The First Lady of Triangulation: Nation's 2nd Installment of the Hillary Advisors

[illinoisprogressive]

As hard as they have tried to be fair to Hillary, they paint a devastating picuture of the people she surrounds herself with. her advisors are the people she will take with her to the White House if elected. They are not what anyone who is democrat would feel comfortable with.
They do not fault Hillary only the influence of the advisors and the ties to corporate America and Murdoch and the right wing of the gop. These are the people who advise her on what to think, her policies, ect and it's cause for alot of concern.

It is a fairly long article.

"Clinton's rarely been the threat to the business community that many on the right typically allege. She's often partnered with Republicans like Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. In 2002 she backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch. She persuaded her husband to veto the bankruptcy bill in 1997, voted for a similar version in 2001 and missed the vote in 2005, when Bill was in the hospital. She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to "live in the real world." Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. "Ask them why they don't take money from lobbyists," Wolfson retorts. "We're proud of our support."

The conservative caricature that Hillary is to the left of her husband is a myth. She, like Bill, talks a good game. She's aggressively courted organized labor and distanced herself from policies like NAFTA. She privately tells public-interest groups and liberal commentators that she's on their side. At the same time, she's premised her presidential campaign on a restoration of the Clinton era, frequently invoking "Bill and I" on the stump as a way of claiming credit for the perceived successes of the 1990s. She's expressed no qualms about her closest advisers' forays into the corporate world. Courting elements of the Democratic base while signaling to the corporate right that she won't shake up the system is a tricky juggling act. Even the First Lady of triangulation may not be able to pull it off. "

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman

[Captain_Nemo]

1. What is" triangulation?"

[jefferson_dem]

2. Clinton's (both bill and hill) political strategy of casting themselves as the moderate alternative

to two extremes. Generally, this requires a feigned move to the middle around election time.

Here's a good NYT piece from 2005 that you may find interesting --
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?ex=1179547200&en=511d5cda29ce4fd5&ei=5070

[jcrew2001]

3. dick morris idea

look it up.

[NoPasaran]

15. Triangulation: DU's deadliest sin

Worse even than eating kittens while driving in a Hummer.

[iconocrastic]

26. Pretending

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Triangulation. What a joke that turned out to be.

It was meant to be a way of stealing the other side's campaign points so that they have nothing to campaign against. And one of the ways that Bill Clinton practiced it was to appoint Republicans to very important positions, thinking that they would somehow feel included in the process. As another president put it, <paraphrasing> it's better to include your enemies under the tent so they can piss out, instead of in. But, as history will tell us, "triangulation" became "strangulation" for the Clintons. Nothing happened as they expected it would.

Now, many of the Republican policies that they supported, like NAFTA, came back to bite them in the ass. And, of course, Louis Freeh, what a joke THAT was. Every Republican he appointed turned against him and became a GOP loyalist. And once you get to understand how Rove and Co. expected loyalty, you understand why giving up too much to the GOP, thinking they would be thankful and cooperate, was a terrible, terrible mistake.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. I had forgot Morris was reponsible for triangulation until I read about it in the article.

[papau]

5. the nation takes a few facts and trys to smear and slant - interesting - I doubt they will do the

same with Obama or the others.

[Hardrada]

6. Oh, what nerve! I subscribe The Nation.

I'll have you know.

[papau]

11. I posted an analysis of Obama's advisors - and it seems to have not been saved by a system burp- or

someone decided that it was flame bait and pulled it (please feel free to use the DU search function on Soc Security or my name over the last 30 days- if you find the analysis it I owe the mods - and need to note that senior moments are getting worse - but I do not think you will find it).

A discussion of advisers as indications of evil - if done about Hillary - appears to be all the Nation has. But on DU you can find a Mark Penn discussion (her pollster) and folks claiming his client list (large corporations) proves she is evil.

When the Nation does the same adviser analysis for the others - then I will take them seriously.

Till then they are just doing a smear job - presenting facts but slanting the presentation with the conclusions not supported by those facts and assertions they present relative to those facts being just assertions and not insight or wisdom or anything other than a bash of Hillary..

In any case Enjoy the Nation - I usually do. And their articles do not make up the facts presented - but the anti-Hillary slant is a bit obvious - at least in my opinion.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

14. Is this it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3259742

[papau]

17. I was afraid that I was having a senior moment - and preferred paranoia - many thanks for finding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3259742

As you can see Obama's advisers lend themselves to the same type of analysis as Hillary's - or anyone's.

The Nation is hurting for articles if this is the best they can do.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

7. Excuse me?

They are not what anyone who is democrat would feel comfortable with.

I call myself a Democrat & am comfortable with Terry McAuliffe, Pres. Clinton, Bob Rubin, Roger Altman, & Harold Ickes.

