Anna Quindlen: Hillary's Biggest Obstacle? Liberal Democrats

[question everything]

(Apologies if already posted)

Quindlen: Hillary's Biggest Obstacle? Liberal Democrats

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek October 30

(snip)

It has become axiomatic (in this case because it happens to be true) that Senator Clinton is really smart. She has a sharp mind buttressed by an encyclopedic knowledge of key issues and a work ethic that is Calvinism on steroids. She also plays well with others, a surprise to those officials who confused celebrity with the tendency to be a prima donna. Although the looming presidential race will mean her Republican Senate colleagues once again feel obliged to stereotype her as the Tokyo Rose of the far-left insurgency, privately it's a different matter. She has cosponsored bills on both sides of the aisle. She does not hog the mike at press conferences. They like her, they really like her.

History shows that she is able to woo agnostics and even naysayers. That is how she wound up with a Senate seat in a state to which she had only recently moved. (In the carpetbagger department she was inoculated by Robert F. Kennedy, who didn't even have a home in New York when he was elected its junior senator.) She bested her opponent by 12 points because she won over some Republicans and independents and upstate residents. And she carried the women's vote by 60 percent, even though pundits loved to parrot anecdotal evidence suggesting women were put off by her decision to stand by her unfaithful husband. At the time, Gloria Steinem put it best: "I think women can tell the difference between their personal feelings and their political welfare."

(snip)

No, the biggest problem Senator Clinton may have is with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Recent history teaches that when the Republicans suspect they have a front runner, they rally convincingly. Thus George W. Bush was lauded as a Texas straight shooter who would be a breath of fresh air in the bloviating smog of Washington (not a prep-school scion with no track record who could barely string together a coherent sentence). But because liberals are idealists, they are unwilling to do the same. They don't even compare their most promising leaders with the opposition. Instead they compare them with the ideal, the perfect candidate, the standard-bearer without flaw. Right now that means a candidate who did not vote for the Iraq war (although, curiously, if the memory of dinner-party arguments circa 2003 serves, a significant number of liberals supported the original invasion). It also means someone who has never moderated a position for the sake of legislative consensus or personal gain: neither LBJ nor FDR need apply. The chatter about presidential possibilities for superstar newbie Barack Obama offers liberals a classic opportunity: this time around they could argue the black man versus the white woman and then watch, wounded, as another white guy takes all.

Can it truly be that the people who once brought us Social Security and civil rights, often through frantic horse-trading, are now so frozen in the amber of high-mindedness that they have become the official party of the Pyrrhic victory? In that case they might as well get right down to it and send a check to Ralph Nader. From Atlanta to Seattle and everywhere in between, Americans speak of 2008 as a defining moment. It may be the disenchantment with Iraq, or just a vague sense that something has gone terribly wrong with the promise of the American Dream and the level of national leadership. But if there were ever a time for the Democrats to stop chipping away at their own best hopes and start fighting back hard against opposition lies, it is now.

Let's see: brilliant, well informed, high profile, enormous war chest, works hard, speaks eloquently, campaigns well. No wonder the party leaders are worried. Will she run? I hope so. Can she win? She has to take only the states that John Kerry took, and then one more. (Or the states that Al Gore took, and the Supreme Court.) And the Democratic Party has to decide only that it wants to get behind its front runner, to win and therefore actually get things done instead of having the satisfaction of whining "we told you so" all the way to oblivion.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362334/site/newsweek/

[PretzelWarrior]

1. I personally can't stand Hillary

people (who aren't incumbents) don't usually do well in presidential polls when so many hate them just on sight or when hearing them or seeing their name.

Hillary has way too many negatives to even consider a run that could be taken seriously. TO use a hackneyed phrase, "she's radioactive".

[Tellurian]

4. I don't believe she IS all she can be..

and just hasn't found herself yet..

she would be a safe bet and asset as Gore's VP..though.

of that, I am truly convinced..

and hopefully, she'll figure it out. It's so obvious..

[Samantha]

29. You would have a hard time convincing either Hillary or Al Gore

they should run together. They have detested each other polically since 1992.

When Hillary says, "The Gores are our friends" she has her fingers crossed behind her back.

[Tellurian]

31. Well, maybe they've all grown enough

to understand each other a little bit better than they did in 1992.

The last 14 years have been a learning experience for all of us, haven't they?

When you think of how long it has taken for ALL/most of the Truth to come out
(concerning the GOP, the VRW, the Christian Evangelicals and their collective motives).

