Hillary Is Not Losing: Bill and The DLC Are

Posted February 12, 2008 | 03:32 PM (EST)



stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

I know the Clinton family pretty well and can speak very highly of her and her capabilities. Unfortunately for her, she adopted the Bill/DLC approach to politics. And I told her that in 2000 when she ran for the Senate.

During the 2000 election I attended a Hillary fundraiser in Chicago for a small group of Democratic elites. I asked her whether she really supported the death penalty and her answer was pretty telling. She said that she did. In my opinion, grass roots liberals do not support the death penalty nor do any humane societies. I was disappointed with her answer and did not then grasp the significance of her answer.

Bill Clinton had a retarded person executed in Arkansas in 1992. He actually left his campaign briefly to show his DLC strategy. The DLC strategy which he helped found was to mimic the Republicans on the death penalty and national security issues whether you believed in that or not. Can you imagine a Democrat supporting a position just to be elected? I could not at the time but I have since learned the disaster that this has caused for the Democratic Party.

Selecting Bill Clinton to be the standard bearer for the DLC was perfect. He was the best at arguing for stuff he himself did not believe in. And like many lawyers chooses to parse words for his own benefit. That was good for him in 1992 and 1996 especially since he had Ross Perrault peeling off votes from papa Bush and Dole. However, during the Clinton years, the DLC strategy caused the collapse of the Democratic majority which started in 1933.

Last Sunday on This Week with George S, George Will made a comment about how Bill Clinton's political skills were essentially an urban myth. I generally do not agree with Will except for his passion about the Chicago Cubs. However, in this case he is dead on. And I have said this for years to my DLC advocates. You may win a few elections by saying things you don't believe in. But, as it was with Bill and the DLC, insincerity is no longer a good political strategy.

That is why Hillary's case is so unfortunate. I have suggested to her and others in her inner circle that she cannot be her husband. He is a rock star and his popularity emanates from that phenomenon. She is a hard working, intelligent, and capable political candidate. Unfortunately she drank too much of her husband's Kool-Aid without understanding the consequences. She could not pull off the insincerity game that some men can get away with. There is a real gender difference in this area between men and women. Men may be hunters and women may be gatherers. But men are great at denying and women are more into self denial. They have to be to live with the men that lie to them frequently. This may be an over generalization, but it is particularly true for Hillary.

Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was bad enough. Her denying that she made a mistake was the one that most Democrats cannot forget. And Hillary got her denial advice from Bill who is the champion of deniers. Had she fessed up to her responsibility for that vote, she would be the nominee. However, she continued to take the advice from Bill's group in her campaign. They are still living in the 90s thinking that Bill and the DLC are running. In my heart I know that she is a sincere ethical person who would never have supported the Iraq war but for Bill's advice and the advice of people like Madeline Albright. And I also think that she is a humanitarian who would not have supported the death penalty.

The lesson in all this is that you have to be true to yourself and your own beliefs to do anything in life and especially politics. The old Abraham Lincoln quote (happy BD Abe) still is applicable regarding fooling the people. It is also a lesson in being true to oneself. As I wrote in previous posts, the real Hillary Clinton is the best qualified to be president in 2008. Unfortunately for her and America, her husband has dominated their marriage to her detriment. Sometimes you have to say no even to your own spouse. However, the good news here is that the DLC is dead. May they not rest in peace.

Comments for this post are now closed


 
 

Comments
12
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

She's on TV now in El Paso, "I can't think of any place I'd rather be"....Who slurps that slop up?

Read the Virginia results and weep.

The Clintons are the democrat version of Romney - say anything, do anything....

Who has the highest negatives of all???

I think people afraid of change want the Clintons.

I WANT change. I don't want a third Clinton term.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:17 PM on 02/12/2008


Sheldon-

Not sure about women, but your self-denial is evident.

You may in your heart believe Hillary would change her position if elected and oppose the death penalty and illegal pre-emptive wars of choice...

... but her record just doesn't support that belief.

You provide no reasoning or analysis to support your claim either.

DLC'ers are neoliberal warmongers who divided the party, lie on the campaign trail with ease, and oppose Democratic policies and principles.

If only it were JUST the war.
They allowed the MCA to pass.
They allowed Kyl-Lieberman to pass.
They allowed the bankruptcy bill to pass.
They've confirmed boatloads of neocon/neoliberal judges.
They just helped confirm an AG who refuses to prosecute torturers.

Could it be that they aren't voting against their beliefs in order to win? Maybe they actually do believe in imperial wars, corporate dominance, and screwing the working class?

What exactly in the record indicates that Hillary or any other DLC'er have redeeming qualities?

I have no problem with truly conservative Democrats... but there's nothing conservative about wars of choice. To portray DLC'ers as conservative is beyond a stretch.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 02/12/2008

Maybe if the press wasn't so obscenely biased for Obama she would do better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 02/12/2008

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone said it best: "Elected to end the war, Democrats have surrendered to Bush on Iraq and betrayed the peace movement for their own political ends."

For the full article, http://tinyurl.com/ypsqrx. Worth the read.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 02/12/2008

And what makes you think that if she (God forbid) does get the nomination and is elected president that she would function in any other way than she always has? She is Bill Clinton without the charm or the appeal. She should concentrate her energies on being a senator from New York, however long that lasts. Can we please file the Bushes and the Clintons in the dustbin of history and make a new start? Barack Obama is the right man at the right time. Please Hillary, if you care for America, shut up and go away!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 PM on 02/12/2008

As far as most Democrats are concerned, Sheldon, the DLC is ideologically bankrupt. That goes for the putative Democratic leaders in Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House, and the ever-flacid Harry Reid in the Senate.

For all the good this trio has done to fulfill their mandate, they may as well phoned in their capitulations to Bush rather than go through their disgusting charades.

To be a viable force going forward, Democrats need to dump this deadwood and go to the roots of the party. Faux-Democrats such as these need not apply.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 02/12/2008

Spot on. I'm an independent, voted straight democrat in '06 out of disgust for the corruption and incompetence of the republicans - for what? What has the democrat congress done? Passed the Lieberman (Bush) resolution to label the Iranian revolutionary guard "terrorist" (Hilly voted for it).
What else? SQUAT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 02/12/2008

Ever since Michael Dukakis allowed George Bush to describe the word liberal as a dirty word, even though the majority of the country is liberal on social issues, the democrats have been running from themselves and acting like scared little pansies.

They try to paint themselves as just as tough as the Republicans for fear of being labeled as weak. But the problem is, by allowing the other guy to frame the debate and not standing up for what they truly believe in, they are in fact showing themselves as weak.

I'm hoping for the day when strength is redefined as not the willingness to attack other countries with our military at the drop of a hat, but about strategies that strengthen our country in the world. The willingness to stand up to the oil companies, pharmaceutical companies and health insurers. I think Obama is our best shot since Hillary is bought and paid for by the big 3.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 02/12/2008

"Had she fessed up to her responsibility for that vote, she would be the nominee."

A little over-simplified, but essentially true if it means her shoot-em-up, warmongering chatter would have diminished to the point that objective people believed her strategy wouldn't be 'stay the course.'

"the good news here is that the DLC is dead."

Only if HRC loses and the many DLC-corporatists in Congress become marginalized. The latter is highly questionable given the fact that the party hierarchy in Congress is disproportionately controlled by DLC candidates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 02/12/2008

Dang, you have made me feel validated. I've been saying all along that HRC is a person we can't know, because she is a completely fabricated creature. She's eclipsed Bubba's work ethic in that regard. He was only partially fabricated and people connected to the 'real' parts (ie feeling our pain) which allowed people to overlook the ugly stuff beyond the wall of lies. But HRC has worked so hard over the last few years to perfectly position herself "right" on everything that she's completely covered. People can see the seams in the facade - many intuitively, but with plenty of clear signals, too (eg moving to NY to run for senate had nothing to do with an ultimate goal of running for prez) - and have to make a huge leap of faith to believe in her.

I've commented to several HRC zealots on HuffPo who've been perceptive enough to at least acknowledge the track record to date, justifying their vote on the belief that she will shed her veneer upon being sworn in. You seem to verify their belief that the entity encased in the DLC-republican package is actually good - which is fine. My response, though, is, "If she was REALLY good, she'd have dropped the whole charade a long time ago and been herself all along." Further, the fact that she's stayed hidden all this time can, in no form of cognitive logic, be construed as evidence that some sort of flowering into that inner goodness is imminent. In fact, the surrounding cast of malefactors and campaign hijinx over the primary tend to convincingly prove otherwise. It may be sad, but it's true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 02/12/2008

Maybe the DLC is dead but Bill ain't. As long as he is part of the solution, he will be part of the problem. If Hillary gets the nom, I'm going with Walnuts. And I'll ride that crazy old SOB all the way down into the mushroom cloud! Yeeee Ha!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 02/12/2008

"Can you imagine a Democrat supporting a position just to be elected?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...no...wait...HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 02/12/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Sheldon Drobny›
 

 Site  Web ask.com