From the WSJ:
Hillary Clinton has been catching heat for refusing to swear off campaign cash from lobbyists, with critics accusing her of being a stooge of corporate and special interests. We’d say she deserves some credit.
At last week’s YearlyKos event, former Senator John Edwards stooped for an easy applause line by challenging his fellow candidates to refuse donations from “Washington lobbyists.” Mrs. Clinton refused to take the sound-bite bait. When asked if she’d continue taking such cash, she replied: “Yes I will because, you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent social workers. Yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”
Her answer was met with jeers, but what Mrs. Clinton was daring to tell her left-wing audience is that lobbyists are an essential means by which average Americans transmit their political concerns to Washington, and in turn hold their elected Representatives accountable. Not everyone in America can afford to trek to D.C., or has the clout to demand an audience with a Senator. Lobbyists represent the collective voice of groups with shared ideals, whether they be gun owners, union workers, corporate employees or the pro-choice movement.
One reason Mr. Edwards and Illinois Senator Barack Obama have been so cavalier about shunning “lobbyist” donations is that they know it means nothing. While neither man may take money directly from federal lobbyists, both have raked in cash from other interest groups and from people who work for lobbyists. This is an old ploy, but precisely the kind of phony liberal symbolism that the Kos crowd would fall for.
I’m going to interject here — because I think such an assertion sells short many in the Kos crowd, who are politically savvy enough to know precisely what it is they are cheering and jeering.
Which is to say, they aren’t fooled by the “old ploys” of Edwards or Obama so much as they know that the kinds of voters they need to seduce believe such ploys — and they don’t need Hillary Clinton mucking things up by speaking honestly on the subject of lobbying (even if she is only doing so out of financial self interest and in the true spirit of McCain-Feingold support, which was to pander to the uninformed and buy a bit of cheap grace while it was there for the taking).
Besides, Hillary’s candor can be used to legitimize Fred Thompson’s lobbyist past — which (along with his wife’s attributes) has been the primary point of attack against him thus far.
Thompson has popular appeal and has polished the kind of pro-American, no-nonsense persona — brimming with confidence and (carefully affected) candor — that appeals to many Americans.
Whether or not there’s any meat on that particular bone is something we’ll find out eventually, I suspect. But in the meantime, Hillary does the netroots no favors by not playing along with the faux-populism that their candidates ubiquitously set out to cultivate.
Before Mrs. Clinton faints dead away at our editorial support, we should add that she also voted for the McCain-Feingold bill that has shown again how foolish it is to try to restrict money in politics. The underlying premise of all such reform is that money in politics corrupts absolutely, which may be why the New York Senator is now having to insist that she can accept lobbyist money and still be uncorrupted.
From this, we can conclude one of two things: that Hillary has either recognized the ill-effects of McCain-Feingold on free speech and has reconsidered her position; or else she believes her support of McCain-Feingold won’t play well in a general election, and that a refusal to distance herself from lobbyists now could garner her praise from the likes of the WSJ, giving her more cross-party appeal.
If it is the former, she has proven wise, if only belatedly; if it’s the latter, time will tell how shrewd she really is — though it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see that Hillary finds a long-term pander to the netroots to be a political liability, and so while for the moment, she courts the Kossacks, her longterm money is on the DLC and tacking toward the center.
Whether or not the Kos Kiddies will play along with that act, when the time comes, depends solely on whether or not Clinton captures the Dem nomination.
At which point, Kos will probably have himself an epiphany and find Hillary to be perfectly centrist.
Just like him.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
****
update: This seems rather incriminating — though we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that John Edwards’ hair struck this book deal on its own, without the candidate’s prior knowledge.
And if internet porn shows up on Edwards’ computer there’s a good chance his hair is responsible for that, too. Just so’s we’re clear.
money = “electability”
That’s her ace in the hole from what I can figure. If she can convincingly play the electability card, she won’t have to risk the fallout from going negative. Which, that could be fatal. Cause her negatives are already so high.
