Do you recognize yourself in this NYT article about Hillary?

[oxbow]

Specifically, in this section about her detractors on the left:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?pagewanted=5&8hpib

What Dean's candidacy brought into the open, however, was another kind of growing and powerful tension in Democratic politics that had little to do with ideology. Activists often describe this divide as being between "insiders" and "outsiders," but the best description I've heard came from Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic operative who runs the advocacy group N.D.N. (formerly New Democrat Network), which sprang from Clintonian centrism of the early 1990's. As Rosenberg explained it, the party is currently riven between its "governing class" and its "activist class." The former includes the establishment types who populate Washington - politicians, interest groups, consultants and policy makers. The second comprises "Net roots" Democrats on the local level; that is, grass-roots Democrats, many of whom were inspired by Dean and who connect to politics primarily online, through blogs or Web-based activist groups like MoveOn.org. The argument between the camps isn't about policy so much as about tactics, and a lot of Democrats in Washington don't even seem to know it's happening.

The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern. The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas. Instead, the party should dedicate itself to winning local elections and killing each new Republican proposal that comes down the track. To the activist class, trying to cut deals with Republicans is tantamount to appeasement. In fact, Rosenberg, an emerging champion of the activist class, told me, pointing to my notebook: "You have to use the word 'appease.' You have to use it. Because this is like Neville Chamberlain."

This is an ominous development for Hillary Clinton, because the activists' attack on the party hierarchy is a direct and long-simmering reaction to the Clintonism of the 90's and the "third way" instinct of the D.L.C. Hillary herself remains popular, and she often goes out of her way to reassert her partisan credentials; at a June fund-raiser, for instance, she lashed out at the Republicans for not being "acquainted with the truth" and told her supporters, "We can't ever, ever give in to the Republican agenda." More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of New Orleans, Clinton jumped from one television show to another to denounce the Bush administration as inept - a public stand, she surely knew, that would resonate with online activists who were demanding a more combative response to the crisis from Democratic leaders. Even so, the more Clinton teams up with her Republican colleagues and appears to move closer to them on social issues, the harder it will become to keep a foot on each side of this new intraparty divide.

How closely does this describe the net-activists, as they like to call us? I would not vote for Hillary in the primary, and perhaps not even in the Presidential race, but this article has helped me see her in a more 3-d way. She had a fairly conservative upbringing, and may have painted herself as more socially progressive than she really is as the first Lady. Is this a mischaracterization, or would other people following her career agree?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I'd vote

for her if she is nominated, but she wouldn't be my preference.

[lcordero2]

2. biggest heap of steaming shit that i have ever seen

"The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern."

We got sold out into poverty for the rest of our natural lives by them and they have the GALL to call it governing.

[bahrbearian]

3. LOL

[oxbow]

4. Yes that bit bothered me as well

Is it governing to aid and abet the undermining of our republic? To help destroy our environment and wage Bush's foolish war? I think not. There is a time for politics and a time to take a stand. And while I can respect Mrs. Clinton's conservative beliefs, I could never ever support this war or the business-class elite as she does

[expatriot]

5. the article is biased, but DU is at groundzero of this discussion.

the "A list blogs" are of course are priceless in getting out the message of the Net roots but DU is the groundzero of egalitarian discussion between the Net roots.

on edit: when the Republicans are unwilling to compromise it is called STRENGTH.

[firefox]

6. Screw Hillary

No amount of selling is going to make Hillary acceptable to me and it is true for any drug warrior or Empire builder that thinks we need to stay in Iraq.

The PTB are going to want to sell there fascist representative to keep the train rolling. So, am I saying Hillary is a fascist? Well, she is close enough to me. What we need is people addressing fascism in the way that communist were hunted in the 50s.

My key issue is American fascism. So if the Democratic Party does not want to address fascism, the only choice is to find someone who does and support him. Hillary as a nominee is a reason to not vote for any Democrat for office.

