Well, Hillary had a bit of a rough time this morning at the Take Back America conference — she was actually booed by a few in the audience as called to hold the Iraqis accountable for running their own government. Interesting, because there’s a good deal of truth to that — many Iraqi police and military are also involved in death squads and anti-US attacks. But the audience read between the lines: It was something less than a full-throated rejection of the entire adventure, and a call for a full and immediate pullout.
Other than that, her speech was pretty unremarkable – a lot of platitudes, and a call for an America that is looked up to by everyone around the world. Of course we want that, but it’s a more powerful point when you’ve outlined dramatically just exactly what’s gone wrong. As a matter of reassuring the audience, that just can’t go left unsaid.
Anyway, despite the polls, I think Hillary’s got an uphill battle with the base.
I respect your opinion, but why are we criticizing a good Democrat, and excellent Senator and one of the Democratic Party’s best hopes at taking back the White House?
<
p>
Sure, I don’t agree with Hillary on everything, but I think she would make an excellent President, along with some of the other good Democrats in the race. If she was half as good as her husband was, it would be a great improvement over what we have lived with in this country for the past 6 years.
<
p>
Why not focus the criticism on Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, et al?
That’s subject to debate, to say the least. That’s why we have a primary.
<
p>
Also, I’m not voting for Rudy McRomney, because I’m not a Republican. What they do is simply less important right now to my decision-making.
Her supporters should pack it in right now. Robust debate is the best way to a strong position. This is exactly the right time to question the Democratic candidates and force them to justify their positions — Charley is exactly right. There will be time enough to argue against the Republicans.
…it’s wasn’t Clinton commenting on Charley’s criticisms of her, it was me. I don’t speak for her…I only speak for myself.
<
p>
Second, I have no problem with robust debate. I just think that, in general, we liberal Democrats sometimes have a tendency to bloody each other up pretty badly before the primaries. And the only ones who benefit from that are the Republicans. That’s all.
<
p>
Hillary’s got an uphill battle with “the base” if you define “the base” as just a particular subset of the typical Democratic coalition (i.e. mainly white, professional liberals). My understanding is that Hillary is doing very well among African-Americans and lower-income workers, certainly a critical part of the Democratic “base”.
Do African-Americans not care about Iraq? Lower-income workers? Are my feelings on Iraq based on my socio-economic status?
<
p>
I think sociologically cross-sectioning is extremely reductionist, and not terribly helpful in this case.
is obviously not that African-Americans and lower-income workers somehow don’t care about Iraq. My point is that you claimed that Hillary faces an uphill battle with “the base”, but given that Hillary gets more support from those two groups than any other candidate (whereas Obama has done better with higher-income groups), I’m not sure her battle is so “uphill”.
<
p>
I would think women care just as much (if not more) about the Iraq issue, yet Hillary is doing quite well with women, especially lower-income women. If lower-income women are not considered part of the Democratic “base”, then I’m not sure who “the base” refers to.
<
p>
Your comment seemed to imply that Hillary isn’t doing well with the base; I think polling demonstrates this is not the case. So I don’t think this is “sociologically cross-sectioning”.