The New Republic

This is actually something I've been saying a bit...Hillary's nasty tactics have a sort of subconscious appeal to Democrats who want a street fighter in the general election. they bolster her electability quotient in a sort of cynical way.

- virginiacentrist

January 15, 2008 at 12:48pm

First of all, Clinton nastiness is far more effective against Obama than it will be aginst the GOP, because Obama doesn't really have the stomach to fight back in full measure.

That said, these tactics are also very likely to cost the Clinton's dearly with blacks, so we'll see who's really the smartest in this.

Meanwhile, a Hillary presidency in the long run would be a disaster for the Democrats and a benefit for the GOP.  She will be beset with a scandal or a gaffe a week just like her husband.  Bill will be incapable of staying out of mischief and will regularly undermine her, just as he has during the campaign.

Within the first two years, the American public will be exhausted by the Clinton & Clinton presidency and will hardly be able to wait for '12 to give them both the coup de grace.

And, '10 will see a new GOP suyrge in the Congress, just like '94.

- ChanRobt

January 15, 2008 at 1:14pm

Hillary seems desperate, and Nixonesque.  Quite a different "voice" than the one she claimed to find in NH.  I don't think the cynical guerilla-warfare thing is going to work for her -- at all.  Edwards has to keep biting her on the ass to try to force her ito third place, so the two of them seem very likely to make Obama look like a great statesman by comparison.  Hillary seems as lost as Mitt Romney.  

- purcellneil

January 15, 2008 at 1:15pm

Clinton is playing into the Obama narrative.  She is the Revenge Candidate.  Obama is the Post-Partisan Candidate.  Revenge is the initial impulse.  Who wouldn't love to out-Rove Rove, but it subsides and reason takes hold.

- stgla

January 15, 2008 at 1:18pm

Neil, Channy, I agree. Hillary is as soulless as Romney and as paranoid as Nixon. Her Presidency will be poll driven and bitter from the outset and will be a Republican Godsend. But I doubt she can win, Bloomberg will run left to her as an independent on everything but Israel, and will pull enough jewish and left votes to bury her.

- blackton

January 15, 2008 at 1:40pm

sometimes, it is not wise to say what you're really thinking or feeling but since you brought it up, i have always felt that one of Clinton's biggest strengths is the capacity to fight the GOP fang to fang. Somehow, we always seem to end up with candidates who get their throats mauled by the ruthless GOP Smear Machine. With HC as the candidate, it will be Frankenstein v The Wolfman...

not inspirational or transcendent politics but possibly winning politics...

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 15, 2008 at 1:56pm

blackton, Jewish votes?  Whenever someone talks about winning or losing the Jewish vote I laugh.  I wish my vote mattered but we're something like 3% of the population.  And most of us probably vote for reasons having nothing to do with our Judaism or Israel.

Even if we were 10% of the political donations (you know, Zionist banker conspiracy) we still would not sway the election. I sometimes wonder where all the Israelophilia comes from.

Back to the topic, though, I think the Clinton organization truly admires the political skills of the Bush GOP and is trying to emulate them.

- stgla

January 15, 2008 at 1:57pm

stgla, can you say Florida? those chads and Buchanan with elderly jewish voters voting overwhelmingly for Buchanan? you know, a Clinton run can be another 2000 with Bloomberg playing Nader.

- blackton

January 15, 2008 at 2:27pm

I don't like it. It has no appeal to me whatsoever. I'm sick of the cold civil war. I'm tired of it. I'll continue to fight for stuff I care about, like criminal justice/sentencing reform, the environment, blah blah, but it just does not help one bit to cast these efforts in a blue/red, dem/rep mold. It's also not accurate. Bill Clinton was a disaster for the environment and got a pass because he was a dem. Lots of reps are for training and education programs for prisoners. I've never actually voted for a rep [if Clinton is the dem nominee it will be a first], but I am registered as an Independent for this reason. I hate gangs.

- psantillana

January 15, 2008 at 2:46pm

Chan, two points:

1. What would it mean for Obama to "fight back in full measure"? If he addresses Hillary directly on her campaign's race-baiting, he loses by taking the bait and marginalizing himself among white voters as the "black candidate". I'd like to see him go nuclear on Hillary for her overt lies about her "experience" and her counterfactual claims about her record on "change", but that's just a visceral reaction, and I'm not sure he can expect to win a knife fight with Hillary. In part because of the nature of his appeal as a candidate, in part because of some unfair situational issues with both race and gender, he kind of has to show that he can win this kind of tough political fight without engaging directly.

2. I completely disagree with your assessment of a Hillary presidency on first principles. How does she win the election in the first place? What could-go-either-way states will Hillary carry? Iowa? Virginia? Colorado? West Virginia? Depending on the Republican nominee, maybe she wins Ohio. But Florida? Pennsylvania? Much less certain. So I don't see a Hillary presidency as a disaster for Democrats; I see it as something approaching a mathematical impossibility. Nominate Hillary, and Democrats can be pretty certain of picking up seats in the 2010 midterms, since we'll be running against an incumbent Republican president.

- rhubarbs

January 15, 2008 at 2:59pm

This is the most depressing rationale I've ever read for electing someone to high office. Lord help us if this becomes the prevailing wisdom in Democratic circles. It will be like Bush 3.0.

- BHLnyc

January 15, 2008 at 3:12pm

Well y'all go ahead and nominate Hillary. Interesting synergy for sure. Bill and Hill. I mean Hill and Bill. They'll be talking about those tea parties for days. This campaign is acquiring very familiar whiff.

Inasmuch that the power of the presidency is constrained by certain realities my concerns for this political season run toward purchasing some sort of foothold upon the integrity of our collective conversations.  I don't have any problem with disagreements. But when those disagreements are inspired by appeal to the darker regions of our personal biases and fears we end up with a demented beast incapable of bringing forth solutions of good faith and collective edification. From such frames issues forth cynical approximations abridged by their own insincerity. We end up being caught in the snare of assumption and indictment. There isn't anything Pollyanna about standing forth for an issue on its own terms.

Look at the modus of the Clinton campaign and tell me it isn't cynical. It's the contextual negative insinuations which the Clintons are masters at manipulating. Flayed with daggers unseen. Quite an art. Not something which I admire.

- boxofrox

January 15, 2008 at 3:13pm

I must be losing my memory ... I keep remembering the 1990's were good years for America despite all the Clinton sillyness.  I keep remembering the Carter era had the worst foreign policy until, well, GWB and the architect is now a high-level Obama advisor.  I keep remembering Barack Obama coming into the senate with all this political capital and courageously using it on....um....um....um....

- Lymon1

January 15, 2008 at 3:33pm

virginiacentrist said:

This is actually something I've been saying a bit...Hillary's nasty tactics have a sort of subconscious appeal to Democrats who want a street fighter in the general election.

This is perhaps her greatest appeal to me, however it is certainly not in any way subconscious!

- Bukharin

January 15, 2008 at 3:43pm

This here is a very good post on this very topic, from hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:

obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../playing-to-win.html

- psantillana

January 15, 2008 at 3:47pm

Rhubarbs, I agree with you on Obama.  He's playing it by his decent instincts which I think is ultimately also the smart way to play it as well.  When he said that Hillary's comments on LBJ vs MLK were "ill advised" he was correct.  

In the awkward way she made them, they were absolutely ill advised.  Not absolutely wrong.  But insufficiently diffident and ham handed so as to obscure her legitimate point that you need an effective president to push through difficult moral legislation.

Meanwhile, I tend also to agree with your calculations about a Hillary candidacy if she makes it to the general election.  She will carry zero states in the South, not even Florida.  Obama might carry some Southern states.

She probably would lose Ohio as well.  Not sure the Rust Belt loves a Clinton.  And plenty of the remaining Regan Blue Collar Dems probably aren't enamored a woman of her sort.  Though I could imagine them voting for an American Maggie Thatcher.

Hillary is the only major American politician in our time-- and this includes Richard Nixon-- who was reviled by a major portion of her own party.  Not to mention seen negatively by almost half the general voting population.

I don't know how you can have negatives like that and win a national election.  Especially since far less controversial Democrats have lost by small margins of popular votes (or didn't lose the popular at all) in the last two national elections.

Believe me, between Obama and Hillary, the GOP would far prefer to face Hillary.  

- ChanRobt

January 15, 2008 at 3:51pm

By the way, I disagree with Obama on most of his positions, but I genuinely like the man.

I actually think that Hillary, if she made it to the White House, would stick it out in Iraq, which I believe we must do.  Yet, I genuinely dislike her very much and don't want to see her as president.

I suspect that a lot of Democrats who agree with what Hillary says simply can't stand her and will not be able to bring themselves to vote for her.  Even if they buy her (putative) experience, they'll take their chances with the more decent Obama.

I don't think she can count on women much longer either, if it was women who saved her in NH.  If it's sisterhood they crave, they can hold out for a better sister.

- ChanRobt

January 15, 2008 at 3:56pm

Let me second my good friend Channy:  Bring on HRC.  Obama will much tougher to beat, especially if we nominate McCain.

Obama v. McCain - Youth v. age, so it has to be about nat'l security first and foremost.

HRC v. McCain - Do you really want more years of the Clinton drama?  Enough already.  Her we can beat, even with an unpoular President, his unpopular war and a slowing economy.

- butchie b

January 15, 2008 at 4:25pm

butchie, never underestimate the stupidity of a large segment of the Democratic party. They would rather feel righteous and lose. And one other thing, if Hillary has so much experience, why didn't she run in 2004 when Bush was a far more high profile target? Oh, yeah, because she would lose. Always the path of least resistance with her. Vote for Iraq when it was popular, check, vote against flag burning, check.

you were a soldier right, if Hillary wins will you please shoot me? I just can't take another disastrous President.

- blackton

January 15, 2008 at 5:40pm

blackie et al,

I agree that an HC Presidency is not only unlikely but will most likely result [continue] yet another polarized cage fight political climate. For that reason alone, I am now in Obama's camp.

That said, HC does, in my opinion, possess a toughness and an incredible will to win and fend off countervailing forces. She is more of a man than all the other candidates, with the exception of John McCain. She has the necessary quality to survive a death match with any GOP candidate. I wish I could say the same thing about Obama. He had HC on the ropes and on queer street (old boxing expression) and he could not finish her off. She fought like a tiger those last three days while Barack dithered away a once in a lifetime moment.  This does not make me feel confident that Barack, for all his inspirational aura, has the closer instinct to win in November.

Obama let this one slip away. HC would and will never let that happen.

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 15, 2008 at 5:56pm

jauntyboulevardier, your analysis is part way there.  But, Americans like their leaders who lop off heads with a smile so's you don't notice what they're doing.

FDR and JFK had the winning, even killer instinct.  But they charmed people so much that the lethality went unnoticed.

Hillary is like a Nixon.  She wears her resentments on her sleeve.  She always looks like she's working hard and makes nothing look easy.  And the desire to be ruthless is all too evident to almost everyone.

Yes, she wants it and she wants it bad.  That's the problem.  It makes people reluctant to give it to her.  It's easy to imagine her beating Obama.  but, unless the GOP nominates a regional brand like Huckabee, I don't think she takes the big prize.

I don't believe Nixon ever would have been president if it weren't for Sirhan Sirhan.

- ChanRobt

January 15, 2008 at 6:26pm

jaunty, are you talking about NH? Where beat him by 2-3 points? After she cried and the media beat her up? I don't see that being very dispositive of Obama's political skill. I see Iowa as being dispositive of his political skill.  This is not me being selective, I really think that was a much more impressive win - there was no weird luck element popping up out of nowhere at the last second, and he came from much further behind, and he beat her by 8 points.

The lead he had in NH was soft, from people who didn't know much about the candidates. It was the Iowa bump leading some sheep. And those sheep then got yanked by the tears. Way more flukey than O's very hard won Iowa win.  

- psantillana

January 15, 2008 at 7:53pm

psantillana,

I hope you're closer to the truth than I.  I really do. I think an HC candidacy (and if successful, a presidency) would be a long dysfunctional national mental breakdown.

If Barack has HC on the ropes again - a big if now - then he has to really pull out all the stops and go for the kill, wooden stake and all. That is the only way he will be able to beat the Clintons, hyperbole aside.I hope the slender pretty boy has it in him. I have my doubts...

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 15, 2008 at 8:56pm

Hey I hope so too. THis whole thing is making me jittery and numb at the same time. One thing slender pretty did tonight that appealed to me in a superficial way, was not scream. Hillary was kind of screaming. I was trying to filter out my hatred of her [and the noxious midwestern accent I grew up hearing] and look/listen with the ears of the average viewer. People might think "please stop yelling. please." BUT they also might think "oh dear I hate this, but is this sexist of me?" or, of course "that's who we need to stand up to the republicans! or pakistan! ride-em cowgirl!" and then I forced myself to stop.

Also, slender pretty did sock it to her with the fear-mongering. And then she did some more of it, conveniently illustrating his point. I was very impressed particularly with the fact that he did it in that close setting. It's very hard psychologically to say something that forward to someone physically near you. And he did it very calmly.  I hope people think "presidential".  Aaaaaaagh. Help.

- psantillana

January 16, 2008 at 4:12am