Here we have yet another thoughtherding piece trying to hold everyone's thinking in the box. Sure I am doing thoughtherding, but my message is simple- It is time to war on the fascists.

[nvliberal]

14. And NOT voting for Hillary, if she's the nominee,

IS a vote for fascism.

Sorry, third-party nonsense doesn't cut it in this country.

[lcordero2]

15. AND voting for her is a vote for fascism

corporatism=fascism

[AJH032]

33. sure...

she favors raising corporate taxes and opposes CAFTA. How corporatist of her...

[mhr]

7. She Supported Bush And The War - Will Never Get My Vote

eom

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. I disagree in that I believe it is about BOTH policy and tactics

I think the whole move to the center by the Dems and the DLC encouraged and almost forced the move to the far right by the Republicans and the move to the father left by many Democrats. We have to be different or there is no point in having 2 parties. And the choice has to be more relevant than Miller or Miller Lite.

Hillary's dilemma is like the famous cartoon that shows a skier meeting a tree and you can see one ski track in one direction and one ski track in the other until they meet on the other side of the tree. That is only possible in cartoons although centrist Dems try this feat all the time. There are some issues that are truly divisive and you at some point have to come down on one side or the other. The most famous failed policy of the centrist Dems and Clinton was the Gays in the military issue - they tried to please everyone, pleased no one and ended up with don't-ask don't-tell.

I think one way out of the most divisive issues in the country is to fall back on states rights to decide some of the more pressing social issues. If Kansas want to teach Intelligent design and throw themselves out of the circle of advanced scientific advancement, so be it. Any highly technical company would know not to build facilities in a state that denies science in favor of faith. Kansas can manufacture Pat Robertson's power shakes and some other state can do stem cell research and save lives.

If some states choose to deny civil rights to homosexuals, fine. Homosexuals will know to move to the more tolerant states and spend their lives and incomes and expertise and art there. The states that frown on homosexuals can keep their stupid laws and watch themselves become Buffalo Commons. I think it would be great if some States allowed abortion - BUT ONLY TO THEIR RESIDENTS. I would hate for some red-stater to be doomed to eternal damnation by crossing a state line and obtaining something their righteous state would not allow.

Let's ALL start walking the walk and talking the talk.

[papau]

9. It's a mischaracterization of Hillary in the only area I have personal

knowledge.

In the Heath care debate at the beginning of Bill Clinton's term, it was Hillary that pushed for a Canadian like system with single payer, and it was our job (the insurance folks helping the Capitol Hill lobbyists) to stop Hillary and to convince Bill that he was correct to trust the insurance industry when we promised that if Bill stopped Hillary, we the insurance industry would endorse - or at least not fight - the complicated HMO idea that we fed him.

As in 73 with Nixon we lied on being OK with a National Health Plan (in 73 the industry promised no opposition to single payer, so as to advance Nixon's ability to stay as President).

So it was Hillary pushing single payer - I do not know if that makes her more to the left, or just more logical (the medical savings do not exist until we go National Health single payer - the current Academy of Actuaries Sept 2005 "Actuarial Update" lead article is a discussion about how pointless is the Bush/GOP health risk pooling idea if the goal is to lower costs.)

I am beginning to equate logical with "left", so perhaps Hillary is "left".

:toast:

:-)

[jonnyblitz]

16. hillary's health plan was NOT single payer. it was

referred to as "managed" care. if you google 'Hillary and single payer health care" you will come up with various articles that state her plan wasn't single payer. Single payer was introduced by jim Mcdermott in 1993 but" Hillary Clinton already had dismissed single payer". The wingnuts were exaggerating and calling her plan }socialized medicine" but those on the left were complaining it didn't go far enough and it was a bonanza for insurance companies. I can remember this at the time. when you said she advocated single payer alarms went off in my head and I knew it wasn't right.

here is one article for example:

The Restricted Debate Over Health Care Reform
Hillary vs. Insurers (FAIR EXRA)

<snip>
The introduction by Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash.) of a single-payer bill in March 1993 was largely ignored. ABC World News Tonight, in fact, has run only one story (6/23/93) that even mentioned single-payer since the beginning of 1993--a political report pointing out that Hillary Rodham Clinton had already dismissed single-payer, but needed to shore up her support among single-payer advocates.
<snip
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1221

[papau]

27. Wrong - Hillary's plan was single payer - the taskforce plan that

Hillary presented to Bill was an HMO variation that preserved all the costs of the insurance industry including their profits. But Bill had stopped the single payer at the beginning of the game.

The taskforce plan was chaired by Hillary - but we - the insurance industry - had Bill's ear, and encouraged Bill to veto the direction that Hillary wanted to take - namely single payer - and to guide Hillary and her task force to the HMO design.

I can still recall a dinner in Washington where the joke that was being celebrated was how serious we had got Bill Clinton in his expressing his distaste for single payer at this time. It was a bit of a "victory" dinner. At the time I did not know about the plan to Harry and Louise and defeat the HMO variation and I thought we the industry were behind an expensive version of National Health. I had forgot how the industry had lied to Nixon in 73 before pulling its support for National Health Care at that time (I was an actuary back in 73 but I did not work in this area).

"Hillary Rodham Clinton had already dismissed single-payer" - True - but that was not the real game - indeed the game was over when we - the insurance industry - were able to kill Rep. McDermott's bill (which was actually dead a month before it was introduced) and were able to get Bill to tell Hillary no way for single payer this round.

[Cocoa]

10. this is a surprisingly good article

an informative article about Hillary Clinton is pretty rare. I recommend people read the whole thing. :thumbsup:

[Ken Burch]

11. This idiot thinks activists want the party to "Eschew New Proposals..."

...and big ideas"? Say WHAT?

I thought we were the ones who wanted the party to COME UP WITH NEW PROPOSALS AND BIG IDEAS.

Silly me.

And how is it "a big idea" to sell out to the Republicans and have proposals that are more conservative than progressives?

We, the "outsiders", want to win the arguement, win the elections and create a progressive future. The "insiders" just want to do lunch with Dubya, Frist and Hastert. They don't actually CARE if we ever win the presidency or control of Congress ever again. They're happy with the way things are right now. That's why our beloved "insiders" always have those smug grins on their faces. They want to be establishment, and if that means being a junior partner in a national right-center right coalition, they're fine with that. Just means the lunch will be at better restaurants and they get to wear fancier suits.

The truth is, as the "outsiders" know, compromise with Republicans leads to nothing but defeat. 2000 and 2004 proved that.

[Cappadonna]

12. The Sad Reality is How truth it is on Both Sides..................

Yes, the Clintonian Centrist sell us out like cheap whores in Spanish Harlem. But, the so-called "Net Class" simply do not know how to win elections and govern. Why should the DLC be loyal to us? We don't have a cohesive strategy, we aren't willing to challenge them at the local level, and aren't willing to support them if they're not perfectly goosestepping to our ideals.

The main reason the tony Wall Street crowd in the RNC let the religious creeps have say is because they know that the Pat Robertson/James Dobson cabal could elect a turnip is they convinced people that the human was for gay marriage. Squeaky wheels and oil, people.

I've always been of the opinion that the Clintons of the world run the Democratic Party and dominate "left" politics because the Ralph Naders and Noam Chomskys of the world don't have their shit together. We pull boneheaded moves and wonder why no one takes us seriously. For evey Cindy Sheehan-- there's a Nader for President. If we don't get our way (like the fight over partial birth abortion) we either cower or pout and take our ball home.


We as progressives how need to build an intelligent, pro-democracy strategy and make realistic plans to win. It took alot of planning and smarts for the Wingnuts to take over America. Its going to take just as much planning to fight against them.


I'm preparing to be flamed, but atleast it will get people thinking.

