Please, Hillary, Listen to Ms. Ivins...
Way-left syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, who probably hates George Bush more than any other person in America, has jettisoned support for Hillary Clinton's presumed presidential run, blistering Clinton and Democrats as being cowards and fools.
Since Susan Estrich, that other really obnoxious liberal commentator, has come out in support of Hillary, one can imagine the potential for a roiling bitch-slap encounter if these two ever face each other on CNN.
But apart from the delicious spectacle of frustrated Democrats ripping themselves apart over an election two years away, Republican should hope that Ivins wins hearts and minds among Rodham-Clinton's handlers.
In Ivins' insular world, populated with fever-swamp crazies like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, Rodham-Clinton is acting like a despicable moderate unable to conjure the courage of her own convictions, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. There is no wiggle room among the hard-left on this issue, and it is not nearly good enough that Rodham-Clinton regularly criticizes Bush on his handling of the war. She voted to go to war in the first place, and among what has become the mainstream Democratic Party, that is as bad as relegating poor teen mothers to back-alley abortions.
Ivins also believes that most American are actually clamoring for new initiatives out of Washington, such as raising taxes, punishing oil companies and cutting defense spending, and charges that Rodham-Clinton and the Democrats are weak and feckless for not forcefully making these issues their own.
Hillary's adept managers know this to be false, and only have to look at the overwhelming slap-down of John Kerry during the last election to prove it. They know that publicly taking such policy stands would be political suicide, even with an electorate apparently in gridlock. But Ivins and her ilk are so thoroughly blinded by their hatred for Bush and disdain for the voters that rational though is precluded.
As if to prove this, Ivins conjures up the memory of Eugene McCarthy, the recently deceased radical leftist who made Hubert Humphrey look like a conservative during the 1968 Democratic primary. "If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find (someone) with the guts to do it". Somebody needs to remind her that McCarthy was crushed when it came time for Democrats to actually vote, not to mention he was one of the few Democrats who later called for Bill Clinton's impeachment or resignation. But in the fog of hysteria, there is no reason to be had.
But Ivins holds sway in Democratic circles, and her words will not go unheeded among Rodham-Clinton's supporters. They are already panicked about the next presidential election, and see Hillary as the only chance they've got. They realize she cannot hemorrhage such high-profile support and expect to appeal to the radical left, who driven by seething hatred and rage, contribute most of the money. At some point very soon, financial expediency may compel her to move markedly left. Such "strategery" would ingratiate her to many party loyalists, but might very well functionally sabotage her presidential ambitions, because those loyalists are light-years out of the mainstream. They just don't know it, or refuse to believe it.
Republicans cannot lose here. If Rodham-Clinton refuses to placate the wackos in her party, Ivins is right to assume another more palatable candidate will emerge, such as Howard Dean, and anyone like Dean would be soundly rejected. If she moves left, and spends the next couple years establishing a record of crazy-talk, Americans will never elect her if the Republican candidate has even a hint of moderation.
Let's hope that Rodham-Clinton chooses the latter course. There would be nothing as satisfying as watching the Clinton legacy self-destruct once and for all.
Since Susan Estrich, that other really obnoxious liberal commentator, has come out in support of Hillary, one can imagine the potential for a roiling bitch-slap encounter if these two ever face each other on CNN.
But apart from the delicious spectacle of frustrated Democrats ripping themselves apart over an election two years away, Republican should hope that Ivins wins hearts and minds among Rodham-Clinton's handlers.
In Ivins' insular world, populated with fever-swamp crazies like Michael Moore and Howard Dean, Rodham-Clinton is acting like a despicable moderate unable to conjure the courage of her own convictions, especially when it comes to the war in Iraq. There is no wiggle room among the hard-left on this issue, and it is not nearly good enough that Rodham-Clinton regularly criticizes Bush on his handling of the war. She voted to go to war in the first place, and among what has become the mainstream Democratic Party, that is as bad as relegating poor teen mothers to back-alley abortions.
Ivins also believes that most American are actually clamoring for new initiatives out of Washington, such as raising taxes, punishing oil companies and cutting defense spending, and charges that Rodham-Clinton and the Democrats are weak and feckless for not forcefully making these issues their own.
Hillary's adept managers know this to be false, and only have to look at the overwhelming slap-down of John Kerry during the last election to prove it. They know that publicly taking such policy stands would be political suicide, even with an electorate apparently in gridlock. But Ivins and her ilk are so thoroughly blinded by their hatred for Bush and disdain for the voters that rational though is precluded.
As if to prove this, Ivins conjures up the memory of Eugene McCarthy, the recently deceased radical leftist who made Hubert Humphrey look like a conservative during the 1968 Democratic primary. "If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find (someone) with the guts to do it". Somebody needs to remind her that McCarthy was crushed when it came time for Democrats to actually vote, not to mention he was one of the few Democrats who later called for Bill Clinton's impeachment or resignation. But in the fog of hysteria, there is no reason to be had.
But Ivins holds sway in Democratic circles, and her words will not go unheeded among Rodham-Clinton's supporters. They are already panicked about the next presidential election, and see Hillary as the only chance they've got. They realize she cannot hemorrhage such high-profile support and expect to appeal to the radical left, who driven by seething hatred and rage, contribute most of the money. At some point very soon, financial expediency may compel her to move markedly left. Such "strategery" would ingratiate her to many party loyalists, but might very well functionally sabotage her presidential ambitions, because those loyalists are light-years out of the mainstream. They just don't know it, or refuse to believe it.
Republicans cannot lose here. If Rodham-Clinton refuses to placate the wackos in her party, Ivins is right to assume another more palatable candidate will emerge, such as Howard Dean, and anyone like Dean would be soundly rejected. If she moves left, and spends the next couple years establishing a record of crazy-talk, Americans will never elect her if the Republican candidate has even a hint of moderation.
Let's hope that Rodham-Clinton chooses the latter course. There would be nothing as satisfying as watching the Clinton legacy self-destruct once and for all.
posted by Mark Outland at 8:33 AM
0 comments
