June 9, 2008
POLITICS: Ding Dong
Republicans and conservatives should not let go entirely the departure of Hillary Clinton from the national stage, possibly permanently as anything but a Senator, without some expression of joy. Many of us came to a grudging respect of Hillary during the Democratic primaries, for her sheer tenacity and willingness to ruthlessly exploit Obama's most obvious vulnerabilities. But she remains a loathesome figure for so many reasons, and as Peggy Noonan reminds us, it is a good thing to at long last put the Clintons behind us. It is, more broadly, a good thing simply to move on, whether you like them or not, from the Clintons and the Bushes, simply because so much of political discourse gets locked into justifying or besmirching the past. Of course, we still fight about Reagan's legacy, or FDR's, for that matter, but not with the same intensity now that the protagonists are no longer personally at issue in the next election.
Yes, there's a downside to turning back on the dynasties. Hillary might well have been the stronger general election candidate than Obama, and certainly the more experienced one. The GOP primaries suffered from the visible absence of Jeb Bush, who absent his family ties to the current president would almost certainly have been the natural frontrunner, after 8 years as the successful, popular, conservative, and articulate governor of a major 'swing' state that he has largely transformed into a dependably solid GOP stronghold, and even after repeatedly demonstrating his expertise in the specific area where his brother took the greatest hit to his reputation (hurricane-response management).
But while I think Noonan consistently overplays her antipathy to Bush and understates the radically ideological nature of the Obama campaign (like so many observers, she seems more interested in Obama as a symbol than as a human being campaigning to do an important job and enact specific policies), I have to agree with her that saying goodbye to all that has to be a healthy thing for the country, at least for now.
Crank, I think Jeb Bush made himself unelectable with his execrable stance on Terry Schiavo. Pandering to perhaps 20% of the country, he became unpalatable to the rest. However, as I've written before, the sooner we are done with the family dynasties of Bush and Clinton, the better off we are.
Amazing how this "dream" ticket is being touted by the loser. If Obama picks Clinton, he should have his head examined. And he won't. No matter what, it would make him look weak, and he is too smart for that. The last time I think people noticed a VP candidate was when Thomas Jefferson got it.
"The last time I think people noticed a VP candidate was when Thomas Jefferson got it."
Dick Cheney. Dan Quayle. Geraldine Ferraro. Thomas(?) Eagleton. Lyndon Johnson.
Jeb Bush did absolutely the right thing in trying to prevent the dehydration death of Terri Schiavo. His stance in favor of the preciousness of human life was not execrable. It was admirable.
He has also been a reasonably competent governor. Personally I don't find him highly inspiring, but given a choice between him and Barack Obama I'd choose Jeb Bush any day of the week.
You were in the 20% of people being pandered to.
I'm surprised that you're not discussing Hillary for 2012 or even 2016, but I guess that all depends on how this one turns out. If McCain beats Obama, and then resolves to serve a single term (which did not come from my own oversized imagination by the way), Hillary could easily run again in 2012, and either take it all then, or become Harold Stassen in a pants suit. Personally, I'm with Darryl on this one, enough Bushes and Clintons for now.
If Obama loses, the Democrats will nominate Mark Warner in 2012.
NRA, my guess is Clinton stayed on as long as she did because this was it, and she knew it. Obama represents the beginning of yet another new frontier for the Democrats. I agree with Crank. If Obama loses, look for Warner.
If Obama loses, the party will not be allowed even to consider challenging HRC. Other than nuts like Gravel and Kucinich, only Obama would be allowed to challenge her.
Re if Obama loses. Crank: I think Warner would indeed be a good choice for the dems to nominate in 2012, but is he far enough to the left to win the nom?
Is Warner far enough to the left? I would think that if Obama gets spanked the Donks might take a lesson from it and forego trotting out another of their elitist ultraliberal empty suits.
The Democratic activists are so happy to be rid of trying to cover for the corruption of the Clintons. She is toast. Had she been the nominee, the sleaze of the Clintons would have been front and center all fall. After Obama's friends get presented to the nation for the next 5 months, Democrats will bend over backward to avoid any candidate with a closet crammed with problems.
As for Noonan, it is easier to blame Bush than it is to actually do something about getting a conservative message out to the voters. I just saw another ad pushing socialized medicine. Conservatives have no response. Liberals are spending money and supplementing their candidates' and MSM propaganda with their own ads. Conservatives aren't doing a thing.
Soon conservatives will turn to blaming McCain. It will be a lot easier than doing anything constructive. Conservatives will blog to their readers and talk radio hosts will preach to their choirs. And the middle of the road voters who decide elections will go another 8 years without ever hearing anything but MSM propaganda. Because conservatives have no plan or strategy for actually getting the message to the people who need to hear it. Easier for them to complain about biased news media and Bush and McCain.
Gee, I wonder how the undecided will vote.