[oxbow]

22. I agree with you

I don't think we need to kow-tow to Democrat-lites though to win an election. We just need to get our shit together here at the roots to start playing in the big leagues. I'm glad you talked about having realistic goals. We can't shoot for the moon straight off. We have to be sensitive to the cultural landscape that we live in and move at a moderate, yet constant pace towards our goals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. It's a mischaracterization of "activists" more than anything!

"The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas."

What is this writer smoking? The "Net roots" group wants the Dems to get busy on new proposals and big ideas instead of just reacting to the Republicans.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

17. you're right - that is the biggest crop of bs going. Really!

talk about misinformation! Some of the BIGGEST proposals and ideas are coming from the net roots. Don't you hate reading articles that seem like they're written by your 25 year old never-all-that-bright-anyway niece?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Minority Party? Ha! Now Democrats are the majority party! Act like it!

[renie408]

19. I am not really that grass roots person they are talking about and

I think this is bullshit. It IS about policy. This isn't about semantics.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Governing class? Try CORPORATIST class

They are NOT governing. They are selling out and singing Kumbayah while literal Nazis (and sons & grandsons of Nazis)destroy our Constitution and government.

Fuck Hillary and the DLC - And yes, they are Neville Chamberlain appeasement cowards.

[lcordero2]

21. another tidbit

"Hillary herself remains popular, and she often goes out of her way to reassert her partisan credentials; at a June fund-raiser..."

Attendance at a fund-raiser + nonattendance at a protest...who is getting access here? It's definitely not "The People".

[justgamma]

23. I have one question for this writer.

Do the cons win because they are soooo good at compromising with the Democrats? Do they win because they ignor their base and go for the centrists?

I didn't think so.

[IndianaGreen]

24. The NY Times has nothing nice to say about Democrats

Consider this passage in the same article:

The problem is that labels like "left" and "center" seem to have lost much of their meaning in the party, and the divisions in Democratic politics no longer seem to run along traditional lines. Gone are the days when Hubert Humphrey waged war against Strom Thurmond on civil rights, when George McGovern's protesters clashed with Scoop Jackson's hard-liners. In the era after Bill Clinton, the vast majority of Democrats, whether they once considered themselves liberals or centrists, mouth allegiance to the same set of often tepid principles on issues like trade, terrorism and gun control - positions that they will often cite as evidence of hard-won unity but which in truth represent the absence of the real intellectual discussion that once defined (and sometimes doomed) the party.

[loudsue]

25. The "activist CLASS"??????

Vs. the "governing CLASS"????

Hill-arious!!!! You just showed yourself to be exactly what you are.


:kick:

[fujiyama]

26. This impression of Hillary as a big time liberal

is pretty idiotic. It's one of those things that was pushed by RW talk radio, particularly Rush Limbaugh. That, and the fact that she was an ambitious and intelligent working woman, probably helped get her this reputation.

In reality, she seems more conservative and more corporate friendly than her husband (though part of the reason may be because she's a senator from NY).

This article was somewhat poorly written. I didn't like the impression it paints of the "net roots". It claims that many of us are not interested in governance or are not pragmatic.

That is bullshit. I'm opposed to her nomination because I don't have any confidence she will win. I also don't see a clear set of principles. I see a politician that is willing to pander to anyone.

[ladylibertee]

28. Hail Queen Hillary!Long live the Queen!

[bread_and_roses]

29. In what alternate universe is this writer living?

"the interest groups that have dictated the party's agenda since the 60's - Big Labor, lobbies for black voters, women and environmentalists - are beginning to yield influence to the forces of a new Democratic movement."

So...who will support Democrats as they continue to abandon "Labor, black voters, women and environmentalists?" The Chamber of Commerce? The Radical Right? What "new Democratic movement"

"The activist class believes, essentially, that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern."

The Republicans are willing to "negotiate and compromise?" On what? They are no longer even willing to throw anyone below the top 5% income percentile a few scraps and bones to keep the masses quiet.