It probably hasn't occured to some members, but running for pres is expensive, challenging, demanding, degrading & requires that candidates dance with the devil.

Oh, & did I mention that it's fucking expensive, fucking challenging, fucking demanding, fucking degrading & requires that candidates dance with the devil?

[illinoisprogressive]

8. I am talking about Wolfson and Penn who are the focus of the article.

[papau]

16. I know you didn't approve of a review of the advisors of Obama - why do you feel

Wolfson and Penn are of interest relative to Hillary. I haven't reviewed Richardson or Biden or Edwards adviser lists because I am interested in actual policy - not staff.

Do you really think Obama's advisers or Hillary's advisers are important in any way in determining your vote or anyone elses - or should be important?

It is going to be a long 600 days to the election if we have to review and evaluate every staff member name that becomes public.

I really think the GOP wants this approach, preferring it to any discussion of issues.

Not that issues will decide all that much - the GOP wants and the media will push the idea that one should decide on your gut feeling as to security and the economy and do you want that face on your TV for the next 4 years. That is how the GOP/Media pulled down Gore's vote count to the point the USSC could steal the election from him.

[BigRed1975]

18. Take your misdirection elsewhere....

You have a thread where you've written your own hitpiece. Go over there and discuss it. This one here is about the Nation's article on Hillary advisors.

Big Red

[papau]

21. At least we agree that articles about staff are hit pieces :-)

:-)

[BigRed1975]

23. Yes we do agree on that....

Now if you'd care to explain Hillary's advisors on her behalf or perhaps expand a little on the calculus of triangulation, I'm all ears...

All I have to say is that the most important piece of domestic legislation that will need to be accomplished during the next Presidency is Univeral health care. Don't you think that Hillary is going to be just a little bit too timid given that she is the number one recipient of health care funds in the Senate? I think I'll rush over to the Obama campaign site and give them a heads up on this. Can't wait for one on ones with Hillary. I want Obama to take the gloves off. He'll have a lot to work with.

As good of a President as Big Dog was, he left the democratic party in shambles. He screwed up his own legacy by committing that stupid lapse in judgement. And he allowed the neocons to talk him into the Iraqi Liberation Act..something they continue to use against us even today. See even a smart experienced man can do stupid stuff...triangulosis will do that to you.

Peace.

Big Red

[papau]

30. Good grief - we are really on the same page - I am worried about Hillary being gun shy of single

payer national health. She allowed my question to her to remain on her blog, so perhaps all is not lost. But it is sad that the only reference to Medicare for All - and that a passing minor limited reference - in speeches and proposals for Health is Edwards detailed proposal. Obama has given hints that he is even more gun shy of major change than Hillary. And DK, bless him for always being on the right side of the issues, is polling at less than 1%.

As for Hillary's advisors on her behalf, or on any candidates behalf, are like all us paid help - we do the best job we can under the direction of the boss and try to implement the boss's point of view - we do not create the boss's point of view. At best/worst we provide facts that might modify the boss's point of view.

As to Dick Morris's calculus of triangulation, term is what a pompous ass - namely Morris - uses when they describe compromise to get something enacted into law - it has no policy meaning.

You said "I want Obama to take the gloves off." and this week he has started to do tha in his Iraq war comments as he tries to shift the focus from thier near identical votes in the Senate post his election (except Obama voted for General Casey and Hillary did not trust his evaluations and voted against) to the fact he was better at reading Bush in 2002 and distrusted him on national Security as much as we at DU did at that time.

Big Dog was not responsible for any Democratic Party shambles (embarrassment yes - but shambles?) I know of - I think Gore's campaign was fine and not harmed by Bill's past - indeed he won and it was stolen - and the theft was made possible by a hateful media that repeated lies like rich kid background, undeserved medals, and inappropriate brown suit choices, and liar/exaggerator as if they were true - never giving analysis that pointed out that they were printing/airing GOP lies.

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The 1998 Resolution called the Iraqi Liberation Act claiming the United States wanted a free Democratic Iraq and rejecting the idea that it could not be achieved (albeit perhaps by a necessary ethic or sectarian partition - but that was not mentioned in the Act. Indeed Clinton said he "categorically reject(ed) arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up"). How can a resolution in favor of Democracy be used against the Democratic Party? But I do see the "categorically reject(ed) arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up" line being used against us without noting that a fair partition of oil revenue - the only thing that would hold Iraq together - was a zero priority to Bush in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Peace.

papau

[AtomicKitten]

9. This election isn't a C ticket ride.

[rinsd]

10. WTF? Penn's not saint but Berman blames him for shit not even remotely under his control (nt)

[SaveElmer]

20. It's the six degrees of Hillary Clinton...

If any bad person can be linked to her in 6 names or less...she is responsible for any bad thing they ever did!

