Hillary Clinton Taking Fire From Left as Well as Right

NY Times ^ | 5/30/03

[areafiftyone]

WASHINGTON, May 29 — After years of being vilified by conservatives, Hillary Rodham Clinton is suddenly facing mounting criticism from an unlikely quarter: liberals.

Core Democratic constituencies that helped Mrs. Clinton win her Senate seat in New York two and a half years ago are expressing deep disappointment in her, saying she has been unwilling to challenge President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress on issues of importance to them.

Those who have expressed disappointment in Mrs. Clinton include gay rights advocates, antiwar organizers and even advocates for children and the poor, a group with which she has been closely associated for decades.

Political analysts and critics on the left say Mrs. Clinton appears to be modeling herself on her husband, Bill Clinton, who was also criticized for abandoning the Democratic Party's liberal base to win larger political appeal. In Mrs. Clinton's case, they say, she appears to be taking for granted her liberal allies, a strong source of support, in favor of cultivating a broader audience.

"Is she playing to a national audience?" asked Anne Erickson, the director of the Greater Upstate Law Project, a group that advocates for poor people in New York.

"As a Democrat with liberal leanings, I can personally say that it is pretty disappointing to watch her stances on issues," Ms. Erickson said. "We expected better from her."

Mrs. Clinton's aides say her decisions are not part of any calculated effort to win over a wider constituency outside New York. Rather, they say, they reflect positions she has held since her days as first lady, like advocating stiffer restrictions on welfare recipients.

"This view of Hillary Clinton as a dyed-in-the-wool leftist is a caricature," said Howard Wolfson, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton. "Anyone who is surprised about her views on welfare reform and the war was not paying attention during the campaign."

Mrs. Clinton was unavailable for comment. But her spokeswoman, Karen Dunn, indicated that the differences do not make her any less an ally of the left. "She is one of their strongest advocates, but that doesn't mean that there is always agreement on how to approach every single issue," Ms. Dunn said.

The criticism from her longtime allies comes at a time when Mrs. Clinton has managed to maintain a relatively noncontroversial image in the Senate. To be sure, to her longtime critics she remains an icon of liberalism. She is often invoked in literature that conservatives use to rally their supporters.

But since arriving in the Senate in January 2001, Mrs. Clinton has been a far less polarizing figure than she was in the White House. This is in part because she has tried to avoid the mistakes she made during her White House years — when, for example, she moved rapidly toward radical changes in the health-care system and spoke of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to destroy her husband's presidency.

Mrs. Clinton now seems to be going out of her way to convince Republicans that she is someone with whom they can work. Only a few weeks ago, for example, she teamed with a person who, at first glance, might seem an unlikely ally: Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina who, as a member of the House, was a leader in the effort to impeach her husband.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Graham — who once said, "Bill Clinton probably did more for my career than I ever did" — co-sponsored legislation that called for increasing benefits for National Guard and Reserve members.

But some longtime supporters are beginning to bristle over many of her positions and statements.

In one of the more recent clashes, Mrs. Clinton drew fire from gay activists over the way she responded to comments made by Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, who compared homosexuality to incest, bigamy and other illegal types of sexual behavior.

Matt Foreman, the former executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda and now the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said Mrs. Clinton was slow to respond to Mr. Santorum's comments. And, he noted, she refused to join a chorus of Democrats — including New York's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer — who called on Mr. Santorum to step down from his leadership post in the Senate Republican caucus

Mrs. Clinton's aides acknowledge that she was not quick to respond to Mr. Santorum's remarks. But when she did, they say, she offered a forceful condemnation. Responding to criticism that Mrs. Clinton should have gone further and called for his resignation, Ms. Dunn, her spokeswoman, said, "It is the responsibility of the Republican Party to choose how it wishes to be represented."

The disappointment among gay rights advocates only deepened after Mrs. Clinton refused to say publicly whether she plans to support the promotion of an Army general who commanded a base where a gay soldier was beaten to death.

Several gay rights groups, chiefly the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, have been calling on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Mrs. Clinton holds a seat, to block the promotion of Maj. Gen. Robert T. Clark, who was commander of Fort Campbell, Ky., in 1999, when a soldier beat Pfc. Barry Winchell to death in his barracks.

