Daily Kos

HILLARY CLINTON V. HOWARD DEAN - New Republic article

Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:13:38 AM PDT

I shouldn't even diary an article from the New Republic but this one has me seeing red.

Hillary and Bill instead of uniting the party are trying to split it.  They are not on the same page as Dean, the DNC or the netroots.  They are playing the old trianglization game. This time with their own party.  They just don't understand the the GOP came to power by respecting and using all of their constituency & organizations. Hillary is hoping to marginalize Dean (DNC) and split the blogesphere to come to power.    

The Grudge

She doesn't want no stinking DNC messing up her chance to be president.
Now Clinton's camp is seeking to change this landscape. Its strategy appears to be twofold. First, it is laying the groundwork to circumvent the DNC in the event that Clinton wins the nomination. Her advisers see Dean as a maverick, and they want to depend on him as little as possible during the general election. "The DNC is going to be peripheral," says one Clinton strategist. "We are going to have our own field staff, starting way before the primaries begin, right through November 7." He points out that she is prepared to reject public financing during the primaries and the general election. (Clinton does not lack for money: She has raised $32.2 million for her Senate reelection and has $22 million in the bank--all transferable to her presidential campaign, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.) This would allow her to keep the field staff she develops during the primaries on her payroll during the general election--instead of shifting it to the DNC, as previous candidates have done. Plus, in a move widely and correctly interpreted as a rebuke to Dean, Clinton strategist Harold Ickes recently established a private voter database to compete with a similar database being built by the DNC. Ickes's move--as well as Clinton's formidable array of experienced advisers, including Terry McAuliffe, Howard Wolfson, James Carville, Mark Penn, and others--will give Clinton added independence from the DNC.

Second, Clinton and her operatives have begun working systematically to fracture her online opposition. Perhaps the most noteworthy step in this strategy was her July 4 announcement that she would endorse the winner of the Connecticut primary, ditching Joe Lieberman if he fails to capture the Democratic nomination. Clinton's announcement seemed calculated to win plaudits on the Web--and it did. "Good for Clinton," wrote Duncan Black of the blog Eschaton. "She should get a lot of credit for coming out and making this announcement," wrote blogger David Sirota.

Being the New Republic we already knew who was going to come out on top

who will win the showdown between Howard and Hillary? In both the long term and the short term, the odds favor Clinton and her allies in the party's more moderate wing. Take the long term first. Many of the troops brought into politics by the Dean campaign are desperate to turn their avocation into a paying profession. Many left-wing bloggers are struggling to survive financially and would love to begin earning salaries as political operatives. For instance, Bowers and two friends, Hale Stewart (aka "bonddad") and David Atkins (aka "thereisnospoon"), recently announced the creation of NetRoots Research, Strategy & Analysis. As bloggers like these enter the competition for consulting contracts and campaign jobs, the pressures of the political marketplace will likely work to moderate idealism--and to make compromise and accommodation more acceptable within the netroots.

In the short term, Clinton's strategy of dividing and conquering the blogosphere will be abetted by the nearimpossibility of Web-based Dean loyalists uniting around a single candidate in 2007. Zack Exley--formerly organizing director for MoveOn.org, an Internet specialist on the Dean campaign, and director of online organizing and communications for Kerry-Edwards 2004--puts it this way: "I think Hillary is going to surprise everyone with the netroots. Every candidate who is flirting with the idea of running is trying to do it like Dean did it. You could have ten candidates trying to be the insurgent dark horse. All those candidates are going to split the netroots, leaving Hillary to be the standout." The netroots have simply become too large to be the exclusive agent of any one candidate. With her front-runner status, Clinton doesn't need to actually win the blogosphere outright; she just needs to make sure no one else does. And odds are there will be no repeat of 2003, when the liberal blogosphere rallied overwhelmingly to one contender.

That, in the end, may be Clinton's biggest advantage in her battle with Dean. Of course, there is always the possibility that Clinton will falter. But, if she does not, then Dean, with his supporters unable to coalesce behind a single candidate, will likely find himself without a proxy to run against her. Then again, he may not even want one. After all, there is probably only one candidate Dean could ever truly back, and he is sitting out this race. His name, of course, is Howard Dean.

I've only submitted a couple of paragraphs form this article.  Please read the whole article. New Rebublic - The Grudge

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, DNC, DLC, netroots, establishment (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 42 comments

  •  Bill & Joe (13+ / 0-)

    Now I understand better the game that Bill and Hill are playing with Lieberman.  It's all about Hillary bid for 2008.  

    Tips please

  •  Absolutely delusional. (8+ / 0-)

    So, bonddad and thereisnospoonare starting a consulting firm and that's going to shut up the netroots?

    Yeah, ya'll go right ahead and belive that . . .

    These inbred doofuses really can't get beyond their top-down Democratic fantasy world. NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: We're not Republicans! We're not idiots! And We're not going to be shut up!

    Lots of luck, Hillary. You go with that A-team you got there. You'll have the best campaign the 1990's ever saw . . .

  •  Gore. Al Gore. (5+ / 0-)

    If this strategy is real and starts coming to fruition (it is a good strategy for winning the nomination on Clinton's part), then I only see one answer.  Sure, he is a bit inconvenient, but he's one of the few players the majority of the netroots could probably agree on and we all know he has a good relationship with Dean (and by proxy, the DNC).

  •  I wish Hillary would stop trying to make me (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    slatsg, esquimaux, martyc35, smokeymonkey

    mad and just figure out where she could lead the country.

    Where does a moderate stand in the midst of global meltdown, WWIII, and the trashing of the Constitution????

    "We are each other's harvest; we are each other's business; we are each other's magnitude and bond." ---Gwendolyn Brooks

    by Fasaha on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:17:25 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately... (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      lcrp, esquimaux, Fasaha, hearthmoon

      Where does a moderate stand in the midst of global meltdown, WWIII, and the trashing of the Constitution????

      ... the answer is "wherever the largest mass of 'swing' voters stands."  The "moderate" trait that I find unforgivable-- I find moderation to be necessary as a political tack when governing, although obviously not when campaigning-- is their tendency to accept the faulty notions that a) our democracy is a simple majority-rules system and that whatever the most people want must therefore be correct, and b) that they should follow unaligned voters onto what is already shaky ground, instead of trying to lead those same voters somewhere a bit more solid.  Weak, weak, weak.

      "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

      by latts on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:36:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Moderation (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      latts, grayslady, esquimaux, Mary Mike

      I don't like quoting Republicans, but here we go:

      "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

      Got that, DLC?

      "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

      by deaniac83 on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:55:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm going to save this article (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    sj, theark

    Hillary is being coronated as the machine candidate here (the candidate of her own machine, that is). Now, she may well wind up dominating the race. But there's an at least equal chance that her candidacy will go absolutely nowhere, and will fizzle out even before Super Tuesday. If that comes to pass, I'm gonna have one heck of a ball re-reading this article.

    Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

    by brainwave on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:23:26 AM PDT

  •  Al Gore is it people (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    boofdah

    There are two possibilities...

    1. Edwards surprises in IA, wins SC and Nevada...
    1. Hillary succeeds and Gore must come in- which I believe he would do.

    All Gore has to do is enter enough of the late primaries to consolodate the "anti Hillary" vote into 51% of teh delegates... something only he could do.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:27:41 AM PDT

    •  Doubt it (0+ / 0-)

      My gut feeling is that running against Hillary is just about the last thing Gore wants to do. I actually suspect that's one reason why he's said he isn't considering entering the fray. I can't really quite explain this intuition. But considering how long these two have known each other, and that their relation isn't exactly amicable apparently, and considering Gore's obsession with avoiding Bill Clinton in 2000 - I think this could be extremely painful on a psychological level.

      Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

      by brainwave on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:39:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think Gore CARES about pain (0+ / 0-)

        He just about endured as much emtional pain one can without it directly involving family.

        In some ways... I think it was "character building" fo rhim.  

        I definately don't think he's a wimp.... if anything, it sounds like he tends to charge ahead and not worry about hurting feelings.

