Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A RECONCILIATION? Hillary Rodham Clinton has just signed on to speak at the early-August YearlyKos conference's Presidential Leadership Forum in Chicago, according to conference organizer Gina Cooper. That's kind of a big deal, in that the audience there is likely to be even less pro-Hillary than was the one that booed her at the recent Take Back America conference. The question is how HRC will approach this audience. My bet is that, rather than going for a soft-sell reconciliation with the netroots, she will make sure to put just enough inflammatory material in the foreign policy section of her presentation that she will ensure she gets booed again -- the kind language she does not generally use with audiences of foreign policy experts, if her speech to the Center for New American Security at the end of last month was any indication -- so as to help cement her image as the centrist in the race, instead of someone who is unelectable because too liberal. But time will, as they say, tell.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
COMMENTS (14)
Then again, everyone might just be polite and it'll go off like any other event.
Posted by: leo | July 12, 2007 5:32 PM
Yeah, my first thought on reading about it was that this is a Sister Souljah opportunity for HRC.
Posted by: latts | July 12, 2007 6:36 PM
HRC is not unelectable because she is 'too liberal.' She's unelectable because half the country hates her (for whatever reasons), she is a woman, and this is America, circa 2008. Her march to the nomination is a slow-motion nightmare for this country that will result in 4-8 more years of a Bush clone. WHY WON'T OUR PARTY WAAKE UP???
Posted by: Nick | July 12, 2007 8:23 PM
This is why I will never vote for Hillary. She is a traitor, she has no loyalty to her party or to her people. She will gladly betray anyone for power, and she will sell our country to the same business interests that have GWB in their pocket.
Posted by: soullite | July 12, 2007 11:13 PM
Ever notice that you never see Republicans looking for "Sister Soujah moments" to piss off their base?
Posted by: Christmas | July 13, 2007 7:24 AM
Maybe she'll storm the joint with a bunch of Bob Shrum robots and bust some heads.
Posted by: CJR | July 13, 2007 10:42 AM
I hope HRC isn't so obtuse as to believe that she can pull Pres Clinton's "Sister Souljah" moment with this crowd. Clinton got away with it becasue it was a different time, and to a very large extent, was dealing with a crowd with limited ability to respond. The netroots however, may not be numerous enough to get a dem politician elected right now, but in my opinion, I think it will be a big mistake to make an enemy of them. These are a goup of a people with a large voice, long memory and staying power.
Posted by: New Dome | July 13, 2007 3:41 PM
Yeah, it's worth saying that Sister Souljah was wrong and Bill Clinton was right. In contrast, the Yearly Kos people were right and Hillary Clinton was not only wrong, but she didn't just take a position but voted to deliberately murder 3,500 brave American servicemembers in Iraq, and continued to support killing American servicemembers in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006, and even now, with her call for an indefinite presence in Iraq and permanent military bases.
Look, Hillary Clinton's unelectable because if the Democrats run a supporter of the Iraq war, they lose their electoral advantage in 2008.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | July 14, 2007 9:55 PM
Hillary Clinton is unelectable?
Wow.
Do you have ANY reason to actually believe that, other than perhaps you got an email from Karl Rove's RNC account this morning?
Perchance his talking points memo had "The Math" for you on Senator Clinton's chances among Loyal Bushie Clinton Haters.
Otherwise, I'd say she's proving herself to be pretty damn electable.
Posted by: Jan | July 24, 2007 8:15 PM
Just curious, but did any of you graduate from high school civics? You all really don't have a clue as to how the government was set-up to run. That it has been largely perverted by this administration, does not mean that that is how its supposed to be. N.B. soullite are you any relation to bushlite? Just asking . . . by the way, what loyalty do you have to your party? Or do you only invite those that think exactly like you? Boring! I don't suppose its ever occurred to any of you that HRC is the only candidate with personal experience of the Repugnacan smear machine. Hell, she may be the only Dem who can beat the GOP. Doesn't anybody remmember Kerry's deer-in-the-headlight look when he got swift boated? HRC is responding to GOP attacks within minutes--and she's not pulling punches. She's not my favorite candidate in a perfect world, but she's a winner--and competent.
Posted by: nosemajd | July 24, 2007 8:23 PM
who is unelectable because [sic] too liberal
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Man. This is bust a gut funny.
There are candidates who might be too liberal. Hillary is not and will never be one of them.
Posted by: Odysseus | July 24, 2007 11:16 PM
Well,the REAL reason that Rodham is probably unelectable is because most people who bother to vote realize that the US has already had one crooked lawyer with fat,pasty thighs and doesn't need another one.
Posted by: Lord Locksley | July 25, 2007 4:33 AM
"New Dome", it worked for Clinton because it was another time. But I don't think he "got away with it". He was just doing what he had to to deal with the way the media worked then. The side channels that got round the corporate-owned media were less influential then, and more compromised by infiltration. Whether HRC's team have understood how things have changed properly is another matter. Or perhaps they have and I haven't... it will be interesting to see how they handle the event.
Posted by: me | July 25, 2007 5:33 AM
"New Dome", it worked for Clinton because it was another time. But I don't think he "got away with it". He was just doing what he had to to deal with the way the media worked then. The side channels that got round the corporate-owned media were less influential then, and more compromised by infiltration. Whether HRC's team have understood how things have changed properly is another matter. Or perhaps they have and I haven't... it will be interesting to see how they handle the event.
Oh, and "Lord" Locksley? You're pathetic. Try some real criticism.
Posted by: me | July 25, 2007 5:34 AM