Redstate

Finances.  He who has the gold makes the rules.

Mrs. Clinton is running for president, right?  That means she'll have to win the Democratic primaries, right?  Where the far left of the party runs the show, right?  And the far left opposes Roberts, correct?

What's so hard about this one?

I'm not an expert on politics, but tell me what would have happened if Clinton voted yes for O'Conner's replacement?  Wouldn't O'Conner seat be far more profilic and actually will make a major impact on the face of Supreme Court much more than Roberts, despite his new position of Chief Justice?

I think she is just putting up a symbolic opposition to Roberts, and possibly a yes on the next replacement in order to make her move to the center or at least toward the right much more profilic than if done with Roberts.  Of course, it would cause many liberals angry and furious at her.

However, Clinton has always been a pragmatist, she is willing to do whatever it takes to acquire power, even if it means moving toward the center of political spectrum.  Yes, she is a diehard liberal, but she understood how important it is to be pragmatic in some cases.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion which is worth nothing...in terms of observing how politics work...

Dan

Lots of cases, and lots of opportunities for Roberts to join or author a ruling that could come back to bite a Democrat in the primaries.  Hillary understands the way commercials are written, and how the debate will be different two and a half years from now.

And:  unlike those of us in the GOP who fully expect her to steamroll the Democratic field, she's not taking the primaries for granted.

She doesn't need to play to the base, she is a goddess amongst them.  This was a bad move, who is her political adviser?  I know Sandy Burglar is not presently available.  Look for charges of obstructionist to be rightly labeled.  If his intellect, character and legal skills meet the criteria then she is admitting that she objects to his nomination based on politics, and she has no Constitutional right to vote against his nomination on those grounds.  Bad move.

...Do you think she'll have a bigger problem in the primary or the general? She should skate through the primary, no? Doesn't need this vote, might need the next one.

My sentiments exactly....

http://peatbog.net/2005/09/22/hillary-moves-back-to-the-left/

She has spent far too much time running toward the center and now she's got the Left angry at her for not towing the line...  She needs to walk a fine line between Liberal and Moderate if she wants to win the primary, at which point she can complete her Moderate metamorphasis.... until the election is over, that is...

Perhaps she doesn't think Roberts is right for the position of Chief Justice of the U.S.  However you might feel about her reasons, she does lay them out quite well in her statement.  

And, if she really did make this decision based on the reasons expressed, rather than the poll du jour or the current direction of the bandwagon then I, for one, applaud that move.  She will have no problem gaining the far-left vote now (since they're all whack jobs who don't want Roberts anyway) and she may not lose many in the center, because she gave arguably good reasons for her position.  It's the best of both worlds.

Leahy's yes makes all other democrat no votes easy and pro-forma.

There will be no filibuster on this one, no delays, no dealing, no late-breaking witnesses. It's over, but for some press releases and brief floor speeches.

Hilary, and Barack, and the rest to follow will be the votes of those without concern for the next election, or with those whose vote on the next nominee will be the memorable one.

It's an entirely different question as to what the "no" voters judicial standards are. I think this nominee pretty well makes the target, and if you don't want him, you're interested in something other than a judge or justice. Which probably is an accurate description of those who view the judiciary as unelected politicians rather than lawyers or adjudicators.

No offense, but I doubt is 2008 this is going to be an issue anyway.  Her votes on O'connors replacement and any potential libs replacement will be much more important.

Each Democratic NO vote increases the Republicans' freedom regarding the second nomination.

I know it's conventional wisdom that she's moved to the center, but her voting record just doesn't bear it out.

She had a big fat zero from the ACU last year, and a 95 from ADA (it's a fairly big PDF, for those on dialup).

Are serious. By no means is she going to breeze through the Primaries.

Howard Dean, Kerry, Gore, possibly, even Mother Sheehan (hey it's not out of bounds) will all run on her extreme left. Biden and Clark will compete for the center but have no real support in the Party.

Yes she has to run to the extreme left to get the nomination. And that is likely to sink her in the General Election.

