CAMPAIGN 2008: HILLARY WALKS THE PLANK
I don’t envy Hillary Clinton one bit.
With meticulous and calculated care over the last 7 or 8 months, Senator Clinton has crafted - brilliantly in my opinion - a centrist personae designed to entice moderates and perhaps even moderate conservatives to her banner while not alienating her base of support with the left wing of the Democratic party. It has been a tightrope walk worthy of a star circus performer. And what makes Mrs. Clinton’s political changeling strategy even more remarkable is that she’s had the assistance of some heavy hitting Republican conservatives as she maneuvers toward the center in anticipation of the election.
After initially voting for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq and then harshly criticizing Administration war policy in the lead up to the election last November, Mrs. Clinton took a high profile trip to Iraq with none other than John McCain and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In Iraq, Mrs. Clinton praised the government of then Prime Minister Allawi and declared her belief that the insurgents were losing. Since then, she has come out against any kind of timed withdrawal from Iraq, stating that events on the ground should dictate the pace of the troops’ homecoming not an artificial timetable. Her views on Iraq won her praise from McCain and other Republicans while establishing her bona fides as a hawkish Democrat capable of leading the country in wartime.
She has also enlisted the help of former Speaker of the House and notorious liberal bugbear Newt Gingrich to promote health care issues. While the duo would seem to be the odd couple of the year, both are policy wonks with a passion for issues - similarities that seemed to overcome some of the more striking differences in their personalities.
Other Republican Senators like Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham have also had praise for Hillary’s ability to work with the other side and compromise to get things done. And that’s been the key to Hillary’s strategy; not only has she tried to sidle toward the center on issues of importance but she has also attempted to establish her credentials as a “can-do” Senator who is not only an advocate for issues but a leader who can accomplish what she sets out to do.
Indeed, Hillary’s transformation has been a marvel; that is, until this week. In the last few days Mrs. Clinton has run smack into the apparent contradictions of her transformation; she just can’t be all things to all people. This was never more evident when she agreed to meet with Mother Moonbat Cindy Sheehan and announced that she will vote “nay” on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.
There is no way that Hillary Clinton could have won in the primaries without voting against Roberts. And by meeting with Sheehan (albeit, in a brilliant political maneuver for both of them, she and McCain will meet Sheehan together thus giving each other political cover) Clinton maintains a tenuous connection with the anti-war left.
The vote against Roberts was a foregone conclusion. With the pro-choice 527’s dead set against him, Hillary would have been committing political hari-kari by supporting him. In her statement explaining her vote, Clinton tries rather lamely to have her cake and eat it to:
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation.
By appearing to straddle, she does herself no good with either moderates or her lefty base. That said, Clinton had very little choice in the matter seeing that the expectations for her candidacy have already generated an enormous amount of excitement among hard-left feminists and pro-choice advocates. These groups will make up the backbone of her candidacy in the primaries and she couldn’t very well alienate them by voting for someone who could very well be a deciding vote on overturning Roe v Wade. And unless the President’s next nominee to replace Justice O’Connor is pro-choice - a very unlikely possibility - she will probably vote against that nominee as well.
The Sheehan gambit with McCain came about as a result of a perceived slight on Senator Clinton’s part when the anti-war bus tour was in New York. Evidently, the home town papers made a big deal of Clinton not meeting with her then (no mainstream Democrat will touch Sheehan with a ten foot pole since her comments on Israel, 9/11, and Bin Laden have received widespread exposure) which necessitated the change in strategy. Although not as important as her nay vote on Roberts, the Sheehan meeting is still a potent signal to the anti-war left that she hasn’t entirely abandoned them.
Indeed, Clinton has been caught in a trap that every Democrat since 1972 has found themselves. In order to get nominated for the office of President, a Democrat must be liberal enough to energize the base of the party so that primary voters will come out in the dead of winter in Iowa and New Hampshire to support their candidacy and lefty donors will open their pocketbooks to supply enough funds to buy the TV time necessary to have a viable candidacy. But once nominated, the putative candidate then must scramble toward the middle of the political spectrum in order to woo the independents necessary to win the Presidency.
This has proven impossible for every Democratic Presidential candidate for the last 25 years except her husband. Bill Clinton was helped by the fact that he was a southern governor whose policies in Arkansas were necessarily moderate although during the primary campaign, he was able to sound an awful lot like a liberal. The end result for Clinton was that he was able to peel the deep southern states of Louisiana and Georgia away from the Republican column and deny Bush #41 the border states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Those states pretty much gave Clinton his margin of victory in the electoral college in 1992.
