Yes, Hillary Will Win The Nomination. Repudiating The Clintons Would Be Unthinkable.
Democratic Voters Just Can't Quit The Clintons
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Hillary Clinton — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We've all heard the whispers, we've all seen the signs, we've all read the polls: Hillary Clinton is trailing Barack Obama in Iowa, her lead is in single digits in New Hampshire and within the margin of error in South Carolina. Youth and idealism will triumph. The Power of Oprah will turn the tide. Everybody's saying she could suddenly be vulnerable; lots of people are saying out loud that she could lose. All of our expectations could be unsettled; we could be facing Obama after all, an opponent who brings a wholly different set of strengths and vulnerabilitites to the table.
Don't believe it.
Read On...
Sure, it's tempting to think the Democrats will have a real race on their hands, and perhaps for a time they will. But fundamentally, primary elections are dominated and decided by partisans - people who identify with a party and go to the effort of registering and showing up to vote in intraparty elections. People who feel strongly about their side, in short. And when you consider the psychology of the typical partisan on either side, and apply it to the situation of Democratic voters in 2008, it becomes quickly apparent why it will be impossible for a critical mass of such partisans to be convinced to vote against Hillary.
Jonah Goldberg aptly describes how the Clintons are playing to their partisan crowd:
Bill Clinton has been stumping for his wife on the Iowa hustings, framing the election as a referendum on his tenure as president. . .
Last summer, when he first started hawking Hillary like a door-to-door salesman, he told a crowd: "I know some people say, 'Look at them. They're old. They're sort of yesterday's news.'...
"Well," Slick Willie said, grinning, "yesterday's news was pretty good."
Indeed, Hillary's entire campaign has been grounded in her experience in the Clinton administration of the 1990s, even though that experience mostly involves designing a failed health-care plan and unsuccessfully hectoring her husband to move to the left. Still, as New York Times editorial writer Adam Cohen noted in a column last week, it was her decision to make the choice between her and Barack Obama a "referendum on a decade."
Why is this important? Because it explains why Democrats who vote in primaries simply cannot pull the lever against Hillary: it would mean admitting that returning the Clintons to the White House would not be the greatest of all possible things. It's inconceivable. (And yes, Democrats of all people are very practiced at refusing to understand what that word means). Sure, left-wing ideologues and activists may be willing to do that, especially those who ground their teeth for 8 years and viewed the Clintons as little more than moderate Republicans. But not the rank and file of the party.
We Republicans have had 5 Presidents in the past 40 years; we can retain some perspective on their respective weaknesses. Besides Carter, who ended in defeat so ignominious that nobody but maybe Chris Matthews defends him on any grounds other than being well-intentioned, Clinton is all Democrats have, and his Administration must therefore be held up as All Things Good. And if you are emotionally invested in the idea that Clinton was a great president and all criticisms of him were manifestations of right-wing mania, right-wing racism, right-wing conspiracy, right-wing-being-threatened-by-powerful-women, and right-wing latent homosexuality (the Sid Blumenthal theory, I kid you not), it is nearly impossible to construct a justification for refusing a third helping, unless you are morally convinced that she cannot win in November. And the Clintons' prior record of electoral success, for a party that has lost so many national elections, stands as a barrier to that argument as well.
As Jim Geraghty has noted, this is doubly the case because of how hard rank and file Democrats dug themselves in against the scandals of the Clinton years:
Whitewater, the cattle futures, the disappearing and reappearing billing records - on every scandal, most grassroots Democrats came to her defense, and insisted she was the blameless victim of a partisan witch hunt. When health care reform went down in flames, they had to overlook her faults. Chinese fundraising? Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom? Time and again, they looked at emerging facts - or perhaps the proper metaphor is closed their eyes - and declared, "it is not her fault, she has done nothing wrong."
Finally, the women: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky: on each of them, grassroots Democrats told themselves, and the rest of the country, that the charges were false, that this wasn't the public's concern, that each and every one of the tawdry tales was a puritan smear job of the right-wing conspiracy.
We laughed at Michael Kelly's "I Believe" column. To our friends on the left, there was nothing funny or ironic about it.
Now, these same Democrats are supposed to be persuaded when Obama or Edwards brings up the pardon of Marc Rich? They're supposed to turn on her because one of them reminds them of disappearing White House silverware?
Declaring that Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong is as instinctive as breathing to many Democrats now.
Nominating Obama or Edwards over Hillary now would invalidate all of those defenses over the years. It would mean her critics had a point all these years, and they cannot concede that core belief they've held close to their hearts for a decade and a half. Democrats aren't just supportive of Hillary Clinton's rise to the presidency: they're emotionally and intellectually invested in it.
Goldberg underlines how this would play out if Hillary is repudiated by her own party:
[I]f Hillary Clinton loses the race for the nomination -- heck, even if she just loses the Iowa caucuses -- I hope to see this headline somewhere, perhaps in the New York Post: "America to Clinton(s): We're Just Not That Into You."
The rush of schadenfreude would be so overwhelming, the entire Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy would have to hie itself to its fainting couch.
Heck, Rush Limbaugh would enter the Guiness Book for schadenfreude. Can you imagine Rush's reaction? I tell you this, somewhere in their heart of hearts, Democrats all across this land of ours will enter the voting booth with that miniature Voice of Rush playing somewhere in the back of their heads, laughing and laughing and laughing, and they will tell themselves that Obama is young and it's not his turn yet. And they will pull the lever for Bill's wife.
Remember: no matter what else we may think strategically about 2008, if Hillary were rejected by her own party, every one of us would do The Jig To End All Jigs over her defeat. That's a sound Democratic primary voters simply cannot hear.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Let's Return to My Huckabee Thoughts [UPDATED with info on Ron Paul] — Comments (119) »
Yes, Hillary Will Win The Nomination. Repudiating The Clintons Would Be Unthinkable. 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
What a great read. It puts the Clintons prospects in a different light for me. Well done!
The Clintons rode the crest of the boomers into their peak power years. But that tide is receding. Obama is the same age as when Bill won in 1992. There are demographic factors at work that are unpredictable. And a new generation of twentysomethings is in the mix now, too.
one, the first mortgage company that I worked at I worked with Syd Blumenthal's brother, Ed.
Two, I think this analysis is a bit convoluted with all due respect. I think that Hillary's main strength in the primary is her deep rooted organization which is vital in the primary.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
And if you look at the early-state polls and national polls, she's got a 20-30 point lead everywhere but those three states. Hillary has deep roots that will be hard to shake. I'm just touching here on the psychological factors at work beyond the day-to-day business of the campaign.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that Bill's popularity will carry over to HRC.
There is an enormous amount of antipathy towards HRC. She just rubs folks like a burlap suit. In that regard she is the antithesis of Bill Clinton.
I wouldn't bet against Obama. Yes, he's inexperienced and vague on the issues, but why would that stop Dems from voting for him?
He's the new face of the party and he brings an energy and charisma that is undeniable.
I hope they nominate HRC. She can be beaten fairly easily by the right Republican I believe. No. That's not Huckabee. I'll vote for HRC over Huck. I trust her more with our national security. I'll have to take several hot showers afterwards but I won't vote for Huckabee. I think any of the other GOP possibles would have a good chance at beating her.
If Obama wins the nod I think we are in real trouble. I don't think we have a candidate, with the possible exception of Rudy, that can stand up to the force of nature that is Obama.
I would prefer that Rudy, Fred, or Mitt is the nominee. They impress me as stronger on foreign policy/GWOT and especially Rudy and Fred seem to be very dedicated to nominating strict constructionist judges.
However, I consider Mike Huckabee much better on judges and other issues overall than Clinton or Obama.
I think it is true that Mike Huckabee is the most ethical governor Arkansas has had in the last 20 years. Now a wise-guy might add, "And that isn't saying much." But if it is Huckabee vs Clinton, people who vote for the most ethical candidate will vote for Huckabee.
I fear that Clinton would be terrible on judges. Also our country became significantly less secure after 8 years of Clinton administration - I don't want a repeat.
I think Rudy or Fred would be a much stronger candidate in the general than Huckabee, but if Huckabee is the nominee he will not lose the general election because of my vote.
