July 25, 2005


Clinton to Direct Creation of Democrats' Agenda (Ronald Brownstein, July 25, 2005, LA Times)

The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

The agenda should be the one her husband ran on in'92 and the one he governed on from November '94 onwards.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2005 8:05 PM

So who did you vote for in '96.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 25, 2005 8:58 PM

So much for the DLC being in any way 'centrist.'

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 9:05 PM


Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 9:07 PM

It's going to be fun to watch Hillary probe and poke her left flank over the next two years, too see how far she can go to the right without generating a serious backlash from the Dean/Moore wing of the party. The true believers over there are going to have to wear leeches to keep their blood pressure down.

In a way, this is similar to Bush using up a lot of his post-9/11 political capital to fight the war in Iraq, knowing that the effort was going to make it harder to win re-election in 2004. Unlike her husband, who came to equate political capital and high poll numbers with a legacy, Hillary at least for now is willing to spend some of the goodwill she earned from the left during her years as First Lady by moving towards a position that might just sway enough votes in Ohio or Florida to win in 2008, even if it might mean a more comptetive battle for the Democratic nomination (and if she gets to defeat a candidate or two who run to her left in the primaries, so much the better).

Posted by: John at July 25, 2005 9:40 PM

Perot was why Clinton was elected in '92 and '96.

Posted by: erp at July 25, 2005 9:42 PM


If there were official "death certificates" for the '92 & '96 GOP presidential campaigns, Ross Perot would be listed as the secondary cause of death. The primary cause would be heart failure.

Posted by: Dave W. at July 25, 2005 10:07 PM

Dave W - You're right the GOP campaigns were pathetic, but nevertheless, Bush, the elder definitely and Dole probably would have been elected in a two man race.

In '96, I think it was Bill Kristol who said all Republicans had to do to win was to run somebody who didn't droll.

Posted by: erp at July 25, 2005 10:53 PM

As predictable as the sun coming up the "Hillary is a moderate for '08" kicks off with the MSM dutifully falling into line.

Posted by: AWW at July 25, 2005 11:24 PM


Refresh my memory -- he was the presidential candidate whose heroic service in a major American war was an irrelevant issue?

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 25, 2005 11:27 PM

It's never relevant.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 11:35 PM

Yes, ideally. Which means never.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 26, 2005 2:02 AM


And the Stupid Party couldn't even manage to do that. Instead they nominated the Brain Eating Zombie of K Street, a road-company Nixon.

I voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996 and would do so again in the same circumstances.

Posted by: bart at July 26, 2005 8:22 AM

Sorry, I was up past my bedtime. GOP candidates who want to win elections shouldn't drool.

It's a contraction in terms for GOP candidates to be droll.

Posted by: erp at July 26, 2005 9:03 AM