        Bush will be impeached.

        by jgkojak on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:54:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        Gore didn't avoid Clinton in 2000 and he is not afraid of Hilary now.  In fact I assume they are all amicable.  In any case, fear of Clinton is not keeping Gore out of the race.
        There is still a lot of water that needs to flow under the bridge before anyone makes a commitment to running in 2008.

        •  Whaa? (0+ / 0-)

          Gore didn't avoid Clinton in 2000? I said Bill Clinton, right? Gore tried to stay away from the Big Dog like he had the [insert really unpleasant contageous disease of choice]. Some say that might have cost him the election. Anyway, I think there's a ton of evidence of a really deep-seated animosity between Gore and the Clintons.

          Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

          by brainwave on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:03:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you a vitim of the media and the DlC spin (0+ / 0-)

            no Gore didn't avoid Clinton.  It's a stupid meme that many democrats have taken as gospel.  VP's don't run for VP.  They don't drag around the president with them on the campaign trail in the pursuit of perpetual secound banana statis.

            •  I'm pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

              Reagan campaigned like a maniac for Shrub The Elder.

              Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

              by brainwave on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:42:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think that (0+ / 0-)

            the relationship is more subtle and nuanced than that. Let me paint what I sense based on what I have read and deduced using partly nondeterministic logic (i.e. partial information).

            From what I have seen, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are, and for the most part have been, friends.

            Now, I think Gore disliked what Bill did with Monica. Nevertheless, he stood strongly in support during the impeachment nonsense. Please see: Gore firmly stood with his friend Bill Clinton.

            Now, strategically, Gore did keep his distance from Clinton, and one could possible see why by examining the evidence (which was that Gore was getting whacked all over the place in 1999 polls BECAUSE of the scandal/impeachment. Please see the links here: 2000 election: A summary.).

            My guess is that Bill didn't like being shunned from the campaign because, Bill loves to be among people and loves to talk (about himself in addition to good ideas :)) and strategize. Bill probably also thought that campaigning for Gore would have given him a chance to attack the wingers on impeachment. Possible. But the main problem is that his "personal unfavorables" were in the tank (2000 exit polls: "Your opinion of Bill Clinton as a person": 36% favorable, 60% unfavorable). Now, would those unfavorable have slipped, had he campaigned for Gore, or would Gore have taken a hit by putting him front and center? Those questions are hard to answer (and my inclination is that it would have been highly risky and counter-productive to show too much of Bill back then). My conjecture is that Gore decided not to take a chance and hence went ahead to keep Bill at bay.

            But, they seem to have made up when they met following 9/11 as Gore talked about recently. I think they have a friendly and respectful relationship currently. But, Bill probably would prefer to be back in the whitehouse proper with Hillary as President, but he may not mind Gore getting there either (his legacy would be better served with latter, I think, and Gore would almost certainly want to engage Bill in some serious capacity, such as perhaps solving the middle east crisis, UN secy genl, etc).

            As for Gore and Hillary relations, let us address that another day. I have much less of a feel for that part, but I do suspect that they are rather cold towards each other.

            Chelsea likes Al I think :) She attended the NY premiere of AIT as was acknowledged by Gore.

            ps: Gore healped Clinton heavily in 1992. IIRC correctly, Clinton gained some 5-10 points right away from selecting Gore. The OpEds all over the country praised him heavily. I am not 100% certain, but I think Clinton got his first lead in the race within a few days of picking Gore. Also, Gore's clean image as a family man helped offset Clinton's maritcal problems too, I think.

          •  'Animosity'-- Not the least of which (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            lulu57

            was the perception, post 2000 SC appointment of Bush, that the edge Gore needed was lost to the bad rep that clung to him from Clinton. I say perception, since we know that Gore actually did win that election and that Clinton did support his campaign. The problems with the DLC started later.

            Some observations:

            Gore is no longer associated with the DLC. I doubt that he ever will be again. If he runs, his money will come from elsewhere, so there is no conflict of interest for him there. I doubt his main problem would be loyalty to the Clintons (or Lieberman, now).  

            Per Kos's diary of today (peer to your left) the DLC has hooked up, monetarily, with The New Republic (online) in a last gasp, last grasp attempt to survive, and this article should come as no surprise. They are in each other's pockets.

