Posted on 07/26/2005 10:10:41 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.
Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.
The reaction highlighted the dilemma Democratic politicians face trying to satisfy energized activists on the left -- many of whom are hungering for party leaders to advance a more full-throated agenda and more aggressively confront President Bush -- while also cultivating the moderate Democrats and independents whose support is crucial to winning elections. The challenge has become more acute because of the power and importance grass-roots activists, symbolized by groups such as MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers, have assumed since the 2004 election.
The most pointed critique of Clinton came in one of the most influential blogs on the left, Daily Kos out of Berkeley, Calif., which called Clinton's speech "truly disappointing" and said she should not provide cover for an organization that often has instigated conflict within the party.
"If she wanted to give a speech to a centrist organization truly interested in bringing the various factions of the party together, she could've worked with NDN," the blog said in a reference to the New Democrat Network, with which Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas is associated. "Instead, she plans on working with the DLC to come up with some common party message yadda yadda yadda.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Dissing the far left moonbats is a pretty shrewd political move. Kinda scary really. Hill WILL be running in '08.
The clinton name is worshipped by the left.They will ALL support her for prez.
What isn't true?
I stated it wasn't certain she'd win the nomination.
It isn't.
I stated they don't like her.
They don't.
I also stated the calculation is that the hard left will suck it up and vote for anyway, as they did Kerry, which is your premise. I didn't deny that as a possibility, I only object to the idea it's a sealed result at this time.
I do object to the last of your statement. I don't fear Hillary, nor am I worried. She's an opponent with strengths and weaknesses, same as any candidate. Anyone that wins the primary of Rep and Dem has a 50/50 chance of winning so that isn't something unique to her.
If the DU croud would just leave the Democrats go form it own Communist Party.
What's Hillary going to do? Thumb her nose at the group that catapulted her husband to the White House?? Of COURSE she's going to suck up to the "moderates". That's the strategy that's worked before and will work again. She knows that. She's not stupid.
She's got to keep her message from sounding like Howard Dean - saying one day how the party needs to appeal to Christians then the next day bashing them as evil and hateful, then the next day saying how the party needs pro-lifers then the next day saying one shouldn't be on the Supreme Court...
Hillary is tacking in both directions too much as it is. If she wants her candidacy to be taken seriously, she needs to know that you can't be two-faced in the Lexis/Nexis era.
Especially, if Bush does nothing about securing the borders and a terror attack is attributed to the open border?
it worked for her husband....
I wonder if the Moveon crowd thinks that Hillary isn't far enough to the left?
scary thought.
Otherwise known as "the Democrat Party base".
I LOVE it when the dims eat their own! I hope they keep up the good work!
Yeah, but there were circumstances there that enabled him to win . . . people were displeased about the economy, 41's '92 campaign was dismal, the Perot factor, and however one feels about Bill Clinton, he had 'charisma', 'sex appeal' (bleh), whatever you want to call it, and good communication skills (or slickness, rather). Hillary lacks the last two, and can she count on the other factors--being present when she runs?
And algore got more votes then W and Kerry came very close to beating a wartime P with a decent economy. And kerry was a terrible cantidate. Watch the economy take a severe downturn, a terror attack from the southern border, bogged down in Iraq, the media cheering on helllary as JC himself, reps pissed at the party and I can easily see President satans daughter especially if the Bush administration keeps going against Israel. Its almost as if it is being planned this way. We better hope a great man steps up from the GOP ranks.
What do you mean angers left?
The left is perpetually angry no matter what; if it's not George Bush, it's Hillary Clinton, and anybody else who doesn't fan their fury and hatred. But is that a true political movement -- or just the self-association of the dysfunctional in this country now, the most visible of course, being columnists in the mainstream media.
Are we supposed to find them entertaining and informative? More and more they seem to be living remnants of life in the 20th century -- while most well-functioning people have transitioned into the 21st century. The main cause of their anger seems to be that the world is not returning to the 1960s so they can show us their collection of bell bottom pants and love beads they've saved for such a revival -- and saying, "I told you so."
There is no movement of the Left -- merely the delusions of the people time left behind.
Al Gore got more votes because of the last minute DUI stink bomb which had an undeniably adverse effect for Bush. And true, the crappy Kerry came close enough to victory, and while there was not the sort of discomfort with the economy that was present in '92, a good number of people weren't thrilled with it either. People weren't happy about other stuff as well--the Iraq "quagmire", WMD's not being found, rising gas prices, etc. Granted much of this negativity was media driven, and Bush had terrible press coverage while Kerry had favorable, but yet he still managed to win. Have faith.
Anybody who knows anything about the history or sociology of this country knows Americans are resistant to extremism -- left or right. The Democrats have lost the last two presidential elections because they thought the winning edge was moving towards the left instead of the middle. As long as they keep doing that, they'll continue to lose -- by bigger margins. The demographic shift of the USA is always towards the middle.
And that's why the mainstream media is losing its readership, and the schools and universities are losing their esteem, credibility and respect.
But should we tell that to these self-anointed geniuses?
Hey! Hillary just likes to keep her friends close..
And wants to keep the far left, "closer"...
>B-}
There are only subtle differences between the "Centrist Democrats" and "Elite Moonbat Division Democrats".
Centrist Democrats worship Michael Moore. The Elite Moonbat Division have their heads entirely embedded in the nether-regions of Micheal Moore's anatomy.
Other than that, the message is the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.