Posted on 04/21/2005 10:47:03 AM PDT by quidnunc
Let’s start with what just about everyone already knows — Hillary Clinton is running for the 2008 Democratic nomination and will be the odds-on favorite to win it.
From this admittedly distant vantage point, there are only three serious alternatives on the Democratic side, none of which should present her with much difficulty.
The first two, John Kerry and Al Gore, are unlikely because they are retreads. Not since the Democrats re-nominated Adlai Stevenson in 1956 has either of our major parties gone back to the same dry well the next time around, a consideration which works against Kerry.
In a similar sense, not since the Republicans chose Richard Nixon in 1968 has either party nominated someone who had lost eight years earlier, a consideration which works against Gore.
Parties tend to be especially averse to previous losers when their losses were, as for Gore and Kerry, perceived as largely self-inflicted.
Gore ran a campaign sufficiently erratic in 2000, despite the kind of peace and prosperity thought to benefit incumbents, that he lost the White House by a split decision in the Supreme Court. Kerry performed even more dismally in 2004, blowing Gore’s popular-vote margin despite running against an incumbent presiding over both a tepid economy and an unpopular war.
In other words, it is unlikely that a party will turn to candidates who previously demonstrated political incompetence in the face of less than overwhelming opposition so long as there are other options.
Those other options include Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards, who now has the kind of seasoning the lack of which made him suspect in the eyes of many voters six months ago. As demonstrated on the campaign trail and in his VP debate performances, Edwards will make a formidable opponent. He might be a rich, smarmy trial lawyer peddling a phony "two nations" populism, but he also has a certain amount of charisma, sufficient name recognition and plenty of spare time to raise money now that he no longer has to show up for those pesky Senate votes.
But the crucial variable influencing nomination struggles in cases lacking either an incumbent or the implosion of a front-runner (see Howard Dean last year) is the level of enthusiasm that can be generated among party activists in places like Manchester, N. H., and Des Moines, Iowa. And there is, quite simply, no other Democrat who has comparable star power in such precincts as Hillary.
Like Kerry in 2004, Hillary will seek to moderate her image and thereby convince the naïve and gullible among us that she isn’t simply a warmed-over counterculture leftist; unlike Kerry, she probably has the political savvy to pull it off.
That effort at ideological makeover will be aided by a willingness on the part of activist Democrats to muzzle their loonier elements for the sake of regaining the White House after eight years of George W. Bush, much as Democrats were willing to do when Hillary’s husband sought the nomination after 12 frustrating years of Ronald Reagan and Bush’s father.
Having firmly established herself as the leftist ideological core of the Clinton administration, Hillary will have nothing to prove to the kind of ideologues who troop through the snow to the polls in early Democratic primaries. That ideological confidence also will allow a calculated move to the center without having to worry about losing support within the party’s base. When Hillary begins to make conservative-sounding noises, as she already is on topics like religious faith and abortion, party activists will recognize it for what it is: merely a tactical appeal to the knuckle-draggers in Red America designed to enhance her electability.
But her biggest asset will be found in an overwhelmingly liberal media, which recognizes a great story when they see it and will be willing to assist her transformation from fire-breathing leftist to moderate because of shared cultural and political values. Much like there was a "new" Nixon in 1968, we will be presented with a "new" Hillary in 2008, one that appears more statesmanlike, pragmatic and in tune with the heartland values she inwardly despises. Expect Hillary’s "Sista Souljah" moment to come early and be repeated often.
None of which means, of course, that she is likely to win in November, particularly if the Republicans do the smart thing and nominate the obvious Hillary antidote — Condoleezza Rice.
Free-lance columnist Bradley R. Gitz teaches politics at Lyon College at Batesville.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Rodham Clinton June 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2238EDT0845.DTL
It won't matter who they nominate if they keep alienating their base over illegal immigration.
....is an evil, socialistic criminal!
It's already started, with Hillary speaking out against garbage on TV.
I know it is like fighting the tide, but I must point out that Al Gore lost because he got fewer votes in Florida. There is not way, under any counting scheme proposed, he would have won in Florida. The 2000 election was not decided by the Supreme Court. Anybody who says so is revealing himself to be an idiot.
A little touchy today?
Yet in NY GOP Governor pataki has never said an unkind word about her. GOP NY Rep. Peter King says she delivers for upstate NY. And not a peep from any GOP senators. P A T H E T I C
I thought Hillary was eager to oppose illegal immigration, and depict the Bush administration as winking at it.
She apparently is, and that's my point - if the Bush Admin doesn't quit giving their base the tin ear treatment over illegal immigration, it won't matter who the GOP nominates in 2008, they will in all likelihood go down to defeat because the base won't come out.
Hillary Who? What happened to Mario Cuomo?
It's still too early for this BS. This is DU stuff.
I am still at a loss as to which states that voted for W are going to switch over and vote for Hillary.
Of course, if she does start yelping a good Border Security song, she could make it a horse race...
No, it's just a preemptive flame aimed at the booboisie who only read the headlines before they start blathering.
Every time I post an article by Gitz, nitwits who obviously haven't read the article always start gibbering nonsense.
There was practically no mechanism by which Al Gore would have become President in 2000, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court. Something like 11 of the 12 media recount scenarios showed Bush winning Florida. And even if the 1-in-12 Gore longshot came to pass, or the Florida Supreme Court did something stupid (again), the Republicans controlled the Governor's mansion and the state legislature. Worst case scenario, the Florida GOP sends up a competing slate of Bush electors to DC. And the GOP had the votes in the House to validate the GOP slate. Gore loses no matter what.
Of the two major parties in this country, it is only the Republicans who, for purely ideological reasons would split the vote to "send a message" like they did in 1992...the stupidity of that action gave us one Clinton in the White House and if repeated, will give us another.
The libs did it in 2000 with Ralph Nader. It's a matter of how much the base of a party is willing to hold its nose to win the White House. Odds are, the GOP base will be less willing in 2008 - and the Bush Admin is giving them good reason to be annoyed over illegal immigration.
It does seem that Hillary is going to be the democratic candidate for president next election. However, I pray that republicans do not nominate Rice. HIllary will never win against a male republican like Guliani. I do not mean to be sexist or racist, but few men will vote for Hillary because she is percieved as a huge bitch. If republicans get scared and nominate Rice; I think Hillary will win because many white people are not going to vote for a black woman. If Rice and Clinton are the two candidates for President I believe that there will be a legitimate third party contender, and needless to say the election will be very interesting. I guess we will have to wait and see.
UMMMMM How many times does Condi have to say NO and in how many languages. She is NOT GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.