I don't honestly think it's a question of corruption, per se. It's just a concern that Hillary won't push aggressively for a liberal agenda - health care, campaign finance reform, withdrawing from Iraq, fair trade, etc. Given her connection with such interests, and the pattern set by her husband and her own campaign, there's a fear out there that we'll have more small-bore incrementalism. That sort of agenda might have made a lot of sense during the era of conservative ascendancy, but a lot of folks think that we'd be missing a big opportunity to change the debate in this country if we try to repeat the 1990's.

It's still all about the sex.

If:

politics=Hollywood for ugly people, and

head= coin of the realm for Hollywood, then

politics (/) head= winning.

Talent without an outlet doesn't get you very far, but talent will always be sought out and purchased, whether in Hollywood or Washington. Those with talent that Hillary has surrounded herself with may not be as virtuous as Saul Alinsky, but their tactics rank right up there with the master for effectiveness.

So, the choice between hiring a Penn or a Rove is somewhat immaterial. The winning is still the ultimate orgasm for politicos.

What worries the voters is how they'll be treated in the morning.......

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

What is it about Hilary Clinton that pushes everyone's buttons so? Other than the novelty of being a former First Lady, she's always struck me as being a fairly typical moderate Dem politician. I don't find her grating. She doesn't threaten my manhood. Her overall policy goals are acceptable; she knows how to play the Washington game. (I'm not being cynical by calling politics a game, by the way. I like it when politics are a game; it's when politics is not a "game" that people start dying in the streets. See Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Columbia, etc. etc.etc.)
Personally, I kind of like Edwards. Obama would be fine. But so would Hilary.
Of course, maybe my loathing for Bush/Cheney is so great that I'm going by very low standards: I'll vote for the night janitor at the DNC (or the DLC) in 2008 over the GOP.

If I were a far left Democrat, I'd hate her and her husband. Same goes for if I were a far right Republican. Fortunately, I am a moderate Democrat, as I believe most of the country finds itself (minus the Democrat part for some).

We should expect these type of hit peices, especially early on in the primary and preprimary. McCain is getting his from the other side. But I agree with MJ on this one. The Democratic nominee is very likely the next president, so it's a bit of a fly in the ointment in my mind to overdo the charges of being a non-Democrat.

As for MJ's take on baggage, I couldn't agree more. Look, we have the rotten election process we have, not the process we want. For a candidate to make it they need help from folks who have, or can get money. Add to this the fact that this team is 16-years old, and everyone has done well post Clinton-admin, and you get all sort of perceived skeletons in the closet.

I have to ponder would a Hillary Admin with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate tack right like her husbands administration after the 1994 election? Don't think so.

This lady has a public record as a lawyer, board member of the Children's Defense Fund, first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the USA, and as a senator from NY. It's a record that has been scowered over the years by no less than a crazed independent counsel with no limits to money and resource. There are no skeletons left, and yet she stands and is very possibly the next Democratic nominee, and if MJ and I are right, the next president.

Penn and company I'm sure are very 'talented' - they're talented because they help execute the agenda of the wealthy and powerful. They're 'talented' union busters.

How far do you go with that? Hit men are talented. Hookers are talented. Mercenaries are talented.

None of us is without sin, but it's a matter of how far do you push it.

Exactly my point, King.

Altruism is only evidenced by actions, not proclamations. Arlen Spector quoted the old "making sausage and law" when describing the immigration bill, but stated that it's components wouldn't even make good sausage.

So why even propose it?

If we place a "sin" quotient on politicians, we are setting ourselves up for an even more devastating moment when they wipe off on the drapes on their way out of the bedroom.

Maybe I'm just more cynical this morning than most other mornings, but the level of amorality in "politics" has become so blatant over the past years that I can't see how it even matters anymore.

All I'm saying is if we want the lesser of the evils, they still have to get elected.

If I have my druthers, I'd druther have someone with smart answers to persistent problems, someone with little axe to grind....

Like Kucinich.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

How can candidates get their (sanitized, sound-byte) messages out if they don't have money? Advertising costs a lot of money. Of course one could go towards Federally-funded campaigns, but this raises other problems. What other solution is there?

MJ, your assumption that anyone we nominate will win is rather faith-based. I keep coming back to the poll last month where 21% of DEMOCRATS won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I don't thinkg that will happen should she get nominated, but she is our weakest candidate (Kucinich does not count, only serious ones), one who may very well lose. America does not like her.

