As I perused my blogroll this morning, a few items caught my eye. First of all, Amy, who recently returned from a trip to Iowa stumping for John Edwards, is all smiles after this AlterNet article on John Edwards' rebuke of "Corporate Democrats." I've been very happy with Edwards' support of labor, and his criticism of some of his fellow Dems for walking the same corporate plank that we criticize the Republicans for using.
She also reminds us that Edwards will be here in Georgia Aug. 29th on the campus of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus. Also in attendence will be former President Jimmy Carter.
Remember all of the hubub surrounding Howard Dean's 2004 trip to Plains to attend church services with the Carters? It was said to be an unofficial endorsement of Dean. And it is true that Chip Carter worked in the Dean campaign. Could this be a signal from the Carters? I don't know if that's the intention or not. But I do know that they will not endorse who is quietly known to be their least favorite presidential contender.
Meanwhile, Christopher blogged about some good news from the Obama camp. President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, picks Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Brzezinski says that for all of Clinton's so called "experience," Obama has a "better global grasp"than Hillary.
Clinton, who seemingly believes in the Bush administration's failed diplomatic policy of not talking to our enemies, has criticized Obama for his lack of experience and for being "irresponsible" in some of his comments about who to negotiate with, and about hypothetical foreign policy situations in Pakistan. Seems as though Brzezinski feels it's Hillary who is mistaken saying, "Being a former First Lady does not prepare you for being president.........."
And finally, Sid blogged about Hillary's controversial comments about Republicans and a potential terrorist attack before Nov. 2008. While I don't totally disagree with what she is saying, she says, once again, that she would be "the best" at dealing with Republicans in that situation.
Earlier, Hillary told us that she's the Democrat to look to when trying to fight Republican dirty tricks. After all, she and her husband were the principle targets of many of them in the 1992 presidential election and during the Clinton administration itself.
But what really disappoints me about Hillary and her claims about "dealing with the Republicans" is that she herself has moved so far to the right that she almost looks like a Republican. Over the course of her senatorial career, she's drawn wide praise from Republicans for her help in getting many of their bills passed. While I'm all for a spirit of bipartisanship when it's warranted, Hillary's crossed that proverbial centrist line too many times on several issues important to me.
Trying to make yourself look more like a Republican isn't what I call "dealing with Republicans." It's called joining them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think what she is trying to do is get more folks on the right to vote for her, but there is so much hatred of her that it is never going to happen. I'm not very optimistic about democratic chances right now.
On the other hand, the GOP field is awful.
I agree Steve. It's just not going to happen. I fell out of love with the Clintons during Bill's first term. I did sympathize with them for what the Repubs put them through. But no matter how you cut it, anyone named "Bush" or "Clinton" will have a polarizing effect X 10. Despite what some of her supporters are saying, her negatives are the worst of any serious presidential hopeful in the history of polling. Fair or not, that's a fact. She's not going to win unless the Republican is caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
Funny enough, I think national Democrats could learn a lesson or two from our two failed gubernatorial candidates last year. 1) It's probably not a good idea to put up the Dem that they say out loud over and over that they really want to face in the general election (Taylor). And 2) You don't screw around with your base for the sake of trying to appeal to more people. It's fake and people recognize that (Cox in the primary, Taylor in the general).
But then again, Hillary, Taylor, and Cox all used DLC consultants. So we really shouldn't be surprised.
They will either have to face a reckoning in '12 or hope for a third party candidate to split the vote.
Negatives are exactly how they beat old Mike Dukakis back in '88. They just drove up his negative numbers.
Good blogroll update. Just found your blog and like what I see.
Thanks Larry. Just my little rants and ramblings. One voice in a crowd.
Post a Comment