Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT Mag article about Warner (but lots of insider info about Hillary)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:09 PM
Original message
NYT Mag article about Warner (but lots of insider info about Hillary)
Just scroll down to the comment section, and there's an advance copy of the article that will be appearing Sunday:

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/03/sunday-magazi...

Even though the article is about Warner, just substitute Kerry in for it, and I think there is a lot of interesting information in the article. Oh, and I advise reading it in a detached manner; whatever bad opinions made in the article about Kerry, I am interested in precisely what Hillary is doing, and what Warner (and, of course, Kerry) is doing to combat her. Here are a few quips (I just started reading it, so this is from the beginning):

If Hillary Clinton does decide to run for president, no matter who ultimately runs against her for the partys nomination, she will begin with the kind of institutional advantages that have been reserved, in the past, for vice presidents like Walter Mondale and Al Gore. It starts with money. At the end of last year, according to the Hotline, the venerable Washington online digest, Clinton had more than $17 million in the bank for her re-election campaign in New York and no serious opponent to spend it against. By contrast, Warner, capping what was widely considered a surprisingly sound fund-raising season, had amassed a little under $2.5 million for his political action committee, Forward Together. But thats not the whole story. Thanks to the inscrutable wonder of campaign finance laws, Clinton can roll every penny that she doesnt spend on her Senate campaign into a presidential account, which is why she could well start a bid for the White House with as much as $75 million, on course to obliterate the partys previous fund-raising records. No matter how much a governor like Warner raises in his political action committee, on the other hand, the rules say that he cant spend any of it on a presidential run; it can go only for general political activity, mostly backing other candidates. This means that should Warner decide to run, hell have to start again from zero, while Clinton is backing up 18-wheelers to the bank. Whats more, Clinton will arrive in early primary states with a built-in base of voters. She has been campaigning in these states, off and on, for 15 years and knows every stop along the way; she can count on the endorsements of most of the local elected officials and interest groups, all of whom come with their own e-mail lists and organizers.

snip

So formidable are the obstacles to challenging Clinton that even a lot of party operatives who dont think shes the best candidate are likely to work for her, just to be on the winning side. And this is precisely the strategy that her team has thus far cultivated. Just as Karl Rove set out to make George W. Bushs nomination seem inevitable in 2000, successfully freezing much of the money and talent that might have flowed to his competitors, so, too, do Clintons advisers seem to be sending out signals that resistance is not only futile but also dangerous. When I asked Warners aides for permission to attend some of his policy briefings in January, word came back that the outside experts who had been asked to make presentations, some of whom worked in the Clinton administration, balked because they were afraid the Clinton camp would find out that they were granting courtesies to another candidate. No one wants to cross the partys presumed nominee. Given all that, its a wonder that so many Democrats are thinking seriously of offering themselves up as an alternative. There are various interpretations among the partys cognoscenti as to which hopefuls belong in the coveted top tier of potential candidates. As of the end of 2005, Kerry had more than $15 million in contributions stashed away for another bid, as well as a handful of major fund-raisers who remain loyal to him, but the general assessment among Democratic insiders is that his Swift boat has already sailed.


Now say what you will about the snarky swift boat comment, what I'm seeing here is that at least moneywise, Kerry is the most dangerous candidate against Hillary. AND, he has very loyal followers who aren't going to jump ship. It's a much more uphill battle for Warner. Having said all of that, I, the naive person that I am, am absolutely shocked by these anti-democratic maneuvers by the Hillary camp to destroy all other candidates in a Rovian style. Excuse me, ma'am, but I believe there is something called a primary and a secret ballot. It is the people, not party insiders, who should pick the candidate. But, alas, obviously, if people feel they MUST work for Hillary, then it will be extremely hard for the other candidates to put a team together. Anyway, read the whole article, and see what nuggets you can get out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whometense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. If anyone has access to TNR online
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 01:19 PM by whometense
you should also read this article: Welcome to Hillaryland

A GUIDE TO THE CLINTON JUGGERNAUT

It's all about her politcal machine.

On edit: to follow up on what beachmom wrote, the TNR article says that HRC has modeled her style of politics not on those of her husband, but rather on those of Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. There is a flaw here.
We are not the Republican Party. We are Democrats who intrinsically rebel against control like this. There is plenty of time for 'bad things' to come out about HRC and for people who do not want her to be the nominee to go to other people. The road is littered with the bodies of past candidates who thought they had a lock on the nomination really far out.

Watch for stories on past HRC associations, especially the ones that are starting to come out on her associations with Wal-Mart and other companies. There are vulnerabilities here and it is still, every, very early. (And some people do implode, you know. Just ask Gary Hart, the all but certain nominee in 1988.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Also, I think Democrats react negatively to negative campaigning
if it appears unfair. Regardless of the re-writes of history, the "at the time" view of Iowa was that Gephardt and Dean shot each other, while Kerry was talking about what he thought could be done and Edwards was smiling. But the in-fighting was actually very mild compared to other seasons - yet you still have hurt feelings.

