At DL last night, I tried to get Brendan riled up by saying, "Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the next President". Now, you have to understand, politically Brendan makes me look like Dick Cheney. But he just said, "You're probably right." I was going to blog that this morning, but had second thoughts because, well, it's September 2007. But then Scott Lemieux writes:
Understanding that a lot can happen, etc., and without quite being
ready enough to say "lock," I think that it's pretty much over.
And apparently Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias agree. I think it's interesting that people seem to be drawing this conclusion independently and at the same time. For me, it's the realization that Clinton has a number of factors in her favor, has campaigned hard and will continue to do so, and has access to lots of money.
We'll have to see whether this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with regard to the nomination.
Scott also says:
I think she's both the least progressive and the weakest presidential
candidate of [her, Obama and Edwards.]
Least progressive, without a doubt. Weakest candidate? On what planet? People keep talking about her high negatives, as if they could go higher. You want to throw out historical precedents about people with high negatives becoming the nominee, then I think that's exactly what you should do - throw them out. Bill Clinton's presidency and Hillary's tenure as First Lady were sui generis. You can't make historical analogies because you never had the right-wing attack machine crank up like that before.
The way I see it, her negatives can't go any higher, while Edwards' and Obama's would skyrocket if the GOP guns were trained on them. What can you say about Hillary that hasn't already been said? On the other hand, it would be easy to dirty up Edwards or Obama. Easy. And that leaves them trying to counter that mudslinging all campaign. I think people are gravitating toward Hillary, consciously or not, because she has been there before and knows what to do. Unlike Kerry. Unlike Gore, even.
Now, who will be the GOP nominee? Back in May I said McCain, because obviously my crystal ball was out being repaired. I thought after Bush the Republicans would go for substance, even if he wasn't pure conservative. Well, I guess I was wrong. Once again, I underestimated how fucking insane the Republican base is.
So, who would I like the GOP nominee to be? Guiliani. He knows nothing and it shows. And he's arrogant and aggressive, which will lead him into a whole heap of trouble real fast. Second, Thompson, because I think he'll come off as an empty suit. Least favorite: Romney. As someone said at DL last night, "He'd be toughest to beat because he'll lie his ass off. He'll lie to the right wing to get nominated, then he'll lie to the center to try to win." And I added that our press corps would do jack shit to call him on it, so I think that's right. I guess Huckabee's a wild card, but I still don't take him seriously.
We shall see.
Recent Comments