Not that dKos is the word on everything, but Clinton trails Howard Dean, Gore, and some others in their recent straw polls for 2008 prez.

All Dems (especially those running for President) are in a pickle when it comes to this vote.  Do they play to their base by voting "no,"  or act reasonable by voting "yes"?  Their smartest move politically is to vote "yes" so they can justify voting "no" next time, without appearing to be obstructionist.

Hillary was in an especially difficult spot, because she has been trying to appear to move to the center, but in doing so is beginning to lose the far-left base (which she needs).  But her decision to move back left is a miscalculation for two reasons:  

(1) She is going to have a MUCH harder time now appearing to be in the center.

(2) She is starting to look like Kerry -- constantly shifting back and forth.

The public can respect a politician for changing her mind, but if she starts to look like she's swinging back and forth for purely political reasons, she's doomed.

look like boilerplate to me.

1. 24 year old memos that were written to defend policy set by his superiors.
   
   
2. Not taking a position on issues that are likely to come before the court.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum on this site, Roberts answered in basically the same fashion as RBG, and she got a massive confirmation vote, since she meets the qualifications to sit on the court.  As does Roberts.

Not if your advisors just told you that Al Gore was going to become the New Nixon in 2008.

Al Gore wants his revenge. Not just against Bush, but moreso against the Clintons, who could have campaigned for him hard and won him Florida outright in 2000, but did not.

Bill Clinton didn't want Al Gore to win in 2000, that would have got in the way of the Missus' ambitions. Had Gore become President, he would have buried Hillary so far down she would have never come up.

Hillary now has to worry about two attractive candidates from the left: Gore and Barak Obama. Her climb to the nomination just became incredibly harder. Her vote against Roberts is very reasonable in this light.

The base won't hold it against her. Her Republican opponent, on the other hand, will be one of three people: Condoleezza Rice, Rudolph Giuliani, or John McCain. It will be then that this vote will come back to haunt her. One of those three will be able to beat Hillary over the head for hyperpartisanship. This vote will be just another example used to make one of those three look reasonable and moderate compared to Hillary.

But the base will applaud her. This makes sense for her for now.

It's too early to be talking about Barak Obama, but I do agree with the Al Gore thing.

I think you will see Gore give Clinton a run for her money.

If Gore does win the Democratic nomination, then Rudy can lock up the presidency if he can get through the GOP primary.

One way or the other, the Roberts nomination proceedings are not going to be a major issue in '08.  If the nominations stay squint-and-it-looks-sorta-amiable-in-the-right-light, nobody's going to much care, given that the GOP got their judges; if, however, the next nomination gets us Senators duelling with chainsaws on the Senate floor... well, folks will focus on that.

Sen Clinton, I think, knows this - and I don't think that she's playing to the section of the base best represented by dKos as she is treading water wrt them.  There's a fairly big political event between now and '08 that is going to skew everything about the next Presidential election; until it's over, 'no sudden movements' should be the wise legislator's touchstone.

She would look like an absolute fool if she did that. The Dems are likely to put up a unified front on the O'Connor replacement and she could kiss her base goodbye in the primaries if she breaks ranks on that one. I think this was a miscalculation on her part. A "Yes" on Roberts wouldn't have provided enough ammo for the far left to sink her, but a "yes" on the next one very well may.

Bill Clinton didn't want Al Gore to win in 2000, that would have got in the way of the Missus' ambitions. Had Gore become President, he would have buried Hillary so far down she would have never come up.

Why? Either way Ms. Clinton was not going to be running until 2008.

That Gore would win the nomination. How do you think all those "fire and brimstone" Moveon.org speeches will play out on the 24/7 ad cycle by his opponent? "He BETRAYED this country, he played on our FEARS!," etc., etc., etc. neil Boortz put it best, that Gore is like a robot designed for one purpose, to become president, and when that didn't happen, he completely shorted out and malfunctioned.