            Supporting Hillary is not as important to the NR as bashing Howard Dean and the DNC, because his grass roots organization is scaring them. This was more of a hit piece on Dean than it was support for Hillary. The Repubs want Hillary to get the nomination so that they can keep control of the executive branch, especially since it looks like they may lose Congress. They are betting, probably with good odds, that Hillary can't win a national election.

            If Gore will give in and run again, that's the best scenario we can look for. The NR knows damned well that's what they are scared of, and they know Howard Dean not only will not be the candidate, but that he could help Al Gore win with the party infrastructure he is building right now.

            It's all bluff and blarney, but I don't think it will work. Not because of us, guys, but because among those so-called "moderates" are a hell of a lot of hypocrites who will never vote for a woman for president. They were barely able to give Bill Clinton a chance because Bush Senior reneged on "No New Taxes," meaning that their selfish impulses helped to win the presidency for Clinton. Don't kid yourselves into thinking that they would vote for Clinton's wife. She wasn't even moved into the White House yet before they started such a hate campaign against her that it didn't let up for eight years.

            Put your money on a horse that at least has a chance of winning.  

            "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

            by martyc35 on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:55:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A Gore run would put TNR (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              martyc35

              in an awkward position, because Marty Peretz is an old friend of Gore's and has already called for him to run in 2008.  Not that they couldn't seize on some "wild-eyed" lefty-ish statement of his as an excuse to back someone else, but still, the fact that the DLCers claim Clinton as their greatest (and only real) success while TNR doesn't really like the Clintons either will eventually cause problems.

              I scan TNR's free content sometimes, and even though I hate their comments almost as much as their commenters hate DKos [heh], it was interesting that in last week's should-Hillary-run straw poll the reaction was overwhelmingly negative.  Even more surprisingly. Gore led the pack of suggested alternatives, with Edwards & Obama following... one commenter noted that their readers' opinions weren't that different from what we often see here, although Kossacks like Feingold much, much more.

              "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

              by latts on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 12:42:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  As always (3+ / 0-)

    The Clintons want to save their power.

    Dean wants to save the nation.

    Sickening.  

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

    by nolalily on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:34:08 AM PDT

  •  McAwful: He's back! (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    slatsg, grayslady

    Clinton's formidable array of experienced advisers, including Terry McAuliffe, Howard Wolfson, James Carville, Mark Penn, and others--will give Clinton added independence from the DNC.

    Two reactions:

    1. Where's Bob Shrum? Do they bring him at the very end to write the concession speech?
    1. Speaking of which, with this bunch in charge, HRC will lose by 10 million votes, minimum. A disaster of epic proportions is about to unfold.

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:38:53 AM PDT

  •  This is incredibly stupid. (0+ / 0-)

    Assuming that this is all true, Dean "wins" either way.

    If Clinton loses the nomination, Dean "wins" (or at least, Hillary "Loses" quite literally), because she'll be out of the running.

    If Clinton wins the nomination, but loses the general, Dean "wins" in the sense of him being proven correct about the danger of running a DLC-style candidate. Of course, the reality is that both Clinton, Dean, the Dems, and the country would be the actual losers.

    If Clinton wins the nomination and wins the White House, I suppose that she "wins" in terms of "proving" that the DLC strategy is the "right" one, but Dean also wins since a) he isn't running himself anyway and b) he'll still be happy to see a Democrat in the White House, as long as he's also able to reshape the national party, so it's not much of a "loss" in my view.

  •  you know (0+ / 0-)

    I only expect a little accountability.  One one hand I have a huge amount of respect for her- the way she weathered the storm when the republicans went after, the strength she showed after her husband’s indiscretions.  But she did vote for that...didn't she

  •  Just say no! (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know about you, but I am tired of dynastic presidencies. Bush 1 then Bush-the-younger. Now Clinton 1 and Evita Hillary.

    I am also sick of pandering to the middle and the undecideds. Why not pander to your base... it worked for the Repubs. They embrace every wingnut walking.

    The DINOs keep trying to go for undecideds as they diss the left. Why? Because they think we will vote for them anyway. And that is why so many just stay home.

    Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

    by digital drano on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:55:38 AM PDT

    •  sexist remarks like yours (0+ / 0-)

      comparing Hillary to Evita are a complete turn off and make me defensive in favor of senator Clinton.  Please stop being so stupid.  You will only help her win the female vote with that kind of nonsense. Oppose her on the facts and her votes please.

      •  I agree with your sexism point (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        grayslady

        but digital drano's point about dynastic presidencies is also true-- I don't want an entrenched political aristocracy, with funding machines being held within families the way old estates used to be.

        "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

        by latts on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the dynasty thing (0+ / 0-)

          is a consideration, but not enough of one to keep me from voting for her. All things being equal and the choice being between Clinton and a lot of DLC male candidates, I will vote for Clinton.
          However I would much prefer a Gore candidacy.

          •  Don't think it'll be an issue (0+ / 0-)

            I have no doubt HRC will be challenged from the left in the primaries, and more palatable candidates will be on the ballot even if the nomination has already been effectively decided (I basically pissed in the wind for Dean in our 2004 primary, because Kerry already had it locked up by that point.  And I'll vote for her in the general if she's the nominee, but I wouldn't expect any great strides for party principles or anything should she actually win-- after all, she'll have to keep her powder dry for her reelection effort.

            Like you, I'd prefer Gore, and Hillary's maybe fifth or sixth on my list.  The Clintons just don't work for the party, their professed ideals, or to actually lead Americans; the fact that they don't screw things up irrevocably is kind of analogous to having a responsible renter in a fabulous historic house in that they're actually pretty passive stewards.

            "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

            by latts on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:38:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm confused (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            digital drano

            Teresa I have a lot of repsect for you. But why do you think the Evita comments where sexist? I don't see it at all.

            From where I sit, I don't like Dynasticism. I think it's a bad move in America. Can anyone tell me one great issue Hillary has passed, or is trying to push? I like Clinton as a Senator, and I would even support her moving up in the Leadership. But as our nominee? I would rather have Boxer, or Nepolitano (Gov. AZ) then her.

            But pushing a women because they are smart, or well spoken, or strong  is to me a negative. Are they saying most woman aren't?

            -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power"

            by dopper0189 on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 11:51:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This has nothing to do with gender (0+ / 0-)

        As a woman myself, my concerns have absolutely nothing to do with gender.

        As I stated, I don't like the trend of presidential families... too much like the dynastic reign of kings/queens. If she were to win, the same two families would have ruled the country for OVER 20 YEARS (4+8+8+)

        Edward R. Murrow:We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

        by digital drano on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 03:25:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The problem is the general election (0+ / 0-)

    I don't really like Hillary, but she's fine. If every word of this story is factually accurate, my impression is just that she (or her advisors) are guilty of . . . gasp . . . thinking like politicians. Maybe Howard Dean sometimes does that, too.

    The problem isn't that she strategizes or tries to overcome hostility in the net roots. The problem is that she seems to be doing all of this really badly. Why was there any need for her to alienate the net roots in the first place? She's a lot more progressive than Reid, and many of us love Reid.

    She's got personality issues, but so, probably, do some lawmakers that we like.

    But she's like an actor who makes reasonable choices but does so in such a way that we see her holding her script right around the bottom edge of the screen shot. She's just so awkward at this that she seems to be triangulating when she may well be being very sincere.

    It's just hard to believe that someone like that could win in 2008.

    I know swing voters, and they didn't vote for Dubya because they liked him or thought he was better in any way than Kerry. They voted for him because they thought he was being himself and that Kerry was a phony.

    Maybe if Hillary just comes out and dispenses with niceties and bares her claws she could escape that fate and get elected as a lioness. Otherwise, I think her candidacy would probably be doomed, just because it would ring false with the American voter.

  •  We need more candidates, not fewer,... (0+ / 0-)

    in 2008.  I just hope they all don't say essentially the same thing.

  •  If she loses the primaries (0+ / 0-)

    will she run for president as a petitioning democrat?

    Hawkish on impeachment.

    by clyde on Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 12:38:58 PM PDT

Permalink | 42 comments