According to The Washington Post, he says "Obama is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world." One can try to speculate that Kristol is playing some odd angles here, but I think the record indicates that he's genuinely more committed to war -- criticized Republican critics of the Kosovo War, criticized Bill Clinton for not killing enough people during the Kosovo War, backed John McCain in the 2000 primaries -- and based on the evidence thinks Clinton will be more sympathetic to his agenda than the alternatives.
« Brownback v. Romney | Main | False Equivalence »
Clinton Wins Coveted Bill Kristol Endorsement
07 Aug 2007 10:17 am
Comments (30)
I've noticed that Hillary has been getting lots of accolades from the right wing these days. Maybe her meeting with Rupert Murdoch paid off, or maybe they realized that she's the most conservative Democrat in the field right now.
But does that make her more electable in the general election, or does that make her the Joe Lieberman candidate of 2008?
But does that make her more electable in the general election, or does that make her the Joe Lieberman candidate of 2008?
Lieberman won the general election.
SCMT, in context, JinChi is probably referring to Joe Lieberman's run for president in '04.
But does that make her more electable in the general election, or does that make her the Joe Lieberman candidate of 2008?
I think it's worthwhile to remember just what made Lieberman so toxic. It was not just that he was pro-war -- plenty of Dems fell into that category. It was that he went out of his way to excoriate his fellow Dems who were opposed to the war, and he willingly played along with the Bush/GOP strategy of demonizing anti-war politicians, saying they were empowering the terrorists, making the country less safe, etc.
Hillary may be more conservative than some of the field -- and I'm not totally convinced of that -- but she has never done any of those things. So let's keep things in perspective, shall we? She is not Joe Lieberman, not by a long shot.
She is not Joe Lieberman, not by a long shot.
Give me a break. She is Lieberman. She comes from the same part of the party, with roughly his attitude towards the war, and similar moral scold domestic attitudes. There's a reason that every pundit that lined up behind Lieberman --with, to date, the exception of TNR--is coming out of the woodwork and lining up behind her.
I think it's worthwhile to remember just what made Lieberman so toxic. It was not just that he was pro-war -- plenty of Dems fell into that category. It was that he went out of his way to excoriate his fellow Dems who were opposed to the war, and he willingly played along with the Bush/GOP strategy of demonizing anti-war politicians, saying they were empowering the terrorists, making the country less safe, etc.
Lieberman also had the charisma of a used dishrag and an obvious hard-on for war at a time when the Democratic base was getting increasingly sick of U.S. involvement in Iraq - not unlike our own Madam Frontrunner. Yes, the DKos position on Lieberman has always been that he was Special in some way - that it wasn't that he was a warmonger, it was that he wasn't a party loyalist - but this struck me at the time as an easy line to take because Lieberman was such a convenient target to pick off among the warmongers (if we tried to oust every pro-war Democrat, we'd lose most of the Senate). The relevant similarities between Clinton and Lieberman are that both would be bad presidents who would push the United States into more unnecessary wars, and both are terrible candidates to boot.
Well, if I was a Republican and saw my party in shambles, I would want it united and aggressive once again. What better to unite it than the hatred of a Clinton?
What pisses me off are people like Kevin Drum who, while I respect a lot, continue to insist that there are no substantive differences between Obama/Edwards and Clinton on foreign policy, or that the differences are minimal. Meanwhile, all of Hillary's answers are getting Kristol, Podhoretz, et al, all hot and bothered. Is maybe something going on here that you're just missing, Kevin (and others)?
Matt Stoller gets it right when he says, speaking (presumably) for the Left:
Clinton is a brilliant and charismatic politician who does not really share our values but is able to use rhetoric to mislead liberals about her positioning
I think there's some dog-whistle politics going on. Certainly the "used for propaganda purposes" line was a dog whistle for neocons (and prompted Tucker Carlson to flat-out say, somewhat admiringly, that Hillary is a NeoCon). Saying, in effect, we should never take nukes off the table is the same. When she comments on it, she doesn't necessarily disagree with the liberal position, and if you want her to be liberal or assume she's liberal, you'll read her non-disagreements as liberal. But the entire time she's sending signals to the right that while she's equivocating about whether or not she's on board with liberal foreign policy, she's actually, well, not.
