired of being ground under foot; it would be so easy to simply stop grinding us, like FDR did. But, no, these new fascist bastards and their enablers (you know who they are) will not be happy until we are all no more than slaves or dead. Who is speaking for the peasants and the all but vanished middle class? Almost no one, at least no one who will get any air-time...

[Totally Committed]

54. Watch out... next thing you know, some a**hole will come along, and tell you

the Democratic Party is the "War Party". Makes my skin crawl.

Without us "Lefties" Vietnam would never have ended as soon as it did.

TC

[madrchsod]

55. at what point do we purge the extreme left

from the democratic party? how do we define the extreme left? stupidity? how is that defined?

[martymar64]

57. No offense but

I don't want a candidate that not only refuses to fight the right Wing but votes with them whenever she can get away with it. IMO, She's Lieberman in a pantsuit. Is that what you really want in a president?

[illinoisprogressive]

37. but, the polls are not a real measure of support right now. Only a trend spotter.

like the type of voters who support certain candidates, ect.

[rinsd]

44. LOL.....now polls don't matter.

So when did you reach the epiphany?

:rofl:

[OHdem10]

49. Last night OReilly , I am sure thought he had a far-lefty for sure--

When he asked her if she plans to vote for HRC. "I am wainting
to see what the Green Party does." People do not know Greens
from Far Left. Hhheehhheeee

[zulchzulu]

51. The "far left" is a bogus O'Reilly term in the Faux Snooze lexicon

It's not that binary...and as someone pointed out, MoveOn.org is not "far left" either...

[assclown_bush]

53. Hillary will not win the radical fringe groups to her cause...

but then nothing will appease that faction of the Democratic party.

[martymar64]

58. Ending the War and Single Payer Health Care would appease me plenty

The problem with the so-called Centrists is that they offer nothing to us except more of the status quo benefitting the wealthy elites. Why should we vote to be further abused? If you don't need our votes, then why are we even having this discussion? Just go on your merry way and try to get Republicans to vote for Hillary. At least your closer to them ideologically than to us, more like kindred spirits, if you will.

[martymar64]

59. The far left? You mean like Maoists?

The only Far Left I know of in this country is the Revolutionary Communist Party. I saw them rally once in Pike Place Market. Gotta admire their passion despite being a little nutty.

[HooptieWagon]

62. "Far left" is relative

Historically, I consider myself a moderate. By today's "standards" i am part of the "far left". All I want is a fair shake for the working/middle class vis-a-vie the corporate elitists. War benefits the elitists, not the working class. Basic healthcare is deserved by anyone who works for an employer, and should be affordable to those who are self employed. Opportunity to advance oneself via education is deserved by all. Oh, and corporations do not have the right to rape the planet in pursuit of profits. Its really that simple, but Hillary doesn't get it.

[martymar64]

63. If she was to sincerely embrace even one of those issues . . .

then she would have my enthusiastic support. But she won't. The DLC and AIPAC won't let her, they sign the checks so she'll do what they say.

[tigereye]

66. I'm not sure what" left" or "far left" really mean these days

I think the right confuses or conflates these terms. Although to the "far right", "far left" means anyone who doesn't take the Bible literally, thinks women should work, that kids should go to public schools, or believes in evolution. :rofl:

Translation, anyone that is humanistic and rational!

In the old days, left meant all the folks I knew who were Marxists, Maoists, etc. or those more influenced by radical 60s movements, or the folks who did all the organizing and protesting.

I don't remember anyone calling them "far left."