The Coming Swarm
Does Ned Lamont spell the end of Hillary?
By Ben Domenech Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Criminal ... megalomaniac ... fraud ... dangerous ... devil incarnate ... satanic ... power freak.”
Whatever happens in Connecticut today, it won’t be Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont who feel the heaviest ramifications. It will be Hillary Clinton.
Assume for the moment that the polls are true. Today, Joe Lieberman, one of the last honest pro-Israel Democrats in America, loses to an empty suit. He loses narrowly enough that he decides to run as an Independent. This is not unexpected – when you’re counting on the electoral pull of Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton of Colbert Report fame in the waning days of the campaign, it’s not exactly a sign of strength. But even she recognizes the subtext of the race:
Norton told the Bridgeport congregation that Clinton's current strong standing in New York, where she is expected to win reelection, shows the war isn't the only issue. “The front-runner for President of the United States - Hillary Clinton - she agrees with [Lieberman]," Norton said. "Anybody gonna put her out of office anytime soon?"
The questions that Hillary will be forced to answer this week are just short of devastating. And she will not be able to avoid them: “Senator Clinton, you said you’d support whoever won the Connecticut primary. Will you support Ned Lamont over Sen. Lieberman, who your husband endorsed?” “What about Ned Lamont’s position on the war in Iraq? Do you agree with him, or with Sen. Lieberman?” “Senator Clinton, Ned Lamont says that we can solve everything in the Middle East with diplomatic solutions, not troops – do you disagree?”
In fact, the coming post-primary media swarm could very well signal the end of the former First Lady’s quest to return to the White House. And if you think that’s an exaggeration, stop right now, and read this.
Read on...
Bennett says he’s never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He’s never even seen anything close.
He believes top national Democrats are missing this grassroots intensity. Instead, he suspects, they are blinded by poll numbers, which give Hillary a big early lead based on her name recognition.
If these sentiments hold in the Democrat base through the presidential election season, Hillary Clinton’s 2008 candidacy could resemble nothing so much as the fractured nomination of Hubert Humphrey in 1968. The favorite, a liberal’s liberal, supported by the party leadership and the money sources, and yet overwhelmed when confronted with the radical anti-war elements of the base.
The idea that Hillary’s candidacy doesn’t scare conservatives – that they would relish the opportunity to rebut her brand of big government social liberalism disguised with a few anti-NARAL sentiments on a national stage – is just a popular myth. Those who say such things are either to dull to know a strong candidate when they see one, or haven’t paid attention to the last two decades of political ebb and flow. At a national level, Hillary could beat every one of the leading candidates on the Republican side. And no one has ever lost money betting on the Clintons.
Yet the tolerance for big-tent national candidates is larger on the GOP side – a Giuliani or McCain 2008 candidacy would leave a horrid taste in conservative mouths, but they would still donate their savings to beating Hillary. And it now seems clear that her candidacy would no longer result in the clean-cut political divide once thought possible.
No – Hillary would not simply divide America; she would divide her own party, and over the issues that matter most to the anti-war left. And she would divide it by taking the right position on the war, even if it is a politically expedient one at the moment.
Perhaps this is all just more strategic positioning. The Hillary team clearly sees the longterm benefits of being publicly disliked by the far left – the NARAL speech was clearly one of the savviest political moves any Democrat has made in some time – but it can only go so far. Or perhaps Hillary will find a way to endorse the kind of gullible diplomatic solutions that Lamont supports as penance for her sin of being slightly more rational when it comes to evaluating the intentions of Hezbollah.
But one can only go so far on spin before one day there are hecklers, and then there are protests, and signs, and megaphones…and suddenly the story is Hillary vs. the anti-war left, a voting bloc that cannot be won over easily, and New Hampshire is coming on…and then one day, you just can’t spin any more, and the side that emerges victorious from it realigns the party in its image.
For Hillary Clinton, the day comes on. And when it comes, she may yet curse the name of Ned Lamont.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Democrats Ready To Impeach Bush — Comments (8) »
The Coming Swarm 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Nope, I don't think so. You're asking the people who thought that a silly-haired Nam-encrusted liberal from Massachusetts was The Guy for 2004.
Granted, that's a smaller portion. But it's still enough to matter enormously in a primary situation.
He's the real Satan in their minds. But the anti-war Democrats I know would never waste their money donating to Hillary over, say, McCain or Guiliani.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
Our intra-party struggles have been on full display while the legacy media tried to keep the Democratic turmoil under wraps. I'm not so certain Republicans would open their wallets and donate their time for Rudy or McCain to the extent you claim. Nonetheless, the rank-and-file wouldn't bolt the party over their nominations, either. Hillary would produce a Democratic schism, and that will be played out by proxies in Connecticut tomorrow.