[Hardrada]

29. I'm four degrees from Adolf Hitler but

that doesn't mean I'm any good.

[William769]

12. So her campaign is smart.

Others could learn from it.

[SaveElmer]

13. Berman cannot even be bothered to research his "musings"

Hillary was on the record as opposed to the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill...yet Berman didn't seem to know that. In fact, not only was she opposed to the bill, she was one of only 29 Senators to vote against cloture on it...

And of course, he leaves out Edwards who voted for the 2001 bill and voted for cloture on the 2005 bill...


Another left wing hit job...not surprising....

[BigRed1975]

19. Is there some reason he should mention Edwards?

n/t

[SaveElmer]

22. Its the typical tactic...

Of singling out Hillary Clinton for allegedly anti-progressive behavior, while ignoring others committing the same or worse acts...

They have a predetermined desire to write an anti-Hillary piece, and they devise evidence to back it up..mentioning others, particularly those popular among "progressives" would be antithetical to their argument, so it is conveniently not mentioned...

[BigRed1975]

24. Okay..

I think it's clear the article is about dissing Hillary. There are plenty of other progressives in the race who voted against the bill as well and he didn't mention them. I think his observations on balance are pretty devastating..particularly the part about Hillary getting the no. 1 share of money from the health care industry of all those in the senate. I can't think of a single issue on the domestic front that will be more important. Do you honestly believe she will not be beholding to all those interests come time to get that work done?

Big Red

[SaveElmer]

25. Its guilt by association...

No attempt to evaluate her record, or her positions...and when they are mentioned, he got it wrong...couldn't even be bothered to check the public record...

And the fact that he would not note the same behavior in another Presidential candidate marks it as a hit piece...

Take a look at Ted Kennedy's contributions from big pharma...how come he is never accused of being beholden to these interests...

And the thesis that Hillary is somehow beholden to them is already belied by her recent votes for the importation of less expensive prescription drugs from overseas...in direct opposition to what big pharma wanted...

[BigRed1975]

27. Duly noted....

It's a hit piece in which the author draws some reasonable conclusions. Reasonable because a vote is one thing. Being proactive proponent is another. Just how prolific has Hillary been on health care issues since her defeat and lurch to the right in 1993 after she was b-slapped by pharma?

Big Red

[SaveElmer]

28. She learned...

It ain't gonna happen with a hail mary pass, but with a short game. Right now she is leading the effort with John Dingel in the house, to get SCHIP coverage for all uninsured children...a program btw that she had a big hand in starting...and it has a good chance of passing from what I hear

She has led efforts to get National Guard vets the same VA benefits as regular army soldiers...

She helped create the Vaccines for Children program...

Led efforts to get the Early treatment for HIV Act passed...helps low income HIV sufferers getthe drugs they need

Leading efforts to modernize medical records to reduce mistakes and thus cost...

Just a few examples...there are more...

[rinsd]

32. Let's look at that healthcare # again because its misleading.

Heres' the quote from the article

"She's now the number-one Congressional recipient of donations from the healthcare industry."

It seems to imply Hillary gets the most healtcare dollars since she's been in the Senate.

Here's a website called open secrects that puts out campaign finance info on pacs, industries etc.

Here's how they compile their industry giving stats

"The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2005-2006 election cycle "

For the 2006 election, Hillary received the most conttributions from HealthCare professionals with roughly $670,000. Health care professionals as defined by open secrets

"The health professionals industry, which includes the professional associations of doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists and pharmacists, is one of the top industries when it comes to campaign giving. The industry ramped up its political giving significantly during the 2004 election cycle, perhaps because it saw an opportunity to pass medical malpractice reform, which medical practitioners claim is necessary to reign in malpractice insurance costs. The American Medical Association—the industry’s largest trade group and one of its largest campaign contributors—has said that reforming the country’s medical liability system is one of its top priorities, as it has been in years past. The fight is always a contentious one, pitting the AMA against the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, one of the top donors to political campaigns."

For the 2006 election, Hillary receieved the 3rd most money in the Senate from the Insurance Industry at roughly $380,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2006&recipdetail=S&Mem=Y&sortorder=U

For the 2006 election, Hillary recieved the 13th most moneyt in the Senate from the Pharamceutical industry with almost $130K.

So I am unsure what exactly berman is basing his claim on. Because I have no problem with the 1st group.

And for comparison's sake in 2004, Obama took roughly $335K from HC professionals & $169K from Insurance.

"Do you honestly believe she will not be beholding to all those interests come time to get that work done"

Considering that the people who want Universal Healthcare gave her more money even if you think Hillary is the most craven of politicians who sells her vote, you have to go with the highest bidder right ;-)

But honestly do you think a small pittance of the $25M she raised last year is going to sway her?