Hillary's 'Centrist Coalition'

Given her vote for the war in Iraq, hawkishness on Iran, affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council and long-standing ties to corporate America, it's surprising how much support Hillary Clinton has picked up from the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

She leads among union households in Iowa. When I visited the state recently, I saw lawns with signs that read "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home," next to "Hillary for President." A year ago, when Clinton still refused to advocate a timetable for bringing the troops home, such a juxtaposition would have been unimaginable.

Her rhetoric has changed since she entered the nomination, as she aggressively courts the Democratic base. But in many ways, her positions have not. "Clinton's pledge to 'get out of Iraq' is far from iron-clad," the Washington Post reports today. "There are numerous conditions attached." She offers a laundry list of reasons why the US might stay in Iraq for a very long time.

Moreover, in a separate interview with the Post today, she began to outline her general election strategy. "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up," she said.

In case you don't remember, Hillary grew up a Goldwater girl.

Comments (35)

1. KvH: ...it's surprising how much support Hillary Clinton has picked up from the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

   Sorry, Ms. KvH, NOT surprised at all.....I have seen it right here for just about all this year at The Nation! Even your own loyal bloggers (and likely print readers) think you are `smacking down' HRC but from my vantage point, you are de facto, endorsing her! Smack me if you will...:)

   Posted by Happy at 10/10/2007 @ 11:58am

2. Come on, Mr Berman...quit trying to fool us!

   HAPPY knows that "The Nation" is a big Hillary booster site and all these so-called "criticism" are merely a dodge trying to convince us that you guys don't love her and desperately desire her to win the nomination!

   Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 12:00pm

3. but from my vantage point, you are de facto, endorsing her! Smack me if you will...:)----Posted by HAPPY 10/10/2007 @ 11:58

   See?

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 12:01pm

4. ok...somehwere around 60% oppose military action against iran...

   about 70% oppose the iraq war...

   YET REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS (with a precious few exceptions) CONTINUE DOWN THE WARPATH...

   your politicians do not represent you...economically, in foriegn policy, or in almost any way whatsoever. when one arises who might, you flock to the banners of those who screw you over and have proven they do not care about what you want...

   you just want your cable tv and trivia...circuses...

   shit...at least the romans demanded some bread too...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 12:32pm

5. in foriegn policy your politicians represent israel - in domestic - murdoch...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 12:35pm

6. Because the maufactured consensus promotes her as the only choice with little diversity or enthusiasm for any alternative. A done deal.

   Posted by Lil at 10/10/2007 @ 12:38pm

7. Posted by LIL 10/10/2007 @ 12:38pm

   feeling cynical here today, but i think its damn near hopeless. schmuk nation semi-conciously whines and carps but then proceeds to either go vote for the folks who continually reem them or go home and play video games/watch the trials and triumphs of their favorite pop idols...

   the mental/moral rot pervades this country at every level, top to bottom, bottom to top...

   education? whats the point? more people have more degrees than ever before in this country yet seem stupider and more vacuous than ever...and real median income has gone down.

   perhaps tomorrow i will be a bit more optimistic, and i will indeed continue to be involved, to vote, blah blah blah...but losing faith fast...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 1:05pm

8. "Because the maufactured consensus promotes her as the only choice with little diversity or enthusiasm for any alternative. A done deal.

   Posted by LIL 10/10/2007 @ 12:38pm

   DUH. Hillary was, is and always has been the candidate for the Dems in 08..for years...the rest is for second bannana seat(Richardson)....and 90% here will vote for her despite the lamentations...except EMPTY, of course.

   Posted by john maasch at 10/10/2007 @ 1:12pm

9. IBBLE, basic politico-philosophical question...

   What do you think it is, that prevents Democratic voters (not national, but in the Dem primaries) from supporting Kucinich, or even Edwards or Obama, and instead support "Akasha"?

   Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 1:25pm

10. Zero - great comment as usual. That whole "centrist" garbage is a smokescreen to keep people from seeing what's going on. Corporate interests control this country. There's nothing centrist about that.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/10/2007 @ 2:12pm

11. OPENSECRETS [opensecrets.org]

    according to this the number of soft donations (from groups/orgs) is almost negligible...none get more than 1-2% from big orgs...

    hillary, however, blows away all dems and pubs in % from big donors ($4600)...

    44% of 50 foot queeny's green comes from the big donors. rudi tops the pubs at 22% (obama trails most at 9%)...

    these $4600 donations may be given once per...cycle? gotta look at that again...very labrynthine...

    so 50 foot queenie appears to be the choice of wealthy folks...both parties...

    the most interesting part of 50 foot queeny's source is the "other" catagory...

    Individual contributions $52,538,649 83% PAC contributions $532,946 1% Candidate self-financing $0 0% Federal Funds $0 0% Other $10,004,332 16%

    "other" is defined by the website as All other revenues collected by the campaign, such as interest from the campaign's bank accounts and loans from outside sources. This figure is calculated by subtracting PAC, individual and candidate money from total revenues received. Negative numbers generally indicate an accounting error by the campaign.

    hmm...who is "loaning" 50 foot so much money...or is it invested? with who?

    alone this might mean nothing...wonder what the "other" candidate's "other" consists of...

    obama - 1% edwards - 0% richardson/kucinich/gravel - 0 - 1% biden - 31% dodd - 40%

    of the pubs, they average 0 - 3% "other", except giuliani - 6% brownbach - 18%

    would love to see a breakdown of 50 foot queeny's 16% "other" sources...

    so in conclusion...

    50 foot queeny gets twice as large a chunk of her $$$ as even GIULIANI from big dog donors...and...

    16% from the nebulous "other" catagory - topping all but a few also rans...

    WHAT DOES "OTHER" CONSIST OF?????

    WOMAN OF THE PEOPLE? FRIEND OF THE MIDDLE CLASS? OR SERVANT OF THE "OTHER"?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 2:59pm

12. Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 1:25pm

    i think most people, dem, pub, indy, are ignorant and trivialized as shit!

    they seem locked in some kind of starstruck, pop-culturally lobotomized delusional idiocy...

    there just comes a point in all great wealthy empires where the populace becomes all ate up with delusions of their greatness, degenerate and enable their own destruction...

    may take a while once the rot sets in, but barring some kind of precipitous economic/civilizational collapse...probably nothing to do about it.

    the way the polar ice cap is melting, however...the collapse may be closer than even i suspect...wonder when massive coastal flooding will begin to kick in...

    damn! think i'll play some video games and stock up on real ammo!

    hey! j-lo's preggers!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 3:07pm

13. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/10/2007 @ 3:07pm

    Yeah, kind of figured that would be it, IBBLE. 'Fraid it's rather prevalent on the Left for many decades now...in other words--

    "The people are stupid!", sometimes "ignorant" if they want to be generous. Occasionally "duped" or "misinformed by the Media".

    My theory is slightly different. They vote for what they want.

    If they wanted a "pure progressive", Dennis Kucinich would be topping the Dem primary list...ESPECIALLY since it would be a partisan voter base.

    And despite the rhetoric, Hillary atleast SAYS something that SOUNDS like she'll get us out of Iraq in some way, while not appearing as if she's going to drag the party back to McGovernism or beyond....and that IS where the majority of Democrats are on the various issues. She is....wait for it...."mainstream".

    And despite (again) all the talk here, among Democrats, it's the mainstream, not liberals, not "progressives" (pure or otherwise) who make up that Party and ultimately make up the country.

    In other words, and no offense meant, yours is not the majority view...nor a majority of the Democratic Party.

    And what we're seeing IS ...what the people want. And if it's what they want, then it's not "stupid" or "ignorant". It means that YOUR view of things has not won them over. Not saying it CAN'T win them over....but no REAL effort has been made to do so, or that effort has failed.

    And they want someone like Hillary...not Dennis.

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 3:50pm

14. Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 3:50pm

    well...we shall see...

    but when i talk with the average person outside of internetworld, its like i'm talking to an elementary school kid...and not because they don't share my schizo ideology...

    they are just seriously butt ignorant about facts...where countries are, who their rep is, when things happened, how they happened...

    yeah, i know, south carolina is indeed special, but i've encountered the same elsewhere...

    i really do think people are more ignorant of non-trivialities and personal/profesional matters than ever before...

    but ask 'em their opinion on paris hilton...lol...

    but thanks for the reality check...time for me to stop thinking for a while. 30 minutes of aerobic workout should help...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 4:18pm

15. i really am morphing into some kind of benevolent fascist...

    time to run...excercise endorphins - activate!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/10/2007 @ 4:22pm

16. excercise endorphins - activate!---Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/10/2007 @ 4:22pm

    Wonder Twins power?!?!?....hmmm? Child of the 80s? Take this simple quiz-

    1. You've ever ended a sentence with the word SIKE.

    2. You can sing the rap to the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and can do the Carlton

    3. You know that "WOAH" comes from Joey on Blossom

    4. If you ever watched "Fraggle Rock"

    5. It was actually worth getting up early on a Saturday to watch cartoons.

    6. You wore a ponytail on the side of your head.

    7. You got super-excited when it was Oregon Trail day in computer class at school.

    8. You made your mom buy one of those clips that would hold your shirt in a knot on the side.

    9. You played the game "MASH"(Mansion, Apartment, Shelter, House)

    10. You wore stonewashed Jordache jean jackets and were proud of it.

    11. You know the profound meaning of " WAX ON , WAX OFF"

    12. You wanted to be a Goonie.

    13. You ever wore fluorescent clothing. (some of us...head-to-toe)

    14. You can remember what Michael Jackson looked like before his nose fell off and his cheeks shifted.

    15. You have ever pondered why Smurfette was the only female smurf.

    16. You took lunch boxes to school...and traded Garbage Pailkids in the schoolyard.

    17. You remember the CRAZE, then the BANNING of slap bracelets.

    18. You still get the urge to say "NOT" after every sentence.

    19. You thought your childhood friends would never leave because you exchanged handmade friendship bracelets.

    20. You ever owned a pair of Jelly-Shoes.

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 4:39pm

17. And what we're seeing IS ...what the people want. And if it's what they want, then it's not "stupid" or "ignorant". It means that YOUR view of things has not won them over. Not saying it CAN'T win them over....but no REAL effort has been made to do so, or that effort has failed.

    And they want someone like Hillary...not Dennis.

    Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person

    mask,

    These elections and primaries have nothing to do with what the people want. The only people paying attention at this point are the most active hardcore political animals...the rest of the public is focused on football and baseball or whatever. Kucinich is ignored by the pundits, so how have the people been exposed to his ideas? It's a joke. Kind of like when the Maasch and Happy types rail against the "Liberal Media," which, is supposed to be under the influence of these dangerous radical leftists, like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, but the fact is that you will never see Chomsky on CBS, ABC, etc., read him in the Washington Post or NYTimes, or hear him on NPR--it's so absurd. Mainstream corporate media share the same values and interests of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, so of course the vast majority of news coverage has been on Hillary's "flawless campaign," and how much money is being raised by the top two candidates. The leading candidate in polls, Clinton, remains steadfast against specific policies and commitments on the issues, so how do the polls reflect anything but name recognition and what the media selects for it's consumer audience? Kerry was the nominee because the media scared people into believing that crap about the preferred candidate, Dean, being un-electable against a war time president.

    Posted by Oustbush at 10/10/2007 @ 4:46pm

18. 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

    www.votenic.com [votenic.com]

    Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

    Posted by votenic at 10/10/2007 @ 5:32pm

19. 2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

    www.votenic.com [votenic.com]

    Results Posted Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

    Posted by votenic at 10/10/2007 @ 5:44pm

20. Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/10/2007 @ 4:46pm

    OUST, you contradict yourself...first it's " The only people paying attention at this point are the most active hardcore political animals"...then it's "Kucinich is ignored by the pundits, so how have the people been exposed to his ideas?"

    So how are "the most active hardcore political animals"...

    NOT "exposted to his ideas", and how do "the pundits" have such power to stop it? Dennis has been in EVERY debate and gotten PLENTY of exposure.

    I'm sorry, but that's excuse-making. The first part is right, it is the most active in a Primary Season. But if Hillary is beating Kucinich 44% to TWO (2) PERCENT...then what does that say?

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 7:23pm

21. ....if Hillary is beating Kucinich 44% to TWO (2) PERCENT...then what does that say?

    Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 7:23pm

    It says there are too many MASKs out there who proclaim the Iraq War is soooooo important (to get out of) but won't actually support the most anti-war candidate.....in fact, some MASKs actually discourage DK's prospects by UNtiringly point out just how HOPELESS DK's candidacy is......even as he/she emphasizes just how anti-war he/she is by posting casualty and war cost figures at least 3 times per day!

    Vision of the MASKed rider herding the sheep toward the HRC Coral........Meaaaa...Meaaaaa.....Meaaaa....

    Hehehe...that was good!

    Posted by Happy at 10/10/2007 @ 8:40pm

22. Posted by HAPPY 10/10/2007 @ 8:40pm

    HAPP, again, on the other thread you listed "Abortion (after the first trimester)" as some issue for you for "loss of life"....

    yet you've said (as I've said about the Democratic candidate, so I'll use YOUR rationale) that you are a "de facto Giuliani supporter" and the man was pro-"partial birth abortion".

    So as the question above asks...."what does THAT say?"

    Posted by Mask at 10/10/2007 @ 10:21pm

23. So as the question above asks...."what does THAT say?"

    Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 10:21pm

    Issues I listed were alphabetized....

    One-issue voter I have never been....and if there is one MOST IMPORTANT issue to base a choice on, it won't be abortion!

    My priorities: Economic Literacy, Tax Policies, Social Security, MediCare, Immigration (illegal), War on Terror, Iraq, Abortion....football team loyal to.....favorite song.....plays the sax or toss guitars....wide or narrow stance!

    Posted by Happy at 10/10/2007 @ 10:38pm

24. "They vote for what they want." Wrong. They vote for who they are told they want. That is the purpose of all the "more electible" memes floated along with all the other reinforcing adjectives, "strong", "smart" or messages such as "flawless campaign" and then the polls are pumped up to create the bandwagon effect. If she doesn't kiss the rings of those who pull the strings, they will knock her down in a heartbeat--just as easily as they prop her up. "The cackle" is the merest hint--the suggestion of what will follow should she not choose to follow. Dean being the classic case of this. Despite the kidglove treatment and all the sugar-coating and buttering up, Clinton is broadly unpopular. I loathe both Clintons, believe they have paved the way for great damage done to this country. And while the Right has imploded based on their own fantasies which proved unsustainable, the Democrats have lost their way triangulating with unsustainability and been robbed of potential. I wish the Clintons would fade to black.

    Posted by Lil at 10/11/2007 @ 06:52am

25. I wish the Clintons would fade to black.

    Posted by LIL 10/11/2007 @ 06:52am

    they try to when they address the NAACP.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2007 @ 08:36am

26. Posted by HAPPY 10/10/2007 @ 10:38pm

    So Rudy supports "partial birth abortion" as President, but keeps the tax cuts and talks tough on immigration and the war on terror....no prob for the HAPP-man....right?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 09:27am

27. ....talks tough on immigration and the war on terror....no prob for the HAPP-man....right?

    Posted by MASK 10/11/2007 @ 09:27am

    As POTUS, needs to do more than "talks tough" on the quoted issues! Talk is cheap, like what TN's writers and ourselves do here! Gotta Walk the Walk, (sp?)kapiche?

    Speaking of which....IBBLE, are you out there? I entered my SELL/LIMIT order for Haliburton (HAL) earlier (half of remaining)......new high yesterday after it got a boost from Motley Fools as one of five stocks "approaching greatness".......for those curious, another of the five (well-known) stocks is Cisco (CSCO)....

    Posted by Happy at 10/11/2007 @ 10:42am

28. Posted by HAPPY 10/11/2007 @ 10:42am | ignore

    ;)

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/11/2007 @ 12:41pm

29. Posted by HAPPY 10/11/2007 @ 10:42am

    Okay, but if Rudy is keeping the tax cuts and no "cut & run" from Iraq, etc., etc......

    you got no prob if he's helping to kill the babies?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 1:31pm

30. Posted by MASK 10/10/2007 @ 7:23pm | ignore this person

    Mask,

    There is no contradiction because these polls are not reflective of only the small number of hard-core activists, but scan the general field of voters. To say that Kucinich receives "Plenty" of exposure is absurd. The only candidates receiving any exposure are the top three: Clinton, Obama and Edwards (though far less than the first two). I am not fond of this media source but I listen to NPR just about every day, and practically never hear anything about Kucinich, though Hillary and Obama are prime time.

    Posted by Oustbush at 10/11/2007 @ 2:10pm

31. Mask,

    PS. Kucinich wasn't even invited to participate in the AARP sponsored debate.

    Posted by Oustbush at 10/11/2007 @ 2:13pm

32. I think the "polls" are skewed....the DLC has been pushing Clinton on us for years...after all she is a corportist girl and the DLC is just a bunch of greedy Republican lites, claiming to be Democratics...I don't think that as many people are sold on Clinton as the DLC would have you believe....the DLC, just like the Republicans do not believe in Democracy, they believe in Globalism, cheap labor, big Corporations running the world and owning it..they won't listen to us..we are just grease in the wheels...serf's and peasants to be used up for their profit...making sure we do not subtract any thing from the bottom line of profit..like decent livable wages, health care or retirement

    Posted by Chabuka at 10/11/2007 @ 2:15pm

33. Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/11/2007 @ 2:10pm

    Chicken or egg, OUST. Is Dennis not getting covered, and that's why he has low poll numbers? Or does Dennis have low poll numbers, and that's why he isn't getting covered?

    And again, Dennis has been in every major debate and had PLENTY of opportunity to win over the Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden DEMOCRATIC voters....he hasn't.

    You yourself admitted that "The only people paying attention at this point are the most active hardcore political animals". Therefore the "most active hardcore political animals" are seeing Dennis and he stands at 1-3%.

    At some point you have to admit that YOUR candidate is not popular...and stop making excuses for that. 95% of DEMOCRATS are not supporters of Dennis and all the "pressure" or "ignorance" by the Mainstream Media isn't forcing them to be so.

    Howard Dean in 2004 was almost unknown, early on ignored by the MSM, and had as an even MORE non-mainstream view of things (He was anti-war when almost everybody was still PRO-war)....and he nearly won, or atleast gave Kerry and the rest a run for their money.

    So if Dean could do it...why can't Dennis?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 3:43pm

34. I don't think that as many people are sold on Clinton as the DLC would have you believe....----Posted by CHABUKA 10/11/2007 @ 2:15pm

    Then why are those Democrats LYING to the pollsters?

    Posted by Mask at 10/11/2007 @ 3:45pm

35. Hillary's ascension among the candidates is not surprising since she is clearly the strongest one in the field. Even though she has a husband who is the most dynamic politician of the last two decades, it is the spouses of Edwards and Obama who overshadow their candidate hubbies while Hillary continues to dominate. Obama has been a no-show for key votes and it's hard to imagine Edwards getting out from behind his wife's shadow to sit in the Oval Office. People look at Hillary and see stength, determination and toughness. What do they see when they look at the rest of the field?

    Posted by larryd at 10/11/2007 @ 4:14pm