The left nips at Hillary after her move to the right (Dick Morris)

THE HILL ^ | 9.28.05 | Dick Morris

[Mia T]

September 28, 2005
The left nips at Hillary after her move to the right
Right after Election Day in November 2004, Bill and Hillary Clinton seemed to have reached certain conclusions. They appear to have decided that Hillary needed to stress religious values, hew to a hawkish position on the war on terrorism, remain steadfast in her support for the Iraq war and move to the center on a variety of issues, painting herself as a moderate. But circumstances have changed, and there is increasing evidence that the Clintons are realizing that they miscalculated in their November decisions. The George Bush of 41 percent approval in September 2005 is a far cry from the man who was reelected with more than 51 percent of the vote 10 months earlier. The endless casualties in Iraq, the inability to stop terrorist attacks in cities such as London and the high price of gasoline have all contributed to a swing to the left among the electorate and, especially, within the Democratic Party. The antiwar movement represents a real menace to Hillary's ability to win the nomination in 2008 and might even represent a sufficient threat to give her a primary in her pursuit of the Democratic nomination for Senate from New York in 2006. These folks, from Cindy Sheehan to the followers of Howard Dean, are not to be trifled with. Is Hillary looking a bit like Hubert Humphrey or Nelson Rockefeller did in the mid-'60s? Once the liberal darlings, they were increasingly forced by their pro-war positions into an adversarial relationship with their former political base. There is no doubt that strident antiwar spokespeople are capturing the hearts of the Democratic electorate. And, as in the '60s, the political leaders of the Democratic Party are dragging their heels in following the voices of their own voters. And, as in the '60s, new leaders who overtly echo the antiwar sentiment -- the latter-day equivalents of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern -- are likely to emerge from out of nowhere to take up the cause. So far, Hillary has tried to backfill the hole in her left flank by ancillary positions that skirt the central issue of the war. Her opposition to the confirmation of Judge Roberts and her vigorous criticism of Bush over his role in rescuing the victims of Hurricane Katrina are both examples of her move to the left. But, on the war, as reaffirmed in her meeting with Sheehan, there is no movement. Hillary is still a hawk. PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA by Mia T, 9.26.05 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio   But the stars do not align in favor of such a course for the prospective Democratic nominee for president. Antiwar sentiment will increase with each week's casualty lists. Bush is not going to give in, and the terrorists won't stop trying to create mayhem. If the Iraqi forces are ever able to replace U.S. troops, it will take quite a while for it to happen. (There is, after all, a reason that the minority Sunnis were able to impose their dictator on the rest of the country.) And politics abhors a vacuum. One can easily see a latter-day McCarthy challenging Hillary for the Democratic nomination and upending her in the early going. Who will it be? Will Dean step into the space, as he did in 2004? Or Al Gore? Or Joe Biden? Or some certifiably liberal senator? Or will someone from the movement itself -- a Sheehan -- come forth. In any event, Hillary is caught in a dilemma. If she moves to the left, she risks running afoul of the stereotype that a woman cannot be an effective wartime leader. She moves away from a Thatcher-esque image, which she will need to win the 2008 election. But if she leaves the left vacant, someone else will occupy the turf she has vacated and will give her fits in 2008, if not in her renomination run in 2006. Tough times at Chappaqua. Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

the inability to stop terrorist attacks in cities such as London

Dick, since when is Bush responsible for the security of the British Islands?

[WVNan]

Or will someone from the movement itself -- a Sheehan -- come forth

Dear Lord, Dick, don't give cindy any ideas. If she sees that remark she might get the idea that she is "famous" enough to actually be president.

[ladyinred]

Dick, (gee the name seems so fitting). The 41 % of the President wouldn't have anything to do with the vicious attacks 24/7 by the leftists, including Hillary would they? The Katrina crisis was NOT President Bush's fault in any way, shape, or form, and the deaths in Iraq are because we are at war. (get the concept?) All of these things are contrived by the left to destroy a popular President. They have the advantage of an evil and biased media to carry their lying messages to the public. (who are so dumbed down it is laughable if not so pathetic.)

[Bush gal in LA]

No, I don't want to give that idiot any ideas, though she's already floated the idea of running for Congress........Hubby just said he'd like to watch a presidential race between SIN SHE-HAM and Condaleeza Rice!

[WriteOn]

Wishful thinking on the part of Morris. Hillary is a shoe-in.

[Zrob]

when "nipping at heels", just look up for whats coming down your way ...

[frankjr]

I made the mistake of clicking on Bubba's middle finger in that pic. I watched that video and now I am going to have nightmares tonight.

[Savage Beast]

Dean? Gore? Biden? The Democrats might as well nominate Cindy Sheehan--or Minnie Mouse.

[Dan from Michigan]

I think Mark Warner is the man to beat.

[billnaz]

Shrillery is not making a "move to the right." She's trying to make it LOOK LIKE she's moving to the right. She's still the same radical bomb-throwing left-winger she's been ever since before she went to Well-lez-ley.

John F. Frankenkerry fooled a lot of people during last year's election campaign by making it look like he was moving ever-so-slightly to the center. Remember his phony photo-ops with guns? Shrillery's mission is to fool even more people than Frankenkerry did.

[strategofr]

"In any event, Hillary is caught in a dilemma. If she moves to the left, she risks running afoul of the stereotype that a woman cannot be an effective wartime leader. She moves away from a Thatcher-esque image, which she will need to win the 2008 election. But if she leaves the left vacant, someone else will occupy the turf she has vacated and will give her fits in 2008, if not in her renomination run in 2006."


There is no more chance of the part of the political spectrum to the left of Hillary being effectively occupied by someone else than there was of someone occupying the position to the left of Stalin. And for similar reasons.

