from Huff Po: "Hillary Is Bush's Ticket to Posterity" (Andrew Sullivan)

[mod mom]

Mods, this is posted on the front page of Huff Po with a link to Andrew Sullivan @ the Atlantic. I assume since Huff Po and The Atlantic are ok to link to I can quote Mr Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan: Hillary Is Bush's Ticket To Posterity

Quick Read | Share/Comment | Related
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/


Here is The Atlantic article by Andrew Sullivan


-snip

If Clinton is that comfortable with a permanent occupation of Iraq at this point in the election cycle, how comfortable do you think she's going to be next year? You think a politician so obsessed with gaining and wielding power is happy to relinquish any in the Middle East?

Patrick Ruffini draws the obvious conclusion:

Hillary is morphing into a George W. Bush Democrat. While that will draw heat from an increasingly desperate Obama, she will pay the price in the general election, not because she’s totally wrong, but because Democrat-inclined voters will smell something fishy about their gal acting like the one they’ve so long fantasized of kicking to the curb. And if she wins, the BushClintonBushClinton consensus will be back.

The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She'll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits.

-snip

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/queen-hillary-i.html




THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY DID TO CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (WATCH "AMERICAN BLACKOUT" IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT)-CROSSOVER TO MAKE SURE SHE IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

[truebrit71]

1. Just say NO to HRC!

.

[mod mom]

3. The DLC denies that Gore won in 2000. They didn't stand up for disenfranchised Dems in '04.

I believe they were afraid if Gore or Kerry won then HRC would not have a chance to run in '08.

Read these articles on Gore in 2000:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.

Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

YAAY RIGHT-GORE LOST! :eyes:

AND THIS ON KERRY'S REASON FOR CONCESSION (THANKS TO CLINTON CRONY JAMES CARVILLE):

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE CORPORATE MEDIA BACK THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTIONS AND THE POLICIES OF BUSH. NOW WE SEE HOW THEY ARE PUSHING HILLARY CLINTON. IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR PARTY AND NOT ALLOW THE CORPORATES FROM CHOOSING A LEADER!

[Ninga]

8. We have been taken to the cleaners by the bald headed stooge, sex trumps Kerry in '04.

No one should be one bit surprised that Carville gave it up.....he was busy feathering his nest for the '08 run, getting ready for those billable hours.


And we think this cast of characters will move the health care debate ahead...or move us out of Iraq......or move us out of the middle east away from more war????????

[mod mom]

17. He was pissed that Kerry didn't hire him so what would any good Dem do under those

circumstances? Rat out the strategy to his evil opponent. :sarcasm:

[blm]

22. Carville wasn't going to work for ANY Dem nominee in 2004 - he was already working

for Hillary2008, and he and Begala being the Dem voices and spokespeople on CNN from 2001-2006 was a big part of it.

[mod mom]

30. So in essense his goal was for Sen Kerry NOT to win because it would have tied

up the next 8 years. This supports what Bob Woodward says.

THANKS THE DLC FOR 4 MORE YEARS OF DEATH, DESTRUCTION + DEBT!

[blm]

33. Well, wasn't it odd lefty Dems had so little accurate representation of our views

from 2001-2006 on the national news networks?

They would throw us a few red meat morsels,every now and then, but the overall tone was NOT very substantive or especially oppositional. They should not have furthered the "I know Bush and he's a really nice guy" meme.

[Mme. Defarge]

12. Occam's Razor ...

This is the only explanation of '00 & '04 that makes sense to me. It's why I canged my voter registration to Independent and why I will not work for a Democratic candidate in '08. I would vote for Gore, Edwards, or Kucinich, but, at this point, I have no confidence that the leaders of the Democratic Party will support any candidate but Hillary, and I refuse to be their "useful idiot." Merde!.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[HeraldSquare212]

2. Executive Power

I also don't trust her to give up the expansive Executive Power that Bush has pushed for. I think Obama has agreed to some transparency requirements, so at least that's something from one of the candidates.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Yes, I suggest that it's the over-reaching power of "The Unitary Executive" that is the THREAT

not political parties. Do we want monarchs or a democratic republic? HRC will be "the new boss - same as the old boss." :scared:

[JTFrog]

28. That bush pushed for and she voted for. n/t

[Kolesar]

5. I get the thesis and rather agree with it, but the hyperbole is almost laughable

their gal acting like the one they’ve so long fantasized of kicking to the curb.

the BushClintonBushClinton consensus


both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades.

the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency.

And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia,

a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She'll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits.

