I don't think Hillary's the "inevitable" Democratic nominee. Almost any political candidate is only dumb comment away from losing a big lead. Hillary deserves the big lead she currently enjoys. She's the best of the Democratic candidates. But she's just as capable of blowing it with an off-hand comment or poorly calculated statement as anybody else.
But there is one sign of Hillary inevitability out there.
Conservatives like David Brooks and William Kristol have moved from wanting Hillary nominated because they think they can beat her to wanting her nominated because they think they can influence her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Just wait until the other Hsu drops.
Here's why: Andrew Sullivan says it all:
"The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy."
Just because conservatives think they can influence Hillary doesn't mean they will.
I don't think she's any different than Obama here. Right now, she'd leave no more than 15,000-20,000 troops in Iraq for training and protecting the Kurds. But that's down from the 70,000 she was projecting earlier in the year and I suspect she'll lose interest in the training idea which seems increasingly futile.
There's another problem with the Hillary as Bush continuity thesis. Hillary holds grudges and there's nobody she holds a bigger grudge against than the right.
I'll be surprised if she lets the right into the game any more than she absolutely has to.
Because holding a grudge is an excellent way to run a country Caric. Personally, if Hillary is elected, and that is far from some foregone conclusion to everyone not named Caric, I will smile proudly when she does not cut and run, surrender, or "re-deploy" upon taking office. And the Left will ignore it, because she is one of theirs.
One of the interesting things is that neither the anti-war left nor DLC moderates think of H. Clinton as one of their own. To the extent that Hillary is claimed, it's by labor and by unorganized constituency groups like women and to a lesser extent African-Americans. My 72 year old mom in Upstate NY (who used to be a Republican) is pretty emphatic about being interested in and liking Hillary because she's a prominent female politician who "owns" being a woman in a way that someone like Diane Feinstein does not.
I find Hillary too centrist for my tastes too. I will accept her if it comes to that.
But, JD, you're missing the point. The ONLY presidential candidate calling for immediate withdrawal (not named Paul, Gravel, or Kucininch) is Bill Richardson. It would be nice to know what the Republicans think, but they never mention Iraq.... The Dems, on the hand, plan on redeploying troops to protect the Kurds, blow up terrorists, and launch airstrikes. The idea that the Dems are a bunch of limp-wristed girlie men and women who answer toe Code Pink and ANSWER is not just correct. Stop reading the Goldstein and Right wing Sparkle and branch out. Try candidate websites, they often contain a candidates beliefs.
PS. Strangely, Fred Thompson's is blank!
There is rarely an "inevitable" nominee in either party. There are inevitable losers in both parties.
Hillary certainly is the strongest candidate right now. She is certainly the most qualified. She could blow the whole thing but it would be very out of character. She is not given to off-the-cuff comments about sensitive issues yet she does not come across as overly scripted as Al Gore did in 2000.
My guess is, she'll be just fine through the caucus/primary phase of the campaign and will go on to a solid win next November. I feel confident in making that statement.
Post a Comment