Huckabee campaigned against Republicans who weren't in favor of his tax increases...
Sooo... does that mean we'll see President Huckabee out there campaigning against DeMint and Coburn and Ensign when he's president and they don't "have his back" on the fair tax or the myriad of other "taxes, user fees, etc" he'll pass when he can't get the fairtax through and Democrats are interested in PAYGO when it's not even needed?
Because he's a lightweight.
There's not a whole lot he'll manage to do, and his Presidency will probably be about atmospherics rather than substance. We'll loathe him and get sick and tired of seeing his face and hearing his voice (which in a proper world would never be heard outside of a University seminar room).
But I don't fear that he'll cause "real trouble." (Unless Hu Jintao decides to find out what he's made of and tries to replay the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
Hillary, on the other hand, can create an immense amount of damage, with or without a strengthened Democrat majority in Congress.
And no, I'm not planning to vote for Obama. I'm just answering your point about being in "real trouble."
he could be real bad, like another Jimmy Carter. Carter was a lightweight, and a holier than thou scold, and a true leftwing believer. Just like Obama. He could do a lot of damage.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't rate Obama as having either the imagination, the force of character, or the sheer political ability to force wholesale changes in America's legislative landscape.
I don't know if Clinton does either, but in her case I'm not inclined to bet against it.
Either one will do huge damage through the incredible power of their executive appointments. Obama strikes me not so much a true leftwing believer, but more as a guy who just has never thought any other way.
The Carter (and JFK) comparisons are closer in one key respect: having a creampuff in the White House is known to encourage the rest of the world to get aggressive and adventurous.
And in respect to FP, Hillary is likely to be either a creampuff or something far worse: given that her toughness on foreign challengers has always been questioned, she may feel the need to prove that she has big testicles. And that's extremely dangerous.
and I agree with you when it comes to bad legislation, but think Obama would be more dangerous as Commander-in-Chief. Hillary has some terrible foreign policy ideas but one thing you can't accuse her of is being unserious.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"Dangerous" is precisely the word I've used repeatedly to describe Obama. The guy would destroy this country. Hillary would merely damage things slightly.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I have heard much about Obama's optimism.
I have heard much about Obama's ability to inspire.
I have heard very little about Obama's organizational skills.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He could have fallen into several traps laid by Clinton, but he didn't.
Still, the Clintons control the money and the organization. Obama, in the end will go back and run for Governor of Illinois after Hillary wins the nomination. He'll win that governorship, learn how to be an administrator, then plot his Comeback.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
managed to receive 80 million in personal contributions.
He's only 10 million behind Hillary and well ahead of any Republican.
He has waged a pretty sound campaign so far. He hasn't overreached or stepped on any landmines. He has also managed to bring his name back to the forefront whenever his star has waned.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...but surely you must admit that one doesn't hear paeans to the good Senator's bandobast, what-what?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
For me to find a definition for the word bandobast?
Not only had I never heard of the word but you threw me a curve and spelled it wrong. bundobust. I assume that this is some obscure literary reference that you English major types were forced to read?
While I may not hear paeans for his bundobust if you look in retrospect he has had a remarkably steady campaign. He seems to do a pretty solid job of tacking left and center when necessary.
The fact that the Democratic race is so tight right now is a testament to his campaign. Hillary was the heir apparent 6 months ago. That can't really be said, unless you are a Republican that really wants Hillary.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...my spelling pops up in a Google search readily enough; and it is a shame and a pity that you clearly have not read any of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman novels. You're missing out.
Getting back on track... (shrug) sorry, man, but there's nothing particularly impressive about Obama's organization, and where you say "steady" I say "quiet." We'll see if there's a difference once he gets hit with the political equivalent of a two-by-four a couple of times.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I have not. I will take a look at it.
I guess we all see what we want to see. :)
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...GMF has a definite feel for the Regency and Victorian era. Fair warning: the... protagonist... is deliberately designed to be precisely the sort of person you'd enjoy reading about, but to never, ever, ever, EVER trust with anything in real life.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
isn't this what helped Bush win the R nomination in 2000?
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
but remember, Republicans in 2000 did not have fond memories of George HW.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Actually, I must disagree. I think many Republicans voted for W. Bush in 2000 because they felt they had done his father, a decent man, wrong, by voting for Clinton or Perot. I know I did.
I agree that Hillary will win, however. In addition to the Dems desire to glamorize the 90's, Obama's inexperience, and the vaunted Clinton organization, the Clinton's will win because they will say, and do, almost anything to get elected. They are unbelievably vicious in politics.
Obama and the pretty boy just aren't going to beat her.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in that one key pillar of Hillary's support is that "golden age" when the Democrats held the White House. What is unprededented in Hillary's run is that she by proxy (i.e. marriage) offers Democrats a second chance to relive that era.
The only way that Hillary can lose the nomination then is if a sufficient mass of Democratic voters become convinced that Obama represents the surer path to that return. Obama is making his case and is stirring up a response; however, it's still in Hillary's hands as to whether she will fumble away the mantle that she by marriage current possesses.
Democratic partisans have strong positions about Iraq, and Obama is more closely aligned with those partisans. Democrats are not thrilled with Hillary, to put it mildly. Remember, she was crafting policy papers for the DLC, an organization hated by the Kossacks.
As Howard Dean learned the hard way.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Hillary has a loyal following of rank and file Dems like some union folks, blue hairs, feminists, etc.
The Kossacks are a small, but vocal minority of the actual *voters*, yet they do increasingly drive policy and raise a lot of money.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I am increasingly finding the quality of reasoning to be poor. Is this post serious? Rich Lowery? He is OK but I find him to be inane at times, even though I tend to agree with a lot of issues.
This argument put forth is begging the question. Why will Hillary win? Well just because she's Hillary.
Yeah OK.. Seriously, are you trying to fill space? I will just find another conservative hang out with a bit more substance. If only JustOneMinute posted more regularly, because he wipes the floor with redstate when it comes to depth.
Why you feel the need to come in here and pee on our carpet is beyond me. If you find us shallow and simplistic, then by all means go hang out somewhere else. I haven't found your own comments to be especially deep or insightful.
And Jon Stewart may or may not be a tool, but it hardly matters, since he's as important and substantial as lint on a sweater.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
All I see from his postings is discontent and negativism towards the members here and towards the candidates.
I really don't appreciate someone who snaps back Who cares who I support while he's cutting down Republican candidates.
I urge the moderators to either ban him or insist upon an immediate attitude adjustment.
...people have been being bloody rude in comments lately. His bad luck to do it where I could see, that's all.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hillary isn't the campaigner Bill is, which is to say she's not as good a liar. She seems weaker in the support of women than Bill and it was the women's vote that put Bill into the office he promptly disgraced.
As to what liberals remember, I wouldn't want to stake my life on it. Today is what counts, they're the people who don't live in the past and Obama's charm approach vs Hillary's fumbles and an already troubled campaign is not the inspiration for '90's nostalgia.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
it's bad news for her. Unmarried women (overrepresented in the democratic party) are for her in droves, but married women give her a 49% unfavorable rating.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As somebody who'll be voting in a Democratic primary, and knows a lot of others, this is downright weird analysis. If people vote for Clinton, it won't be because they want to avoid making Rush happy - and if they vote against her, it won't magically prove that the Clinton years were a disaster, that "Travelgate" mattered or that Democrats know in their heart of hearts that every bad thing anyone on the right ever said about the Clintons was true. That weird reasoning doesn't approximate the beliefs of anybody I know.
If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, it will be because Democratic primary voters have decided she wouldn't be the best president out of the choices we're being offered - and that, in turn, will be because she voted to authorize the war in Iraq, and stands by that vote. Charles Bird is absolutely right.
not 40. 40 years takes us back to 1968 - we've had 7 presidents since then (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, CLinton and Bush). If you work on 30 years you go back to Carter only.
I'm not sure if I would impute that much logic to Democrats. Then again, I wouldn't impute to Democrats the intelligence to know that Bill Clinton will be lucky to be allowed in the West Wing at all under Hillary. They seem to think that Bill and Hill are really "equal partners" when it is clearly Hillary who is the dominant force. Bill and Hill might want Democrats to long for the 1990s - but that's so not what they'd be getting.