The organizations contend that Private Winchell's slaying was a hate crime that reflected a larger climate of homophobia at the base. But Mrs. Clinton's advisers say she wants to review concerns raised by the family and gay rights advocates in an executive session that she has requested.

Beyond that, Mrs. Clinton refused to meet with Private Winchell's family when they came to Capitol Hill a few weeks back to discuss the matter with members of the Armed Services Committee, said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "The family is disappointed," he said.

Mr. Foreman went further. "We are an unbelievably loyal, generous and significant part of her base," he said. "But what we have been met with is a reluctance to stand up for us."

Her aides say that before meeting with the family, Mrs. Clinton, a new member of the committee, wanted to confer with its most senior members and gather more information from them. They say that having done that, Mrs. Clinton is now willing to meet with the family.

Among her other critics are antiwar Democrats, who are angry that she did not challenge the case President Bush made for war in Iraq, even as other prominent Democrats did.

Mrs. Clinton has also angered advocates for the poor, whose ties to her go back decades to when she was chairman of the board of the Children's Defense Fund.

The disagreement involves the president's proposal to increase the number of hours that welfare recipients must work in exchange for cash assistance and other benefits. Many advocates for the poor regard this as one of the biggest issues Congress will take up this year and have been lobbying Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats to oppose such requirements.

But Mrs. Clinton has joined a group of moderate and conservative Democratic senators in supporting a bill to increase the work requirement to 37 hours a week, a significant increase over the current 30 hours and only slightly less than the 40 hours Mr. Bush would require.

Mrs. Clinton's advisers say that no one should be surprised by her position, noting that she supported the bill her husband signed in 1996 overhauling the nation's welfare program, despite opposition from many of her liberal allies. In addition, they say, Mrs. Clinton has insisted that any additional work requirements be tied to billions of dollars in child-care financing.

Philip Friedman, a Democratic operative in New York, said that criticism over these positions was not likely to hurt Mrs. Clinton, who is not up for re-election until 2006. Mr. Friedman said the state's sizable liberal base would ultimately stand by her, just as liberals stood by her husband, despite their complicated relationship with him.

"It's not going to mean anything," he said. "Democrats love the Clintons, and that's why her husband was able to get away with going off the reservation now and then."

[Mo1]

Mrs. Clinton's aides say her decisions are not part of any calculated effort to win over a wider constituency outside New York. Rather, they say, they reflect positions she has held since her days as first lady, like advocating stiffer restrictions on welfare recipients.

BULL!!

This is a puff piece article to make Hellary not look so far left.

Gearing up for the 2004 election maybe?

[T Lady]

"Mrs. Clinton has angered advocates for the poor..."

Sure, Hillary's an advocate for the poor alright--for KEEPING them poor and dependent on her political party.

-Regards, T.

[camle]

they made her and NOW that are whining about their frankenstein monster.

they ought to have some cheese and consider those who warned them back when they did the creating.

[OpusatFR]

She's gearing up alright and so is the Clinton machine. Look at that hit piece they did on JFK regarding his intern. They are trying to equate that indiscretion with Clinton's. The man's dead no matter what you think about him. To bring this up in an attempt to rationalize Clinton's behavior is a crime and the Kennedy family should be outraged. Hillary was probably the architect of this.

[MrConfettiMan]

Yadda, yadda, yadda. As noted in the last paragraph, when push comes to shove these cry baby liberals are going to rally 'round the ex-First Lady and vote for her as soon as she's running for another office.

[areafiftyone]

More likely the 2008 election. When Bush wins in 2004 watch Hillary come out in full force. Do you notice the Clintons are not gung ho on any Democreep candidate? They know Bush will win. They will be focusing on 2008 and in the years from 2004-2008 watch Hillary start sticking her nose in everything. She also has her re-election coming up in 2006. SHE HAS TO WIN THAT in order to stay in the spotlight for her 2008 run! This is all calculated!

[baseballmom]

I would never, never underestimate the Clinton's. It doesn't seem to matter to their base what they do. No matter what crimes they commit, they are always given a pass. Be ready for Hilliary to run in 2004.

Be ever vigilant,and always wary, where the Clinton's are concerned.

[longtermmemmory]

serious question, (save the blair jokes)

Who wrote this article? Are they part of the homosexual group in the writing staff? Is this author friends with sidney blumenthal? This is the NY Times.