I especially wonder if it may backfire faster for a woman - unfair - but where a man is labeled strong or assertive, a woman is labelled agressive (or a b*tch).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe I 'm naive here, but she doesn't scare me. I am just so
sick of her and her pandering. I don't like being bullied into supporting anyone either. After reading this, I have no illusions that she is aiming for the top spot and will do anything to get there. I can't make others not vote for her, but she will never get my vote, even if Kerry doesn't run. I just don't understand why anyone thinks she has any appeal at all. Having to look and listen to her for four years is as bad as having to deal with Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenndar Donating Member (911 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. The snarky comment seems like laziness to me.
It seems to translate to, "It looks like Kerry could beat her, but this isn't an article about that, so let's pretend nobody cars about him and move on."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. I also didn't know that Jerome Armstrong of mydd.com
is now working for Warner. Just good to know.

That's the problem -- everybody says Hillary, except for voters. Now how is that supposed to work? You have all the money, clout, the media, and yet nobody is going to vote for you. I don't understand that.

You're right, Tay, it's early, but it sounds like running for president is a 4 year affair, with a lot of insider stuff at the beginning far from the TV's eye.

One more note on Warner. I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday who is quite conservative and voted for * in '04, and she was talking VERY favorably about Warner, and that there is NO ONE on the Republican side mentioned for the '08 nominee that she likes. (She thinks there's something wrong with McCain in his head, and her Repub friends can't stand him either). My point is that if Warner were the nominee (and passed all the Dem primary tests), he would probably carry Virginia. He's THAT popular here. This is just a piece of information that you can tuck away in your head for future use, if it comes to that. Kerry is our first choice, but I hope you don't mind that I'm sharing that info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. I found the article well done once you pass the snarky remarks
It certainly did not convince me that Warner would be a good president, but truth be told, better than some that are supposed to be so great (and I am not talking only about HRC here).

It is clear that the insiders do not want Kerry, but what is new there. They already did not want him in 2003, so.

Warner is way too untested by now and too conservative for me, but that does not mean he does not have a chance. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Well, I remember having a conversation in Boston
in Dec and talking about this directly with someone. There won't be any help from 'inside Washington.' That much is pretty clear. If Kerry runs again, it will be a very different race from the last time. (And not. It should take the lessons learned from that last time and figure out where they went right and wrong.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. it's going to come down to the primaries
Iowa and NH, especially. The press annointed Howard Dean the Dem. nominee and look what happened there. Get Hilary and Kerry up on the stage together and let the voters decide.

I don't think it's a slam dunk for anyone come 2008. I just hope they keep it clean - no lasting damage - because, no matter who gets the nomination, we need the White House in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Chance favors the prepared minds.
This may mean something or nothing at all, but from what I saw last week at the DCI, some people are looking to have very trained forces on the ground in 2008. Some people are planning on exporting trained ground forces to Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, as well as the home state in 2006, make sure they stay active and involved in states like, oh New Hampshire in '07 and such. As far as I could tell, the push is on and Massachusetts is fully on board to make sure that we reach as many voters as possible in as personal a way as possible.

Hmmm, wonder if anyone will take advantage of that in '08 or if they will solely rely on the old ways. BTW, I think Kerry won Iowa because he had done his home work there and intensely organized the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. This thread is what worries me for 08 - If many people have decided that
issues are irrelevant, personnality is the only thing that matters, where are we going, particularly when the personnality is given by the MSM and by nothing real.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. That's actually not true
Look at the debates in '04. Those reversed the media pushed image of Kerry and really brought him back into the race. I don't think that personality is all, issues do matter. (Although it does vary in intensity according to the year. Years in which the population is relatively happy are years in which personality matters more.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. What is with the idiot who seems to claim that
in the GE, the candidates agreed on everything. He then speaks of integrity, honesty, character, and leadership skills. Claiming we didn't go for these and he has a Clark photo. I don't want to knock Clark, but he definately doesn't beat Kerry on these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I think he was talking about the primaries and, though he may be partly
correct, there were still significant differences on some issues and on where their emphasis was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Ron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Hasn't that always been the case in the blogosphere?
Other than for Iraq (and a misguided view of Kerry's position) the blogosphere has always cared more about personalities and style than issues. At times they scream about centrist Democrats being Bush-lite, yet they attack Kerry who has a more liberal record than those they support.

They are also willing to ignore important principles if necessary to defend their leader. For example, back in the primaries when I argued against Dean due to his positon on Mediare, it was shocking how many Democrats took strong anti-Medicare positions thinking this was the best way to defend Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
15. the journalists and pundits are salivating for a Hillary nomination
They have their angles all lined up: the "woman candidate" angle, the "first husband Bill" angle, etc etc. But the voters may just have another thing in mind. They don't give voters credit, and think they can just push anybody they agree on and we'll accept. Well, how many of them pushed JK in the last race? I have the impression that it was quite the opposite, and that the one they covered the most was Dean. Shows how much they know!

If you ask me, I'd say get those articles out early, because you might not get a chance to use them in 2008. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC