Hillary Clinton to Liberal Wing: See You In 2016?
Writing about complaints from the left about Senator Hillary Clinton, Mayor Sam wonders
Along with Hilary’s recent stance against illegal immigration, it leads me to be a bit cynical. Could these be orchestrated attempts to distance Hilary from the extreme left? In order to avoid the fate of Al Gore or John Kerry, to capture the White House, Hilary has to gain at least some of the Southern states her husband won in his elections. By positioning herself as more of a centrist and backing away from her liberal roots, Hilary has the chance to earn some Southern votes. Yes, she runs the risk of alienating some liberals, but come on – where are they going to go?
We don’t know if anyone is really organizing these little flare-ups, but then again, we wouldn’t be surprised if Sister Souljah was a James Carville hand puppet (well, actually we would, but we love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone).
But these are relatively minor incidents in the grand “She’s a centrist” PR campaign. In early August, the Los Angeles Times wrote (link at LATimes.com pay archive, but we have an excerpt here)
In New York, where she is running for reelection in 2006, and in the Senate, where she is shaping her national persona, Clinton is moving to shed the partisan image she acquired as first lady.
She has taken up causes such as economic development and military overhaul that are nonpartisan or more centrist than her work in championing a national healthcare plan while her husband was president. She is teaming with local Republican officials and with some of the Senate’s most conservative members.
Those efforts are beginning to pay off in New York. Her approval ratings have jumped significantly since she was elected in 2000 — even among Republicans. It is a sign that Clinton, one of the most polarizing political figures in America, has found a way to get a second look from New York voters.
She’s also leading the moderate Democratic Leadership Council’s development of a new agenda (a well-worn path — her husband used his chairmanship of the DLC to boost his 1992 campaign).
This month the NYT magazine (behind subscription wall; someone posted a copy here) and Boston Globe noted Senator Clinton’s new centrism. The NYT piece said
In fact, among pundits and strategists of both parties as well as the reporters who cover them, a story line about Clinton has now taken hold, and it goes like this: While she is at heart a more stridently liberal and polarizing figure than her husband, Hillary Clinton is now consciously reinventing herself publicly as a middle-of-the-road pragmatist. According to this theory, she has resolved, along with her cadre of canny advisers, to brazenly “reposition” herself as the kind of soothing centrist that middle-class white voters might actually accept as the first female president. “A couple of weeks ago, certainly a couple months ago, Hillary was off there on the left,” Chris Matthews, a reliable gauge of predictable Washington wisdom, told his viewers on MSNBC in May. “We thought of her with Barbra Streisand, Barbara Boxer, Rob Reiner, Chuck Schumer even. Now I see her as sort of part of this drift toward the center.”
Road-tested in New York 2006, expect to see this same theme coming to a state near you in 2007-8.
There is one glitch in this repositioning. Her voting record — the only way she can really prove her philosophy — does not reflect it. We showed in August that interest groups on the left and right continue to grade her as one of the Senate’s more liberal members.
Can she continue to have it both ways — talking moderate and voting left? The incongruity probably isn’t sustainable for three more years and through the crucible of a presidential campaign. We expect to see Senator Clinton make some highly publicized breaks with Democratic orthodoxy. Reality — such as it is in presidential politics — may catch up to perception.
What will also be worth watching is how the left reacts to this process. She still votes their way in the Senate and she’s already taking fire over minor transgressions from the True Faith. What will happen when she sacrifices them in the general election?
We can’t wait.
Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, Hillary Clinton
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- Los Angeles Times: Hillary a Moderate? Independent Sources: Not So Fast!: The Los Angeles Times has a page one story today on Hillary Clinton's efforts to be seen as a centrist: In New York, where she is running for reelecti ...
- Is a “Rose” a “Rose” (law firm) by any other name?: Hillary mulling what to do with her middle name According to CNN: Most Americans' feelings toward the Democratic senator from New York change dependin ...
- Hillary Clinton: Unintentionally Ironic: Sen. Hillary Clinton, quoted in Tuesday's New York Times: "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doi ...
- Bookmakers to Hillary Clinton: You don’t look so good! (then again nor does anyone else): Bookmakers taking bets on the 2008 Presidential Election don't like the odds of Hillary Clinton winning. As of this posting, they are over 5 to 1 that ...
- Home Field Disadvantage: A new poll shows John Kerry trailing Hillary Clinton in a potential 2008 Democratic presidential primary, 33% - 21% ... in Kerry's home state of Massa ...

October 19th, 2005 at 8:17 am
You’ve called it right. You can expect Hillary to slide somewhere to the right of George Allen.
Thanks for the visit.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
No, Hillary can’t have it *both ways* because her major cop-out is on the issue of Iraq and other Middle eastern wars. There’s no compromise when it comes to fighting wars– either you’re for a war or for peace (or for a prior war’s cessation) and Hillary’s come out visibly in favor the hawks on this one. She’s talking about even augmenting the effort in Iraq, or going beyond that.
This is why the Democratic base is so irate at her. It has nothing to do with her “toeing the liberal line” or anything like that– many other Dems have adopted less liberal-ish stands on some issues and not taken so much flack. But war, you know, kills a lot of people, including our own, and an unjust war built on lies deserves no support. Hillary lent her support early at a crucial decision-making moment, and then continued to beat the war drums, and this war continues to kill thousands of people every month. So no, there will be no compromising or middle-roading or splitting the difference on this issue. The fundamental problem is that Hillary’s a card-carrying member of the right-leaning Dems who turn the base away, on corporate issues as well as the way, and that just doesn’t play with the base, period.
The viable Dem candidates in 2008 will be the ones who’ve opposed the war from the start (or Kerry who, although he did initially support it, has come out strongly against it since then), yet have reasoned and moderate stands on other issues. Wesley Clark is one strong possibility, especially with the general thing behind him. Mark Warner is another. And, yes, Al Gore is a third– he’s got a revamped image from before and he has stands that both fire up the base, yet draw in moderates with his ideas on education and taxation policy.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Kerry viable? I don’t think so but the Dems have done strager things. He still has that stench that one gets in a big loss. Gore is enjoying his new cable network too much and just raised a lot of money from people who probably made sure he wasn’t going to quit a year into it to go be a loser again. I agree that Clark has a chance. Should be interesting as there is a lot of time for candidates to moderate positions or shoot themselves in the foot. I think Hillary’s biggest challenge will be not being killed in the early primaries where people percieve that they have greater choices and the grass roots liberal side of the party pulls a swing to the left and skews the early states.