This stinks to high heaven of a preplaned triangulation piece.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Okay, I have to ask, does anyone to subscribe to the theory that HIllary Clinton is pushing the "Draft Hillary" movement in 2004 because they know she will not be re-elected SINator from NY and this is her ONLY chance to run against President Bush?

This article clinches the theory for me, as I believe the Armed Services Committee gig (that's all it is for her) and her being "heckled" by the far-left is a set up. (Remember the appearance on Matthews?)

[Grand Old Partisan]

This "lefty" criticism is a carefully scripted attempt by "lefties" to make Americans think Hillary is not as "lefty" as she is.

[areafiftyone]

Okay, I have to ask, does anyone to subscribe to the theory that HIllary Clinton is pushing the "Draft Hillary" movement in 2004 because they know she will not be re-elected SINator from NY and this is her ONLY chance to run against President Bush?

I think she will be re-elected in New York and I am a New Yorker! I have seen how New Yorkers vote and they will vote for her again. No matter how much I hate it THIS IS A DEMOCREEP STATE! The Democreeps will vote her in! I think she will safely slip back into her Senate role and then work on her candidacy for President in 2008. This will give her plenty of time to work on her campaign and also she will be able to keep her Senate seat (her security) if she doesn't win the presidency! She will not give up her salary that easily!

[longtermmemmory]

Keep in mind Hilary is an agressive woman lawyer. She is trained in how to present her facts in her best light possible.

She is an advocate of the "third way" to socialism.

She is probably a closet lez. who stayed married for political gain.

She is vicious. (the everyone stand who works her, sorry you don't stand incident)

She has the lawyer flaw that you can be briefed into having a personality (see pretty in pink press conf)

We need quotes of hilaries, just like they had the Martha Burk quotes, to show what a nutcase she is.

[Mo1]

More likely the 2008 election,

Possible .. but don't let your guard down with Hellary .. 2004 is not out of the question for her

[areafiftyone]

I won't. But I know she will win again in 2006 unless she has a formidible candidate running against her! I would love to see her lose her senate seat! I hate her! I am a New Yorker and am sick of her pretending that she cares about New York!

[mrsmith]

Last month's "Hillary is a moderate- really" piece:

Democratic Left is Seething at Chuck, Hillary

Last year's CNN piece:Hillary Rodham Clinton emerges as moderate- 'She has never been the wild lefty'(BARF ALERT)

Yada, yada 'we are the media' 'Oceana has never been socialist'... etc.

[CPT Clay]

It's going to have to be the "04 race. There will not be a nominee at the convention. She will ride in for the good of the party. ( We all know she couldn't take the scrutiney of a contested dem primary grind)

[longtermmemmory]

since the democrats are in such lousy shape. Look for a write in campaign amoung the female (NOWgang) to enhance their saphic sister.

[NewYorker]

The big problem for Hillary is Rudy. He could make mincemeat of her with city voters in 2006 and that, thank heavens, would be the end of her 2008 aspirations.

[pawdoggie]

Can you say "triagulation"?

[capydick]

You're right but, its still a good thing to hang these radicals around her neck. They will be harder to shake off come election time.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Did this appear without a byline?

If so, makes me wonder if the Slimes figures it's safer not to use them any more, or if noone on the staff wanted to take the 'credit' for this since Hellary might not like it.

[nathanbedford]

These kind of articles used to come out about once a week when Slick was in office.

The NY Times looks fair and balanced.

McCurry could then allude to it to assure middle America that Bill and Hill were really one of them and not communists. Their ratings stayed strong

The committed lunatic activists on the left could motor along secure in the knowledge that every federal burocracy was being subverted according to schedule. They were sophisticated enough to know they could not win the numbers game quite yet.

All three sides are in on the gag and the laff's on us.

[CyberAnt]

Like I have been saying for months, Hitlery has been forcing the dems to fight against Bush while she agrees with him on a lot of issues. The whole game is to make her appear "moderate".

Rush was talking about this article this morning, and he promises to dig into his archive and find out what she had to say about welfare reform when x42 signed it into legislation. Evidently, what's she's saying now and what she said then doesn't jive.

[Redleg Duke]

Well, they are all finding out that like her hubby, she will sell out anyone and everyone in her quest for personal power.