I suspect that Obama’s prepared remarks about striking targets in Pakistan without permission reveal similar thinking in his camp. What struck me was that, with these remarks, Obama essentially flipped the bird to the anti-war Left in the midst of a tough nomination fight in which the nutroots’ disaffection with Hillary was considered one of his biggest advantages.
My speculation is that Team Obama’s private analyses are telling them that the nutroots support will not be enough to win them the nomination, and might actually hurt them in a general election. Obama, like Hillary, may be trying to re-position himself to capture some Blue Dog votes and outflank Hillary on the Right.
Given the current bunch on the Left, it should be entertaining to see just how far left a candidate is willing to go for the nomination, and how the media will let them re-write history and sprint back towards the middle the day after the primary.
For sure. I can hear it now:
To people like Edwards, truth is a malleable concept.
Oh. I should have said that I disagree with the WSJ that “it means nothing.” Sure, from a moral highground standpoint. But my guess is that hitting up lobbyists makes it easier for Hillary to make money. There’s relationships there she’s exploiting, and you can bet her people make it clear she’s wanting to see the support from the lobbyists AND “other interest groups and from people who work for lobbyists.”
“Whether or not the Kos Kiddies will play along with that act, when the time comes….”
– Ita nore likely that it has finally occured to the Kosturd, and his vaseline brigade, that their days of importance are waning rapidly. None of the Dem candidates can afford to alienate the Electorate majority for too much longer and have a hope in hell of remaining viable. This centrist invention is a first indication that the KosKlowns are hearing the bell tolling.
– As time goes on, the Dems will pull farther and farther away from the loons, but the loons will try to stay in the game, not by demands, but by “adjustments” on the fly. Look for an ever increasing groundswell of words like “conciliation”, “resonable compromise”, ” a joining of hands in a spirit of bipartisan fellowship”, “for the greater good”, ect ect. A large part of the Left gaggle may be certifiable loons, but they are not stupid.
– Of course whether anyone buys the new ponies tricks are yet to be seen. the candidates thenselves may not make it over that hurdle, let along the Kossacks.
#7 – Wrong, though I understand your train of thought. The Left only calls for bipartisanship, reconciliation, and compromise when they are out of power. Until the Dems settle on a candidate, the KosKiddies will continue to be a thorn in their side. Once the general election comes around, the candidate knows that the Kiddies are not going to vote for a Rethuglikkkan, and they will take great care to marginalize any 3rd party candidate, so they will simply abandon their Leftist rhetoric from the primaries, and with a willing press, simply try to run as a Republican-lite in the general.
– As you say, I see your train of thought, but I have a feeling, although they’d rather die than admit it, the Lieberman disaster was a wake up call, and showed the Kor Nediots just how limited noise and nattering is when it comes to the actual voting public. i think Kos is trying to head off a total banishment to onlivion, ala sKerry. But maybe I’m giving him, and “them”, more credit than they deserve.
Flipping channels this past weekend, I finally figured out who it was that John Edwards reminds me of: the character Enos on The Dukes of Hazzard.
Kos tries to cover his natural lisp by over-pronunciating. Hillary Clinton has a slight over-bite.
If Markos and Hillary entered a caged ring I’d wager my wallet on the over-bite.
#7 and #9 – if Kos can’t admit that the nutroot play against Lieberman flamed out and was a failure – I don;t think they have learned a thing from their follies.
They are going down and are too invested in their righteousness/smartness/morality/whateverness to realize it. Like those guys flipping properties in Florida or buying mortgage bonds in NY. Too invested in their intelligence and egos to see the writing on the wall. Meanwhile on a country road I regularily take back here in Texas, about a year ago – it seemed every rural frontage property was put for sale. Stupid unwashed country-ass bumpkins – selling into a bull market!
TW: morning necessary: as in wake up in the morning with a Kos kiddy, necessary to chew thru arm to leave the bed