McClatchy: Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Darling?

[babylonsister]

This is not all bad, just interesting. :hide:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18462.html

Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Darling?
By Matt Stearns | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Fri, July 27, 2007


snip//

Is the conservative chattering class just hedging its bets, wary that Clinton might win the White House and banish them all?

Or is it a set-up: The vast right-wing conspiracy pumping up the polarizing candidate they really want to face in the general election?

Naturally, no one in politics wants to talk about that with their names attached, lest they alienate people whose favor they need. But here's what some political strategists said when given anonymity:

"Absolutely," said one Democrat, citing Clinton's high unfavorable ratings (42 percent in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, twice Obama's 21 percent). "Look at Fox News. They play her up all the time. Image-wise, they think she's the one Democrat they can beat right now."

"A plausible theory," said a Republican strategist with a top-tier GOP candidate. "Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That's pretty much consensus by Republican insiders. It's a really crappy environment for us right now. What she does, and what Obama doesn't do yet, is single-handedly solve our base problems. Because of who she is."

Others laugh off the "set up Hillary" theory.

"The vast conspiracy is not that well organized," said John Hinderaker, co-founder of Power Line, a popular conservative blog. "We couldn't pull that off if we tried."

Conservative admiration for Clinton — on the foreign-policy debate question specifically and the way she's running her campaign generally — is real, said Hinderaker, who added that he thought she'd be a tougher opponent for Republicans than the less-experienced Obama or the smooth former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

snip//

If Clinton can get the National Review and The Nation to agree that she won a debate, maybe diplomacy is her strength.

Posted on Fri, July 27, 2007

[Colobo]

1. Romney and McLoon love her now!

[TeamJordan23]

2. Weekly Standard/Neo Cons love her also. nm

[surfermaw]

3. Wasn't Bill on the Comm. that help buy the Charlotte Observer

I haven't seen a decent write up for Edwards, he was always in the middle of the paper, in the last weeks they are treating him a little better not much.

[aquart]

4. Republicans don't vote in Democratic primaries.

Except in really stupid states. So what they think is completely irrelevant. In the primary, the only votes that count are OURS. To vote because of what you think the Republicans want or don't want is suicidal.

[slick8790]

17. No offense....

But did you not read the article, or did you miss the point entirely?

Republicans want Hillary to energize their base. No one provokes hatred among the blithering idiot republican masses more than a clinton (god knows why). The republican spin machine has been bashing her for 15 years and most people firmly have their opinion set on her. Since I agree with almost all of the canidates on....most things, my vote in the primary is going to to who i think can win in the GE. And that's not Hill.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. One out 3 writers in the Nation thought she won. the other 2 did not. Including the editor

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. So perhaps HRC is the real "unity" candidate?

:evilgrin:

[babylonsister]

7. She is! Or might be. She's good, just not my fave. nt

[IndianaGreen]

8. Neocon Charles Krauthammer, and GOP candidates Romney and McCain, backed Hillary

in her spat with Obama on negotiating with Cuba, Venezuela, and others.

Now we have Rudy attack Edwards and Obama, while keeping his powder dry with Hillary:

Giuliani Assails Edwards, Obama

By JEFF CARLTON
The Associated Press
Friday, July 27, 2007; 6:32 PM

DALLAS -- Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who has called Democrats "the party of losers," specifically criticized John Edwards and Barack Obama on Friday for their proposals on tax reform and diplomacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701918.html?hpid=sec-nation

[geek tragedy]

16. Joe Liebertoad also supports her in this fight. eom

[PATRICK]

19. Actions speak in concert with history

Prominent GOPers make no bones about throwing their support behind Tsongas or others in the past which is prologue to the same behavior now. Trashing and raising is part of the political game. The only thing now is whether propelling Hillary to the WH- possibly- in order to save the GOP in the long run is causing some conflict.

Tsongas. The press praised him for his issues performance, new ideas, and other stuff they normally don't understand feeding the typical thoughtful orientation of the Dem primary voter. The NYT even attacked Bill Clinton with a vengeance. Obviously they wanted a noble loser and to draw blood from the strong. Obviously the Dem flaws being magnified did not teach any of our guys too many lessons or Bill wouldn't have been a repeat sucker.