[snickeroon]

The award for BEST back seat quarterback will have to go to Dick Morris....see latest side bar on "News Max"....He is saying that the less than dynamic duo is PURPOSELY out to make sure that Pres. Bush is re-elected, so she can run in 2008. Makes sense. Are their machinations getting THIS easy to predict?

[snickeroon]

Thought I would go ahead and post the story, which dropped on "Inside Cover" this afternoon:

" Friday, May 30, 2003 3:17 p.m. EDT

Dick Morris: 'Clintons Want Bush Re-elected'

The decision by Bill and Hillary Clinton to keep a high profile going into next year's presidential campaign amounts to a "conscious effort" by the former first couple to make sure that no Democrat wins the White House in 2004.

That's the stunning assessment from political strategist Dick Morris, who said Thursday that the Clintons actually want to see Bush re-elected so he can retire just when Mrs. Clinton is ready to run for the White House herself in 2008.

"There is a conscious effort going on by the Clintons to distract attention from the current field of candidates," Morris told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity. "They do not want a Democrat to win in '04."

"They want Bush to be re-elected," the former Clinton adviser explained. "And that way they want Hillary to be able to run for an open seat."

"If Bush lost and a Democrat were elected, then obviously [Hillary] would have to support him in '08," he noted.

"She couldn't run until 2012. She'd be 65 years old and would have been out of office for 12 years. It's kind of hard at that point to keep the bloom on the rose and be able to run."

Morris said that Bill Clinton wants to maintain his role as spokesman for the Democratic Party so he can "trivialize and minimize the Democratic candidates" and thereby keep the Oval Office open for Hillary.

Another indication that the former first couple would like to see their own party defeated in the next presidential election, said Morris, is the fact that "[Clinton's] big fund-raising guns have not signed up with any of these other guys."

Democratic strategist Susan Estrich offered partial support for Morris' theory last week, complaining that the Clintons were actually hurting other Democratic presidential candidates with their high-profile antics.

"The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air," the one-time Dukakis campaign manager observed. "Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem."

"The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention," she added. "Could somebody please tell [the Clintons] to shut up?"

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"More likely the 2008 election. When Bush wins in 2004 watch Hillary come out in full force. Do you notice the Clintons are not gung ho on any Democreep candidate? They know Bush will win."

Bubba wants third term laws. I wonder if Hillary would mind waiting until 2012 to run?

[timestax]

I would never, never underestimate the Clinton's. It doesn't seem to matter to their base what they do. No matter what crimes they commit, they are always given a pass. Be ready for Hilliary to run in 2004. Be ever vigilant,and always wary, where the Clinton's are concerned. 8 posted on 05/30/2003 11:40 AM PDT by baseballmom [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

DITTO !!man DITTO !!

[syriacus]

This stinks to high heaven of a preplaned triangulation piece.

Unfortunately, even the NY Sun keeps running articles on Democrats they say are shifting to the middle. Just recently they ran an article on the front page saying Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is drifting away from the left.

The Sun keeps printing positive articles about Schumer, too. I'm getting irritated from seeing Schumer's smirking face in their paper day after day.

It's as though The Sun isn't aware of Schumer's attempts to wrest away the President's right to appoint justices.

[Brandon]

And there's one more tidbit of evidence that the Clintons are deliberately sabotaging their fellow Dems: Hillary's book comes out this summer, Bill's comes out next summer. So the next few months, when the hard core activists should be trying to size up the potential candidates, there will be Hillary's book to talk about, sucking the life out of the talking head shows. Next summer, when they should be trying to introduce their new candidate to the general public, there'll be Bill's book, doing the exact same thing. Not saying these two books are the whole strategy -- but they are probably part of it.

[Paulus Invictus]

I was rather hoping that the upstaters would react to her failure to help them as she promised to do and not vote for her again. Those RATidiots in Rochester and Buffalo are crying the blues that she is a failure as far as they are concerned. Are there enough upstate voters that might possibly swing to a Pubbie candidate to assure her loss in the 2006 Senate race? What if Rudy were to run against her, would she still have a chance to win?

Having lived in the Welfare State of NY for years, I can't imagine a campaign when a Pubbie might win, given the large number of welfare moms, far-left weirdos and homos that always vote for RATS regardless. But then of course, we do see pseudo-Pubbies like the mayor of NYC, (Bloomberg) who got into office on Rudy's 9/11 coattails.