Neo-Cons/PNAC Push for Hillary’s Nomination

[bvar22]

"...conservative pundits love Hillary Clinton and despise the party’s liberal base. While Karl Rove and George Bush have predicted that she will win the nomination, there’s a more basic reason why the right would be content with a President Hillary Clinton. It would not shift the political center of gravity, nor upset the current power structure where conservatives have flourished.... in a year where Democrats will probably win the Presidency – Hillary is the best that they can hope for.

<snip>

Neo-cons could not be more pleased, and this is why they will continue to do what they can to make sure Hillary is the Democratic nominee. The trouble with Krauthammer is that he jumped the gun with his candor. Until the first primary votes are cast in Iowa, liberals are not supposed to know that the conservative political structure that has run the Beltway for decades would be happy with a President Hillary Clinton."

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5011#more

A crying shame to waste this wonderful opportunity for REAL change.

[rinsd]

1. More of that "honest" criticism from the left we hear about that is being ignored

Filled with innuendo and smear by association bullshit.

[bvar22]

5. "smear by association" ??

Oh Yeah.
Everyone knows that being actively supported by criminals and profiteers has no bearing on a person's integrity. Thats why Police Departments and Intelligence Agencies DON'T keep a "Known Associates" file.


Here's an association that is noteworthy:

[rinsd]

10. Yeah smear by association.

Conservative writers say nice things about Hillary therefore she is evil.

They aren't her "associates" but nice pathetic try.

[bvar22]

17. If you're OK with the company Hillary keeps,

and don't believe that its a cause for concern....fine.

I believe that it is important to examine who is supporting particular candidates, and question what they hope to gain by their election.

I personally wouldn't invite any of them over to my house for supper, and certainly don't want them to have an influence over the Democratic President of the US.

[rinsd]

19. I'll take that as an admission that it was a smear by association

[bvar22]

23. And I'll take your statement as a concession.

Better luck next time.
:hi:

[sellitman]

38. Ben Franklin's quote is one you should know...

He that lieth down with Dogs, shall rise up with Fleas.

[Usrename]

40. Face reality. No one goes to jail under a Hillary administration.

Might as well pardon everyone. And no one will be asked to pay back any money they stole, either.

What's not to love about her, if you are a republican criminal?

[oasis]

46. Did YOUR candidate say "I want to be your retribution president"?

:shrug:

[Usrename]

47. Nope!

I think what they say is much less important than their behavior, and I have no doubt that there would be some justice.

[FrenchieCat]

2. So George Wills, Krauthammer, Bill Chrystol, etc.... ALL jumped the "gun".....

or maybe they understand that if they talk as though they "want" Clinton as the nominee, it will turn off the Democratic base. Since Democrats don't want anything that those NeonCons want......those NeoCons are hoping that their Happiness over a Hillary Nomination will make them think twice.

This is nothing but elementary reverse Psychology, and I'm surprised that Intelligent DUers would fall for it. :eyes:


Reverse psychology is the term that describes the outcome where advocacy of one course of action persuades another person to do the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology

[Ian_rd]

6. Yes, yes, we all know what "reverse psychology" means.

As far as your comment, nothing the Right has said has had a negative impact on her campaign, and they are aware of that. I would interpret Krauthammer's article as honest and boastful, knowing that even if he takes time to rub our noses in it, we'll still nominate Hillary as if we have no alternative. And I think he's right. The most pointed statement in Hogarth's article is:

"In other words, Hillary has already betrayed progressives – three months before the Iowa caucus – because they have let her off the hook so easily."

Hillary is campaigning as if the primaries are a forgone conclusion. She doesn't feel she needs to appeal to progressives and guess what - we're proving her right. No matter how far to the Right she goes, her poll numbers keep going up. Now defense contractors are betting on her to win, too, in addition to most of the business elite. And if you don't think she'll pay them back for their support, you're crazy. Because she knows THEY expect payback, while she can ignore us and still get our vote.

[bvar22]

15. That's a pretty tortured speculation.

And I'm categorically against torture, even if Hillary is not.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601017_hillary_equivocates_on_torture/

The truth is much simpler:

Hillary is the most conservative of all the Democratic Candidates.
The Right Wing, fearing an across the board defeat in 2008, are supporting the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, and in Hillary, they have found someone they can live with. Hillary's ProBIG BUSINESS/Free Trade politics coupled with her financial ties to the HealthCare Industry, Armaments manufacturers, and Wall St ensure that nothing much will change on the Financial Front.
All perfectly logical.