I don't get how people who are supposed to be in tune to political discourse and such simply don't see this.
Kristol is right that she is more sympathetic to his warmongering than the other Dems, but she is still much better on war issues than Bush or any Republican candidate aside from Ron Paul. If forced to choose between Clinton and Guiliani/McCain/Romney/Thompson, it'll be a pretty easy choice for most Americans who oppose the endless occupation of Iraq.
Lieberman won the general election.
Lieberman was the leading Democratic presidential candidate about this time in 2004. Most people forget that.
As for his win in the general election (2006) - you'd have assume Hillary would lose the primaries, decide to run in the "America for Hillary" party, and get the overwhelming support of Republican voters in the general election at the expense of their own candidate.
Is this supposed to be surprising news? We all know HRC is the least liberal of the three leading Dem candidates. It's only natural that a (chicken)hawk like Kristol would be for her over any of the others.
He'll still line up behind the GOP candidate in the general. He's just hedging his bets by supporting HRC in the Democratic primary (not that his endorsement will help her in that race).
It's not particularly profound to say that the base of the Democratic Party is generally dovish, although the Democratic elite is generally hawkish. Hillary is certainly a hawk, and I'm not a huge fan of her, but being a hawk and being a warmonger are, of course, different things. I'm going to go out on a limb and say she won't start any more Iraqs and will be more internationalist than her predecessor.
Are you on crack???
Every single thing Lyin' Bill Kristol says is to help republicans.
He's advocating Hillary because Hillary is more beatable by a republican smear machine.
To attribute noble notives to one of the most craven and reprehensible liars of our day is just silly.
I think it's nuts to compare Hillary and Lieberman in any respect, except perhaps their stance on violent video games.
Hillary may be from the more moderate side of the party - although her voting record looks a lot more like Ted Kennedy than Ben Nelson. But Lieberman is way, way out there in Zell Miller territory. There is literally no other figure like him in Democratic politics, or even close.
SomeCallMeTim
And others call you insipid?
Self-indulgent blogs have given history another excuse to claim that America produces the dumbest political opionions on earth.
Mmmm ... Murdoch likes Hillary, Kristol works for Murdoch. So where's the surprise?
But Lieberman is way, way out there in Zell Miller territory. There is literally no other figure like him in Democratic politics, or even close.
But you just named one, yourself.
I agree, though. Hillary isn't in Lieberman territory. She's never accused the left of treason.
She is however the Republican favorite, as he was. They look at the Democratic field and think, "there's a person I could vote for, but I'd rather have a real Republican".
It's pretty incredible given the years of Hillary hatred on the right that she's now their favorite Democrat.
I think it's nuts to compare Hillary and Lieberman in any respect....her voting record looks a lot more like Ted Kennedy than Ben Nelson.
Looking at the National Journal's 2006 Vote Ratings Conservative Voting Scores, I count three Senators between HRC and Lieberman, and eight between HRC and Nelson. I count 29 between HRC and Kennedy.
Kristol's 'endorsement' of Clinton means as much as mine does.
But you voluble zealots, who just can't give the world the silence it deserves, tend to confuse palaver with verity and then want to talk it to death.
Re Jinchi
Many on the right, like Kristol, support Hilary for the Democratic nomination because they think that, among the Democratic candidates, she will be the easiest to beat. Much like Democrats in 1980 supported Reagan for the Rethuglican nomination thinking he would be the easiest to beat.
For yet another conservative argument for Hillary, check out [Bruce's] post on Andrew Sullivan's page.
Having come to this realization, it became necessary to judge the Democratic field to determine which candidate would be the least bad from my point of view. I concluded that Hillary Clinton was less objectionable that the others. She appeared to be a clone of her husband on economic policy--which is good as far as I am concerned--and a realist on foreign policy. Given the choices facing us, I concluded that conservatives ought to consider supporting Hillary in order to ensure that a more liberal candidate such as Barack Obama or John Edwards didn't become our next president.
I think that's the general feeling among despondent Republicans. Conservatives are arguing, "if you must vote for a Democrat for God's sake vote for Hillary".
When are you folks going to reconcile yourselves to having Hillary as your nominee? The only thing that could stop her would be a massive new skeleton tumbling out of her closet, but the press has rifled through that closet for years, so that's unlikely.
This week's Economist ("When Black and Brown Collide") suggests another reason why Hillary is inevitable as the nominee: black Dems are split on her, but Latinos overwhelmingly support her:
Such ethnic squabbles, which are almost inevitable in the zero-sum game of urban politics, can shape attitudes. And they may help to explain one of the most striking features of the 2008 presidential race: the lack of Latino support for Mr Obama. In June a Gallup poll showed that black Democrats were evenly divided between Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, while whites gave Mrs Clinton a 16-point lead. Among Hispanics, however, the senator from New York led by a crushing 46 points—despite Mr Obama's impeccably liberal line on immigration.
Jinchi:
I don't think that your point and and SLC's are in opposition. People--including MY--have pointed out that HRC suffers as a Dem candidate because she's a right-of-center politician whom people believe is a far-lefty. From the Republican perspective, that's perfect: people think she's a lefty (easier to beat) and she's right-of-center (more likely to follow Republican lines of thought should she win).
When are you folks going to reconcile yourselves to having Hillary as your nominee?
The day she wins the nomination. Until then, I prefer to make the candidates work for my vote.
Jinchi: I don't think that your point and and SLC's are in opposition.
I don't think so either. Hillary is the smart move for conservative Republicans. She motivates their base helping Republicans generally, but if she wins, she's still the most conservative Democrat. It keeps the debate shifted to the right. It's also their best bet for a return in 2012.
"It's also their best bet for a return in 2012."
This isn't true. Of the major Dem candidates, Hillary is the most careful and disciplined, and has the most mainstream economic advisers. She also remembers the consequence of tacking left during the first two years of her husband's presidency (loosing Congress in '04). She would be the least likely to overreach in her first term, and thus the most difficult candidate to vote out after one term.
But you voluble zealots, who just can't give the world the silence it deserves, tend to confuse palaver with verity and then want to talk it to death.
That's a terrific line. Seriously.
Rock the boat! Gravel '08.
Obama will not win the general election(*). No candidate the Democratic "roots" really likes will win the general election, not even with Bush in the toilet. Bush isn't running in 2008 -- and remember that we haven't gotten 51% of the vote since 1964.
We have had exactly two successful candidates since 1964; one was a freak accident ("peanut") and one was named Clinton. He's also our only two-termer since 1964; granted, the GOP vote was split, but it's better than any of the other hapless, gormless twits we've picked. (Dukakis... Mondale... Kerry...)
With Hillary, we have a chance of taking the white house... about a 50-50 chance. That's the best we're going to get.
The Republicans have realized that they can't win with a candidate who makes their hearts throb, so they're probably going to go for Guiliani, or possibly Thompson but that's a long shot.
(*) because, first, he's too far left, and second, he's black. America will eventually elect a black President; it will not be in 2008, and when it happens, he'll probably be a conservative Republican.
The fact that Obama and, Ghu help us, Edwards are serious candidates is evidence of how divorced from American reality a lot of Democrats are. And how much we need to go over to a system of open primaries to force the parties back towards the center and marginalize the loopy-loops.
Ditto the fact that Hillary is being critiqued for not being "liberal enough". Wake up call: have you noticed what _country_ you're in? Hint -- it isn't Sweden.
A) Hillary really isn't very liberal.
B) Hillary is on the extreme left fringe of the "electable spectrum".
Comments closed August 21, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yet another reason to be against Clinton.
Posted by I Got a Crush on Obama | August 7, 2007 10:26 AM