December 6, 2005
THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO HER:
Hillary Gets Two Surprise Challengers: Anti-war underdogs take on Clinton, put Sheehan in a pickle (Kristen Lombardi, December 4th, 2005, Village Voice)
Suddenly, Hillary Clinton has not one but two anti-war challengers in the 2006 Senate race.Cheered on by none other than "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war movement has been hounding Clinton for voting to support the war in Iraq and refusing to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops.
Now the movement has a pair of candidates pledging to dog Clinton throughout the Democratic primary, forcing her to keep explaining her vote on Iraq. The first is Steven Greenfield of New Paltz, a musician and volunteer firefighter who's set to make his candidacy official Monday morning at a press conference at Columbia University, in Manhattan. The second is Jonathan Tasini a Washington Heights resident and labor activist best known for Tasini v. New York Times, a landmark lawsuit over writers' digital rights. He's planning to make his bid official at a press event at the W Hotel, in Union Square, on December 6.
If they force Ms Clinton back to the Right on the war and she triangultes off of them it sets her up perfectly for '08. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 6, 2005 11:20 PM
The Clintons are smart enough (and have enough pull) to get pawns to push her to center for the general run.
That said, I think the Dems are underestimating the anti-war bloc of their party and taking them for granted might backfire in '06 and '08.
Posted by: AWW at December 7, 2005 12:12 AMAWW: Indeed. Hillary can't afford to tell the left to buzz off about Iraq. I doubt she can gain enough votes in the center to make up for those she'll lose when angry leftists stay home or vote third-party. She's in a vise and she knows it, and thus her narrow, carefully-worded statements on Iraq.
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 7, 2005 1:11 AMIdeally, the moonbats, who control the party in large measure, will overrun Hillary in the primary and nominate one of their own, who then proceeds to get creamed by Condi in the general election.
Posted by: Mike Morley at December 7, 2005 7:41 AMIn a strange/funny sort of way, none of the 2008 presidential asipirants may have more tied to the success of George W. Bush's actions in the Middle East than Hillary. If Bush's plans work out, it's not only a plus for the GOP in '06 but it works for Hillary, since it also justifies her votes for the '08 general election, while the faster the U.S. succeeds in Iraq, the less of an issue it is in 2008 and the less Hillary has to worry about the angry left howling over her Iraq votes during the primary campaign.
Posted by: John at December 7, 2005 9:28 AMI can never figure out whether the Clintons are brilliant or just lucky. If Hillary has a "Mother Sheehan" moment comparable to Bill's "Sister Souljah" one, she could win the Presidency--unless the Democratic party is so broken that it cannot choose an electable leader in the primaries.
Posted by: Kevin Bowman at December 7, 2005 1:39 PMThe anti-war moonbats do not control the party although they get the media attention. Most of the anti-war faction can be considered to be sober critics. As for the actual voters, support for the war fluctuates based on perception of how well its run. Even many of the people who might be stridently anti-war would still support Hillary on the basis of other factors. This will be no problem for her.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at December 7, 2005 3:08 PMChris:
Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy & Harry Reid don't control the party?
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2005 3:28 PM