[Ninga]

10. Yikes! I wish I could have written that...spot on!!

[Ninga]

11. On second thought....it's the hyperbole that gets us talking ...isn't it?

[Mme. Defarge]

6. From those wonderful people

who brought us NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act.

[Dr Fate]

19. The DLC also brought us their new, conservative 3rd party :Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) in CT.

Harold Ford openly endorsed him, and the Clintons personally campaigned for Joe tirelessly- while refusing to even set foot into CT to campaign for Lamont (D).

[Mme. Defarge]

7. Self-Delete

[Ninga]

9. K & R for some good debate.

[Maribelle]

13. Hillary Derangement Syndrome

Some excellent responses to this are found at another link:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/hillary-derange.html#more


You are missing or overlooking the essential point of Brooks' column: That Hil's popularity isn't just a DC establishment phenomenon, but supported by middle-income and working-class people who are the true base of the Dem Party.

Obama is Dean with charm and charisma: A darling of the educated elites, the Net savvy, the well-heeled who have the time and money to make Internet contributions. Dean got savaged in Iowa when "regular folks" came out to caucus. I suspect a similar fate for Obama.

[mod mom]

14. Why was only 1 Dem candidate given all 5 spots on Sunday news_answer: Corporate

Chosen.

She has the most name recognition and the media is pushing her very strongly-why? because the same folks who gave us W want HRC as a chance to take '08. They know a portion of progressive Dems will NOT SUPPORT her. They also know that she will bring out Republicans who might otherwise stay home. I would write in a candidate before I ever vote for a corporatist.

[tishaLA]

15. I don;t dislike Sen Clinton, but Sullivan is full of rubbish

about Obama supporters. DU just had a survey indicating that Sen Obama is getting MORE money from RURAL voters than any other candidate--including republicons. Are these rural folks supporting Sen Obama part of the educated elites and the well heeled?

Sully is as Washington insider at those he critiques and is best at reiterating conventional wisdom.

[Dr Fate]

18. Is the prediction in the article consistent with the DLC's support for the war and Lieberman ( I )?

So we are supposed to believe that once Hillary is elected, she will all of a sudden stop agreeing with the DLC and Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) on Iraq-and diverge sharply from their views?

I don't think the prediction in the article is all that outrageous- the DLC supports Bush and other conservative positions now- and they will likely continue to do so...

[eridani]

27. I'm middle income and working class

And I despise corporate appeasers. I despise the policy of turning Iraq into another Korea. I despise NAFTA, the Telecommunications act of 1996, and being forced to subsidize insurance companies who are into murder for profit.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Why am I suddenly being overwhelmed by the image

of Bush I & Slick Willie hanging out together? For a while there they were doing a real Odd Couple routine everywhere.

[oasis]

20. Sully's full of shit....as usual. (eom)

[truedelphi]

21. Both Bush Baby And Hillary Gal have things to hide and thus keep them in line

His consummated affair with Condi Rice and her "tainted blood of the prisoners of Arkansas"
scandal are perpetually in use to keep them in line.

[calteacherguy]

23. Complete tripe not worthy of the server space it occupies. nt

[Karmadillo]

24. Andrew Sullivan and Patrick Ruffini in the same post reeks of desperation.

Surely those who don't like Hillary can do better.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

25. Sullivan recently married & they make a very handsome couple.

I wish them the best & that is the last nice thing I'll ever say about that moran.

edited because SCIMBF.

[illinoisprogressive]

26. Sullivan has some really good insights.

[grasswire]

29. how can anyone call the Clintons a "royal family"??

Bill Clinton came from the most sordid American kind of home -- a violent home where his stepfather beat his mother. White trash. He earned his celebrated status through his own damned perseverance and grit. He exemplifies the American dream, but he is certainly not remotely royal. His wife, riding his coattails, is from a modest family.

Sullivan is perpetuating this false narrative. Bogus! Disinformation! Bushwah!

[Alamom]

31. Andrew Sullivan thinks Hillary gives him cooties and he is energized by

Obama. (In his own words.)


http://mediamatters.org/items/200701290006?src=rss-alert


On the January 28 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, discussing the potential 2008 presidential candidacies of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Time blogger Andrew Sullivan said "when I see ... all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves." Sullivan added that he considered Clinton a "very sensible senator," stated that it was "hard to disagree with her on the war," and admitted that he "actually her positions appealing in many ways." Nevertheless, he concluded: "I just can't stand her. I'm sorry about that."

[Totally Committed]

32. I HATE when a Republican can see what Democrats REFUSE to!

SAY NO TO HILLARY!

Just SAY NO!

TC

[Tom Joad]

34. A neo-con's pipe dream... a "choice" goolini and hillary.

Like a choice between firing squad and the gallows.