The "fishyness" in the Democrat party at this time is way past the ordinary level of control by party insiders in America. The Democrat party has become part of the Left, hence, not really democratic anymore. Hillary is running it, in my opinion, via processes that are not visible to the public.

Not to say that she doesn't still have to deal with the voters to some extent in the Democratic primaries. But I beleive the MSM will virtually do her bidding, which makes her failure in the Democratic nomination unlikely. The only thing that could stop her, in my opinion, would be massive revelations of the malfeasance of the Clinton administration. Since the MSM won't do it, the only people who could do it would be the President, Senators, and Congreesmen. But is seems they don't want to.

[Graymatter]

Trying to picture the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and Hillary having a snowball's chance. All I can see is Dean with that swallowed-a-bug look on his face, trying to explain what went wrong.
And she doesn't have Dean's charisma. ;)

[nuclady]

I agree with you. I disagree that Hitllary will EVER be elected. She is very predictable in her "unpredictability." She wants to be known as a hawk, but she has to pander to her left-wing money grubbers. So what. I'm not afraid of the Dems.... bring it on!!!!!

[Dustbunny]

Must be getting close to election time, Dick is now moving in the direction of the left.

[Cincinna]

HILLARY METER.... NEGATIVES RISING

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

The Hillary Meter is a twice monthly measure of Senator Hillary Clinton's effort to move to the political center. The next update is scheduled for Wednesday, October 5. For as long as the former First Lady is a viable candidate for the White House, Rasmussen Reports will monitor public perceptions of her political ideology.

The latest Rasmussen Reports Hillary Meter poll finds that 38% will definitely vote against her.

Clinton's gains come as she is seen moving closer to the political center. Forty-two percent (42%) now say that Clinton is politically liberal. That matches the lowest liberal rating ever recorded by the Hillary Meter (review trends). In January, 51% viewed Clinton as politically liberal.

Thirty-three percent (33%) now view her as politically moderate while 9% say she is a conservative.

Collectively, today’s Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 50 points to the left of the nation's political center. Two weeks ago, she was 57 points to the left of center.

[Mia T]

"Commander-in-Chief" Mackenzie Allen is a carefully crafted Condi-Rice clone. She is not hillary clinton. Indeed, she is specifically antihillary.

This can mean only one thing: hillary clinton and her agitprop machine have determined that missus clinton, the construct, is unelectable.

Why ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" is a Condi Rice clone
Mia T, 9.28.05

[jmaroneps37]

I've tried. I really have, but I just can't take Little Dick Morris seriously. If he was around at the time he would have bet the Japanese in WW II.

[johnny7]

From what I'm seeing on the left, Feingold may shape up to be the 'McCarthy' of the Dem party.

The MoveOn.org/Daily Kos-types aren't rabid at all for 'ol piano-legs and they are now the majority of the party in numbers... and in gelt. They wanted Dean, but were 'persuaded'(by the Dean-Scream) to back stiff'n'stodgy Kerry. They will NOT be so pliable the next go-round.

The more Hillary's forced to appeal to the kooks(the new base)... the more she offends the majority of voters.

Her only chance of winning is much like her rapist partners way... A THREE-WAY RACE.

[Mia T]

There is no more chance of the part of the political spectrum to the left of Hillary being effectively occupied by someone else than there was of someone occupying the position to the left of Stalin. And for similar reasons.

The "fishyness" in the Democrat party at this time is way past the ordinary level of control by party insiders in America. The Democrat party has become part of the Left, hence, not really democratic anymore. Hillary is running it, in my opinion, via processes that are not visible to the public.

Not to say that she doesn't still have to deal with the voters to some extent in the Democratic primaries. But I beleive the MSM will virtually do her bidding, which makes her failure in the Democratic nomination unlikely. The only thing that could stop her, in my opinion, would be massive revelations of the malfeasance of the Clinton administration. Since the MSM won't do it, the only people who could do it would be the President, Senators, and Congreesmen. But is seems they don't want to.

strategofr

 

This southern strategy would be laughable but for Bush "benevolence." By propping up the clintons once again in their most smarmy elder-statesman / humanitarian pose, the Bushes continue to abet these two dangerous demagogues in their various revisionist, White House and Constitutional assaults.

(Believe it or not, even lovely Laura is complicit. She and the disgrace ex-president are scheduled this Fall to do some book thing or other in Texas.) The Bushes seem not to notice that posture is not character, and that the disarming is always unilateral....

The clintons failed utterly for eight years because they put provincial self-interest, dishonor, and personal and public corruption above loyalty to country. If the Bushes fail, it will be because they put patrician sensibilities, misplaced honor and personal loyalties above loyalty to country.

The clintons are working under the assumption that Katrina will do for them what 9/11 did for Bush, forgetting that it was their utter failure that 'gave' Bush 9/11 in the first place. Judging by his speeches in New Orleans and at the Pentagon, I doubt that President Bush will return the favor.

(Unfortunately, Bush couldn't resist watering down the truth with a dose of 'new tone.' In a tortured show of 'nonpartisanship,' he confounded the issue by 'erroneously' inserting Ronald Reagan into the terror mix.) When assessing blame for the terror failure, the clintons are uniquely culpable. It was only during the clintons' watch that bin Laden repeatedly declared war on America and committed acts of war against America. While the clintons said and did nothing.

PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA
Mia T, 9.26.05

Regarding control:

"Fishiness" extends beyond the Democrats. Why are the Bushes aiding and abetting the clintons? Who is controlling whom?

As for the Democrats and control:

Question: The Democrats' own personal ambitions aside, why do they support CLINTON: THE SEQUEL?

Answer: They don't.

The Stalinist aesthetic appears to be alive and well in America.



THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election
The Progressive Review

... But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48

- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8

- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11

- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998

- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9

- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998

- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3