Stopping Hillary from the left

[seriousstan]

Source: politico

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.

---cut---



Hurowitz, 29, is a Washington-based writer and activist. (He has written freelance Ideas articles for Politico, including this piece criticizing Clinton's and Obama's energy plans.) The group's two other officers are Sam Goldman and David Lipowicz, both of whom have worked for liberal and environmental groups in Washington.

Hurowitz and Goldman have both contributed to the campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but Hurowitz said their effort is independent of any campaign.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Stopping_Hillary_from_the_Left.html

---

Independent of any campaign? Sure, look at their website. It looks pro-Edwards to me.

http://www.dcourage.com/

[aquart]

1. Politico?

Pathetico.

[Beer Snob-50]

2. am i wrong..

BUT Hillary is far from progressive. Bill was far from progressive also. He was a fucking great president but just not progressive

[MrModerate]

3. I don't really see how this qualifies as news . . .

Many progressives support other candidates than Clinton. Some actively dislike/distrust her. Big deal.

This is Pathetico trying to fan an ember into a flame.

[ihelpu2see]

16. no kidding, all I would say is where do I sign up?? nt

[rich1107]

4. HRC is the corporate candidate and

is the least progressive of any of the dem candidates. Part of me would rather have the republicans inflict more pain so that in 2012 we can get a real progressive into the presidency. With so much at stake, Supreme Court among all the other issues, like most on the left I will hold my nose and vote for her if she is the candidate. She is aware of the position we are in and feels free to blow us off with the "what else are they going to do" attitude. I may be forced to vote for her, but I don't have to like it.

[Orsino]

5. Since when has questioning progressive credentials stopped a Dem?

The country doesn't want a progressive, or thinks it doesn't.

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. great...lets do the republican's job for them

what a waste of money. When are we going to stop shooting at each other?

[bonito]

7. Hillary IS A PROGRESSIVE!!!

Look she is a DLCer and their think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute!
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Being a War Hawk is the New Progressivism

I'll take my nukes on the table, please. Sometimes you've got to use nuclear deterrence when you are dealing with suicidal jihadists bent on starting a global conflict to drag down the infidels (and, more importantly, unseat the House of Saud).

Did I mention what I think about the Levin amendment to the IWR? Would you really want the UN to have a say in our invasion of Iraq to remove the WMDs and those bastards who flew the planes?

[SaveElmer]

8. Oh please let this be true...

Oh please, please, please....

This would be a gift!!!

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. a gift for the neo-cons

How is it that we have gone so far off the deep end that we don't even know when we are helping to destroy the democracy?

The law of unintended consequences.

[SaveElmer]

11. All this will do is help Hillary

Being attacked from the left will do nothing but help her among indies...

[bonito]

13. Sorry charlie, but "indies" are the flies on your wall

We don't jump on the piles. ;)

[cuke]

12. The website calls Nancy Pelosi a "Hero"

Hero: Nancy Pelosi: The new Speaker of the House has been defying skeptical pundits and delivered on her promises for a 100 hour progressive agenda in 42 hours. She's even standing up to some of the more corrupt and powerful committee chairmen in her own caucus to ensure that Democrats take real action to stop global warming, aggressively investigate the Bush administration, and deliver better health care.

http://www.dcourage.com/a/2007/01/who_are_the_heroes_and_weasels.php

[MethuenProgressive]

14. John Edwards is this desperate?

"Hurowitz and Goldman have both contributed to the campaign of former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but Hurowitz said their effort is independent of any campaign."

We all know how Edwards works.

[cali]

15. Really? I think that's just a gratuitous slam at Edwards

When you say "We all know how Edwards works", what do you mean exactly? Can you give some examples of what his campaign has done that you find do beyond the pale?

[magnolia]

17. One thing that can be said about Hillary....

...she has had more attacks and abuse than any other candidate. If she can survive this and the countless other attacks from her own party then I think we can deem her ELECTABLE!

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I have problems with a PAC to gang up on Hillary, and it's not about ideology

First off, the best way to stop Hillary Clinton or anyone else from the left is the traditional time tested way of supporting a strong candidate from the left who can beat her, but that is not what my concern is about. Right or Left, I don't like front groups in politics that spring up suddenly to attack one person, that obviously will disappear as soon as the election is over. If a permanent organization, or a coalition of ongoing groups wants to do that fine, they have a reputation to maintain and members to hold them accountable. But I hate semi shadowy single election anti-candidate hit groups, way too much potential for abuse.

It is a very dangerous slippery slope. Groups like that can raise money and lie, mislead, and smear 3 days before a primary date without time for anyone to research and debunk false claims, and then they can disappear like smoke in a breeze with just a few "unafiliated" indivuals left to bear the blame afer the fact, folks who couldn't care less what you thought of them after the votes are counted.

If a new coalition of well establised organizations were forming to coordinate a political campaign against one candidate; like if PDA, DFA, and the SEIU were to do that, then at least we all could expect those organizations to still be standing after the elections were over, and they would have their own members at the very least to hold them accountable for their behavior during the campaign. There was a lot of outrage during the 2004 campaign when a front group formed to fight against the then front runner Howard Dean. A lot of folks here at DU didn't like it one bit and had plenty of harsh things to say about competing candidates trying to cover their tracks by hiding behind a front group that did their hatchet work for them. I didn't like this when it was done to Dean either, and I was a Clark supporter at the time.

At the very least this type of thing is often a dodge around campaign finance laws. Again, I might give the advantage of the doubt to a permanent organization - or at least one claiming it will henceforth be permanent, but not to the type of operation planned here. This can be a way for bundlers who have maxed out the contributions they collected for a candidate trying to raise funds to catch up with a front runner to rehit all their maxed out donors. It is hard to abuse a real organization, like a Union political action committee, in that way - it has previously established independence and a reputation to maintain, but a custom made to order disposable hit group has no reputation to uphold and can be anbody's tool and usually is someone's, though it can be hard to trace the fingerprints before the votes get cast.


It is the classic means and ends argument, and I have trouble with leftists or anyone else who claim to want clean elections run with tranceparency and accountability, who are willing to look the other way when it serves their purpose in a specific race.