LAT: Clinton Is Cultivating an Image as a Centrist

[deadparrot]

RIVERHEAD, N.Y. — It looked like a traditional event for a rural politician: A member of Congress, standing before a sweltering summer crowd, had come to toast a local Farm Bureau official.

But the star here last week was Hillary Rodham Clinton, better known as a national liberal symbol than a hero to the traditionally Republican farming community.

In a sparsely populated part of Long Island, amid vineyards and a zinnia patch, the Democratic senator from New York boasted of raising the visibility of the state's agricultural sector among her Washington colleagues.

"They didn't know we grew anything in New York except tall buildings," she quipped.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/clintoniscultivatinganimageasacentrist

[sniffa]

1. a nationaL LiberaL icon?

to RWers maybe. :eyes:

[deadparrot]

3. Thought the same thing...

I've never once thought of her as liberal.

[Endangered Specie]

2. "Hillary Clinton, national liberal symbol"?!

:rofl:

[acmavm]

4. Whatever. I am so sick of Hillary being shoved down our collective

throats.

[MadHound]

5. Oh man, has the center shifted.

Now a former Goldwater Girl, who never really left her political roots, is considered a "national liberal symbol".:wtf:

Just absolutely dispicable.

[Mairead]

14. Chomsky remarks that every survey (and I can vouch for NORC myself)

shows that both parties and Media Inc are miles to the right of the people. So 'the center' hasn't moved...but they certainly want us to think so!!

[Peace Patriot]

23. Chomsky is absolutely right. Even the corporate news monopoly polls

show this overwhelmingly. You name the issue. The Iraq war. Torture policy. Social Security. The deficit. Women's rights. The great majority of Americans oppose all major Bush policies, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range.

And that's not even to mention Bush's miserable approval ratings over the last year (so bad Zogby said he could not win); and the exit polls on election day (Bush lost).

EVERY indicator--other than the official result of the 2004 election, which was tabulated by two Bushite companies (Diebold and ES&S) using secret, proprietary software--points to a very great progressive majority that is being ignored, and pooh-poohed, and denigrated, and marginalized, and despised, and lied to by both parties!

63% of the American people oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. May '04. And yet we have torture memo writer Alberto Gonzales as the chief law enforcement of the United States--with some Democrats touting his name for the Supreme Court!

As I mention in my main comment below, 58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03. It burned into my memory. I will never forget it. About half of that 58% opposed the war outright. The other half would only support a UN peacekeeping mission (world consensus)--and no pre-emptive, unilateral war by Bush.

Nearly 60% of us didn't trust Bush THEN. THEN. Before the election. Before the war.

So, don't tell me that the majority of Americans voted for these thieves and murderers, because I don't believe it--and the facts back me up.

And don't tell me they didn't vote. The Democrats blew the Republicans away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. We had the biggest voter turnout in history, which always favors Democrats. And the vast majority of new voters, independent voters and former Nader voters voted for Kerry. Who else is there? --but the Gore/Bush 2000 voters, with the Gore 2000 voters being the ones who got all their non-voting family members, friends and co-workers to register and vote for the first time, in 2004, because "this is the most important election in our history!" You're telling me they voted for Bush?!

And what do the news monopolies say to that? They print Karl Rove's garbage about their "invisible" get out the vote campaign. I mean, come on.

Anyway, the news monopolies/war profiteers have given this rightwing minority a Big Trumpet, to push their views, and hoodwink us into believing that there is some rightwing, nutso, fascist surge in our country. I don't believe any of it any more. I think it's bunk. Yeah, there are a few crazies and greedbags out there. There always have been. I think it's a con job that they have convinced ANYBODY that their insane war against Iraq was necessary for national security or had any justification whatsoever; that government should reduce spending except for big fat globs of billions and billions and billions of dollars for Bushite military contractors and global corporate monsters; or that Christianity means torturing Arabs, executing criminals, and shorting black precincts in Ohio.

Nobody's buying it. It's crap. It's not where our heart is, which loves justice and fairness and peacefulness and generosity and creativity. THAT'S who we are! Not these cartoon fascists.

So, get on it, America! Let's get our country back, the one we all know and love, the one we were born to, the one that was once the hope of the world, and not its dreaded oppressor--the one that is "of the people, by the people and for the people," and that we will not let perish from this earth.

[WI_DEM]

6. The Clinton's have always been centrists

Bill certainly governed that way. Hillary may have gotten a reputation for being a liberal because of her health care program which went up in flames. But even that was hardly a liberal program. It's just another case of the media incorrectly labeling people.

[Mairead]

13. Incorrectly labelling people with malice aforethought, too (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

29. Finally, someone gets it.

They have never been anything other than centrists, yet people on both sides of the fence continue to have unreal and unreasonable expections of them.

The "liberal" moniker runs in tag-team symmetry with "flip-flop." It's apparently GOP code word for liberals suck. Anyone to the left of Eric Rudolph would be labeled liberal by the wingnuts.

I detect much Hillary hatred and fatigue here at DU. Just remember it's the media that's focusing on her in their search for the newest blonde girl abduction.

[bluestateguy]

7. And pissing away the Democratic nomination in the process

n/t

[phiddle]

8. Yeah, she's in the middle of a road

that's been veering to the right for 25 years! Her positions are midway between reasonable and insane, which is to say, bullshit.

[JDPriestly]

9. Hillary should tuck her ambitious tail between her legs and stay home

I like Hillary as a person and senator, however, I firmly believe that if Hillary decides so much as to run, she will ruin the chances for a Democratic victory.

This is because,

1) although she has always been DLC -- middle-of-the-road,

2) the Republicans have successfully framed her as a "liberal."

3) On top of that, the Republicans are now framing her as an opportunist who is intentionally veering rightward in order to demoniacally seduce middle-of-the-road Republicans to vote for her. Remember the "flip-flop" bit that did Kerry in. Well, that was nothing compared to the "flip-flop" bit the Republicans will pull on poor Hillary.

4) If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, not only will she will be an easy mark for Republicans, not only will she lose, not only will she be tarred as a liberal wolf in middle-of-the-road sheep's clothing, but she will evoke the whole Monica Lewinsky/blame Bill propaganda. She will be blamed for 9/11, for the Bush economic recession, for teen pregnancies (which went down under Clinton, but still she will be held responsible), Terry Schiavo, Columbine, the Oklahoma Federal Building, you name it. The extreme right wing won't even have to catch its breath. They've had their ammo loaded for years, and Hillary is so straight, so predictable that she will not be able to avoid their aim.

5) If some other candidate wins the nomination, the Republicans will contrast them with Hillary as being even more liberal than Hillary and even more un-American, and they will lose.

6) The Republican strategy since Nixon has been to divide Democrats. Hillary's candidacy will divide us. We need someone who unites the party. Kerry was good in that regard. Clark would be even better. That may be one of the reasons that Clark is so popular on this website. He is not really as liberal as many of the contributors here, but he appeals across the spectrum of Democrats. He would be able to unite us. There are other potential candidates out there who can do that. But, they have to start strategizing on how to unify the party right now.

Hillary should not run. She is a good person and a good Democratic senator, but her candidacy would hurt the Democratic Party.

[Ambrose]

10. Whomever runs will be called a "liberal" by the pukes...

Hillary with Bill's help would have a great chance of keeping them spinning.

[JDPriestly]

19. We will be constantly reminded of Monica.

Monica will no doubt publish a new book on her experience as "That Woman." You are right, any Democrat who runs will be labeled a liberal. So, why don't we nominate a real liberal and call their bluff. I bet real Americans would vote in droves for a real liberal who spoke from the heart. Most Americans are very generous and fundamentally liberal. We just need to choose the right issues like health care for all, fair trade, punishing employers who hire illegals, strengthening Social Security, raising taxes on the rich and replacing aggression and war with international cooperation and peace.

[Ambrose]

30. and if one comes along better than Hillary so be it.

For now, she is the best chance because she draws attention. I can't think of a candidate right now that compares.

Biden is a joke. He'll get no support.
Edwards would be great but he's not even in public office now (i.e. no experience).

Don't even know if anyone else had considered running.

[cubschicago]

11. Breaking News: When you add 2 and 2... you get 4

[Triana]

12. "cultivating an image as"? HA!

She IS a centrist! God I get so sick of people calling the Clintons LIBERAL. They're NOT. That's a bunch of reichwingnut propaganda!

They're centrist, at BEST. Always have been. Always will be.

Liberal my ass.

[meganmonkey]

15. I just hope we get a chance to show these people

what liberal really means...

on edit: for the sake of clarity, I think I need to state that I do NOT think HRC is liberal.

[sandnsea]

16. If we had an independent left

visible, vocal, clear message; they wouldn't be able to get away with calling centrist politics liberal.

[lancdem]

17. I't amazing how the media still perpetuates the myth

of Hillary as a hard-line liberal. She's a progressive, but she's much more moderate than the press seems to understand. This is nothing new.

[Voltaire99]

18. Cultivate all you like.

I'm not voting for you.

See, I have this thing about pols who support illegal wars, outsourcing, and corporate tax breaks....

[despairing optimist]

20. Actually she's cultivating two images, one for each of her faces

Centrist and turncoat. I'll vote for the Green candidate in that race, just to keep a decent alternative party on the ballot. No more Republican lites for me.

[Peace Patriot]

21. 16 years of global corporate predators is enough!

The Clintons/DLC started it, with NAFTA. They are as much responsible for the vast loss of jobs as Bush is.

Hillary is just too tainted with it. That, and her vote in favor of Bush's horrible war, will haunt her to the end of her days.

We need somebody to clean house. We need somebody with a BIG BROOM. That's not her.

There are very few people I like right now. Howard Dean (still). Paul Hackett (go, Paul!). Barbara Boxer! John Conyers! Maybe Clark. Clark/Hackett, not bad. Boxer/Hackett, even better.

I wish Dean wasn't diddling around with what order the primaries should be in (another thread), and was seeing to fundamentals, like Bushite electronic voting companies counting all the votes with secret, proprietary software. If Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia are still at it, in '08--and people haven't thrown their election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' by then--you can be sure it will be Hillary, and that means Jeb "wins." Or, worse, Hillary gets stuck with trying to clean up Bush's disasters, fails, and then Jeb "wins." Democracy over.

I can't imagine the American people ever voting for a Bush again, but then, it won't be a vote so much as a declaration by all the news monopolies that "we know who the president is, but don't ask us how we know--it just is." Kind of like 2004. And if the numbers don't add up, they "adjust" them, right there on our TV screens, to make it seem like they do.

My favorite stat: 58% of the American people opposed the Iraq was BEFORE the invasion. I'll never forget that number. Feb. '03. Across the board in all polls--before all the lies were exposed, before the full horror and costs were known. And these were news monopoly/war profiteer polls, so you know the number is even higher.

The American people weren't fooled. We were DISENFRANCHISED! And Hillary is not the answer now--but someone who can wholly RE-DIRECT this country BACK TOWARD democracy, transparent vote counts, and the progressive tradition that has made us great.

No half measures. It's time for the Second American Revolution!

[Zhade]

22. Cultivating?

Hell, to be a centrist on some issues, she'd have to move left!

[Peace Patriot]

26. "Citizens for a Sound Economy"?! I wonder what THEY think of Bush's

trillion dollar deficit. Okay to whack Arabs with, but not okay to give Americans some piddling little assistance with our humongous medical bills? Okay to pad Dick Cheney's billion-dollar retirement package with, but not to paint the peeling walls of inner city schools?

These people are so awful. It's hard to begin to even say how awful they are. Hypocrisy bleeds from their ghoulish eyes.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

25. Yes, but I would laugh so hard at the FReepers who would have to

listen to a person they HATE with every SINGLE FIBER of their being
for the next 8 years.

[Peace Patriot]

27. Granted, that might almost be worth eight more years of global

corporate piracy and military occupation of the Middle East. Almost. Kind of fun to think about anyway.

[VegasWolf]

28. I Know!!! I can see both upside and downside, I'm so confused! nt