Incidentally, speaking as a moderate Democrat, I'm hardly happy with the Clintons. He coulda been a contenda. But he was such an invenerate fuck-up, we got stuck with a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Does anyone really expect us to believe that the Clintons bear no responsibility for this?

I read most of that article. And, it is very troublesome to me. What I take from that article is that Hillary is just another version of a male potency drug, so to speak, being packaged and advertised for maximum sales. Nothing I read in that article makes me believe that Hillary stands for anything other than becoming President.

I would go so far as to say Hillary may well be the Democratic Party version of Bush. Both are blessed with a name that gives instant credibility independent of their actual accomplishments. Both are creatures of corporate America. Both have monumental debts to corporate America, and should be expected to pay back that debt in similar ways. Both are just products to be sold.

I can't see the benefits to Americans in chosing to buy into the hype for Hillary. It just makes more sense to pick someone without that corporate backing. My preference is Obama, but Edwards is also a much more real candidate. If Gore enters the race, he, too, would be a more real candidate.

But, I can't deny that new male potency drugs are generally successful in the marketplace.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Just in case it matters: That berman article is crap

Here are just a few reasons why:

"Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants"

1984 Bhopal disaster! penn didn't work for the company until 21 years later.

"In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates."

During the 2006 election b-m gave about $65,000 to pols. If only every mega corp gave so little.
b-m gave about $9,000 more to repubs than dems. For half of the 2006 election cycle penn was not "at the helm." Not only was penn not at the helm he didn't work for b-m. until dec 2005. That's half way through the 06 election cycle.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00201863

"Hillary has called for an "independent safety assessment" but has declined to join Governor Eliot Spitzer and twelve members of Congress in urging that the plant be shut down."

Not true.

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2007

Governor Eliot Spitzer joined with Congressman John Hall and New York’s Hudson Valley members of Congress, including Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Congressman Eliot Engel, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in calling on Dale Klein, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to order an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) at Indian Point Energy Center before the plant is re-licensed.
...
Governor Spitzer endorsed H.R. 994 and S. 649, and commended Congressman Hall for his leadership in introducing the legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lauded the dedication of the bill’s co-sponsors: Hinchey, Lowey, and Engel and Senators Schumer and Clinton for introducing a companion Senate bill.
...
The Governor has indicated that he would support the closure of Indian Point at such a time when alternative energy sources are developed and which meet the energy needs of the region. Until that time, we must do all that we can to make sure that the Indian Point facility complies with all federal laws and regulations and is operated as safely as possible.”"
http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/0426074.html

At this time Spitzer is calling for an Independent Safety Assessment just like the one Hillary and Schumer are introducing in a Senate bill.

"Entergy, founded in Arkansas, was a major supporter of Bill Clinton in the 1990s and contributed generously to Hillary in 2000 and 2006."

Amount employees of Entergy that donated to Hillary:
0

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=V54EK&txtName=Entergy&txtState=(all%20states)&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N

Entergy PAC donations to Hillary:

2006: Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $1,920
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $35,851
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $44,500

2004: 0
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $39,067
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $55,000

2002: Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $2,000
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $44,000
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $120,250

2000: Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $1,000
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $4,000
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $4,250

According to open secrets Entergy has donated a total of $4,920 to Hillary over the last 7 years. So I guess it depends on what the meaning of generous is.

The whole thing is crap.

I've read it, MJ.

What this article tells me, more than anything, is that there is a kind of political operative which I really detest.  He's represented by Dick Morris and Mark Penn.  This paragraph from the Nation article sums it all up for me:

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year).

Penn is a "very rich man".  I drop fifty bucks in some politicians' pot when I can--maybe once a month or a little more, depending on the election cycle.  I choose my candidates by the degree to which they agree with causes dear to my heart.  I take recommendations from progressive websites like Act Blue.  I put up signs in my yard.  I attend conferences like Take Back America (Are you going to be there?  I hope, I hope, I hope). 

If Penn believes in anything, why is this rich man charging Senator Clinton anything at all, much less my yearly salary per month?).  Your post of April 30, which I remember very well, noted that Penn worked for Lieberman and Tony Blair.   But the Nation piece informs us that he also worked for Silvio Berlusconi of all people.  Has he no ethics at all?

These days Penn's few political clients lean to the right. He worked on Joe Lieberman's ill-fated presidential run and the Venezuelan recall referendum in 2004 and Italian billionaire Silvio Berlusconi's unsuccessful re-election campaign last year.

This is turning into a rant.  Well, let it.  One more juicy tidbit from the Nation Article. 

The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M)...In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates. (My emphasis)

When I discovered, through Buy blue (alas no longer on line), that J. C. Penny donated approximately the same percentage of its political contributions to Republicans, I simply stopped shopping there.  I know there's no equivalent in the political operatives sphere of the trading with the enemies act, but shouldn't there be?

So, bottom line for me, Clinton cavorts with people I wouldn't invite to a cookout in my back yard, even if they offered to bring the burgers themselves.  Does this mean I won't vote for her?  No.  Does it mean I hope I won't have to vote for her?  Yes.

aMike

Is Gore somehow less "corporate" than Hillary?

This is the interesting part.

All those people who are begging Gore to run, the Nation, Arianna and the rest were treating Gore the way they treat Hillary today. Do a google search on their comments about Gore from 2000. Gore wasn't a real liberal, he was a sellout to corporations, a republican lite, not good enough on the environment, labor, etc. etc.

Trouble with the Nation types is that it is never good enough for them. They scream betrayal at the drop of a hat and run to the arms of an idiot like Nader.

MJ --

I think it's interesting stuff but hardly startling and not really troubling though maybe I'm just cynical enough that I'm not troubled.

I guess all national politicians have sleazy advisors.

Ad PR firms are like law firms. They take on clients and represent the interests of those clients. To expect them to be consistant over long periods of time is not to understand their businesses.

Consider Edelman, a PR firm that once represented a lot of tobacco interests and then dropped those clients when it won an American Cancer Society account.

I guess the question about Hillary is: "Do her advisors rule her?" With Bush, that was a big problem because Bush really isn't smart enough to know when to listen to his advisers and when to ignore them. Hillary is smart enough to make those choices.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Well, our air waves are in the public domain.  Election air time would be part and parcel of a F.C.C. license.  Broadcast entities are compensated by a politically neutral advertising scheme.  But this would generate problems too - but it would be very good for TPM Muckrakers, yes?

In other words, we need to bring the costs of campaigning down.  Think about it...media reaps huge rewards by using public property on a great public project - elections.   

Neoboho

I realized that winning was the absolutely last thing they wanted.

Nation operates under the mindset that there is something intrinsically noble about losing. They rejoice in losing. They celebrate it. They also look with suspicion on winning, as if it is something to be ashamed of.

This is the big difference between the Nation and similar magazines on the right like National Review and the Weekly Standard. The righty magazines want their side to win above all else. They understand power. They understand that in politics winning is everything.

I remember articles in the Nation trashing Al Gore as republican lite just before the 2000 election. I remember one by Barbara Ehrenreich that argued there was no difference between Bush and Gore and therefore liberals should vote for Saint Ralph. Honestly, if I were in battle I wouldn't want the Nation on my side. They would try to lose.

What is it about mediocrity that appeals to the rest?

To boldly go...

My gut tells me that there is nothing here that is all that terrible. True or false?

that's the whole point about Hillary: nothing is either too terrible OR too good either about her.

right now, I don't think she's walking on the magic carpet.

if she wins, it will be "hooo, hummm."

To boldly go...

I read this a few days ago, and the most disturbing thing I found in the article is below:

Clinton has a consistently liberal Senate voting record, earning near-perfect scores from Americans for Democratic Action. She's fought to get New York its fair share of federal money after 9/11 and has advocated for long-neglected, though politically safe, issues like children's health and veterans care. Yet voting records capture only so much. Since the healthcare reform disaster of 1993-94, she has rarely stuck her neck out on contentious issues. "She votes the issues that come up, rather than take the leadership role," says Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "We tried to do too much, too fast twelve years ago," Clinton told the Federation of American Hospitals last year, "and I still have the scars to show for it." She's now the number-one Congressional recipient of donations from the healthcare industry.

Healthcare, though she botched it's implementation, was one of the few things I trusted her on, and that just put serious doubts in my head.

Public financing public financing public financing. I can't say it too many times. Next to doing something about global warming and getting out of Iraq, I think it's the most important thing we can do.

Nader, "the white luxury vote" - Jesse Jackson, Jr. The biggest lie in the 2000 election was poised by Nader and The Nation - no differences between Gore and Bush.

Well said. I would only add that this was accomplished during an unprecendented and partisan independent counsel that succeeded in providing a Republican congress with fodder for an ill-conceived impeachment proceding, which it lost.

So all of those good things, plus a witch hunt, and a divided government with a hostile speaker of the house who was quoted as saying the presidency is irrelevant.

The tack right was an effort to get things done in an unenviable political climate. Am I happy with the Defense of Marriage law, or the continued disparity between the rich and poor. Certainly not. But I am willing to give it a more nuanced and realistic look if only to learn from it. The lesson: Don't lose the House and Senate in the off-year.

One point of dissent. The drop in crime is hard to link to full employment or other governmental program. Not sure I can give Clinton that one. But that does not negate the quality of his administration.

You're right. Ari Berman is an excellent writer and frames his view of the issues in a compelling narrative that strikes at the readers emotions and imagination. If he could boil it down to 200 words he'd be a fantastic pamphleteer.

I ask that you only consider the source and the source's bent. If similar articles pop up in NYT, WaPo, Time and Newsweek, then we might start to see a consensus close to Mr. Berman's view. In the absense of such consensus, we should look askance at the piece.

c'mon - This is the real Hillary. I really don't know how I'll vote if she is nominated. Certainly not for anyone from this crop of Republicans, or any other Republican I can think of. Nader? I can't throw away a vote either. Hillary is most similar to Lieberman on too many issues. We need change - BIG CHANGE.

Fiscal conservativeness, anti-war bonafides(huge $ waste), education beginning earlier and lasting longer for all citizens, education for older displaced workers, care for our soldiers injured and the families of the dead, single-payer healthcare and election / lobbyist reform. These are some of the things that can begin to get us on the right track. 8 years of bush has turned this into a bannana republic; a semi-fascist regime with no morality.

God help us in the coming years.

The Dems could nominate a Buick and I'll work overtime to elect it. Hillary isn't anything like Lieberman. That smacks of the same narcissism that said Gore and Bush were too much alike. Have we learned from that yet? I don't like her (but don't hate her). If a Mitt Romney or Rudy gets in, we won't be a semi-fascist state any more, alright. My biggest complaint of her is I don't see 270 Electoral votes there. The country is hungry for a Democratic victory. But only Edwards has a shot at a landslide.

Blessed with a long memory as I am, it was her health care plan which managed to put health care reform on a burner so far back it was in someone else's house and it's still there.

Critiqued to death as it was - it was a mess - the criticism that continues to alarm was her refusal to or abject inability to listen to the advice of others.

We've got one of those occupying the WH today. Do we really want another?

Actually, my recollection is that it was less her health care plan itself (which btw was put together with perhaps too much input from others rather than too little) than the Bill Kristol-spearheaded barrage against it by the Republicans and the insurance companies. Kristol observed, no doubt accurately, that the passage of any plan would keep the Dems in power for another generation, so the word from their wise men was "no deal." It was Kristol, Harry and Louise that killed the chance for a positive outcome. I'd guess Hillary -- and I hope all Dems -- learned a lot from that experience.

The difference between Clintonian corporatism and Reagan corporatism is the Clinton's desire on putting shocks on the car before they push the middle class off the road and down the hillside.

I agree, the plan was pretty cumbersome in an effort to strike some "middle" balance. My response was to the idea that Hillary had some ideal that she refused to budge from; as you note, that was hardly the case. But to you I'd note that it was the insurance companies who funded Harry and Louise -- notwithstanding the Clintons' hapless effort to craft a "moderate" market-friendly plan, the insurers had no desire to "live with" it. Not lay it on the line fighting for it? They're the ones who killed it.

I don't like rating things down, but you state that you didn't read the article in question so don't answer what the post asked. That's fine, but then you go on to claim that Clinton wanted to "invade Iraq himself" with no evidence. The military plans for many different possibilities so claiming that Clinton era military planning is proof that he really wanted to invade Iraq is silly at best.

The irony regarding Gore has never been lost on me.

I also love how Clinton nearly closed down the government to prevent some of the GOPs most offensive proposals yet he is considered as weak and without principles.

Election central has an Edwards quote where he said he didn't think that voting for AUMF (not war in Iraq per se) was a good idea but he did it anyway because he listened to his advisors. Of course he should apologize for not doing what he thought was right. Clinton, by contrast, voted for AUMF to help make sure inspectors got in and prove there were no WMD and/or to destroy them--which they were well on their way to doing. Before, during and after, she was a vocal critic of pre-emptive war. Why should she aplogize for Bush's dishonesty if she trusted him? She has admitted that it was wrong to trust Bush, which is a much more forgivable offense to me than what Edwards did.

FALSE!!!!!
There is something here. Her main political adviser is a UNION BUSTER.

That's a very big deal.

-- It could be worse. I could still be living in Texas

The righty magazines have a ruthlessly right wing party which zealously and aggressively works to implement their agenda.

The left has no party working for its agenda. So we lose anyway.

Hillary is no liberal and if she wins the nomination, you will hear her tell Americans every day that she is no liberal.

I didn't vote for Nader, but I've had it with those in the party who'd prefer to run against the left than agsinst the right. No candidate who does that will get my vote. Instead of blaming those who voted for Nader why don't you ask why the party didn't bother to earn their votes. Watch Hillary repeat that mistake in 2008.

If politics was more than a game for Hillary maybe people wouldn't be dying in Iraq at all. All those moderates, moderately followed a far right neocon agenda into the greatest US foreign policy disaster since I don't know when. When you don't have the guts to stand for something, you'll enable anything, moderately of course.

You bring up a good point... But people change, and by Gore's ACTIONS I believe he has turned to the light...

Ms Clinton on the otherhand, I think is not the 'try at legacy-building' Clinton of 1994. She's joined the Murdoch and Penn dark side... However, she's not the only one, Blair took the poison pill before her and used Penn as well.

BTW I didn't vote for Nader either. Clinton is no Gore.

That's right, Swift2. Same with Harper's. Who cares what either think? That The Nation is taking on Hillary like this makes me like her more. Find out what The Nation is thinking; think the opposite.

Does anyone understand how political action committees work?

Yup, I do, and that's why I'm careful which ones I send cash to.  For sake of argument, suppose I make a donation to Hillary Clinton.  Hillary Clinton pays Penn's firm a tidy sum:  a wee bit of which comes from me.  Mr Penn's firm makes political contributions--over half of which go to Republicans.  This means that a few of my pennies work to elect persons whose policies I detest.  I would far rather give to someone who hires people who don't work both sides of the fence. 

aMike

It's not hatred, it's despair at ever seeing any long term progress beyond the giveaways to specific business interests (start with the media, the sellout that continues to generate new cultural generations of distraction, further degrading sellouts and anti-historical propaganda).

We see that we will never get beyond the curse of so-called "free trade," we see that there will never be a meaningful reform of gold-plated Pentagon waste in the name of a miltarist imperialism that destroys every ideal America ever stood for ... except for the ideals being destroyed by so-called "free trade."

We see Obama and Edwards running to AIPAC too, but at least with any other candidate there's a HOPE that reform might someday come. With the Clinton's, there's a proven record: no hope of real reform. So that's despair, and it leads to reactions that may appear ... despairing and irrational ...

If Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat then the definition of a moderate Democrat has swung some distance to the right. In the past, moderate Democrats supported Labor Unions.

The Clinton family support of "free trade" has helped to decimate the labor movement and as a result the strength of middle class America not to mention the destruction of our communities. "Free Trade" is as big a scam as the Iraq War.

Her support of legislation like the bankruptcy bill only makes life more miserable for those suffering a reverse of fortune.

Please, no more Rubinomics.

I have two problems with Hillary Clinton's candidacy. One is that she probably can't get elected and two is that if she is elected her policies will blur the difference,in the eyes of the average American, between Democrats and Republicans.

But, as always, if Hillary does win the nomination, I'll contribute as much as I can scrape up and volunteer for the campaign.

Far worse than a Republican Lite Hillary Clinton is any Republican.

You have the rolls exactly reversed, But of course you knew that! Some people never give up...even in the face of the obvious. Well, It is not going to sell any more because everyday in every way the truth boils to the top, all people have to do is follow the money.

That the DLC represents rank and file Democrats and the nation's working classes is in fact the biggest damned lie in the world. But that's ok when you’re in a hole just keep digging...