There have been elections in the past when a conservative compromise candidate from the Democratic Party would have been a smart move.

2008 is not a time to compromise with Republicans by running a ProWar/AntiLABOR candidate when we could do so much better.

It is all very simple.

[incapsulated]

16. Yawn

Hillary is the "most conservative" based on what, other than your own opinion?

And she was asked if the stupid, never will happen movie scenerio came true and we had the Big Bad Terrorist in custody and a bomb was ticking somewhere should severe measures be used and she said maybe, with a presidential sign-off...

OMFG SHE IS GOING TO SEND US ALL TO GITMO!!

:eyes:

[bvar22]

18. "Most conservative" based on Policy and Issues.

*Extend the Iraq occupation beyond 2012

*Increase the Defense Budget/size of military

*support for "Free Trade" and outsourcing of American jobs

*Mandatory For Profit Health Insurance

*Unqualified support for the current right wing Israeli government

*Member of the most conservative Democratic Policy organization (DLC)

*Consistent ProWar statements and voting record.

*Complete lack of stated position on the Restoration of our Constitution or the Unitary Executive

*Support for the Iraqi "Oil Law Benchmark"

*Failure to acknowledge that Deregulation & Privatization has caused serious problems for the Middle Class.

If you don't believe that Hillary is the most conservative Democratic Candidate, perhaps you would be willing to name a candidate who is more conservative than Hillary, and support your position with something other than smileys and hyperbole.





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[incapsulated]

28. Yawn, 2

*Extend the Iraq occupation beyond 2012

Saying you don't know whether you will get out by the end of your term isn't saying you will work to extend it. And WHO ELSE SAID THIS? Oh, that's right, everyone else.

*support for "Free Trade" and outsourcing of American jobs

Yes, she said she wants to outsource Americans jobs. Where? Nowhere. She said that NAFTA needs to be changed and should be revisited every five years.

*Mandatory For Profit Health Insurance

Mind telling me who is advocating for a Health Care Program you support?

*Unqualified support for the current right wing Israeli government

"Unqualified", mind backing that up with anything other than your say so?

*Member of the most conservative Democratic Policy organization (DLC)

I don't like them but they aren't the Nazi Party.

*Consistent ProWar statements and voting record.

How is co-sponsoring the Webb amendment "consistently" "Pro-war?"

*Complete lack of stated position on the Restoration of our Constitution or the Unitary Executive

This I think they ALL should address.

*Support for the Iraqi "Oil Law Benchmark"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/for-the-record-congress-_b_62669.html

[bvar22]

35. Entertaining tap dance, but you avoided the challenge.

Name a Democratic Candidate MORE conservative than Hillary and support you position.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[incapsulated]

39. Why should I use your criteria?

That changes with every fucking post? I answered all your little bullet points, enough already.

Why not that of the ACLU or any of the other Progressive ratings she does very well on and better than others?

This is a bullshit argument, though. You aren't just saying she is a conservative democrat. You are saying she is nothing short of a right wing shill.

It's stupid.

I'll also add this is the last time I'm even addressing the likes of you.

You demand I answer a list of accusations and when I do you call it tapdancing, I call it you squirming away and changing the subject when you have nothing to say.

[bvar22]

41. Still Waiting:

Name a Democratic Candidate MORE conservative than Hillary, and support your position.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Kucinich didn't say he'd leave troops in until 2012.

You said EVERYONE ELSE agreed with Hillary. Others may have disagreed as well.

[Bitwit1234]

3. Mentioning rove and bush in the same sentence with Hillary

Think that's gonna get people to change their mind. Makes me see desperation on the part of you know who's supporters.

[redqueen]

4. Howevery crying or shameful it is...

we have to deal with what we have. IF she gets the nod, then... well there you go. I'll happily vote for her... because I know that no matter how much I may disagree with her on however many subjects, she will be a much much MUCH better choice than the altnerative.

[Perry Logan]

7. Either they or a lot of progressive groiups will be disappointed.

QUICK REMINDER: Wingers are idiots.

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[redqueen]

11. Thanks...

people are focusing on the negative... and while I don't pretend it isn't there at all... it's nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be.

:hi:

[leftchick]

8. I recognized this years ago

all is going according to the neocon plan...

<snip>

Two weeks ago, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution – a neo-conservative bill that could lead us to preemptive war with Iran. As the New York Times reported, Hillary did this because she has “already shifted from primary mode to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right.”

In other words, Hillary has already betrayed progressives – three months before the Iowa caucus – because they have let her off the hook so easily. If she still had to fight Edwards and Obama for the Democratic nomination, she would not have voted for it. But because she is such an opportunist, Hillary has moved on to co-opt Republicans on “national security” grounds so that Rudy Giuliani doesn’t beat her on that issue in the general election.

[rhett o rick]

9. We do not live in a Democracy anymore. HRC said she will "work" to get us out of Vietnam oops i

mean Iraq. Isn't that what King George says, that he is "working" to get us out. Will HRC restore habeas corpus? or stop domestic spying? or stop torture? I don't think those are high on her priority list. Will she repeal NAFTA, CAFTA etc. I doubt it. So how will she save our democracy?

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Like they were so in love with Bill Clinton's Presidency...

...that they helped make him only the second President in U.S. history to be impeached. And they sure as hell weren't any friedlier to Hillary as first lady than they were to Bill as Prez. Didn't Rush tell you? She murdered Vincent Foster.

The Right was particularly viscious with the Clinton's, out of proportion to any ideological conflicts actually, and I suspect that was because the Right settled on a policy of polarization to keep control of the White House - whcih is exactly what the Great Divider set out pursuing once he took control of the White House in 2001, accelerating his efforts in that regard after he supposedly won "all that political capital"in the 2004 election.

Yes the Clinton's work the center of the political spectrum for support, and go ahead and hate them for that if you want. But that is what threatens the Right more than the idea of facing a true progressive does, because the Right believes that they know had to effectively "pink bait smear" a true progressive. Bill Clinton's ability to seem moderate and sensible to centrist Americans infuriated the Right, and drove their pathological hate of both Bill and Hillary. How quickly we forget.

I am not personally making the case that Democrats can't run real progressives and win. Hillary was never my choice for the nomination. I am just tired of all of the "Rove wants so and so to win" lines of argument that get trotted out at DU as a way of smearing an opponent of whoever one supports.

[Mellowtone]

29. I think this has become the Clinton Underground

Not the Democratic Underground. Hillary supporters seems to have taken over and want to insult and browbeat anyone who doesn't support her, anyone who think she's missing the point, and think she's just wanting to be Prez and in the W H again, no matter what she has to do or how to get there.

That's not the person I want, but I may have to "settle for her" over any worse choices.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I trust you are not talking about me

I'm not aware of having browbeaten anyone about anything, are you? I actually think I brought up a serious point for discussion in the post you replied to, and I'm not even a Clinton supporter. At this point I am still holding out faint and fading hope for Gore.

[bvar22]

37. The Hillary supporters at DU are few in number,

but they are very, very LOUD and ill mannered.

Thanks for respoding and welcome to DU.
Don't let the screamers silence you....or the terrorists WIN! :+



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. And you might check out this DU thread...

...for more evidence of how much the Right loves Hillary Clinton:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3621017&mesg_id=3621017

[incapsulated]

14. You know what all this sounds like to me?

Reconciling themselves to a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Hey, I went through the same thing myself.

:P

[bvar22]

25. I agree.

They are all saying, "Hey, If we have to have a Democrat, Hillary ain't so bad.

Pro War

Pro FreeTrade/AntiLABOR

Pro outsourcing of Middle Class jobs

Pro INCREASING the Defense budget

Pro Expanding the military

Pro For Profit HealthCare Industry

Pro Privatization & Deregulation

Will probably let the bush* criminals go like her husband did in 1992

Wall Street loves her

AIPAC loves her

Hey! Whats not to like???" :shrug:

[bvar22]

26. delete

:hi:

[Rowdyboy]

20. So the "vast rightwing conspiracy" is out to get Hillary.....elected? Huh?

Give me a break. Total irrational bullshit.

[Carrieyazel]

44. They're trying to get her nominated, so she goes down in the general to Ghouliani.

That's the strategy. They've already decided on Ghouliani. They see him as their only real shot. He's pro-choice, pro-gay rights and will take a large chunk of the Indep vote. They will swallow their pride and forgive Ghouliani for his "liberal" stances on some of these issues. They are desperately trying to keep a Repuke in the White House.

[Rowdyboy]

52. Good luck on turnout with a pro-abortion, pro-gay Republican nominee....

There will be a 3rd party anti-abortion candidate, and the few who don't support that person will stay home before they vote for Guiliani.

JMO, but thats my take.