These people do NOTHING in isolation from the rest of their gang, the only exception being the secrecy and extreme criminality of the Bush inner circle- who filters and leads the talking points from the top. The top gang also controls the entire election and selection process one way or the other. Hagel, Gingrich have no permission to run. The final GOP old money dynasty coup against the useful conservative fools is complete. Hillary is permitted and the continued attacks on her are merely keeping the stage ready for possibly robbing us in November. Possibly, from our point of view, a decided fact for them unless something big changes.

Toying with the idea that this is otherwise is the hard case to make not the trusting the predictable lack of hardcore evidence of backroom plots. That the right is pimping up Hillary so that if she wins they can begin triangulating HER, is also an extremely certain fact.

Toying with the idea that Hillary's considerable campaign strength is THE ticket to success is still foolish wishing at this point. She has made no progress beyond the shallow, fragile, overall submission to her likelihood of taking it all- even as the inescapable fact she mathematically takes down a chunk of our hopes in the process- across the board from issues to winning Congressional seats is still undeniable. "Getting it" in America when it comes long after getting had cannot be the measure of proper judgment. Toss our wishful thinking and the sucker complex and trust reason and instinct. She is no Bill Clinton. That potential has been systematically torn out of her candidacy for many years. What is left, and it is strong, is supposed to be enough to keep Dem voters happy- or unaware. These negatives go unfairly far against her other considerations, but the fact is a whopper.

[Voltaire99]

9. Kissy-kissy: she makes me think of Rupert Murdoch in drag.

They don't love her on the right only because she has so much baggage, which is useful for attack ads.

They also love her politics. She's for the war. She's pro-outsourcing. She wants to cut corporate taxes. She resists reform. She advances empire, no matter what the cost in lives or treasure. Hell, she even used to be a Republican, back before the beauties of triangulation allowed her to call herself a Democrat.

Hillary represents a win-win for the right. They win if she becomes the nominee because they can trash her endlessly and possibly squeak past a Giuliani or Bloomberg, whom they'd be more comfortable with. But they even win if she wins the White House.

[rufus dog]

10. It sounds as if ..

you are insinuating she is a lot like a Republican, just not all the way there, maybe with few less calories or in a smaller serving, not quite as heavy. I am searching for the term.

[pokercat999]

14. Let me help....LITE

[TheWebHead]

11. of course the right wing echo chamber wants Hillary to win

the lifeblood for these guys on the right is to have a Dem president. That's how Rush built his ratings, that's how Faux News built up an audience. I doubt liberal radio could have took off in the '90s if they tried, they had to wait for a few years of a conservative president.

and secondly, they want Hillary because she's the corpratist DLC triangulating candidate who will ignore her base to appease moderate conservatives... Edwards or Obama would likely govern further to the left. anyone can see the intensity is on the left, the fundraising is on the left, the conservatives know that barring a miracle of circumstances, they'll lose next year so they would prefer to push Hillary now to ensure she's the Dem nominee.

frankly, I could see Limbaugh actually outline the case for Hillary knowing the republicans are not satisfied with any of their candidates and will lose next year, suggesting she's the best alternative to push until the general... plus it would put Rush back in the headlines.

[Forkboy]

12. Tell us something we don't already know...

"Hillary Clinton is our best shot to win the White House. That's pretty much consensus by Republican insiders.

[Perry Logan]

13. Darling-shmaling! I promise you, the right does not "want Hillary to win."

Of course they're going to tell you they want her to run! The wingers know she will win, and they're having nightmares about it every day.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Double reverse secret strategery!

Occam's blazer!

[roseBudd]

15. of course the Rs want to run against a candidate they know red staters are already trained to hate

With Hillary there is already a base of "will never vote fors" that the GOP will not have to manufacture hatred for, like they did John Kerry

The candidate that would strike fear in the GOPs heart is Wes Clark, who is a Jim Webb version 2.0 calibre candidate. No prehatred, a man's man who even southern white men will vote for. With impeccable military credentials. There will be no Swift Boating of Clark. Hell Clark is so straight laced he's never smoked pot. And the faux news sheep are already familiar with him.

But hey I just want to win more than anything. So we can begin to take our country back.