And the Democratic cannibalism begins

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:59 am

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/v ... ormat=text

We just got through an election, and Clinton is already attacking Kerry, essentially making the argument that the Democrats Chosen One was incompetent.

Hows that for party unity?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:04 am

First test of Dean is to shut Lewis up. May also be a test of Clinton and Kerry to see if they can play this unity-style.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:18 am

Good point about Dean. This actually will be a good test to see if he can keep party unity together.

Do you find it odd that Clinton's camp is starting so early with the marginalization of other Dems? I thought it a cheeky move, even for Hillary. She runs a tight camp, so I have my doubts that the person saying all this is a renegade.

What I really think is happening is that she's floating a balloon to see what happens. If she gets a lot of heat, she'll toss the staffer under the bus and claim that particular indian went off the reservation. If she doesn't get any heat, she'll slowly start to pick apart potential rivals. It's classic Clinton pre-election positional strategy.

I'm telling you folks, (Tim, are you listening?), Hillary will make a strong run for the Whitehouse in '08.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:46 am

I think you may be right. Or she may be an Indian who really did go off the reservation.

The comment itself wasn't strongly worded, and honestly it was more or less true. Kerry's campaign did not stay on message.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:06 pm

The reason the Clinton's made a good team was Hilary is the pitbull attack dog who gets people motivated and then Bill would be the peacemaker and consensus builder. The combination just doesn't work one without the other. Wiithout Hilary, Bill comes off as mealy mouthed and wishy washy because he tends to adopt both sides of issues. Without Bill, Hilary looks mean spirited and a divider.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:15 pm

She's doing a lot to diminish that image, Kulaf. Her bi-partisan positions in the Senate are building her an image of someone who is a bridge builder. Her latest support of subsidized birth control is a good example. She could have framed it as "this empowers women to control their own bodies", but she actually framed it as "this will reduce abortions".

Big, big difference in the spin. And very calculated too.

Ya know, if she was a nominee for CIA head, I'd support her. She's one of the cagiest people I've seen in the political arena for quite some time, and very effective at ruthlessly pursuing a goal.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:33 pm

I'd rather see a host of Dems before Hillary run. Clark/Schweitzer would be a good duo.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:18 pm

I don't want to see Hillary either.

SabiarofErudin · Post by **SabiarofErudin** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:12 am

Even though all the signs point to it, I still can't believe that the dem's would consider putting Hillary in the front seat of the 2008 rollercoaster. Unless they got the sweet sweet taste of a humiliating spanking and all became sado's.

There are a variety of combo's that would make a lot more strategic sense for getting back the whitehouse. I just don't see how this is benefical to the donkies. Even with HRC's slow transformation to a demublican consocialist over the next 4 years I still don't see it happening. I have yet to meet a dem or bleeding heart liberal for that matter excited about a HRC run in 08. Hell even the republicans are disappointed by the lack of challenge.

Alluveal · Post by **Alluveal** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:06 pm

Please don't scare me by saying Hilary will run. That frightens me a lot.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:36 pm

She can't be worse than the schmuck we got now.

No, wait, she can be. Not likely, but she can be.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:43 am

Interesting in that neither Dean has spoken out, nor has Hillary's camp retracted the statement, nor has the staffer been fired.

Score one for Hillary. My prediction is that she'll use the statements as a springboard to illuminate what she thinks is wrong with the Democratic Party and use that to push her agenda into forefront.

If she starts now, (which apparently she is), the entire debate about reforms within the Dems will be framed around her. She'll make herself out as the visionary within the party. And she's also working the bipartisan stuff in the Seante as well, identifying with typically conservative issues like abortion reduction.

She's one cagey political animal.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:00 am

You're reading way too much into it, Embar. Plus if Dean did anything, it'd be behind the scenes.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:13 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:You're reading way too much into it, Embar. Plus if Dean did anything, it'd be behind the scenes.

Explain her bi-partisan approach on abortion reduction.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:17 pm

It's common sense - and follows the philosophy of her husband. It's not a radical new idea.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:24 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:It's common sense - and follows the philosophy of her husband. It's not a radical new idea.

You're right, its not a new idea. She took an old idea, and framed it in a new way. The nuance was "anit-abortion", not "pro-choice". The nuance speaks volumes.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:07 pm

No, she didn't stake out anti-abortion ground.

She staked out a "reduce the number of abortions by reducing the need for them", which is both common-sense and not new, and has wide support from the pro-choice side -- but oddly, only modest support from the pro-life side.

Brell Rants

And the Democratic cannibalism begins

And the Democratic cannibalism begins

Re: