Atrios and Jim Henley discuss Anne-Marie Slaughter's curious Op-Ed piece in WaPo today and make their points. I was most perplexed by this paragraph:

In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he called on Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.

As Hillary has made great strides with the blogs lately, as Conn Carroll of Blogometer has noted, one wonders if Slaughter has been keeping up. The other big story she may have missed is Barack Obama, whom she praises earlier in her piece for his bipartisanship, having gone ballistic negative on Hillary, labeling her "Bush Cheney Lite." Does not sound very bipartisan to me. And when for gawd's sake, did Joe Klein call for a truce with the blogs?

Ms. Slaughter seems very ill informed indeed. Even in her specialty, foreign policy. Perhaps she missed the bipartisan Levin-Reed Amendment which called for a binding Iraq withdrawal timeline, which was supported by Republican Senators Hagel, Smith, Snowe and Collins, only to be stymied by a Republican filibuster and a Bush veto threat. Oh by the way, the blogs strongly supported this bipartisan bill.

Frankly, it makes me question whether Ms. Slaughter knows much about anything.

< WH Right Blogger Conference Call On Executive Privilege | Inspiring Confidence: Maliki Want Petraeus Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary gets pilloried because she (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    too often validates Republican mythology and uses it against her fellow Democrats.  She's the quintessential DLC'er.  

    It's funny--I would have thought you would have liked the Bush/Cheney lite comment--it shows he's not a wuss and that he does take partisanship seriously.  It may have been overheated and exaggerated, but Democrats agree with his position 55% to 22% over hers, so she got wrongfooted.  And she has to be extra-careful from now on, because if she ever gets to his right again on an issue, the "Bush/Cheney-lite" brand gets strengthened.

    Did you read Glenn Greenwald's latest post?

    I think this Slaughter piece (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    is the problem. BEFORE going after Hillary Obama was Mr. NonPartisan.

    He does not defend, indeed he attacks, the Democratic brand.

    He needs to attack the Republican brand, Ms. Slaughter's tsk-tsking nowithstanding.


    The reality is that he's in a primary contest, and (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    that means he has to attack Hillary's brand.

    The line that "the Republicans are the problem, Democrats are all pretty good" is her entire campaign theme.  It's her way of having her cake--being a solid partisan--and eating it too--by making the Democratic party more Republican-like.

    Part of the problem with pushing partisanship uber alles is that it ignores the need to reform the Democratic party--and it does need reforming.  Heck, ask even the most dedicated, partisan Democrats and they'll tell you that.  Pointing fingers at the Republicans is often a tactic used by the powers that be to avoid accountability.


    The reality is (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    he spent months talking about New Politics, denigrating the Dem brand, and refusing to take on Republicans and to around now and go thermonuclear at the first spat is BAD politics.

    You mistake my critique as one saying he should not go after Clinton. Of course he has to.

    But what he did leading up to having to was a HUGE mistake  and the tactical way he did it was another huge mistake.

    I repeat to you, David Axelrod is in over his head. Obama needs a better campaign manager.


    I guess we also disagree regarding the degree (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    to which he has 'denigrated' the Democratic brand.   That accusation can be leveled at anyone trying to reform the party.  

    And he's been taking on Republicans since he got to Washington.  Ask John McCain.  Ask Lindsey Graham.  Ask Chuck Grassley.  Ask Judd Gregg and John Sununu.  

    And also note that the Republicans he has antagonized aren't even the worst of the worst in that party.


    Reforming the Party? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    Whatever you say. Obama does not give a fig about the Democratic Party imo.

    Did anyone make more appearances on behalf (none / 0) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    of Democratic candidates than Obama did last year?

    And why did he do that you think? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    I just read Glenn's piece (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    and it is not relevant to politics and the real world Obama is now residing in.

    I have told you straight out the Clinton basically lied about Obama's position. Here is a shocking development - politician's lie about their opponents' positions. Or not so shocking as Obama returned the favor by calling Clinton Bush Cheney Lite.

    The problem is this - Obama went for a nuke here, when he was responding on a small spat, he had spent months decrying "politics" and then went as negative as anyone yet has in this campaign. He did it in the same event time as the orignal spat.

    Greenwald's attack on David Corn was utterly unfair. Corn is talking about the politics, whch whether you, Obama or Greenwald want to wish away, will not change.

    I have told you this forever, Obama can't change politics and to run a campaign as is he will is suicide.


    I think you have a greatly different idea of (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    what Obama means with his campaign theme than I or most of his supporters do.

    It does not mean "can't we all just get along."  Anyone who's studied his career knows that he routinely gets in people's faces and irritates them.  And, just like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and now Hillary Clinton, they complain that he's not being true to himself or something.

    And, like it or not, this was no small spat.  This was a strategic moment in the campaign.  The game here was over positioning.  Obama positioned himself firmly to the left of Hillary.  She's not going to be able to dislodge him from there.  Now the question is whether she can walk the tightrope of being 'just progressive enough' or fall towards being insufficiently progressive.  And she now can't attack him from the right like she did the other night--because then the "Bush/Cheney-lite" brand will get strengthened.

    Obama isn't trying to make politics a matter of friendly dialogue.  He's about results and good policies, not puffery.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    As I said, I think you have chosen to buy into Obama's conception of how he can change poliitcs, and I think it is becoming increasingly clear that that is a dangerous conceit.

    If you're right, it guarantees a Hillary victory (none / 0) (#15)
    by smiley on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    If Hillary survives the nomination, that is.  Obama is running for the primary.  Hillary has already moved past the primary and is running for Nov. 2008.  She knows that the Republicans can't mount a credible candidacy, so she might as well stake out a position as far to the right of Obama as possible, hoping to draw Republican voters now and then point to the consistency of her (pro-war, pro-occupation, pro-healthcare reform, but also pro-big-business) positions in a year's time.  

    I guess only time will tell if her strategy is a wise one.


    Sounds Bush/Cheney like (none / 0) (#17)
    by Electa on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    to me...(pro-war, pro-occupation, pro-healthcare reform, but also pro-big-business)  Obama got it right, she looks more like BC than Michael Moore that's for sure.

    Obama as Michael Moore? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    This is ridiculous now.

    Slow down Dude and (none / 0) (#20)
    by Electa on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    read the post again the ref. wasn't Obama to Michael Moore.

    Of course (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    the statement is that Hillary is more BC - bill Clinton than Michael Moore, the implication is Barack Obama is more Michael Moore than Bill Clinton.

    Your comment is ridiculous and now you run from its obvious implicaton.

    I think you need to slow down before writing your comments and understand what you are saying.


    but it's true (none / 0) (#12)
    by smiley on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    Hillary voted for the war.  She is Bush-Cheney lite.  It's not petty politics if the accusation has merit.  

    John Kerry was (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    Bush Cheney Lite?

    This is the silliness I can not stand.

    Moreover, Clinton now stands in favor of withdrawal.

    Indeed, SENATOR  OBAMA and Senator clinton have exactly the same records on Iraq  AS SENATORS.

    IF Clinton is Bush Cheney Lite so is Obama.


    Up to and including (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    strongly endorsing Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary.

    You Obama folks really need to get a grip on reality.


    Pls. explain what the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Electa on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    reality is..."You Obama folks really need to get a grip on reality."  I thought that in America the reality is that people have the right to support the candidate of their choice...right, left, center, progressive, independent, round the block...whatever.  Obama may not win the primary but one thing for sure he's demonstrated that he has the power to unite folks across gender, race, socio-economic backgrounds, sexual orientation and religion.  That's a win within itself.  And, it was time for Obama to stir up the fire to show he's not a poltroon.  

    This is the unreality (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    You act as if  only Obama:

    has the power to unite folks across gender, race, socio-economic backgrounds, sexual orientation and religion.

    I am for Chris Dodd. But the polling evidence suggests that Hillary Clinton has done more uniting than Obama among Democrats.

    Why would that be you think?


    Because she and her strong stable (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    of advisors really understand politics.

    Only my personal opinion (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    but I think it is absurd to call Hillary Clinton Bush-Cheney lite just because she voted for the war.  I remember the mindset of this whole country during that vote, it sent my husband to war. I don't hold it against any of those who voted for it because those days were crazy, only those who won't acknowledge the mistake!

    Some left bloggers are merciless (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    with truth.  Atrios is, I like him for that reason and I usually like what he writes for that reason.  I expect that out of them and if they get mealy-mouthed with me I'll go read someone else.  If I want mealy-mouthed I can just stick with CNN and frequent WAPO and wonder why this toilet I live in can't take a break from flushing.  I can handle the truth that neither Clinton or Obama may be my dream candidate and I can handle all the little reasons why they may not be my dream candidate.  If Anne-Marie Slaughter really wants to understand left blogs and the grass roots that go with them she needs to come on down to the ghetto once in awhile where the real mommas cry and remember what it is that we all really fight and vote for!  God I'm so tired of people with a title proving to me they are only engorged idiots.

    Blogs and the truth (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    No wonder Novak is looking forward to "going to a place where there are no blogs" when he dies. Maybe Satan will have a little surprise for him though.

    I really enjoyed what Henley had to say (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    Have never read him before.