"Clinton blockage" could be only problem for "Party Ready to Pounce"

Washington Post op-ed: A Party Waiting to Pounce
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Page A19

If you're a Democrat, life is good right now. The Republicans are mired in Iraq and domestic political difficulties. The White House is rearranging the deck chairs. For now, Democrats can sit back and watch the GOP self-destruct: "They're on fire," says one party strategist. "Don't say anything. Let them destroy themselves."...

***

If the Democrats have a problem, it's what I would call the "Clinton blockage." As of today Sen. Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination. Clinton "hovers over the presidential field like the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor," writes political analyst Walter Shapiro this week in the online magazine Salon. The problem is that Clinton is casting such a big shadow that it blocks out the sunlight in which other candidates might grow.

Clinton is building her own version of the Democratic National Committee, outside the control of accident-prone DNC Chairman Howard Dean. She has the best financial machine in American politics, and her fundraisers are signaling some big donors that the Clintons will be unhappy if they give to Hillary's rivals. Meanwhile, former White House aide Harold Ickes is creating a powerful database for grass-roots fundraising though his Data Warehouse project, and Podesta is building a solid policy-planning operation at his Center for American Progress.

Clinton's timetable is also a problem. Running for reelection to the Senate from New York this year, she has a strategy of campaigning as if she cares more about Utica and Schenectady than Washington. That's understandable, but it leaves the Democrats in a pickle. Clinton doesn't want to speak for the party right now, but she doesn't want anyone else to take center stage -- especially not her husband.

That is the most unfortunate blockage caused by Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions. Her undeclared candidacy denies her party and the country the full benefit of Bill Clinton's leadership. Paradoxically, the Republicans are making better use of the former president than are the Democrats. It's endearing to see him pal around with former president George H.W. Bush and his son, but it blunts Bill Clinton's impact....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801214.html?nav=hcmodule

want her to run.

The "roll-out" of her presidential campaign will look more like a Roman orgy than serious people with serious solutions. Currently, her message is skewing the message for the 06 candidates, and her obsessive fund-raising is cutting into the dollars needed for the fall. I'm completely disgusted.

Nevermind Country before party; more like ego trumps all.

some Dems think Hillary is a good idea? When I talk to my family about this, they're convinced she can win but horrified at the thought of voting for her.

Not many people I know are supporting Hillary right now.
I would like to see all these people who are supposedly supporting her.

People politics are not the primary concern of the party yet, despite their lip service to the contrary. It was demonstrated to us in a most powerful way in Ill-CD6 and one can be sure that was the intent of that little effort, to let us know who is in fact in control of the levers of Democratic Party power. Our work remains to be done.

From what I see, it's a case of "she's a front runner because we say she's a front runner".

Hillary's not impressing too many with her "leadership".

Hillary Clinton is getting her support....

Media Buzz = Polling driven upward
SEE THE MEDIA GIVING THE FOOLS A HAND!

I don't think that would happen now, much less after she's done the inevitable rightward shift.

one term Senator up for reelection in an easy to win state. She has never fought in a tough campaign and while she is able to raise money, so are one or two of the other candidates. She has made some party officials made because she is all about Hillary and no one else-raising money for her easy victory in November, by telling people she is in a tough campaign and the Republicans are after her big time. This nonsense when it is obvious the Republicans have decided to not run a good candidate against her or spend large amounts of money on the election. In the meantime, she takes money for herself that other democratic candidates could desperately use.

Similarly, she has been raising money for Dem '06 candidates. This gives her clout as well.

It is still very early in this cycle. Anything can, and probably will, happen.

allows her to throw her weight around, I would hope that our party would not allow the money factor to dominate or cloud our messages. Our party is suppose to represent the people, not just Senator Clinton.
Also, while she has raise some money for other candidates, it has been sporadic. And, at one recent fund raiser for herself in Missouri, other party officials questioned why she needed to raise funds in their state for her Senate campaign when their candidate Claire McCaskill could really use the money for her run even more.

"Clinton is building her own version of the Democratic National Committee, outside the control of accident-prone DNC Chairman Howard Dean. She has the best financial machine in American politics, and her fundraisers are signaling some big donors that the Clintons will be unhappy if they give to Hillary's rivals. Meanwhile, former White House aide Harold Ickes is creating a powerful database for grass-roots fundraising though his Data Warehouse project, and Podesta is building a solid policy-planning operation at his Center for American Progress."

The implication of not trusting Dean at the DNC could be the author's, not Clinton's, but right now, on the eve of the 2006 elections, building the best financial machine in American Politics should be directed toward the mid term elections and not identified with any one leading National Democrat. I prefer that our Party leaders make appeals directly to Democrats asking us to financially support other Democrats facing tough races to win back Congress, not set themselves up as middlemen power brokers holding the keys to the till.

Clark is using his own web site to make it easy for supporters to directly plug into the campaigns of other Democrats; to give them money, to give them time, and to learn more about them in general. His latest appeal is for Claire McCaskill, running for U.S. Senate in Missouri:
http://securingamerica.com/mccaskill

I can't even deal with the thought of this.. i really really can't.

I wish I hadn't even seen this article.

and spend more time hammering the repubs and taking the oval office in a landslide.

Contender, from the left and the right, which will means no one gets a landslide victory and the wisdom of abolishing the Electoral College will at last become obvious to even to the neophyte.

This article is depressing. Here I thought I was going to read a critique on the substance of Hillary's campaign or how maybe she has positioned herself and the party on the issues. Nope. Her cardinal sin now is that she's not crafting a compelling spectacle.

Oh this article is just so clever. :sarcasm:

All this is speculative.

And someone needs to convince Al Gore to step into the fray.

The logic for a mature political party would be for the last nominee to lead with the
support of past democratic Presidents.

By turning away from Gore after 2000 and then Kerry after 2004 we keep destroying any hope of building a really strong opposition with an image of consistency and credibility presented
to the nation.

essentially requested that he list the donors alluded to in article, and to let him know that i think if HRC is front loaded in the media, there'll be a political revolutation or a meltdown - and the rise of third party presidential candidates. I said the only name i'm interested in seeing being given pr in the media is Feingold's and Gore's. period, end of story. anyway.. that datawhere house issue is another thing that bothers me.

I find it hard to understand why so many Democrat voters find Hilary so unpalatable. I am Australian, I've read her biography and from different news reports I've read and heard about her, she comes across as a very astute woman. Obviously, you would all know a lot more about her than me. There are some policies of hers that I don't agree with; eg her policy on Israel. I also felt disgusted when I saw her stand and applaud George W. after 9/11. However, regardless of those things, I still like her style.

If you don't want her, can we please have her. With another election coming up late next year for us, I think she could be the one to unseat our little nerd of a Prime Minister. Plus, I wouldn't mind having Bill here as well. I still think he is cool.

Gail

she's pro-war, moved so far to the right vis a vis this phony triangulation thingy, recently wrapping herself in the flag, and taking on weird right wing agendas - obviously pandering to the right and even evangelicals (which i personally find extremely offensive) - she's also a corporatist and that's a huge problem -

but apart from all of that, she is so dispised and hated by the Right (despite her pandering)that the specter of repeating the last Clinton era and all it's vitrolic attacks on her, will be simply a continuation of the divisiveness that has developed in our country over the last several years, and most especially intense this past decade.

The extreme right has her pegged as a murderer and a thief, complete with all sorts of conspiracies around the death of Vince Foster and others.

It's nuts, but there you have it. I can't personally contemplate more of what we have been going through and will continue to go through with another Clinton white house... it will be the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush dynasty circle jerk game, and frankly our country just can't afford any more of this dynasty nonsense.

thank you for that information. American political news is fairly limited here. I was sorry in your last election that Al Gore was not running. Wes Clark also seemed a good candidate. If Joe Leibaman ever gets another look-in I will give up on politics forever. I truly love following your election campaigns. I stay in touch right from the primarys. Could somebody please explain in simple terms how the Mid-Terms work?

"Mid Terms" elections is referencing Congressional seats - (House and Senate) a number of which are up for re-election, and also there are State and local elections - some Governors and other State offices all the way down to mayorals and supervisorial elections (local towns/city councils and other boards) ..

on a national level the mid term elections of Congress presents the possibility of another party control depending on election results ..right now the Republican party controls every branch in our national government. As you probably know, that hasn't been a healthy thing for our country.

No real checks and balances if one party rule system. So naturally we are hoping for a Democratic Party victory in November for control of the House and hopefully the Senate too. If we are victorious, it will still be rather weak majority - so we won't see the kind of government with strong opposition but it should be somewhat stronger than it is now, i hope.

Thank you for that explanation. I hope you have a good voter turn out. In Australia, we have a similar problem. In our last federal election in 2004 the right wing (mis-named) Liberal government got control of both houses of parliament. Now they are privatizing everything they can get hold of and also changing our industrial relations laws to the detriment of the worker, but in favor of business, hence creating the "working poor" situation. Unfortunately, we don't get to change that situation until late next year.

It's not that I don't like her. It's that I think it'd be an uphill battle for her. At least your elections still count. I have serious doubts about ours.

or whatever it's called when the innards gets surgically removed... ?

in 2008"?

If the spectre of her being at the top of the national ticket in 08 is clouding up the entire landscape, what if she were to pull out? What would that do?

It would make Chris Matthews look like this -->

....that the Democrats were planning on running Britney Spears for president.

Or some equally inane distraction tactic.