Due to the fact that the country is much more polarized today, Hillary will be denied any “Southern Strategy” to garner the necessary electoral votes to win in a general election. She won’t have to. With states like Florida and Ohio so closely divided as well as some other toss-up states like West Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, and New Mexico, it wouldn’t take much for a smart Democrat like Hillary to put together the 270 electoral votes necessary to win in the general election.
Hillary’s political moves this week were necessary but have set her back a bit in her quest to appear more moderate. There will be other pitfalls for her candidacy in the months ahead that will test her political skills to the limit including the possible failure of elections in Iraq, the rebuilding of New Orleans, and perhaps dealing with a Bird Flu pandemic as early as this winter. And there’s very little difference in politics between walking the tightrope and walking the plank; it’s all in how the balancing act is received by both your supporters and your political enemies.
Her husband was one of the best politicians in my lifetime. And while Hillary has demonstrated a knack for the sport, it remains to be seen if she has the skills and the staying power to make it all the way to the top.
As I wrote earlier, I guess she believes that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned before ‘08.
Coming out against John Roberts, provides an opportunity, if Roe is overturned to be the one that says, “I told you so.â€, as part of her ‘08 run for The White House. If it does not, it only becomes an issue moderates willbeat her up on.
This vote shows her true colors versus her crafted political image.
Comment by Dean — 9/23/2005 @ 11:44 am
It is also important to note that since ‘72; Carter was able to get into office due primarily to the scandal of Watergate and that Bill’s success may owe more to Ross Perot’s ability to peel off votes.
Comment by Jack — 9/23/2005 @ 12:29 pm
Clinton would be a likely winner against any candidate that the Republicans put up, unfortunately.
Give her New York, the reliably Democrat Northeast (MA, DE, NJ, ME, RI, VT, and CT); then add in solid Democrat states (D.C., HI, WV, MN, and CA); and give her the swing Democrat states of FL, PA, MI, IL, and OH; and she’s got 262 electoral votes. All she needs is 8 other votes from a swing area, and it’s over. Very, very sad, but over.
I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think she’s already won.
Comment by Ogre — 9/23/2005 @ 2:40 pm
There is no doubt Bill Clinton’s southern governor pedigree helped him win in 1992, but I beleive there was much more to it than just that. I am surprised to see no mention of the affect Ross Perot had on the election. Perot got 19% of the popular vote and, while he won no electoral votes, he is widely believed to have peeled far more votes away from Bush than from Clinton, allowing Clinton to win a number of states WITHOUT winning the popular vote in that state. Sans Perot, serious doubt could be cast upon Clinton’s ability to have won.
Comment by BSR — 9/23/2005 @ 3:24 pm
Hillary has had a free ride–so far. There has been no need for conservatives to attack her–no political gain, and only the ire of the nut-case left. But once the stakes are raised, that is in a national election, she will be a sitting duck. She is associated with a stained, failed presidency. Her own laundry is soiled. She will be shown for what she is. And she does not have Bill’s ability to lie convincingly. She’ll go down in flames and take the democrat party with her.
Comment by Ned Crouch — 9/24/2005 @ 9:20 am
Tough to argue with much of what is presented here. The results that matter will be in 08 and what happens then will depend upon -her opponent -the mood of the country - will we be at war -can the country trust her to lead in time of war -the pro-death crowd will be willing to wink at her pretense moves toward center now, but will people risk having this ashtray thrower’s finger near the nuclear button as well as having to deal with at least two belligerant nuke powers and terrorism. Time will tell! I’ll predict it will be one hell of a fight with the left pulling stuff that will make their present shenannigans seem like kindergarten games!
Comment by DL — 9/24/2005 @ 12:12 pm
Countdown to the weekend
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … Weekend!
Trackback by NIF — 9/25/2005 @ 12:38 am
to Ogre:
I think you might be a little premature in awarding any Democrat Florida, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Minnesota. The first two are more likely Republican; the last three could go either way.
But Hillary is definitely trying to be all things to all people - she’s come out against the IFC in NY.
Comment by Giacomo — 9/25/2005 @ 5:57 am
It’s not hard to figure why GOP senators want to cosy up to Hillary. They are more than half convinced that they will lose their majority in the senate in next year’s election. So, they make nice in hopes of being treated nice when they become the minority again. This strategy has never worked in the past, but no one ever confused the senate with a Mensa convention.
Comment by J. Keen Holland — 9/25/2005 @ 6:51 am
Very good analysis. I had come to much the same conclusion. If Hillary and other Democrats would simply jettison the far left from their midst, she and the other Democrats would easily walk into power. If the Democrats would have simply denounced the far left elements in their midst and rebuked them, John Kerry would be the President and the Democrats would likely control both the House and the Senate. For some reason they won’t jettison the far left from their midst. This is either because: 1.)At heart they are far leftists, such as the groups who support Cindy Sheehan and they recognize that to openly appeal to the far left will will turn off the independent voters and they will lose elections so they must throw a few bones to the center even though they actually agree with the anti-American far left postion. 2.) They are actually centerists at heart but they recognize that in order to win elections they must keep the anti-American left in the fold. I think # 1 is more likely. The Democrats don’t need the far left to win an election. If they would simply denounce this group and distance themselves from them, they would get the independent vote and the Republicans would be history. The fact that Hillary and the Democras will not do this indicates to me that they actually support far leftists such as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and their agenda. The Democrats need to maintain credibility. Openly supporting the far left will lead to a loss of credibility, as far left positions are easily refuteable to anyone willing to do the research.
As I have said before, either Rudy Giulani or John McCaon will be the Republican nominee for 2008. Before the fiasco that was the Governmental response to Hurricane Katrina I would have said it was a toss up between Giulani and McCain. Given Guilani’s successful response to 911, I think the nomination goes to Giulani unless he does not want it. The race is between Giulani and McCain all other Republicans need not apply. While Hillary’s political strategy has been brilliant, perhaps the most brilliant strategy of all has been that carried out by the Republicans. The Republicans get the Democrats and the Democrat allies in the main stream news media to attack “Conservatives”, “Neo-Conservatives”, and the “Religous Right,” The afore mentioned groups have very little power in the Republican party. This only strengthens Rudy Giuliani and John McCain who actually represent the Republcian party.
Comment by B.Poster — 9/25/2005 @ 7:46 pm
Sorry B.Poster, but the Democrats will NOT jettison the far left because it is from them, Soros and company, that they get most of their campaign funds. In the previous Bill Clinton elections, it was the Hollywood crowd, leftist business associates and other radical organizations that furnished most of his election monies. In politics, money talks everything else walks.
Comment by docdave — 9/26/2005 @ 7:06 am
docdave
Thanks for the response to my post. I had come to largely the conclusion you had. It is true that the left contributes most of the money to the Democrats. If the Democrats want to win elections, in the short run, they don’t need the far left. If they abandon the far left, they will pick up support from independents and money will come in from elsewhere. They will not jettison the far left. I suspect they will not do this because they are anti-American leftists at heart. Until the Democrats distance themselves from the far left, it seems to me the only way they will be able to win elections is if one or more of the following happens: 1.) The economy completely fails. 2.)Iraq completely falls apart. 3.)There is another terrorist attack on American soil. The far left elements understand this and are actively working to try and make these things happen. They are truly revolting.
Comment by B.Poster — 9/26/2005 @ 9:12 am
Yeah right, Hillary Clinton against a nuke-filled Islamic-fascist state called Iran(all thanks to the EU and the UN)
She’d probably give Iran MORE weapons (like her hushand did for North Korea) just to get massive politcal campaign funds.
Comment by susan — 9/26/2005 @ 8:08 pm
Ms. Clinton will NOT prevail the DNC appears to think flip-flopping the issues will gain partisanship across the lib/mod/left/center - never happen. It just exposes them for not having any original thoughts.
Big advice for the Clintonistas - do NOT perpetuate the Cindy Sheehan circus by meeting with her for any reason. Any capitulation on her or McCain’s part to this nutbag - automatic disqualification from the 2008 race.
Comment by Cheryl — 9/26/2005 @ 8:48 pm
Oops, I meant China (sorry for the projection)
Comment by susan — 9/27/2005 @ 7:22 am
Some Call It A Bonfire (Or Carnival) Of Classiness…
We call it “Classiness, All Around Us.” Click to explore more WILLisms.com. In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents classiness from the blogosphere: 1. Faith-Based Groups- Ankle Biting Pundits notes that some on the left are angry about faith-b…
Trackback by WILLisms.com — 9/27/2005 @ 2:56 pm
Hillary Agrees to meet with Cindy Sheehan
Being that Hillary was an anti-war protester back in college, it should be interesting to see how she pulls herself out of the extreme leftist rhetoric of Cindy Sheehan.
Hillary Agrees to Meet Cindy Sheehan
Hillary and the Black Panthers: The Real …
Trackback by Cao's Blog — 9/27/2005 @ 3:00 pm
The Adventures of the Cosmic Mighty Force
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … Kerry-180 time!
Trackback by NIF — 9/27/2005 @ 8:26 pm
Politics is a carefully crafted art.
Comment by LASunsett — 9/29/2005 @ 8:29 pm