|
If Hillary even the slightest uses the "tough" GOP tactics or tacticians that are a pale shadow of the media supported criminal slander that will be(well, is now) unleashed against her, she is laying groundwork for party disaster more than testing and developing winning ways. I say "more" and make it relative to what is gained because too many in their passion here absolutize their points and practically demonize the facts and the person trying to accent the point.
For example, it was not about winning or losing the invasion of Iraq. The likely scenario of initial success proved true. The losing began on day 2 with much more "inevitability". The army didn't rebel or get chewed up completely or lose all recruits. it suffered quick attrition on all counts. Equally predictable was the propaganda to drag out and disappear the knowledge.
I think Hillary's win in NH was honestly thrilling. She can win in the fall although the point is there is a measure of unsureness for Dems and vast encouragement for the GOP. ALL passions invoked in the coming election, especially anything negative at all, will be both a drag and a distraction, whether well riposted or not. all the nervous speculations about Obama are less sure. Floating above the mess in some sense may be possible, the unknown and the untested in this case could go either way> Even if he goes exactly the same route ads Hillary hopes to do, the negatives are not fixed, not sure of exploitation. People can rally from many corners unimpeded.
When trying to deal in absolutes the candidates' true political values get confused and equated so that the main points are completely missed. This is a potentially better year for a JFK- or RFK. It should not even be close. This is a bad year for a Nixon, a disheartening plunge into the past or the same old system.
That means tactics, charisma, mood of the nation and electoral realities(cheating or no cheating). I think we are being asked to accept the fixed negatives and reliability of the past. The only exciting new card, a woman running for office, or anything new for that matter is not in the deck for Hillary. The bases are split, women left, right and center will not rally, the others vulnerable in the further attrition of a defensive, cautious campaign. Implacable dogged work can do well in a state race. Nationwide, the best of campaigners can imply fall apart and lean heavily on the party itself to pull it out- which means by the math, a necessary attrition in Congressional and local races. Any vulnerabilities that retreat into a electoral "battleground" concentration will empower the GOP immensely from the national possibilities to the local- and save them a lot of money and effort.
There is a faulty logic keeping the people from getting a grip on the question as it does here as well.
False competitions between the other candidates and HIllary don't come to terms with the pretty predictable sacrifice and fixity of a campaign that starts out with vote debt and then struggles. The only point in dismissing this is to point out how much worse the others are, the no choice or all things equal argument. That won't wash this year unless you demonize and destroy very viable options. The Kerry rout succeeded because the others folded and the desperation was to find a champion, never mind the negatives. We LOST that election. I think people are less secure but just as confused and there are others to turn to than a sure minus, a minus much more well known and believed than Kerry's.
I don't think the avid supporters of Hillary(or any decent candidate) ever think about foredoom and negatives until a point is reached as with Kucinich when it seems inevitable. Certainly they are distracted from thinking about it now even when the argument surfaces. But with choice comes comparison and things set aside that are vital come to the fore. We are not stuck with Mondale or Dukakis, however worthy those two final candidates were. If nothing else we are given the possibility of excitement and great success and if unpredictable, certain not much more a risk than holding the cards dealt to Hillary. Two powerful campaigners and speakers. Two offering newness and change and an ability to promise more hope than grim gridlock, which ironically what is the likely good result of the Clinton "experience" . And deliver. And seek new ways and new people for new times and bypass the players, good and bad of this sorry era. I would think, unless really dumbly distracted or caught in some sound bite nonsense, the people will shift away, as they did with the Iraq War despite constant propaganda and Dem compromise, from what is too costly, too weighted down, too viscerally unwise. The people get to choose destiny and the brightest stars will benefit. If Hillary was running only against B politicians, the equations might be in her favor- but only in her favor. In the unfaced dissatisfaction a second tier pol would have been raised up somewhere. They are assuredly not this time because two have raised themselves up with a lot less negativity to offer and much more prominence and voice.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
