Advice For Hillary: Controlling Her Second Act And Lessons From Pelosi

One of the interesting, and I think somewhat predictable developments has been the newfound "virtues" of Hillary in the Media, particularly the Gang of 500. With the fall of Bush, to an extent that even Mark Halperin has had to suck it up, Hillary actually is getting a real chance to control her political message and image. Consider this from The Note:

The Gang of 500, every cable network, talk radio host, and pajama-clad blogger is significantly more interested in all things Clinton than they are in health care tax credits, nuanced global warming positions, or Cheney-Pelosi body language. And between now and Tuesday night's 9 pm SOTU, Hillary Clinton will claim some really choice network television real estate . . . Senator Clinton has already answered many key questions about her presidential campaign, but left some very much tbd. Now known: . . . she will manage the Clinton Brand in a hands-on fashion; she is going to compete hard for the netroots; there will be no photo op left behind.

This is respectful coverage from the Beltway. Her second act will be in her hands. More.

My most important piece of advice for Hillary is this -- forget everything she was ever told about "appearing moderate"/"winning the Center"/being an "aggressive woman", etc. Her biggest risk right now is in NOT winning the nomination, not the GE.

At this point, the Republican Party and its frontrunners are imploding. Yes, Iraq is the reason why. And Yes, I told you so. Since 2003, I told you so. And Hillary, indeed ALL Dems need to understand the new reality. The Media has been behind the trend every single step of the way. It has been the misfortune of the Democrats that their consultants can not see farther than the length of their nose. I hope for Hillary's sake she has better consultants now than she did in 2002, 2003 , 2004, 2005, 2006 . . .

Consider the evidence of the stupidity of the Media and the pundits on
Nancy Pelosi, as chronicled by Glenn Greenwald and linked to be kos.

Kos writes:

In all seriousness, the best thing to happen to Democrats the past year is their increased willingness to ignore the mad ramblings of the Beltway Gasbags. Remember, those are the same morons who told us that challenging Lieberman would cost us in November and lose us Jewish votes. They told us that bloggers were "pulling the party to the far left", making it unelectable. They told us that calling for withdrawal from Iraq would make Democrats look "weak on national defense". They told us that the way to win in "conservative" districts was to reject the likes of now-Reps. John Yarmuth and Jerry McNerney in Democratic primaries for more "moderate" Democrats. Heck, we weren't supposed to win the House with the prospects of a "San Francisco liberal" taking over. That was supposedly scaaaaary!

Still my favorite: they told us that electing Howard Dean as chair of the DNC would spell electoral doom. Funny how that worked out.

And now people finally seem to be realizing that those morons don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. They are worthy of every bit of scorn due their way.

The bolded part is what I argue is at the heart of the Netroots ideology. I put it this way:

We felt, and feel, that the Democratic Party was not fighting for core Democratic values. We felt, and feel, that the Media had accepted the Republican narrative of politics and that Democrats had simply accepted it. We felt, and feel, that organizations like Ed's DLC were undermining the Democratic Party by emphasizing the need to be more like Republicans, or the need to neutralize "values" issues. We felt, and feel, they were simply wrong on the politics.

Hillary has been captive of this DC Establishment Consultant Gasbag Wing of the Democratic Party, and it has hurt her severely on Iraq. Unlike Edwards, who pivoted relatively early on Iraq in 2005, Hillary has been stubbornly stupid on the issue. In August 2005, I wrote:

Finalize the Blame Now: The Politics and Policy on Iraq by Armando
Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 12:36:56 AM EST

I think this is a critical issue so I wanted to provide an update on the very interestiing discussion going on on this issue. If you read any part of this post, read my excerpt from Digby in extended, priceless. I think I started the blogosphere discussion with this post, which crystallized a lot of my thoughts:

I have a certain pragmatic sympathy for the views of some Democrats reluctant to turn up the volume on the Iraq Debacle, to the decibel of calling for withdrawal. However, I strongly disagree with that view. But I have no sympathy for the view that Bush should not be criticized on Iraq.

My point was that to think about political postures on Iraq (as despicable as that is) in 2002 based on polling in 2002, when the election is in 2004, was/is incredibly stupid. But we saw it again in 2005, on Iraq. Dems woke up in 2006. But Hillary did not.

I predict right now that if Hillary does not wake up on this, she will lose the nomination. Will she? It remains to be seen. But she is getting a second act. She needs to make the most of it.

< Compilation of War Bills Introduced in Congress | Libby Jury Selection Completed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    100% on target (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    As a New Yorker I voted against Hillary and for Jonathan Tasini in the Senate election, primarily because of her pro war stance.

    I will not vote for her until she catches up with all the Republicans who are coming out against the war. Her "cap" legislation is total BS.

    Wake up girl, you gotta break out or you will be a loser.

    Agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by koshembos on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:03:23 PM EST
    Hillary does follow religiously what appears to be the consultant/media line. As a result she finds herself behind the curve rather with it or ahead of it.

    The Ickes and Carvils are first class aids, but the day to day ones seem to be of a lesser caliber. (So says my son who is an expert.)

    One disagreement, small however, the consultant view is not bounded their nose; it's bounded by their bank account.

    What's the plan? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:05:44 AM EST
    What is the Democratic platform for the war in Iraq? Inquiring RWNJ's are already asking.

    if mr. greenwald's recent (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:50:04 AM EST
    op/ed in the wp is any indicator of his analytical skills, i'd pass on him as any kind predicator of things democratic and hillary.

    in fact, he's quite wrong, the beltway gasbags are at full tilt, never stopping, never admitting a mistake. unfortunately, they, along with the nyt's and wp gasbags, are listened to.

    sen. clinton needs to take a "no holds barred" attitude, with respect to the MSM, or they'll do to her what they did to gore and kerry. in fact, they've already started.

    Right on (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    Matt Stoller on the money.

    As Democrats, we need to pressure Hillary Clinton to deal openly and honestly with Iraq, and apologize for her vote.  She needs to come out cleanly and say it was wrong.  If she won't do this, we need to work against her in the primary.  America can't afford another President who can't admit mistakes.

    Yes, she is way behind the curve and unless she wakes up her nomination will be toast.