There remains a distinct possibility Hillary won't even run if the environment remains this toxic for her late next year.
Presidents have tended to be ex-governors lately. Does Richardson of New Mexico strike anyone as Presidential material? He could get on the ticket as a VP to draw a purple state and Hispanics, but I don't see him at the top of the ticket. The guy from Iowa? Are people going to vote for someone whose name they can neither spell nor remember? Any other Dem current or ex-governors worth noting?
There's never any lack of Senators on either side who want the White House, but it failed with Gore and Bush for the Dems. The Kossacks love Russ Feingold, so he'd get gobs of MoveOn/Soros cash. He gives a good TV image and is a good speaker, but his lifetime ratings are ADA 98 / ACU 12. Would the country vote for someone with so liberal a record? Biden? GMAB. Gore? The lefties love him but he's become a caricature of himself. Edwards? Forgotten and tagged with a loser label. Kerry? Whiny loser. Warner? Too many others to leapfrog. Obama? VP material, but maybe not quite yet.
Others? Wesley Clark? Aren't his 15 minutes up yet?
A lot can happen over the next 12-18 months, so it will be interesting to see who emerges as the anti-Clinton candidate on the Democratic side.
Of course we could go through similar exercises with someone like McCain or Giuliani on our side. 2008 will be an interesting race from all angles, that's for sure.
Bayh has managed to position himself properly among those in the know in his party without having to deal with media scrutiny. There's a reason MSNBC lists him among Hillary as a "heavyweight" in the race. He knows what he's doing. He and Warner are the ones who could claim the anti-Hillary label.
Oh, and I am on record saying that if Obama runs, he will win. The turnout on their side will be insurmountable.
Personal fun fact: I took the select-smart 2008 test, and Bill Richardson was the first Democrat to come up out of over 20 candidates, at number 6.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
He runs as a centrist and votes as a total liberal. I guess being in Indiana with a last name of Bayh is in some ways like being in the northeast with a last name of Kennedy, except without the assorted criminal baggage.
First obama is a lightweight, and it is three fold being a first term senator. He's a lot like Edwards in '04, a pretty face and slick image but with the substance of an empty bucket. Beyond that, Obama has a very liberal voting record, right there with Chuckie, Kerry and others. He needs more experience, but then he'll have the mile long voting record to hit him with.
Bayh also has a liberal record but not wacko enough for the primary voters. He has a real balancing act to do and I don't think he'll get it done.
The last senator elected was Nixon and that was after he was out of the senate for 16 years. The senate is a forum for windbags but no presidents.
Hillary is always over valued, by the media, not by the folks, and comes up way short when measured by any valid tape. Hopefully the media will convince her they can overcome the deficit and she will run. When the voting is through, the exit poolls will still show her winning, but the votes will say she loses. I marvel at how good the media is at pulling off this illusions time after time.
The Republicans need a new conservative fresh face candidate, none of the listed likely are going to make it with the base. Giulianni will flame out on gun control and abortion, McCain on flaky studpidity, and the rest for lack of charisma. When Republicans return to their conservative base, they win big. when they listen to the old gaurd they lose.
I thought he was a gonner who would retire to academia and work from the trenches when the Republicans lost so many Senate seats. Yes, that wasn't a mistype, and I still don't understand why HE took the hit for the badly run Senate campaign under the guise that the House lost seats and someone should take responsibility for it.
But it seems to have worked well for him. The media haven't been able to keep the anger level stirred against him, and it will take time to build it again. In the meantime, he's been "in training" so to speak, written a well received book, and gets voters natural empathy for Reagan's positive outlook. I think he throws his hat in the ring when the time is right, because right now, there is nobody who says they are running who excites me, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.
But I fear he is too much a policy guy and not an action figure. While Newt has done a good job rejuvenating himself, the media still waits to take him out -- again.
I vote for a new face, one we don't now know. There are plenty of good govs out there to chose from as well as others. All that is needed is for them to step forward.
The current known crop is thread bear. I think that 'ABC - anybody but Clinton' is not proactive enough. We need to search deeper.
ned lamont is quickly emerging as the 2006 version of "clean gene" mccarthy. if hillary determines that she must become an antiwar candidate to win her party's nomination, that is what she will do. the response from the pundits will be that she is thus pandering to her ultraleft base, which is entirely true, and they will continue to underestimate her, as was the case when she was elected senator.
Hillary was always beloved by the media more than by Dems themselves. She's given some credit by her constituents for being intelligent, hard working and willing to listen to those on the other side of the aisle (although opportunism certainly could be the real reason).
But think about it: If Hillary Clinton were hit by a bus tomorrow, nothing would change in either the Democratic senatorial or presidential dynamic.
b] the media will cover for her, C] the rank and file, those who aren't already in straitjackets, will support her.
A is a given, not dicussable. B, the media may throw a few , very few, almost hard questions at her. By and large however they will paint her as the savior of the Galaxy.
C is the interesting part. As she changes her positions and as the media salivates over her [ample] posterior the Dem voters will obediently , if slowly in some cases, do precisely what they are told to do. Daily Kos , Dem Underbelly, I don't care who it is.
Hubby Bill had more positions then the beach has sand but wherever he wandered he was supported. Kerry was completely incoherent and Gore was and is painfully nuts. Did any of it matter? The media farts, the reality based progressives breathe.
Nothing is learned or understood about the opposition we are cursed with if you don't grasp that emotions rule, they live for red meat, Hillary will give it to them and be forgiven, and despite their delusional pride they are as manipulatable as one yr olds in a playpen. They are putty waiting to be shaped, hate waiting to be exploited.
I read the piece in the Boston Herald. The same thing could have been — and probably will be — written about John McCain. "Media whore... sociopath... megalomaniac... Democrat in a GOP suit." The only one he'll escape is satanic. Satan demands constancy.
Especially in primaries, intensity matters. Clinton and McCain will both have intensity running against them; their polled support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Clinton will have a well-oiled GOTV machine; she'll buy one. McCain might have difficulty ginning one up.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
You guys act as if Hillary's position on Iraq is not changable. Does anyone believe Hillary took a principled stand on Iraq? She took a politically expediant stand, and now you all think its gonna bite her in the rump.
She will just change her postion when it makes political sense to her, and no one in the media will say a word. Iraq isn't going to be a problem for Hillary in the primaries. She is still going to take in the most money and have the most resources at her disposal.
to run for President. Yes, there is a part of her that WANTS to run for President, in the same way that little boys all over the country want to grow up to be President. But she is nothing if not calculating, and part of that calculation has to be that is she runs and wins, in 8 years she's out. No more hands on the levers of power, but more importantly, no more ability to get wind of potential criminal investigations in time to successfully stonewall, undermine, and sucessfully spike them. And with her and Bill's background, the necessity of being able to do that is probably more important than the desire to BE president.
On the other hand, that same necessity also requires that she always LOOK like she wants to run for the office. Otherwise she becomes another Murtha, Biden, or Kerry: a fixture in the party without a lot of power to do things. So I think the danger for her has always been that in trying to look like she wanted to run, it got away from her and she had to run. Now she's in a safer spot.
I tried to ping this post.
Great work.
http://thespisjournal.blogspot.com/2006/08/ghost-light-thespis-glow.html
Thespis
1) Lieberman may well win as an independent (I'm assuming at this late juncture he's not going to pull out a primary victory -- it's now past 10pm in Connecticut).
2) Even if he doesn't, there may still be a silver lining for Hillary: it's may not be in her interest to peak too early. A little bit of rough seas in the early going -- 18 months before Iowa -- could be just what the doctor ordered. Thing is, Democrats want to take back the White House -- badly. Sure, Hillary is purportedly loathed by many Democrats, but if she performs with steadyiness and competence over the next year and a half, it could make her campaign look stronger, and tested. And it could set up a dynamic whereby Democratic primary voters hold their noses and vote for the candidate they deem with the strongest chance to win in November. I gather this is something of what ultimately led to Kerry's nomination victory. He wasn't particularly well-liked, but was judged the strongest candidate.
Hillary remains the 800 lb gorilla of Democratic contenders. If I were her handlers, I'd reckon hubris, overconfidence and complacency to be her most lethal foes. A win for Lamont keep those foes at bay.
Compared with Dean, Kerry WAS the electable guy, and they held their noses to vote for him. And still they lost anyway, failing even to hold what Gore won four years earlier.
I think it'd be silly to try that again, from their perspective.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
maybe so, but arguably they made the right choice, in that Kerry was their best bet, and that any of the other choices would have lost by even more votes than he. I tend to be a bit of an "business cycle determinist" when it comes to presidential elections anyway. I remember doing some analysis early on about the business cycle, and came to the conclusion that it was extremely unlikely that the Dems would unseat Bush (it's very hard to beat an incumbent when the economy's growing at a decent clip, which was what it was doing by the fall of '04). I could be entirely wrong, but the business cycle tea leaves tell me there's a strong chance 2008's likely to be unkind to the party associated with incumbency in 2008. In other words, I'm of the opinion that the next presidential election is the Democrats' to lose. Which has me fervantly hoping for a minimum of one more Supreme Court vacancy before New Year's Day 2008.
Do you really think they wouldn't donate their same life savings to help Hillary beat...say, Cheney?
Just wondering.