"The "Net roots" believe that an effective minority party should disengage from the governing process and eschew new proposals or big ideas."

??????????? Where did he come up with that?

However, the above seems a fairly good description of Hillary's "strategy" and sum up why she should NOT be the Dem pick to run in 08. Besides, when did we become a Country of Dynasties? Are we going to trade off Bushes and Clintons till we have Chelsea in the White House?

[sendero]

30. This sentence.....

..."that Democrats in Washington have damaged the party by trying to negotiate and compromise with Republicans - in short, by trying to govern"

is as far as I got. At this point, I realize the author is at best a moron and at worst another pink-tutued, hand-wringing appeaser.

The idea that "governing" means getting screwed over, over and over, is absurd, this idiot might like it but the country is suffering for it. Exactly when has our compromising with the Repugs gotten us anything? Gotten the country anything?

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS TO ACCEPT THE FACT - THE SORRY STATE OF OUR COUNTRY IS PARTLY ON OUR DOORSTEP, WE LET THEM DO IT WITH NARY A WHIMPER.

[Totally Committed]

31. What a steaming load of happy horse-sh*t!

Here is the point that we have to remember about "The Third Way", or the "Clintonism of the 90's" and their Pro-Corporatist ways... and this should be all that matters:

All the go-along-to-get-along, work-with-the-Republicans-to-govern, appeasist bullsh*t HAS NOT WON US ANYTHING.

Nada.

Zip.

Zilch.

And it is we, the American People, who are suffering for it, and under the government that HAS WON because of the weak-as-dishwater, give-them-everything-they-want, never-show-a-spine DLC BULLSHIT.

The DLC "Third Way" has done nothing but enable the Bush Administration and their Neo-Con agenda to win time and time again. Okay, you can say, but it was Diebold! We really won! -- but whowas it that voted with the Republicans to bring us the Diebold nightmare? Who, during the campaign, was it that advised Kerry to treat the Republicans like honorable people -- when everything they should have known would have told them they were not? Who was it that also advised him to take their attacks on his honor sitting down, dignified, and never reply in kind? Who was it that advised the Kerry campaign to treat that campaign like a frigging tea party?

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT! --- The "Third Way" should be, among any of us with a brain, deader than a doornail. If a system applied in a job by any of us got results like this, we would have been fired a long time ago, and the system would have been scrapped as the BULLSHIT it was!

Why would anyone think that Corporatism, in a time when when poor, mainly Black people were left to die of thirst (and worse) on the rooftops of their houses while surrounded by water is the remedy???

Why would anyone think that Corporatism, in a time when oil and fresh water are reaching their peak around the world, is the way to move alternate energies forward???

Why would anyone think that Corporatism, in a time when good, decent, middle-class tech and manufacturing jobs are being moved elsewhere, is a viable mode of thought if they helped create, voted for the bills, and espouse the very oursourcing of these jobs in the first place???

Why would anyone think that Corporatism, in a time when fewer and fewer people can afford Health Care and Health Care coverage, is the answer when it is the Corporate Pharmaceuticals, the insurance companies, and HMOs that have brought hte costs up in the first place?

I am tired of being classified as the problem when I have seen no solutions coming from the "Third Way". I amd tired of being called extremist for not wanting to further enable or play along with these DLC panderers. If I wanted a Republican to govern me, and make these anti-people laws, I'd frigging vote Republican!

No... I do not accept the premise of this article. It is clearly and attempt by CORPORATE media to make sure no matter WHO WINS, the CORPORATE interests are taken care of over and above the needs and well-being of the people YET AGAIN.

I will not go down without a fight. I will resist the DLC and their "Third Way" and any candidate they put forward. I WILL RESIST. And, I resent being called a "extremist" for feeling that we need to fix America from the people up, instead of from the Corporations down!

TC

[oxbow]

32. I do enjoy your posts TC

Always lucid, passionate and well-written. Keep at! :)