Hillary Clinton, in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council yesterday, beseeched her partymates to quit obstructing each other's agendas, and unite in pursuit of their core objective, obstructing the GOP agenda.
Well, that's not exactly how she put it. But that's the subtext I take away.
In her new post chairing the DLC's "American Dream Initiative" (which to me seems a bit syrupily grandiose, given its intent) the Senator appears primarily charged with traveling the country, making nice with state and local party leaders, cramming the airwaves with reinvented policy stances, and lambasting Republicans with such Bill-conjuring platitudes as, "They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back to the 19th century."
Recently, Clinton has come out in support of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (probably shrewd, given the relatively smooth sailing it appears he may undergo and the near impossibility of disparaging the man or his record with a straight face), but opposed to CAFTA (despite the DLC being largely pro-CAFTA and despite her husband having toiled tirelessly during his Presidency to convince fellow Democrats (including John Kerry, who's now (stunningly) also anti-CAFTA) to vote for NAFTA).
The Senate recently voted in favor of the free trade agreement, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicts that 95% of her Congressional colleagues will vote it down tomorrow. Despite the ongoing fracturing of Big Labor, it apparently still holds considerable sway over the left, as the agreement is objectively beneficial to the economy of the United States. Not only is obstruction of CAFTA a dangerously protectionist stance, it ignores the fact that, given the current balance of tariffs between the United States and affected central American nations, we stand to benefit disproportionately from the agreement.
Talk about tunnels to the 19th century.
Still, amid the frustration of the spiraling and splintered left, if this is an issue that really can unify 95% of Democratic Congressmen, maybe Hillary coming down on the anti-progress, anti-globalization, anti-economic prosperity, even anti-DLC side of the argument is what it will take to bring her own American Dream a little more within her reach.
Cross-posted at Suitably Flip
Article comments
1 - RJ
I hear a lot about CAFTA. Someone wanna explain exactly what it does? Is it just NAFTA applied to all of Central America?
2 - Dan
That's what I think it is RJ. If it is just like NAFTA, a lot of people don't think that worked out so well.
My knee jerk at the time of NAFTA was apprehension since both Dems and Reps agreed with it. Also, because win/win situations seem counterintuitive.
It's probably a shrewd move on Clintons part because perception is everything. If people perceive NAFTA lost jobs, they won't go for CAFTA.
3 - Jonathan King
Bridges and tunnels?
How about dumbwaiters(Dr. Dean's comments) and well pulleys?(as opposed to, as Mr. O'Reilly said on the Factor 7/27, "pie in the sky.")
Have democrats been logging in hours in labs a la Governer Reagan at Livermore in the 60s?
Have they been collaborating with scientists and engineers for increased future energy independence, or is Senator Clinton a "pie in the sky" economic conservative and social liberal?
I heard someone on C-SPAN a few weeks ago say that some kind of rift between economic conservativism and social conservatism in the Republican party may be the reason the democratic nominee wins in 2008.
Do the Democrats have such a rift in the same person?
4 - Eric Berlin
A lot of the opposition to CAFTA is based upon a demonstrated lack of job creation from NAFTA. Add to that the relatively meager buying power of the citizens of the CAFTA nations, and it adds up to a further net job loss for US citizens.
Anyway -- I don't really get what the "dream weaving" all about. It's obvious that you don't like Clinton and Democrats... but otherwise I don't really see your point.
And: brackets [] go inside parens () not further parens () if you can dig ;)