It feels as if we have been living surreal lives in complete disconnect from the
way we were raised as children. If the Gores take a step forward and Hillary
takes a step back, they have to be able to see how they all were victimized by
greed and the lust for power by the Republican neocons.

They have to see how they were completely manipulated and falsely influenced by
these external forces and how it has affected and changed (all of) their/our lives.

From where I'm standing, I see two great and wonderful families that have grown
stronger each in their own way. Having much more in common than not.

Reunited, they will have the support of the entire country behind them.

I hope they come to realize, if they can put aside and resolve whatever it is their
differences are...the simple fact of the matter is, our country is in GREAT NEED.

They would be entering the White House bringing (between them) 32 yrs of experience
and a wealth of knowledge with them. The only 4 people on God's green earth capable
of such a nobel gesture.

[Rageneau]

14. I know people who agree with you, but none can give me a decent reason.

A number of my Democrat friends say the same thing you do about Hillary, i.e., they just don't "like" her. That there's something "about" her that irreconcilably puts them off..

I can understand people having disdain for Hillary because of her political manuevering and her position on some issues. But it baffles and bothers me when otherwise reasonable Democrats (like my mother) say they 'just can't stand Hillary' for some ineffable reason.

Hillary, like every other human being, should be judged by her words and deeds, public and private. By that standard, I don't know anyone who has a decent reason to dislike her.

OTOH, judging her by your 'feelings' about her, especially in light of copious evidence that she is a good person, woman, politician and soul, isn't reasonable, fair, compassionate or wise.

What it is, is high school.

[question everything]

19. Thank you. I was going to comment in a similar way

besides, there were many people who just "could not stand" Nixon, and others who "could not stand Clinton." Some with Bush, I think.

Visceral reactions that cannot be rationally explained. Perhaps this is what makes a successful leader - evoking such reactions. At least this means that they stand for something, that they are not afraid to be who they are, and stick by it, instead of just trying to be nice toward everyone.

[belpejic]

21. First of all,

Anna Quindlen is a massive dork and a spoiled queen. Secondly, she's obviously very close to Hillary. Quindlen doens't really merit a serious response -- if we give it to her it will only benefit Newsweek/Mort and Random House/Bertelsmann. Trust me, those outlets aren't our friends.

There's no way I'll support Hillary in the primaries. And it really has nothing to do with gender, which is the only card she's got. I think she sucks -- her record wrt Iraq should speak for itself -- and I'm a former New Yorker. Sadly, I'll vote for her in a general election against a Repug because we've got to do that. But it will be with a heavy heart, and with no finanacial or foot support. I'd rather take the pain.

[freefall]

43. Here's my decent reason, Rageneau

"Hillary, like every other human being, should be judged by her words and deeds, public and private. By that standard, I don't know anyone who has a decent reason to dislike her."

She has blood on her hands based on her vote for an illegal invasion of Iraq and continued support for the * position on the occupation and she has said that torture is OK under certain circumstances. I left a $75,000/year government job in 2005 because I could no longer stand working for a government that practiced torture. (I have no dependents so my decision did not adversely affect others.) If Hillary is the nominee I will either sit the election out or work for a third party candidate.

She lacks principles. Maybe your mom can't articulate that but she senses it.

Peace,

freefall

[cadmium]

28. I dont trust her. It's time to break the Bush - Clinton - Bush dynasty.

[wtmusic]

2. There we go, ruining the party again

Ah, life is good! :evilgrin:

[Tellurian]

35. KR

:kick:

[JeffR]

3. The article excerpts demonstrate clearly why the mainstream media's

time has passed. If this is what passes for punditry from a national news magazine, I'll happily go back to Mad Magazine if I want to hear the MSM's take on anything.

As for Senator Clinton: don't quit yer day job.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

12. "As for Senator Clinton: don't quit yer day job." Priceless.

That should be on T-shirts and bumper stickers.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Yet again we are in complete agreement, JeffR...

[CarbonDate]

5. More inside-the-beltway nonsense.

Most of us "liberal Democrats" of whom she speaks weren't at those "dinner parties" speaking in favor of the Iraq invasion. We were on the streets opposing it and being ignored by both Bush and our Democratic leaders in Washington. It's why we fought hard to ditch Gephardt, Daschle, and McAulliffe in favor of Pelosi, Reid, and Dean (okay, two out of three ain't bad).

Sen. Clinton's original support of the IWR, her mouthing the same talking points as PNAC on the Senate floor, and her continued support of the Iraq occupation represent a huge betrayal of not only the liberal grassroots, but of the entire nation. THAT is why I do not support her; not some sort of ideological purity.

[MaryBear]

6. Put off by such a charming hard working brilliant team player?

Hey! Stick to your guns!

Don't let facts get in the way.

Listen to the media she scares.

Take a deep breath in of the hostility spewed forth.

She will be a winner, again.

In spite of it, again.

[Robeson]

7. Total nonsense. Most "Liberals" are realistic enough to know it...

...would be political suicide for our party to have her on our party's national ticket. The only "idealists", are the DLC'ers who think she could actually win a national election.

[provis99]

8. i don't give two poops for anna quindlen's

broad stroke stereotypes about liberals, but one thing that makes me nervous about Hillary is the impression I get that she's one of these insidious DLC candidates. If we are idealists, well then fine; we damned well should be, not like the Machiavellian DLC wusses.

[justinaforjustice]

9. Liberal Dems Want An Honestly Liberal Candidate

Liberal Democrats don't like Hillary Clinton because they smell her Republican-like hypocrisy. Just as many Republican political leaders have gay staff members but push anti-gay legislation, we see a woman whose high intelligence must tell her that the only way to save our soldiers from Bush's un-winnable Iraq debacle is to get them out of there immediately, yet she refuses to say so because she afraid of looking weak on national security for her 2008 presidential run. The reason we liked the equally intelligent Howard Dean as a liberal Democratic presidential candidate was because he told the truth about Iraq as he saw it, no matter what. Al Gore has told the truth about Iraq too, no matter what.

Hillary is good on many issues, but she has been absolutely dismal on the war on Iraq, which is the critical issue facing the U.S., and the issue of greatest concern to American voters. When Hillary Clinton starts being honest about Iraq, then maybe American liberals will support her. (Oh, and it would help if she would stop her attack dog James Carville from trashing Howard Dean. That does not play at all well in liberal land.)

[Donna Zen]

10. Don't forget NAFTA

And all of the other "gifts" that keep on giving.

BTW, I don't see my blue state being too keen on Hillary.

[paulk]

20. Hillary Clinton was not even in the Senate when NAFTA passed

and she voted against CAFTA.

I don't know if I'll support HRC or not, but nonsense like your post really pisses me off.

At least take the time to get your facts straight.

[w4rma]

22. Her husband signed NAFTA into law. Are you saying that she disagrees with President Clinton? (nt)

[paulk]

23. Do you KNOW for a fact that she agreed with her husband?

And even if she did, how can that possibly be relevent?

She's NOT Bill Clinton.

[w4rma]

34. How about you prove that she is not a huge supporter of 'free' trade?

She used to be a board member of Wal-Mart. Her husband was the first president to give up America's ability to set tarrifs.

[paulk]

37. I don't have to prove anything

you're the one making ridiculous assertions here.

[geek tragedy]

27. No, because she obviously can't think for herself, being

a meek little woman and everything.

:sarcasm:

[w4rma]

33. Well considering the's not a "meek little woman" then there should be lots on her disagreement with

NAFTA. Oh wait. She was a board memeber of Wal-Mart. She is a **huge** supporter of 'free' trade.

[Donna Zen]

30. Sorry to make you angry

...and I mean that.

I do know that Hillary was not in the Senate at the time; however, these trade deals are part of the DLC package of ideas. Trade deals have a part A and a part B when they are presented. Part B is the area of policy that effects Main Street, you and me. However, once the deal hits the floor, part B is quickly forgotten. Bill and Hillary and Rahm are huge supporters of part A.

My #1 beef with Hillary is that she fails to stand up unless the polling is just right. (Well, to be honest, I have several more.) This is not about personality, this is about policy and a philosophy of governing.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

42. Brilliantly stated !!! Full agreement with you.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

11. Quindlen gets it totally backward

Funny that she characterizes Hillary Clinton as the insurgent campaigning against the opposition of the Democratic party leaders, when in fact, it's Hillary herself who is the main insider, establishment candidate.

Furthermore, Quindlen sets up dozens of straw men in her article and even makes a sickening accusation of racism directed at the Democrats with her veiled reference to Barack Obama and Democratic liberals.

Quindlen also falsely claims that opposition to Hillary stems from Hillary's vote in favor of the IWR in 2002, when in fact it's far more than that-- she's continued to be one of the Iraq War's main supporters on both sides of the aisle, when other Democrats who voted for the IWR (such as John Edwards) have admitted the error and turned into war opponents. Also if anything, one of the most important reasons that so many Democrats will never support her even if she were our nominee, is that she's far too pro-corporatist, at the expense of the middle class. She's a major supporter of outsourcing, which is utterly killing the US domestic class, and Hillary was a big supporter of that disgusting bankruptcy reform bill, for which millions of Progressive Democrats will never forgive her.

Sorry, Anna Quindlen, but you're a loser trapped in the myopia of your own delusions. Wake up, and see what the rest of us have figured out long ago.

[rodeodance]

13. Good article and I hope Hil runs

[Q]

15. Liberals: the Right's and New Democrat's permanent scapegoat...

It's the liberal's fault that Hillary can't run and win. As if there were enough liberals in DC...or even the US...to prevent such a thing from happening.

Neither party has ever seriously considered a woman for president. Hell...women are still struggling for equality.

It's not just the 'liberals' that are concerned about running Hillary and being the first. She just doesn't have the 'depth' to be president.

[Totally Committed]

16. "Can she win?..."

"...She has to take only the states that John Kerry took, and then one more. (Or the states that Al Gore took, and the Supreme Court.)"

That's true, but how will she do that without the Liberals? Or without the "anybody but Bush" Dems (Liberal or not) who, after such a devisive primary, held their noses and voted for Kerry anyway?

If the "establishment" Dems keep scapegoating Liberals this way, DEMANDING we accept another of their candidates -- like it or not -- trying to convince us their candidate is the "frontrunner" and all others are just in the way -- If they do that this time, Liberals will stay home in droves or give up all together on this Party. Mark my words... it will not end well.

TC

[Buck Rabbit]

24. She wouldn't be without the Liberals. ABM Baby!!!

Anybody But McCain!!

I was ABB, very lukewarm for Kerry, but gave him more money and effort than I did to any canidate before. Even the ones I fully supported. It would be the same with Hillary versus McCain. No brainer!

Hillary isn't my first choice (or second or third or fourth) but I would take her over any Republican. And no way I would stay home and chance a Republican President in 2008 stacking the Supreme Court for the rest of my lifetime. I bet you wont stay home either when it comes down to it no matter how tempting it sounds now.

[Le Taz Hot]

50. Oh yes she would.

Many many many liberals/progressives did NOT vote for Kerry in 2004. HRC is even less desirable. There will be NO grassroots for her and certainly not a significant amount of netroots money. Of course, she doesn't really need it. Her corporate sponsors will give her all that she needs.

I'll lay you 10-1 odds that if HRC is the nominee, California's electoral college votes will end up going to McCain.

[Nay]

17. And don't forget she sponsored the flag-burning amendment, a

stupid RW feel-good POS, and right before the recent elections she didn't stand up for Kerry when his bumbled joke was turned into a "hate the troops" statement by the RWers--she went right along and told him he should apologize. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see that she feels fine as a RW tool, as long as it gets her what she wants. She is also a corporatist. I keep repeating--we don't need those kinds of Democrats. We have too many of those kind in the Pub party already.

I also find it disturbing that Quindlen praises the Pubs for uniting behind their nominee Bush--believing the Texas cowboy hype and ignoring the reality--no matter what. Look what we have gotten the past 6 years because Pubs behaved that way! And she wants Dems to do the same, no matter who are candidate is? WE'RE NOT LIKE THEM, ANNA, AND WE DON'T EVER WANT TO BE LIKE THEM, EVEN IF IT MEANS WE LOSE.

In fact, I get the feeling she wants us to shut up right now, and not even consider other candidates because Hilary is just so good. Sorry, if the Dem leadership falls for this, we will lose in 2008.

[cali]

18. No she did not.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but she did not support or propose a flag desecration amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She signed onto legislation in the Senate. Big difference.

[flpoljunkie]

25. If Quindlan thinks these kind of silly insults will help Hillary, she is sadly mistaken.

[oasis]

26. Competence in governance: A Clinton trademark.

Let's get back to getting the job done right.

[election_2004]

36. Quindlen: bought and sold by the MSM media

I guess we all know who Anna will be voting for in her state's primaries.

[The Magistrate]

38. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Do you suppose there is anyone who expresses a view different than your's from conviction, or is all expression diagreeing with you the product of a commercial transaction?

[election_2004]

40. She's clearly pushing an agenda

Not only is she blatantly cheerleading for Hillary in an unpersuasive way, but she has taken up the short-sighted mantra of the Hillaristas:

She has to take only the states that John Kerry took, and then one more.

