Hillary's secret weapon ... Republican guards

[emad]

Hillary's secret weapon ... Republican guards
Sarah Baxter, Washington



POLITICIANS are used to being accompanied by bodyguards. Hillary Clinton has an extra shield: a Republican guard protecting her from accusations that she is too left-wing. Her mission to persuade voters that she is centrist enough to become president in 2008 depends on the company she keeps.

Clinton, a Democrat senator for New York, rarely takes a step in public or a policy initiative without being surrounded by Republicans. It is disarming her opponents and helping to polish her image as a moderate with a realistic prospect of winning the White House.

Clinton spent last week in “baked Alaska”, which has been experiencing record high temperatures, to investigate one of the left’s favourite causes, global warming. Her travelling companions were three Republican senators: John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins.

Together they agreed, in the words of McCain, that there was “overwhelming scientific evidence” of climate change and that “human activities play a very large role”. All Clinton had to do was concur. It is as if they are “dating”, said one cynical television news anchor.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1743337,00.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. Evidently, Graham and she are good buddies.

Republicans have consistently been surprised by her 'plays well with others' skills.

Why Collins - and Snowe and Chafee - are Republicans is lost on me.

[billbuckhead]

6. The Clinton brand name is far stronger than the Democratic party

I think she's the only Dem who can win.

[Clark2008]

12. Uh, not a chance in hell.

She will flip no red states and possibly will turn a blue state or two to red.

She has too much baggage.

[election_2004]

23. Yeah, that's a good reason to give someone the White House...

Spare me. :eyes:

[Alcibiades]

26. Ah, but branding depends upon the product

Would I buy "Clinton Beer," "Clinton BBQ," "Clinton Stain Remover," or even "Clinton Cookies?" Sure.

But as far as politics goes, the Democratic Party has a pedigree that goes back to Jefferson, and the Clintons go back to Arkansas. A lot of people like Hillary, but she has many enemies. If nothing else, the last elections should have told us not to run someone with a dedicated band of people who hate him and will stop at nothing to stop him.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Will those Clintons never learn?

Did it help Bill Clinton to appoint Louis Freeh? Did it help to have disloyal state troopers around him when he was in Arkansas? I mean, what are they thinking?

[emad]

5. If she runs in 2008 it won't be against Dumbass. Maybe

Jeb? In any case she isn't pitting against the Bush Admin too much because they're no real threat to her. Or at least that's the advice she's getting from her crew.

[Toots]

13. So you don't think it helps to have three major Republicans admit outright

the Global warming is real and all evidence points to human activity as it's cause? Sometimes people's hatred for the Clinton's blinds them to beneficial events.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Hatred for the Clintons?

Oh, I won't take that one on the chin. In 1998 when he was impeached I wrote an article defending Clinton and it was posted in a very prominent online journal. In fact, I've defended the Clintons for so long, even chiding the Dems for allowing him to weather the storm alone, that I think I've earned the right to criticize him/them when I think he/they are falling in the same trap.

And that's what I'm saying. Maybe it's time for them to determine who their friends really are, and maybe you should pay closer attention as to who they pick.

[Totally Committed]

15. I have never hated the Clintons.

That having been said, in light of Bill's cozying up to Pappy Bush and Hillary cozying up to not only the DLC, but Republicans (Newt Gingrich, most notably), I no longer feel I can trust them to have the best interests of all Americans at heart. (And, no one is sorrier than I am about this turn of events.)

They are brilliant. They are savvy. And, they are relentlessly ambitious. I just don't feel I can trust them any longer.

On edit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2022466&mesg_id=2023057

[Pepperbelly]

18. How can it POSSIBLY be bad for some on the right to admit to CC?

And to agree to the exacerbation of same from human activity?

Wake up.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Read the article very carefully.

It's not just about "CC." This is about a method of triangulation that the Clintons used in the 90s, that also backfired on them. I just hope that they've learned how to harness the weapon. Like, they better be sure it's not pointed at them when these Republicans offer to clean it for them.

[Pepperbelly]

22. No, YOU should look more carefully before swallowing gop lies.

Look at this other article written by the same Sarah Baxter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1312869_1,00.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Sorry to disagree with you. I was paying attention in the 90s and

saw the train wreck unfold. And I'm telling you that this article indicates that the Clintons plan to (s)triangulate themselves again.

Let me put it in bold:

POLITICIANS are used to being accompanied by bodyguards. Hillary Clinton has an extra shield: a Republican guard protecting her from accusations that she is too left-wing. Her mission to persuade voters that she is centrist enough to become president in 2008 depends on the company she keeps.

This is not a lie, Pepperbelly. They did it before. I even defended them when they did it. Clinton was originally elected in 1992. There was gridlock. Nothing was getting passed but he did try to push two Dem platforms in those first two years which bit him in the ass. He pushed for Gay Rights and for Universal Health. The right-wingers made mincemeat out of him and Hillary. In 1994 the Gingrich revolution came in and it was a defining moment. It proved that there was a political group galvanizing against Clinton and against Liberalism. That's when Clinton started to triangulate, started to read polls because he knew his future was uncertain. And I support him because I was also convinced it was the only way that we could be sure to keep a Dem president in 1996.