  She's running for relection against a pro-choice Republican and while she may be a shoo-in, she'd still have some trouble explaining a yes vote if Roberts votes against Dems on Roe/Casey, a vote that will surely take place before 11/2006 (I hope). A no vote on Roberts makes good political sense in terms of her Senate relection, especially as she needs to win as big as possible to justify any presidential ambitions. Less than 53% in a die-hard blue state will be a tough sell nationally so she's just playing it safe.

Look at the polling.  Bush's approval is like 17% among Dems and below 40% overall.  Everyone who has even the remotest chance of voting for Hillary in a primary OR general election hates the President and all his works.  A yes on Roberts won't help her, but it could hurt her.  Feingold is the only potetial candidate who can afford to vote his conscience because his branding is "I'm the candidate who votes my conscience."

is because there is no center for her,only opportunity.  Every politician needs their base and you will see Hillary's bulk slowly and reluctantly pulled to the left.  However she is counting on the media to save her broad hide.  How?  By pulling a Lazio on whoever her unfortunate opponent is.  As a NYS resident it was sickening to see the out-of-thin-air scandals that were created against Rick Lazio for Hillary's benefit.  That will be a sideshow compared to a Presidential run where the liberal wolves will be yowling for blood,as well as vitally needed tax increases.  Many "thoughtful" independents will be influenced by this sort of nonesense as is usually the case.

Sitting next to Harry Belafonte at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event on C-Span this morning, Belafonte referred to her glowingly as "our white, Socialist progressive" to which she nodded and smiled as Belafonte continued his tirade about "amputating the legs...of the religious right..." and others who are "...running away with this country."

It just wouldn't have fit if Hillary had voted Yes on Roberts with that kind of sendup from Harry Belafonte.

Anecdotally, many of my left-wing friends are deeply suspicious of Hillary Clinton.  They don't trust her on the issues they care about.

Don't believe the media hype that Hill's beloved by the base.  Just because the good people of Hollywood go ga-ga for her doesn't mean she's got the primaries sewn up.

 As in Anybody But Her. A ten second spot of what you just described has to be good for a million votes against.

To get the tape from C-Span.  The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event was broadcast all morning long.

If she does indeed run for and get elected president in 2008, by voting to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees and voting against Chief Justice Roberts, she has just provided Senate Republicans with sufficient political cover to make sure that she does not get her own nominees through.

Last time I checked, the Democrats tried that "Anybody But.." campaign against Bush. Didn't work though.

Secondly, why is everyone using the "obstructionist" label when she actually planned to let it go to a vote? I thought obstructionists were those Democrats who filibustered so that a vote couldn't even take place. People can vote any way they want; voting no doesn't make them obstructionist.

Third, I seriously doubt anybody outside the blogs will care in 2008 whether Hillary voted for Roberts or not. Three years is a long time, and I'm quite sure we'll have other issues overshadowing this (I think immigration  will be the "Gay Marraige" of 2008.)

Lastly, I kinda hope Roe/Casey is settled  before Nov. 2006. Talk about the Nuclear Option--it may awaken those folks who've been apolitical up to this point. Let's see this court settle in once and for all.

  I think it's fair to say that most people on this site will support any of the possible Republican candidates over her, including McCain, who is certainly not my favorite. Furthermore, are you suggesting that Kerry was chosen as the Dem candidate simply because he was an 'anybody but Bush' candidate, or because he seemed the most electable? Hilary will not only help a lot in getting out our vote but will strengthen our selection process as well. I hope.

I agree that it's only the activists who really care about the Roberts vote and its impact on potential POTUS contenders.  But they're the ones who'll be doing the hustling in the next few years, so it will make a difference.

In this case we're not really talking about 2008, but rather late 2007.  That's when primary campaigning will start getting heavy.

Kos tends to overemphasize the kook fringe of the Democrat/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist left... but if they're right (which I doubt strongly), I personally think any Republican nominee would love to run against Howard "Where's My Haldol" Dean or Al "Check My Pulse" Gore...