Posted on 10/23/2005 4:29:32 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
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 paradigm 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.
I don't believe I've ever served chablis to my liberal friends; chardonnay, yes. Both, however, are one step above sterno, which is apparently what Morris drinks.
By the way, if Dick Morris is a Republican then I'm Marxist.
With psychophantic predictability, the old-stream media and Hollywood...A writer that seems unaware of the proper spelling of sycophant probably shouldn't be taken seriously.
Freudian slip of the year.
Point #1 - Hitlery will set the all-time record for NEGATIVE TURNOUT.
Point #2 - Hitlery will not be able to control the press like she did in her NY Campaign, in a national election. This women is dumber than an ox when having to think on her feet. The gaffaws will make her a laughing stock, i.e. not ready for prime time.
No, I think he meant it as a pun...at least I thought it was funny...and true.
Me too!!!
So true. Hillary has the additional handicap of an unpleasant voice quality which, when raised just a little, is like fingernails on a chalkboard. And what kind of a performance will she give when she actually has to debate somebody smarter than a fencepost?
That's pretty funny. The Republican majority has been acting like liberal democrats, not what I hoped for. Spending taxpayer money like drunken sailors, approving laws clearly and admittedly unconstitutional, failing to prosecute criminal corruption in the political world, protecting the political class while trashing honorable men, trading away their base for the ignorant masses. Hav'em, dirtbags!
She's cunning and sneaky, not smart. There is a HUGE difference. In a live debate, she'll get killed.
The DNC actually believes Hillary can win...and as usual they dream in la la land. She is the most polorizing woman in the United States, maybe even in the world. She is not the smartest woman in the world, because she moves constantly on her husband's coat tails. She doesn't write legislative material, she endorses someone's elses words. America will not tolerate another eight years of these people, both of them, in the White House. They are a stain on the history of the country and showed themselves for the hucksters they are when they left...taking furniture, paintings and silverware with them. One thing is for sure..the MSM which is a wing of the DNC takes anything negative to Conservatives that happens, and makes news out of it. The Delay garbage is a political witchhunt. The DNC hasn't figgered out yet that President Bush isn't running again!! DUH!!
I didn't realize there were any Republicans like Dick Morris.
You have liberal friends? I'm so sorry :)
Hillary has been described as every man's first wife--An insult to first wives across our nation.
I personally don't trust Morris. I think he's willing to ride whatever wave he can find. His predictions to me are meaningless.
You are a mind reader. I have been impatiently waiting for some one to mention that Hillary NEVER answers questions.
The press has refused to hold her accountable, and I would love to see her face a hostile inquisition similar to the way they gleefully torment Pres. Bush.
Hillary worries me, because she shouldn't be let ANYWHERE NEAR the Oval Office. She's been to close already.
That said, at least from a Republican standpoint, I'd sure rather her be the nominee then Evan Bahy. He's the guy that really worries me, I don't think we can beat him.
I don't know what you mean by 'ride whatever wave he can find', but you are right that Morris' predictions are meaningless. He gets everything wrong.
Just like Kristol - they have both jumped on the Bush side of the isle - while the wave is still good.
Should the democrats win (anything) - I wouldn't hold my breath which side of the fence either of them will be sitting on.
Morris I could understand your arguement, but Kristol? The guy's a Reaganite, you actually think he'd jump over to the D's? You're out of your gord if you do.
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.