23 February 2007
Hillary/Obama, 2008, and what it all means
So, what's the deal with the whole David Geffen-slams-Hillary-who-slams-Obama thing? Everyone is weighing in. Some people think Hillary "won" because she got Obama to look a little less like the new Messiah. Some think Obama did because he is showing that his campaign is not afraid to attack the "dirty" elements of the Clintonian past. Others say that the Democrats lost because it just reinforces the whole Democrats in Hollywood meme.
If any of the above, I have to go with Obama being the one to gain something from this - and I definitely don't think it did any damage to the Democrats in general. Let me explain.
My problem in general with the Democratic primary field is that NO ONE is really taking on Clinton head on. I don't get it, because there is a HUGE part of the Democratic electorate that is looking for such a candidate. As I often make clear, I am a very partisan Democrat. I believe the Democratic party is the single best vehicle for changing American society for the better. Hillary has done many good things in the past, both for the party, and for affecting positive social change. However, on the Single Biggest Issue of the day, and what some might call the Only Issue, she is wrong wrong wrong.
She thought she could embrace a new identity once she got into the Senate - Hillary the Hawk. Talk tough on terror, go after Saddam, etc. Well, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. A lot of people screwed up back in 2002 - screwed up very badly, with terrible consequences. Of course, the Disaster in Chief is #1 on this list, and no one else can come close to his level of culpability. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many more names on that list. Lieberman might be #2, but Hillary the Hawk is certainly in the top 10. And, like the two men I just mentioned, she is obstinate in her refusal to admit she screwed up. Which is bad, very bad, and could kill us in the general election (keep in mind the electorate is now approaching 70% anti-war).
My nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs. Mitt Romney. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney is not really identified in voters' minds as a super Pro Iraqi War guy. Yeah he talks the talk, but he doesn't have too much blood on his hands. Hillary does. As 2008 rolls around, and American troops continue to die there, we'll eventually hit the general election matchup. In debate after debate, press release after press release, ad after ad, Iraq will be the central issue. And if we have Hillary in our corner, and they have Romney in theirs, how is the Democratic party going to look? Like the War Party, I guess, with our nominee still refusing to apologize, to admit a mistake. Such a matchup would effectively neutralize the Only Issue. Which is not only bad for the Democrats, but absolutely terrible for the American people.
Turning back to the original focus of this post: thank you Obama! For at least taking some shots at this woman, this enabler of war. I am not so enthusiastic about Obama, but at least he did not back down when her camp demanded he publicly rebuke David Geffen. I really hope the next step is for him to start hitting her harder on the war (and hey, Obama, there's a market for this!). I'm not really sure that Obama is offering much effective leadership on the issue, but I do feel that he knows what's up, and wants us to get the hell out of there. I also think he'd be the most able to devise a sensible, multilateral approach to the situation the would result from an American withdrawal (because, let's be honest, Iraq is in rough rough shape no matter what).
One last point: I don't buy for a second the worries about the Democrats being too Hollywood-friendly. Yes, it certainly mattered in 2000 when we had just had 8 years of Democratic governance and were facing a "folksy" (hah!) "straight-shootin'" (double hah!!) Texan who based his campaign on making the Democrats look disconnected from the American heartland. But that is so so far from the situation we face now, that the Hollywood worries should be left in the past. It is the Republicans who seem totally detached from reality, and the Democrats who just swept into Congressional power on a very real wave of popular discontent. Why the bigwig political analysts can't grasp this, I don't know. But I guess that's why we have the blogs now, right?
So, what's the deal with the whole David Geffen-slams-Hillary-who-slams-Obama thing? Everyone is weighing in. Some people think Hillary "won" because she got Obama to look a little less like the new Messiah. Some think Obama did because he is showing that his campaign is not afraid to attack the "dirty" elements of the Clintonian past. Others say that the Democrats lost because it just reinforces the whole Democrats in Hollywood meme.
If any of the above, I have to go with Obama being the one to gain something from this - and I definitely don't think it did any damage to the Democrats in general. Let me explain.
My problem in general with the Democratic primary field is that NO ONE is really taking on Clinton head on. I don't get it, because there is a HUGE part of the Democratic electorate that is looking for such a candidate. As I often make clear, I am a very partisan Democrat. I believe the Democratic party is the single best vehicle for changing American society for the better. Hillary has done many good things in the past, both for the party, and for affecting positive social change. However, on the Single Biggest Issue of the day, and what some might call the Only Issue, she is wrong wrong wrong.
She thought she could embrace a new identity once she got into the Senate - Hillary the Hawk. Talk tough on terror, go after Saddam, etc. Well, that hasn't gotten us anywhere. A lot of people screwed up back in 2002 - screwed up very badly, with terrible consequences. Of course, the Disaster in Chief is #1 on this list, and no one else can come close to his level of culpability. However, that doesn't mean there aren't many, many more names on that list. Lieberman might be #2, but Hillary the Hawk is certainly in the top 10. And, like the two men I just mentioned, she is obstinate in her refusal to admit she screwed up. Which is bad, very bad, and could kill us in the general election (keep in mind the electorate is now approaching 70% anti-war).
My nightmare scenario for the Dems is Hillary vs. Mitt Romney. Unlike McCain and Giuliani, Romney is not really identified in voters' minds as a super Pro Iraqi War guy. Yeah he talks the talk, but he doesn't have too much blood on his hands. Hillary does. As 2008 rolls around, and American troops continue to die there, we'll eventually hit the general election matchup. In debate after debate, press release after press release, ad after ad, Iraq will be the central issue. And if we have Hillary in our corner, and they have Romney in theirs, how is the Democratic party going to look? Like the War Party, I guess, with our nominee still refusing to apologize, to admit a mistake. Such a matchup would effectively neutralize the Only Issue. Which is not only bad for the Democrats, but absolutely terrible for the American people.
Turning back to the original focus of this post: thank you Obama! For at least taking some shots at this woman, this enabler of war. I am not so enthusiastic about Obama, but at least he did not back down when her camp demanded he publicly rebuke David Geffen. I really hope the next step is for him to start hitting her harder on the war (and hey, Obama, there's a market for this!). I'm not really sure that Obama is offering much effective leadership on the issue, but I do feel that he knows what's up, and wants us to get the hell out of there. I also think he'd be the most able to devise a sensible, multilateral approach to the situation the would result from an American withdrawal (because, let's be honest, Iraq is in rough rough shape no matter what).
One last point: I don't buy for a second the worries about the Democrats being too Hollywood-friendly. Yes, it certainly mattered in 2000 when we had just had 8 years of Democratic governance and were facing a "folksy" (hah!) "straight-shootin'" (double hah!!) Texan who based his campaign on making the Democrats look disconnected from the American heartland. But that is so so far from the situation we face now, that the Hollywood worries should be left in the past. It is the Republicans who seem totally detached from reality, and the Democrats who just swept into Congressional power on a very real wave of popular discontent. Why the bigwig political analysts can't grasp this, I don't know. But I guess that's why we have the blogs now, right?
Labels: clinton, obama, politics
¶ 10:40 AM
