Dream On, Democrats.
With hysterical glee, Democrats believe they smell blood around the Bush Administration and Republicans in general. Admittedly, at first glance, the situation does appear bleak for the Republicans: dwindling support for the Iraq war, Tom Delay's indictment and arrest, Bill Frist's insider trading investigation, the Harriet Miers rupture, and polls that show a generic vote would favor Democrats over Republicans in 2006 by 11%. Oh, to be a Democrat, bolstered by such news after years of humiliating defeat at the polls!
Unfortunately for Democrats, none of this seems to be rubbing off in their favor. According to a recent national poll, only 32% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Hardly the resounding paradyme shift that the Dem's are counting on to take back the House and Senate next year, or win the White House a couple years later. But desperate people often cling to desperate hopes.
Enter Hillary Clinton.
Many Democrats, especially the Hollywood leftists, believe Clinton is the last, best hope for presidential success in 2008. Even Republicans like Dick Morris, who personally can't stand Hillary, predict that she has a good chance of winning, especially if there is no perceptible improvement in the Iraq situation and if Republicans do not offer up an equally well-known candidate. But the fact that many Democrats see Clinton as the best they've got, or at least the only really viable choice, is indicative of how desperate and empty the party has become.
Nevertheless, the political triangulation around Hillary is astounding, and typically Clintonian. With psychophantic predictability, the old-stream media and Hollywood are pulling out the stops to promote her. This is certainly because she is immensely popular with the chablis-sipping leftist elite, and possibly because there are some in the party who pragmatically recognize the dearth of potential candidates even slightly palatable to the wide American electorate. In any event, her support among these elites is undeniably widespread. Democratic strategist and commentator Susan Estrich, who just a couple years ago predicted that Hillary could never win the presidency because she was America's most divisive politician, is now pimping Clinton as the probable next president. Several former Clinton aides, including the recently disgraced Sandy Berger, have signed up to provide "technical assistance" to ABC TV's Tuesday night fantasy "Commander-in-Chief". The New York Daily News reports that Clinton's operatives see the the show as a barometer of how Hillary might fare in 2008. These socially and politically insular Democrats, especially in Hollywood and New York City, honestly believe that Clinton has widespread appeal and popularity. And why not? Everybody they know loves her.
The truth may not be so gilded, or as optimistic. In fact, there are signs emerging that point to a rough road for Clinton, even among members of her own party. This no more true than among the rabid Bush-hating anti-Iraq War factions, which have emerged as a mainstream component of an ever left-drifting party, not to mention the biggest source of Democratic fundraising in recent memory. It is from here, among groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan supporters, that the real power base in the party steadily grows. These groups have made it clear that Clinton's refusal to dramatically condemn the war in Iraq, or call for the return of American troops immediately, will cost her support, at least in the short term. Shrewd politicians like Ted Kennedy, who has effectively aligned himself with the more vocal Bush-hating groups, both in his associations and his words, recognizes this dynamic. That may explain why he recently said he will not support Clinton in 2008, in the likely event John Kerry runs again. Kennedy may be a slurring, womanizing, cowardly drunk, but he is not stupid: he knows that it is Kerry, not Hillary, who is more likely to benefit from the support of the angry left and their piles of money. After all, Kerry was able to do this in 2004. Even Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org's resident lackey, is urging fellow Democrats not to support "pro-war" Hillary, accusing her of "sounding like Rush Limbaugh". Ouch.
But Estrich says that Hillary has the benefit of being well-liked among Democrats, like her husband Bill, and unlike Al Gore and John Kerry. However, in the same article two years ago, she said that many women, including Democratic women, don't like her at all, and that the more Democrats talked up Hillary, the more money flowed into the coffers of the Republican Party. Estrich has obviously concluded that any Democrat prospect, even one she has personally identified as unable to appeal to a broad range of voters, is better than no Democrat at all. And there lies the problem for Estrich and the rest of her party.
Most Republican strategists believe that a Hillary presidential run will render results more illustrative of Estrich's former predictions, i.e. a boon for Republican fundraisers and crushing defeat for Democrats. Hillary would certainly ignite a huge bon-fire of repellent disgust beneath the Republican base. If the Republicans nominate Condi Rice, who by many accounts would eat Hillary alive in a head-to-head intellectual matchup, and with Hillary's base confined to elites, the Democrats might just end up wishing they had run John Kerry again.