[AntiFascist]

21. Notice that Will Marshall cosigned a letter from PNAC...

expressing support for the invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

[mod mom]

42. More on DLCer Will Marshall's ties to PNAC:

In the introduction to the 2006 book With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, editor Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), promotes what he calls “progressive internationalism” as opposed to the “conservative unilateralism” of the George W. Bush administration. He argues that the Iraq War is part of a larger strategy for “building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy,” and that the “Bush Republicans have been tough but they have not been smart” in directing the course of the war in Iraq. Part of being smart is “using our strengths,” says Marshall. “Democrats must be committed to preserving America's military predominance, because a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership.”

-snip

A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

-snip

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”



http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[AntiFascist]

51. "a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership"

In truth it seems to be a strong petro-dollar that undergirds US global leadership, and the rug may be getting pulled out from under us due to our unilateral imperialistic goals. Unless Clinton and the other centrist democrats face this truth, they are leading us off of the same cliff as the neocons.

Another inconvenient truth that needs to be investigated is the attempt to support the economy through "narco-dollars". If it is true that illicit drug sales contribute $100s billions to Wall Street, and the opium crop in Afghanistan has increased 1000s of percent SINCE the invasion of Afghanistan, then there is likely something else going on in the "war on terror" that really stinks. Some claim that worldwide drug trade is even larger than the worldwide oil market.

[zulchzulu]

22. RNC batcave meetings have posters of Hillary and Bill on the wall

I've heard that from someone who attends their meetings...

[sufrommich]

30. You should add a sarcasm tag to that.

You almost sound serious.

[cuke]

24. Does that mean they WON'T attack her if she gets the nom?

I remember you saying that repukes hate her and will come out in droves to vote against her

Now, you say they love her.

Make up your mind

[bvar22]

34. 2 points.

1) You will have to find the post that you "remember" and post a link.
While there is some truth that Hillary will spark a larger Republican turnout than the other Democratic candidates, that is NOT my concern, and something I haven't posted about at DU.

I am concerned that the Democrats nominate the BEST possible Democrat in 2008.
I have posted several times here at DU that nominating a ProWar/AntiLABOR conservative Democrat will catalyze a 3rd Party challenge from the Populist Left that will attract most AntiWar/ProLABOR Independents and a sizeable chunk of disaffected Democrats.
I stand by this.

2) You didn't really read the link in the OP, did you.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[ileus]

27. She'll turn left once elected...have a little faith people.

She's tricking them...She's one of us.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. She may even turn left after being nominated... depends on the news.

If nominated, she is well positioned to take advantage of news... the ever-present wild-card in every presidential election. If Iraq news goes even further to Hell, she's sitting pretty as the Dem candidate. If it somehow "improves", she's sitting pretty as a relative hawk.

Bear in mind that Bush can manipulate the 2008 election by eliminating US casualties any time he wants. It's just a matter of telling the troops to stop going patrolling for a while.

Since "victory" has no meaning, any reality (short of a peaceful, stable Iraq) can be created temporarily. He can produce political "progress" by paying parties in Iraq to sign agreements they have no intention of honoring.
He can announce troop reductions before the election and rescind them after the elction.

And he has no compunctions about doing anything to shaft the Dems, who were always the only real enemy in the GWOT.

[Carrieyazel]

45. She can't get elected. She can get nominated, but will go down in a general.

She's a bad bet all around. And she's depending on lame tricks to win??

[DemBones DemBones]

49. Like her husband? He signed NAFTA, put people off welfare,

otherwise governed like a moderate Republican. And he blockaded Iraq so that thousands of Iraqi children died, which his Sec. of State, Madeleine Albright, said was "worth it." Not to the kids' families, obviously.

Yeah, she'll turn left. Right after Cheney gives all his millions to charity. i.e., NEVER.

[Progressive Friend]

32. K&R

[illinoisprogressive]

33. we here know that the neocons love Hillary, she's one of them, but,

it's the average, mainstream voters who are unaware of it.

[Carrieyazel]

43. Why should we nominate the person all of the Repukelicans are saying WILL be the nominee?

Something's not right here. Everybody and their grandmother is saying its gonna be Hillary. "Its a foregone conclusion". Crooked Karl, Sean Insanity, Bill O'Lielly, Shrub, Doofus Bartlett, Rash Limpball, etc. Of course they want Hillary. She can't win a national election.

Why can't we shock these imbeciles, and go with someone outside the box. Hillary is an unimaginative, more of the same, establishment candidate. Does not represent change.

[cleveramerican]

50. Hey I've got an Idea, Let's decide this ourselves

let's not SAY we don't care what the right-wingers think.
Let's actually not care.
whadaya say?