Think the Feingold vote was strange? Then check these two pieces out. First,
Hillary to vote "No" on Roberts:
"The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
This helps my image of Hillary. I'm not about to go work for her, and that she is rabidly pro-occupation doesn't really, um, excite me much (I incorrectly wrote that she was a member of
the Gang of 14). Still, with every good vote she has made this year,
opposing the limiting of class action lawsuits, to
not invoke cloture on the bankruptcy bill,
against the budget,
against drilling in the Arctic refuge,
against CAFTA, and now against Roberts, she is going a long way to showing that she is not some stereotype of a conservative / moderate / DLC Democrat. She has just about the best voting record of any Senate Dem this year. That's a fact.
By contrast, Clark appears to not only oppose withdrawal, but he seems to be leading the charge to keep other prominent Dems from speaking out in favor of it. He seems to be having some success on this front:
Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.
... 59 Members have signed onto a bill calling for President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by October 2006. Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Walter Jones Jr.(R-N.C.) are the original co-sponsors of the measure.
(Rep. Maxine) Waters (D-Calif.) said that while some in the caucus want an immediate withdrawal, the Out of Iraq effort is inclined to follow the lead of Clark and present a plan relying heavily on diplomatic means for concluding the engagement.
... Waters added that Clark made clear to Members that leaving now would only encourage terrorism in the region and lead to civil unrest in the country.
Single actions do make candidacies, and in the past
I have applauded General Clark for speaking out on Darfur when so few others seem willing to do the same. However, unless I am reading this wrong, he appears to be actively caucusing Democratic elected officials to stop talking about withdrawal at a time when elected officials are already woefully out of step with the rest of the nation on the issue of withdrawal. For a sampling of what the country thinks about withdrawal, see
here,
here and
here. I know that when it comes to anti-Iraq war candidates in 2008, the Democratic field is pretty thin, but this doesn't, um, exactly improve my view of Clark (or the Democratic foreign policy wonks he runs with).
It strikes me that the criteria determining who is a solid progressive and who is not, as well as determining who is a good candidate and who is not, are not nearly as clearly defined as many people on this and other blogs would have us believe.