At least, then, the humiliating Democratic defeat would not come as a total surprise.
Unfortunately for Democrats, none of this seems to be rubbing off in their favor. According to a recent national poll, only 32% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. Hardly the resounding paradyme shift that the Dem's are counting on to take back the House and Senate next year, or win the White House a couple years later. But desperate people often cling to desperate hopes.
Enter Hillary Clinton.
Many Democrats, especially the Hollywood leftists, believe Clinton is the last, best hope for presidential success in 2008. Even Republicans like Dick Morris, who personally can't stand Hillary, predict that she has a good chance of winning, especially if there is no perceptible improvement in the Iraq situation and if Republicans do not offer up an equally well-known candidate. But the fact that many Democrats see Clinton as the best they've got, or at least the only really viable choice, is indicative of how desperate and empty the party has become.
Nevertheless, the political triangulation around Hillary is astounding, and typically Clintonian. With psychophantic predictability, the old-stream media and Hollywood are pulling out the stops to promote her. This is certainly because she is immensely popular with the chablis-sipping leftist elite, and possibly because there are some in the party who pragmatically recognize the dearth of potential candidates even slightly palatable to the wide American electorate. In any event, her support among these elites is undeniably widespread. Democratic strategist and commentator Susan Estrich, who just a couple years ago predicted that Hillary could never win the presidency because she was America's most divisive politician, is now pimping Clinton as the probable next president. Several former Clinton aides, including the recently disgraced Sandy Berger, have signed up to provide "technical assistance" to ABC TV's Tuesday night fantasy "Commander-in-Chief". The New York Daily News reports that Clinton's operatives see the the show as a barometer of how Hillary might fare in 2008. These socially and politically insular Democrats, especially in Hollywood and New York City, honestly believe that Clinton has widespread appeal and popularity. And why not? Everybody they know loves her.
The truth may not be so gilded, or as optimistic. In fact, there are signs emerging that point to a rough road for Clinton, even among members of her own party. This no more true than among the rabid Bush-hating anti-Iraq War factions, which have emerged as a mainstream component of an ever left-drifting party, not to mention the biggest source of Democratic fundraising in recent memory. It is from here, among groups like MoveOn.org, Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan supporters, that the real power base in the party steadily grows. These groups have made it clear that Clinton's refusal to dramatically condemn the war in Iraq, or call for the return of American troops immediately, will cost her support, at least in the short term. Shrewd politicians like Ted Kennedy, who has effectively aligned himself with the more vocal Bush-hating groups, both in his associations and his words, recognizes this dynamic. That may explain why he recently said he will not support Clinton in 2008, in the likely event John Kerry runs again. Kennedy may be a slurring, womanizing, cowardly drunk, but he is not stupid: he knows that it is Kerry, not Hillary, who is more likely to benefit from the support of the angry left and their piles of money. After all, Kerry was able to do this in 2004. Even Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org's resident lackey, is urging fellow Democrats not to support "pro-war" Hillary, accusing her of "sounding like Rush Limbaugh". Ouch.
But Estrich says that Hillary has the benefit of being well-liked among Democrats, like her husband Bill, and unlike Al Gore and John Kerry. However, in the same article two years ago, she said that many women, including Democratic women, don't like her at all, and that the more Democrats talked up Hillary, the more money flowed into the coffers of the Republican Party. Estrich has obviously concluded that any Democrat prospect, even one she has personally identified as unable to appeal to a broad range of voters, is better than no Democrat at all. And there lies the problem for Estrich and the rest of her party.
Most Republican strategists believe that a Hillary presidential run will render results more illustrative of Estrich's former predictions, i.e. a boon for Republican fundraisers and crushing defeat for Democrats. Hillary would certainly ignite a huge bon-fire of repellent disgust beneath the Republican base. If the Republicans nominate Condi Rice, who by many accounts would eat Hillary alive in a head-to-head intellectual matchup, and with Hillary's base confined to elites, the Democrats might just end up wishing they had run John Kerry again.
At least, then, the humiliating Democratic defeat would not come as a total surprise.
posted by Mark Outland at 2:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home