Reliving History

Warning: brutal honesty follows. Reader discretion advised.

A few weeks ago, I wondered whether Barack Obama might be Hillary Clinton's stalking horse. And for the past week, I was so caught up in blogging about the blog scandal in John Edwards's um, campaign, that for a moment I almost forgot that he really isn't a serious candidate.

Even now, I pick up the paper, and it is abuzz with Obama talk. ("Barack the Vote!" blah blah blah.)

I hate to burst the netroots bubble, but I think that if we look at the big picture, this is all silly business. Unless something truly insane and unprecedented happens, Barack Obama has absolutely no chance of winning the nomination for president, nor does John Edwards. My or anyone else's speculations about whether either one is Hillary Clinton's stalking horse are silly.

It does not matter.

What matters is that Hillary Clinton is simply going to be The Candidate.

She doesn't need no stupid stalking horse.

It's been nearly a year since Walter Shapiro opined that for numerous reasons Hillary was an unstoppable juggernaut -- a view that has only become more painfully obvious since then.

Having way more money than anyone else, the best campaign organization headed by the best campaigner in American history, an early start, and name recognition fueled by the immense popularity of a husband who easily could have been elected overwhelmingly to a third term -- these things all not only count, they make her nomination a foregone conclusion.

To me, it's painfully obvious common sense -- and it is of course all borne out by the polls.

Real Clear Politics:

Clinton 37.4
Obama 17.8
Edwards 12.4
I'd list the other candidates, but why be silly?

American Research Group breaks the race down by state, and in every state Clinton is way ahead of all the rest of the ostensible candidates. Her range is from 35% as high as 41% -- with everyone else in the teens or lower.

Opposition to Hillary amounts to tokenism, puffed up (in my view at least) by a left wing blogosphere out of touch with reality and a very willing media which likes to create the impression that real grassroots democracy is at work.

I would love nothing more than to be proved wrong about this, and if I am, it will be the biggest, longest running error in the history of this blog, as I have predicted a Hillary presidency for years.

In my view, the real clincher for me will prove to be tacit (passive aggressive) support from the Republican right wing, which is divided right now into two pitiful camps. One camp still engages in Hillary Denial, maintaining that she cannot win, that people don't really like her, and thus she will prove easy to beat. (An echo of the Democrats' early Ronald Reagan Denial.)

The other camp is now having the audacity to come out openly in support of Hillary. Not just her campaign, but of a Hillary administration. They think it will revive the right wing.

If you don't believe me about this, read the immortal words of Tom DeLay:

Hillary Clinton as president may be the best thing that ever happened to the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, when enough people want something to happen, it will happen.

Sure, the right wing think tankers will deny that they want Hillary to win, but I'd say the old fixeroo is in. They don't just want Hillary, they need her.

What really bothers me is what I think is an emerging new development. At the risk of sounding cynical, I think the right wing needs her so badly that they're more and more willing to sit back and forgo mounting a serious conservative challenge to Giuliani and McCain. If a Republican moderate "sellout" loses to Hillary, so much the better. The loss won't be blamed on "the right" (although the truth that will be missed is no right wing Republican could possibly beat her) and the Demonic Red Queen will be on the throne! There's no way that this will be seen as the fault of the "divided and dispirited" conservative GOP wing, and the latter can all happily "regroup" for the inevitable long march "back."

I feel like saying "spare me," but I should spare the clichés.

I think I'm going to need them.

UPDATE: I have to say that despite my darker fears, Giuliani is looking pretty darned good!

But will Tom DeLay and company vote for him?

Not if this interview is any indication.

AND MORE: Giuliani is a Native New Yorker. Normally, this wouldn't count for much. But if he runs against Hillary, he could remind everyone that he's actually from New York. (Where he used to prosecute criminals before his opponent's husband pardoned them....)

While he was at it, I suppose he could also ask whether anyone remembered the FALN terrorist pardons...

posted by Eric on 02.11.07 at 09:05 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4600






Comments

Hillary has all but put up loudspeakers that she expects the Dem nomination as an entitlement. She is the heir-apparent.

Right now I think she views the other candidates campaigns as a beauty pageant from which she'll choose her veep.

Watch for Hill to approach the Obama camp early on.

Breck Boy is just this season's comedy relief (after Biden flamed out at the starting gate)

(a note: Pastor Edwards is getting his money's worth from Amanda...she's deleting every commenter that even mildly disagrees with his policy proposals)

RE the GOP, IMHO this is why you're seeing the anti-Romney sentiment amongst a lot of Republicans... he IS a solid conservative candidate, but they really don't want to "waste" him against Hill this time around.

I don't think Hill will be on par with Jhimmi Carter, but she's no Bill. (who has been conspicuous by his absense when she appears in public)

Darleen   ·  February 11, 2007 01:22 PM

"One camp still engages in Hillary Denial, maintaining that she cannot win, that people don't really like her, and thus she will prove easy to beat. (An echo of the Democrats' early Ronald Reagan Denial.)"

An even better example would be Richard Nixon, who, prior to the 1968 election, was just as intensely hated and despised by the Left as Hillary is now by the Right. The Left, however, erroneously assumed that Nixon was equally despised by the electorate as a whole, which obviously turned out not to be the case.

Caius Marcius   ·  February 11, 2007 03:45 PM

I'll believe it when I see it. I think she will be the Democratic nominee, but I dont see how she beats McCain or Giuliani.

I dont think Obama will be the VP nominee either. I dont think Hillary likes him much, and I really dont think he would be any help to the ticket. Richardson or Bayh would be much better choices. Blacks dont even like Obama much.

Jonesy   ·  February 11, 2007 05:23 PM

Jonesy, I hope you're right! I'll say this for Hillary: she's making Giuliani and McCain look great. Whether they're looking that way to the right wing, I don't know.

Eric Scheie   ·  February 11, 2007 05:26 PM

McCain has earned the dislike and distrust of too many, IMHO, to be viable against HRC. He'd do better as Hillary's VP, with his willingness to ignore the Bill of Rights. Rudy at least has the history of turning down big bucks from a Saudi prince, something far more politicians should have done.

Stewart   ·  February 11, 2007 08:34 PM

I think it will be a New York vs. New York election.

M. Simon   ·  February 11, 2007 11:55 PM
"The other camp is now having the audacity to come out openly in support of Hillary. Not just her campaign, but of a Hillary administration. They think it will revive the right wing." - Eric

And people wonder why they're called The Stupid Party. *eyeroll*

Be interesting to watch. I've been predicting for years that sHrillary has too many negatives to win unless the Republicans do something idiotic like run a Buchannan against her.

Running McCain against her may be the equivalent.

Ironbear   ·  February 12, 2007 06:32 AM

New Yorkers remember the last Mayor of New York that stepped into the Presidency. And rather think that anyone that can run a police force as large as some armies, have to deal with all the diplomatic problems of the UN, cope with the Unions, deal harshly with the Mafia and the corruption of NYC politics is more than ready enough to deal with lousy terrorists and unready Allies.

The City if not the State remembers that... and knows that the Mayor promised to keep the City going no matter *what* would befall the Nation. He could not know what else was in store nor what the future was, but New York City would not fall, even if the Nation did. My guess is that is how the people of New York see him.

And there is a lot to see of that previous Mayor in this one.

ajacksonian   ·  February 13, 2007 09:24 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits