The Left Coaster: Hillary Chills A Key Supporter With Her "Centrism":Perlmutter's piece brings up the question of how far the front running Clinton can get in 2008 if the netroots are lukewarm if not disappointed in her willingness to chill the base and appeal to the DLC crowd. It is a valid point to raise, given that Clinton has managed to see challengers spring up on both her left (Russ Feingold) and her right (Mark Warner) who both will have significant appeal and much help from the netroots. Clinton may very well feel that boatloads of money and the Democratic machinery behind her will be enough to get the nomination without making an overt effort to appeal to the anti-war portions of the base or the netroots. Some would say that it's deja vu all over again, as Yogi would say, with another establishment "electable" front-runner trying to steamroller their way to the nomination without hearing or even reaching out to the base or nitrates. As I said, both fangled, as well as Warner will have help from the nitrates, and this doesn't count John Edwards and Wesley Clark, both of whom are paying close attention to the nitrates and have significant support in the country. Will it matter if Clinton is supported by the nitrates by 2007? Is Clinton staying distant for now until after her reelection, only to embrace the nitrates and the base in 2007 when her full-fledged candidacy kicks in? Perhaps. But will any late-arriving embrace of the nitrates and the anti-war base by Clinton work, if Edwards and fangled have already spent over a year working with them, and Warner and Clark have likewise done the same from the right? degenerate tags: Hillary Clinton Don't forget about Jonathan Tasini who is set to challenge her in next year's primary as well. He's a progressive labor activist and former labor union president. He's running on an anti-Iraq War platform along with all the other progressive issues. What this does is force Clinton to realize that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will not stand by while she gives them the cold shoulder for the DLC wing of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is also trying to appeal to right-wing Republicans and moderates as well so she has her hands full. But you can't be everything to everyone. So eventually she's going to have to choose what she wants to be. If she chooses to be a DLC centrist then she better hope there's enough of them to support her in 2006 and 2008. Because most of the progressives will choose to walk away most likely. Some of them may return if she's the Democratic Party nominee however, but we'll just have to see how this all plays. Personally, since I'm not in either major party I support the candidate for other reasons than their party loyalty. I try to follow what Ralph Nader said in his book The Good Fight. What this basically means is I'll look at a candidate on a number of issues, then make my mind up. I'm not about being a single-issue voter. Unless the candidate if elected will have the power to change by vote or executive power and influence that single issue which could be women's reproductive rights or issues of war. That's the only time a single issue or a few issues will have more weight with me. The reason I'm supporting Jonathan Tasini for the Senate next year is basically because he's better on all the issues. It's not just the Iraq war for me though for some that's all they need. But taking this thinking a step further, let's say there was a Democrat, Republican or third party candidate running for local office who was pro-life and a social conservative, but they really wanted to do things to bring smart development into a community, were really concerned with the funding of public schools and after-school programs, wanted to help the working class and the poor, was concerned with people not having acess to good healthcare, was good on the environment, was serious about building and housing code enforcement, and wanted to stop illegal immigration while still helping legal immigrants. I would seriously consider supporting them. They could in theory not be in agreement with me on issues of choice, civil unions, the death penalty, or a number of social issues, but I would consider them for the twenty or more issues that they would be good on for that community. One can look to Pennsylvania and Bob Casey Jr. for an example. He's a pro-life Democrat who has a chance to defeat Rick Santorum next year. Casey Jr. is great on a number of issues but if you did not support him for that one single-issue of choice, I feel that you would be missing out on getting some great things done for your state. I think it's time that voters of all ideologies stop voting on one or even four specific issues and look at the bigger picture. If you look at what Bush has done you'll hear people say they voted for him because he's against gay marriage and pro-life, yet he's hurt them so badly economically and they don't even realize that.