The Clintons started to become Centrist from 1994 onward and they began to appoint Republicans to important positions. Two things happened because of that: First it pissed off his base. The Dems, particularly the libs, started to withdraw their support from the Clintons. And, when the right-wing conspirators started their Richard Mellon Scaife inspired attacks, not only was there no one to defend him (Because you know that dems like Lieberman were only too happy to see Liberalism falter), but the appointed Republicans he put in critical positions, allowed partisanship to cloud their judgment. Louis Freeh probably was guilty of more than turning a blind eye.

So, do I believe that Hillary is courting the right? Yep, I do. It wouldn't be the first time, as I pointed out.

Basically, until I see some strong unified demand from the Dems to investigate what has happened to our country in the last ten years, I will forever wonder if there are behind the door deals being made between the two parties.

[Pepperbelly]

25. I , too, paid very close attention and know better than to allow ...

Bush supporters define my party's candidates.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Well we shall see what transpires.

Clinton's call for 80,000 more soldiers doesn't bode well, though I recall that Kerry asked for relatively the same number. We shall see.

[karynnj]

19. These 3 have always been good on the environment

I think they were concerned with global watming and this is not a new position for any of them. (McCain was a co-sponsor on a Senate amendment to the energy bill addressing global warnming. Why frame this as the Clintons pulling them to this position? If Hillary were not there the story would be the same.

[hlthe2b]

3. ha, ha, ha!

"All Clinton had to do was concur. its as if they are 'dating,' said one cynical tv news anchor.."

That is how it sounds......:eyes:

[niallmac]

4. oh goody

[Totally Committed]

7. Bush (HW), Clinton (Bill), Bush (GW), Clinton (HR), Bush (Jeb)

I've heard the conspiracy theory that these two families have agreed to pass the mantle back and forth for years, too. Is this story part of that "theory"? It does make one wonder.

Will Chelsea be old enough to run in 18 years? If so, the family dynasties thing could really get some traction. :tinfoilhat:

Personally, I just think Hillary is giving her inner "Goldwater Girl" a chance to come out.

[Dover]

8. The Clintons ARE centrists. There is very little that is 'left wing'

about either Hillary or Bill. And Bill is the leader of the DLC, which touts itself as "left center", but his policies during his presidency were closer to 'right center' in many cases.

From the DLC:

After 15 years, the New Democratic project has succeeded to the degree that one defeat will not destroy it. Capitalizing on political defeat and emerging socioeconomic trends, the DLC and the New Democrats have offered the most durable and sustained effort to oppose the dominant liberal faction of their party. Establishing themselves outside of the party, guided by able policy entrepreneurs, and following a strategy that played to their faction's strengths, they have united the groups in the Democratic Party that disagreed with the party's dominant liberal philosophy into a potent intra-party force. Outside of the party, the New Democrat philosophy and policy agenda are now major factors in national debates on issues ranging from entitlement reform to law enforcement to education. Moreover, the DLC's philosophy can attract swing voters in competitive districts and states, the key to any hope the party has for recapturing the House and Senate.

Ultimately, it is success in winning such offices, plus a continuing hold on the presidency, that will institutionalize the New Democrat philosophy further. And with each victory, it will be harder and harder to return to the liberalism that preceded it.


Read on:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

[William769]

10. Yep centrists

What Hillary tried to do with Health care is Centrist. :eyes:

[Gyre]

16. "Centrist" =s establishment

"establishment" =s status quo business as usual. DLC =s loser/centrists who refuse to step aside because they don't want to work for a living like the rest of us. So they're relatively happy being the minority party =s 0 substantive challenge to the existing power players =s nodding in agreement with repiglicans hell-bent on raping America. DLC=traitors within, pretending civility is more important than truth.

Gyre

[hnsez]

9. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggh! Wish Dean was in the postion Hilliary is in. >:|

[flpoljunkie]

11. Sully neglect to mention Hadley took responsiblity for allowing 16 words

in Dubya's prewar SOTU speech in January, 2003--you know, the uranium from Africa bullsh*t lie.

Surely, Sully is aware of Hadley's role in the Iraq WMD lies.

[karynnj]

17. In the heat of politics, McCain will be gone

McCain did not let what was by most accounts a longer term, valued friendship with John Kerry stop him from campaigning for and with a man he had every reason to hate. If he and Hillary are the candidates (and as rumoured he gets Rove), he will certainly fight her in what has become the Republican way.

If he isn't, it is likely that McCain will have a better relationship with the Republican candidate than he has with Bush. Also, it is likely that he genuinely was closer to Kerry than to Hillary. So, why would he protect Hillary?

[Eric J in MN]

21. Excaclty. John McCain didn't help Kerry, and won't help Hillary Clinton.

nt