July 27, 2005


Clinton Angers Left With Call for Unity: Senator Accused of Siding With Centrists (Dan Balz, July 27, 2005, Washington Post)

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.

Because the mainstream Democrats no longer believe in anything and the DLC types have given up on pulling the Party to the Right, the only energy and ideas remaining are the old ones on the far Left, even if it is a new, electronic, far Left.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 27, 2005 12:00 AM

Why are they confronting W?

He can't run again, unless they know something we don't.

Posted by: Sandy P at July 27, 2005 2:00 AM

The Presidential election in 2008 will be at the very least an implicit referendum on the last two terms.

At some point she is going to have to give the MoveOn crowd some kind of sop and at that point she will have stepped into the political equivalent of a bear trap. If she does not give them a sop, then they subsidize a Nader/Kucinich ticket and win about 3% of the vote. When that number is added to the roughly 45% of Americans who would walk on burning hot coals in a firestorm to vote against her, the numbers look bad.

Posted by: bart at July 27, 2005 7:01 AM

They have a far left firebrand in the wings, Barack Obama. His candidacy would take the wind out of Condi's sails should she decide to run.

Posted by: erp at July 27, 2005 7:44 AM

The Democrats treat their black voters and black candidates the same way, with a mix of fear, contempt, and condescension. Obama is not going anywhere in the party, except to give speeches on TV. My guess is he already knows it.

The hard left of the Democratic party is probably almost exclusively white and urban. Charlie Rangel is too extablishment for them (but, oddly enough, they love Howard Brush Dean - go figure).

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 27, 2005 9:23 AM

Jim: They love Dean because he is the quintessential boomer lefty. All narcism, arrogance, and self-righteousness.

erp: Obama said yesterday that he was not a candidate. Why give up a cushy sinecure for a certain loss.

Sandy: "Why are they confronting W?"

Because the only thing that holds them together is Bush Derangement syndrome.


Do the words circular firing squad have any resonance?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 27, 2005 10:26 AM

Barack will still have the cushy sinecure to fall back on if he loses. He might do surprisingly well too depending on how he campaigns and who is up against him.

If it's Condi, I think a lot of voters who might vote for a Black man would have trepidations about voting for any woman and the so-called woman's movement don't support women, they support liberal causes, so the Hillary vote probably wouldn't get transferred to Condi.

It'll be interesting to see how it works out.

Posted by: erp at July 27, 2005 11:27 AM

Did I read that headline right? "Accused of Siding with Centrists."

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 27, 2005 1:04 PM

The first black President will be Republican. That has been self-evident since about 1978.

Most black politicians in the US are further to the left of even Howard Dean. That is why so many of them are (irrelevant, marginalized, bombastic, condescending - insert your favorite word here).

The exceptions, like Shirley Franklin (mayor of Atlanta) are too busy to be marginalized. But they are also ignored by the media and the leftist hive.

The prominent black Republicans need no further explanation (e.g., Herman Cain, Kenneth Blackwell, J.C. Watts, Condi, Colin, Michael Steele, even Alan Keyes).

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 27, 2005 1:06 PM

Does anyone else think it would be awesome to have a "President Steele"? Especially if he was black?

Posted by: Timothy at July 27, 2005 1:10 PM

timothy: especially if his first name were "Richard"

Posted by: cjm at July 27, 2005 7:21 PM

"That is why so many of them are (irrelevant, marginalized, bombastic, condescending - insert your favorite word here)."

You left out incompetent, which is the best way to describe King County's own Ron SIms.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 28, 2005 11:54 AM