Wow, talk about setting low expectations...

[The Magistrate]

45. That Statement Is True, Sir

And the state in question will probably be Ohio, which is unlikely to vote for a Republican on national or statewide levels for at least a decade.

You still offer not a hint of reason to suppose this person is not conveying her opinion, but rather something she is paid to say that is different from what she thinks on her own.

[election_2004]

47. I can believe it may be her own opinion....

...and that she "conveniently" shares it with the MSM gatekeepers. And she was thereby allowed to write a high-profile editorial on Saint Hillary's "inevitable" nomination and future as the "savior" of her party.

[The Magistrate]

49. Why The Ironic Quotation Marks Around 'Conveniently', Sir?

A great many people are of the view that Sen. Clinton has a good chance of winning the Party's nomination and the Presidency, and feel further that she would make an excellent President. You are still attempting to suggest that the views Ms. Quindlan expresses are not her real views, it would seem. That is a pointless endeavor....

[Arkana]

39. Normally I like Anna Quindlen, but here I think she's full of shit.

"The liberal wing of the Democratic Party." What wing is that, Anna--the one that stands on principle as opposed to Hillary, who blows whichever way the political wind does? I don't think you realize what a polarizing figure she is.

[BenDavid]

41. I am of the opinion that if

Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run not only will she win the democratic nomination but will win and become the 44th President of the united States.

I too am under the opinion that Hillary will not announce whether she will run until the right time. William Jefferson Clinton did not announce until October 1991.Hillary will announce she will run in October 2007. That is if she decides too, and if not, then she will run to take over top spot in the Senate and the majority leader....

Why not early like McCain and Rudy? Well hell that is simple. Why give the press now till December and all the months before she announces to find as many faults(untrue) with her they can drag up and give the right wing an opportunity to blast away.

One thing the right wing will forget is this woman will have just as big a set of balls or bigger on her and she will fight back. Unlike Kerry that wanted to be Mister Nice Guy....You can bet yo ass that if Hillary runs, the damn democratic convention will be a robust time, twice as much hitting whomever the right wing puts up...It will not be like this past Kerry convention where no one except Al Sharpton came Bush hell. The American people was waiting on Kerry and the Dems to blast away at bush, but it never came....Hillary will be different a lot different...

Hillary will not just be a bear when she runs, she will be A DAMN GRIZZLEY.....

[Jennicut]

44. I dislike Hillary

Because of her actions behind the scenes and in front of the cameras. I am a woman but have never admired this woman. In my oppinion, she is all about power and control and if one does not believe that then just look at Carville's recent attacks on Dean. When Al Gore endorsed Dean for president in 2004 the Clintons (both of them) saw it as a direct slap to them as they were afraid of Dean getting any kind of power becuase they predicted correctly that he could become a formidable foe against them. They wanted to appoint their own lackey at the DNC to aid Hillary's presidency hopes and are still p'od that it did not go their way. Hence, the attacks on Dean by their old buddy Carville. She also tried to block Al Gore from running in 2004 by telling all likely Democractic fundraisers not to give to Al or give to someone else. Being a strong woman means you don't have to step on people to get to the top. She did not show any support for Kerry during his "gaffe". She surrounds herself with yespeople just as Bush has. I also dislike her stance on the war, her support of Republican bills and ideas. She has tried to apppear "bi-partisan" but it has always come off as fake and pandering to get elected. Rudy and McCain are alot like that as well. If this is all we have to choose in 2008 it wil be a sad day in November. I want a candidate who stands up strongly for what they believe in, not what they think will get them elected. Hillary will do anything to get elected and that makes her no better than the Rethugligans. That is why I dislike her.

[paulk]

51. most politicians are about "power and control"

maybe that's because politics is pretty much about "power and control". Of course for HRC, being a woman and all, this is a charactor deficit.


What support of Republican bills and ideals are you refering to? HRC has a 95% ADA rating. One of the highest in the Senate. That means she votes the Democratic Party position 95% of the time.

[Larkspur]

46. Hillary is a corporate whore

There is no way I will every vote for her.

[Clark2008]

48. Hillary's biggest obstacle is THIS country.

It will not elect a woman or a man of color right now.

It may be ready, but it doesn't realize it.

[Zhade]

52. You mean, those of us who have been right about many things all along?

The way we were right on the war from the beginning?

Gee, what an 'obstacle' - informed people who are deep thinkers and have been right about major, world-changing events. The horror!