Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Stopping Hillary from the left?

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 24, 2007

More like firming her up with the center. Here’s a strategy that may just propel Hillary Clinton to the White House : Ads by nutroots making her out to be a right-wing tool:

A newly formed political action committee is aiming to stop Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary by calling into question her progressive credentials.”We think there are other Democratic presidential candidates who are both more progressive and have a better chance of beating the Republicans than she does,” said the president of Democratic Courage, Glenn Hurowitz.

He declined to tip his hand on the group’s case against Clinton, but said the PAC plans a paid media campaign in the early primary states to make its position clear.

“We’ll definitely have sufficient resources to make a significant media buy,” he said, adding that their campaign against Clinton would be “edgy” enough to get attention. “We don’t need to raise an immense amount of money to make a big difference.”

Shoring up Hillary’s foreign policy credentials with the key middlin’ vote? If they had a Karl Rove on th’ other side, he’d be behind this one.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Stopping Hillary from the left?”

  1. There will be so few Republican voters in 2008, Xtian poll observers will wonder if they were passed over during the Rapture.
    .

  2. Ara Rubyan said

    The more her opponents (in both parties) talk about her, the stronger she gets.

  3. Jeffraham, that’s quite a prediction for a catblogger!

  4. I think Hillary personifies the “anybody but” mode of thinking…the idea that it doesn’t matter who that person is, how shady their politics are, as long as it’s “anybody but” Bush (translated Republicans…that’s a great stigma to bear)…Democrats will vote for them. It’s interesting, because in my experience (relatively shortlived as it is) Democrats obtain their positions by contrast…by defining what they aren’t, as opposed to defining what they are. Sometime I wonder where the Democratic party would be without their reflexive reaction to proactive thinking on the right…without Republicans, how would they be able to articulate their views?

  5. Ara Rubyan said

    I hear you. I felt the same way, too — and I’m a Democrat. But after watching the current group of candidates (on both sides) I’m encouraged by a couple of things that Democrats do stand for: restoring our standing abroad and preserving, protecting and defending the US Constitution. I think people are hungry for that.

    Now I realize that Republicans have their list of “for’s” — strong defense, tax cuts and family values, e.g., Reagan Redux. The problem for them is that we’ve been there and done that.

    So I expect them to put up a candidate who can excite fear in the population, e.g., Rudy Giuliani. He’s going to be a tough candidate to defeat because his opponents are continuing to over-estimate the power of hypocrisy as an exclusionary factor. Sure, Giuliani doesn’t represent family values. But that is more than balanced off by his strong appeal to law and order at home and crushing “islamofascism” abroad. The base loves that kind of talk because they recognize it for what it really is.

    In other words, the base is about race.

  6. Ara Rubyan said

    P.S. You watch: next fall, Giuliani will be running ads showing Hillary and Al Sharpton smiling and singing kumbaya.

    You know it’s coming.

  7. While I can see where you’re coming from Ara, with what you listed as what the Democrats stand for is an abstract…”restoring standing abroad”…with whom? As far as I know, our standing is pretty good with England, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, among others. The “restoring standing” could also be stated as “trying to get people to like us”…and while that may be noble in the defining one’s self worth as limited to what others view us as…I don’t see how it improves my life, economically or otherwise.

    What’s wrong with Fear? I don’t understand the left’s preoccupation with fear…healthy fear is what keeps us from standing too close to that cliff.

  8. Ara said

    Turkey? Turkey?? You’re kidding right? They think we suck — AND they’re afraid of us.

    And it’s not so good anywhere else either.

    But let’s agree, for a moment, that we don’t care. That (like you say) it is better to be feared than to be loved.

    The only reason any of this matters is if that fear (or the love) would produce some sort of order in the world.

    Do you actually believe that is happening? Anywhere?

  9. I was thinking governments in regard to the list…shoot, by your standards, 85% of Liberals would qualify as thinking we suck (fabricated statistic), depending of course on who is in power. Must be tough having patriotism tied to a person instead of a country.

    I never said it is better to be feared than loved. I just don’t understand this preoccupation with getting some sort of parental figure to tell us that we’re okay, and what we’re doing deserves a gold star from daddy (whether that be the UN or some European intellectual excusing Stalin in his latest Sun Times editorial). I always thought it was up to the American people to decide what’s good for America, regardless of what Justice Breyer says.

    As much pooh-poohing as people do about the declining world this or that. Do you really think that we’re worse off now that we were 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100? Every year I hear people say that it just keeps getting worse..except…people live longer, healthier lives with more freedom now than any time in history. What qualifies this as being not good?

    Though I have to admit it’s cool to see many liberal benchmark countries electing conservatives that are openly pro America. Being pro-America really has to chap the hide of the left…what will they talk about at their dinner parties now?

  10. Ara said

    I just don’t understand this preoccupation with getting some sort of parental figure to tell us that we’re okay

    If that’s all it was, I’d be with you. But it’s not — it’s about getting things done by working with other people. Have you ever served on a board? Worked in a committee? Made a sales call? If you have, then you know what I’m talking about.

    I always thought it was up to the American people to decide what’s good for America…

    Two thoughts: the American people HAVE decided what’s good for America: end the Iraq occupation. But our representatives in Washington can’t seem to get that accomplished.

    But even if our reps work in concert with us, we can’t just decide that what’s good for us is to pre-emptively invade another country to bring democracy to them at the end of a gun barrel.

  11. “If that’s all it was, I’d be with you. But it’s not — it’s about getting things done by working with other people. Have you ever served on a board? Worked in a committee? Made a sales call? If you have, then you know what I’m talking about. ”

    Of course…but as an employee for Computer Company A, I didn’t meet at summits with Computer Company B to decide how to run my business…because chances are, Computer Company B isn’t thinking about what’s good for me.

  12. Ara Rubyan said

    In the situations I mentioned, you try to figure out a way to bring about a win-win situation. That’s always your first choice. If you want to be successful, that is.

  13. I understand that, but as altruistic as a meeting of the minds might be…can you guarantee that the other side thinks the same way? Whether that be nuclear talks with Korea, or “stop the killing” talks with leaders in the Sudan…while a win/win certainly has it’s perks, but there’s a fine line between idealism and naivete…an “everyone is a winner” scenario only seems to work with the current strain of Elementary school sports. Everyone can make succeed…but in my experience, one person walks away with the gold.

  14. Apologizing for current grammar skills…”Everyone can make succeed”…there’s a little bit o’ brilliance for you. I should put down my rapier on that statement alone.

  15. Ara Rubyan said

    in my experience, one person walks away with the gold.

    This is true in certain (but not all) sports. For example, in the ancient sports of diplomacy and negotiation, it is not true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: