Over at MyDD, Matt Stoller says of Hillary Clinton,
As I've said before and as I'll say in the future, Hillary Clinton thinks nothing of lying to Democrats.Read the post and judge for yourself. I'd probably be convinced of this if I were already convinced--facts be damned, such as commenter "terryhallinan" who so eloquently states:
She has contempt for all of us.
The main problem for Hillary is that she is and always has been a rightwinger like her husband no matter how liberal her voting record is said to be.Whoa! Read that one more time. Interesting logic, I must say. I don't know what world you have to live in to consider Hillary and Bill Clinton "rightwingers".
I don't mind liberal critques of the Democratic Party, but faux-Democrats who threaten to leave the Party if they don't get their way ("In the most unlikely event the Democrats choose again to nominate another corrupt rightwing hawk like Hillary Clinton for president, they will lose this liberal's vote as usual." - "terryhallinan") get a little tiresome. Really, after all the nonsense that has been taking place over the last six years, are "liberals" still trying to say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans?
In the comments, Matt asks:
"Why are you so willing to take the lies?"Perhaps if he were a little more convincing instead of assuming everyone shared his worldview.
The left-wing hatred of Hillary Clinton these days strikes remarkable resemblence to the Hillary haters of the 1990s. I don't read DailyKos because of rantings like his recent Washinton Post anti-Hillary meme, in which he parrots the 2004 GOP talking points against Kerry:
She doesn't have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name.It's funny that someone with such an embarassing electoral track record as Kos would criticize the Clintons as electoral failures. The situation in which the GOP gained power in 1994 was unique and it's unfair not to state Clinton and Democrats leadership on the budget battle--which cost them congressional seats. Nor does he admit the fact that Clinton won in 1998 despite historical precedent indicating that he would lose seats in Congress. And most studies indicate Clinton would have gotten more than 50% had Perot not been on the ballot. As far as 2000, most analyses indicate that Democrats won and there is no denying that 9/11 created a unique opportunity for Republicans. Any discussion of Democratic prospects that fail to mention that are, to me at least, disingenuous.
Furthermore, Kos makes his impressive observation:
Little surprise that in late March, the Daily Kos's bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008.But, as Atrios points out, Hillary is actually quite popular, with favorability of 53%. (His darling, Howard Dean, musters only 33%, with more people having an unfavorable opinion.) Seems to me that Daily Kos's straw poll voters don't jibe with the population as a whole.
I think Kos and his net activists serve an important role and should continue to do what they are doing. I also think that they should be vocal and passionate about the issues they care about. But I'm tired of all this talk about how bad "establishment" Democrats are. It's not hard to change if they are as numerous as they like to claim: vote your candidates in during the primaries and quit threatening to bolt the party when fellow Democrats don't agree with you on every issue. How can you gain respect if your relationship is based on threats? And please, quit trying to manufacture divisions in the Party ("Clintonistas" vs. "Netroots"). There is more overlap between these supposed factions than divisions.