The Haughty Arrogance (and ignorance) of Sullivan and Brooks
25 September 2007 6:00 pm by Taylor Marsh
The Haughty Arrogance (and ignorance) of Sullivan and
Brooks
I also hate to be cynical, but when they call the election early and tell
us that a candidate has won and that it’s really good for Republicans, I get
a little bit suspicious.(snip)
Whatever their motives, the Republicans are not saying this because they
had simultaneous epiphanies. The Party is directing this meme for a reason.
It’s always important to keep that in mind, even if the media, like newborn
babes, dutifully burp and spit it back up without any context or explanation.
They don’t go on jihads or spread memes like this spontaneously.
I’m telling you, Sullivan and Brooks should go country western; they’re
performing quite an act today. Who to dismantle first?
At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand
in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic
Party. But now it’s clear that was only cosmetic.(snip)
Third, Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory
of politics. … ..
First, all you have to do is track Clinton, which you can do from the tag,
as she goes from boos to reaching out to us, to deciding that ending the war
is important, to no more troops, to voting against funding, all the while stopping
in to chat with Firedoglake, YearlyKos, MoveOn.org web forum, to arranging for
bloggers like myself to hear her speech from Iowa on health care, then have
a briefing that included bloggers along with the hack pack press. You can dissect her willingness to change, however slowly, on Iraq, witnessed by vote after vote to withdraw troops from Iraq and cut funding.
Clinton started at the John McCain position, wanting
more troops. That was back in November 2005. That same month Bill Clinton
came out to say Iraq
“war a big mistake.” Her letter
to her constituents came next, all the while the blogosphere railed against
the war.
But Clinton’s public awakening came during Take Back America 2006, before she
became a candidate. I was there when it happened. When she spoke about Iraq
she was booed and not just from the Code Pink crowd. The reaction on her stance
on the war was positively nuclear. As I said at the time, the booing was “well
earned.”
“I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to
continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough
pressure on the new Iraqi government,” said Clinton, before turning to
the anti-war liberals’ core beef with her.“Nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not
agree that that is in the best interests,” said Clinton, prompting loud
booing from some at the gathering.
Sitting in the first row I could see Clinton’s jaw set at the sound. She was
not happy. Few people after her speech went to the stage. By contrast, John
Kerry was flooded with supporters afterwards, because he’d changed his view
on his Iraq war vote 180 degrees.
Shortly afterwards Clinton hired Peter Daou as her Internet communications
director, the smartest move she’s made in the campaign. I’ve come to know Peter
over weeks, as I have others in the same position in the Dodd, Biden, Edwards and Obama
campaigns. Clinton hired him because she wanted the best she could get to reach
out to the blogosphere. The effort has been earnest and genuine.
As for Andrew Sullivan, he’s the president of the hate Hillary crowd. His patriarchal
paranoia of Clinton is positively phobic.
Hillary is Bush’s ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They
are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have
divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades.
Um, no.
RUSSERT: As you well know you voted to authorize this war, voted to fund
this war at lest ten times. Are you now saying that you will not vote one
more penny for the war in Iraq.HRC: Tim I am saying that.
However, it’s no doubt that Bush is trying to make it seem that Hillary wants his war, because he doesn’t want to get blamed for it. He also knows that he won’t withdraw troops before the ‘08 elections, so the new Democratic president will inherit this mess. Making it seem like we want HIS war is job one. Republicans are starting the campaign and issuing the talking points, with Sullivan and Brooks chiming in beautifully today. Once again, see Digby at the top of this post.
Did Sullivan see Clinton’s vote against the Cornyn amendment on Petraeus? Sure,
she caved all over cable and the big networks on Sunday, but pandering to the
masses is hardly anything new for big time candidates, even though it makes the Democratic base gag. There is no chance she would have voted no on funding for the war, and yes for bringing troops home with a deadline without the netroots pushing. Considering we have the American people behind us Clinton is doing what’s smart. In fact, the netroots, readers and activists who read the blogs have made Hillary a much better candidate than she was when the primary season started.
When she was pilloried for the schedule snafu at YearlyKos what did Clinton do? She made sure she could have a break-out session to talk to activists.
Hillary Clinton hasn’t “repudiated” the netroots philosophy of politics anymore than she’s embraced Mr. Bush’s Iraq war strategy to become his “ticket to posterity.” She just knows if she’s our nominee she’ll get stuck with fixing Bush’s poor excuse for a foreign policy so she’s making sure she has as many options on the table as possible. None of our candidates are going to let Bush hang this bleeding war around our necks.
The dirty little truth is that Clinton has reached out to progressives and
the blogosphere, hatred be damned, more than the blogs or our
readers have reached out to her.
