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.
On her worst day, Hillary would be a better president than any of the GOP contenders on their best day. That still does not make her my first or second choice. I believe in all honesty that she'd throw my ass under the bus without hesitation just because she didn't like my outfit. Look what her husband Bill did to his Gay supporters, twice! She likes power way too much for me to want her to be President.
Huckabee is a dangerous candidate in that he's smart and charming. He also provides the greatest contrast to Hillary. I believe she'd win, but it would be close.
Posted by: Houston Bridges | September 19, 2007 at 06:37 PM
He also provides the greatest contrast to Hillary. I believe she'd win, but it would be close.
If that's true, he'd also get the people disaffected by Hillary's DLCism back into the fold quick. No one is buying that Naderite "things gotta get worse before they'll get better" bullshit anymore.
Posted by: Mithras | September 19, 2007 at 07:25 PM
Of course no one is buying it, now that things have gotten worse ... not such a hot idea, was it?
I'm starting to lean towards HRC myself, for a number of reasons, one of them being she's the only one running a campaign that's worth shit. Doesn't matter how progressive you are; if you don't know what to do with the sharp end of the stick you can't win. I suspect she's been planning this campaign for a long time. She seems to have a pretty good idea what she has to do to neutralize her negatives and move herself forward.
Huckabee is for sure the Republican I fear the most (i.e., at all). I don't understand why he's not a lock for the nomination. He's got the Christian Right bona fides and the ability (so it seems) to moderate them for a mass audience. He's a governor without any inconvenient Senate votes that can be hung around his neck. Maybe I too am underestimating the Repbulcian base's insanity.
As far as Romney being a danger, I don't see it. I can't look at the guy without thinking I'm watching a bad Evil Dead ripoff starring a third-rate Bruce Campbell look-alike. That is to say, he just screams "phony". I guess if you want "change" he's your man: he changes his positions faster, more often, and more completely than anyone else alive.
Posted by: FreakyBeaky | September 21, 2007 at 01:26 AM
i don't think she's a lock. she has a substantial lead over both edwards and obama, but it's smaller than the lead that dean had against kerry in 2004.
but that was before new hampshire and iowa. if something weird happens there next year, it will stir the pot, and who knows how that will turn out. HRC could end up on top, but just as easily she could not.
and personally, i think all of them, clinton, obama, edwards, even "second tier" people like richardson, can beat any of the republican nominees. it has less to do with them and more to do with the mood of the country and the republican's complete unwillingness to make a break from the cult of bush.
Posted by: upyernoz | September 21, 2007 at 11:39 AM
i think all of them, clinton, obama, edwards, even "second tier" people like richardson can beat any of the republican nominees
Yup!
Posted by: Mithras | September 21, 2007 at 12:28 PM