Not Again

That Hillary Clinton's one tough gal. As everyone knows, in the last debate some very bad boys did everything but push her to the sidewalk and steal her purse. Each time they hit her, she got back up. Among American politicians only her husband, the king of pain, seems more resilient.

Her rivals now pursue more aggressive strategies, meaning they say out loud what their staffs have long whispered to reporters. Everyone questions her vote setting the table for a move on Iran. Barack Obama and John Edwards attack her character. Courtlier Chris Dodd questions her electability.

In a prior debate Clinton unveiled a new strategy of her own-- looking past the primary to the general election. Big mistake. On foreign policy it drives her further to the right and on domestic policy, deeper into an insipid centrism. Worse yet, it makes her seem presumptuous, a danger for any candidate but especially her. When folks are already grumbling about dynasties is hardly the right moment to play the heir apparent.

In the last debate her tough talk on Iran and her Social Security dodge gave Edwards and Obama their openings. They squandered them by attacking her personally; she then bailed them out by acting as if it was somehow unfair to ask her any questions at all.

Dodd had the right tone; pointed but respectful. He stays alive in Iowa and New Hampshire by taking specific, concrete stands on issues that matter, from privacy to energy to Iraq. It's the smart way to answer Clintonian generalities-- not with ideology or ad hominem attacks, but with specificity.

Clinton seems to think she can shuffle and tap dance her way back into the White House. It's as if she and her team learned nothing from Gore and Kerry, who also worked hard to obliterate the very differences they should have run on. The similarities don't end there. Her personality and background leave her vulnerable to the same charges of elitism that cost them so dearly.

Making that charge stick is what Republicans do best. It's impressive, really; three times they've convinced us that some Democrat was more elitist than the Bushes. Thus the world comes to doubt our seriousness as a nation. Still, there's no getting around a simple fact: in politics, they have to like you. Would it be so wrong to nominate somebody who could run the country and tell a good story? It worked so well for FDR and JFK, to say nothing of that other Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is smart and, like Gore, warm and funny in private. She's also ambitious-- just like every man who ever ran for president. Obama's and Edwards' attacks on her sound hollow. When Obama vows to "turn the page" he's trying to turn it back, not ahead, to the culture wars in which Clinton, by the way, was a victim, not a culprit. But if she is indeed unelectable it doesn't really matter if it isn't her fault.

Given how much Democrats think about electability, it's amazing they can't recognize it when they see it. In 2004 I thought Dick Gephardt was the most electable Democrat. I had noticed that Republicans run only one good play- - a humdinger called isolate the Democrat culturally- -- and I didn't think it would work on Gephardt.

After a lifetime in Washington Gephardt still looked and sounded like Missouri. His blue collar roots didn't need touching up. And he had the most experience. Picking the guy with the best credentials may seem a little European, even Republican in a pre-Bush sort of way, but voters, I thought, might appreciate the gesture.

Gephardt got nowhere and bowed out after Iowa. John Kerry seemed like the last guy to force Republicans into whatever their plan B was. He was famously for and against the war, had a health care plan strangely like Bush's and had apparently spent his life cultivating the very accent the Bushes worked so hard to shed. Democrats picked him anyway and thus the worst president in history got a second term.

Why stir up old memories? In the hope Democrats will think things through in the short time left before the nutty primary calendar forecloses all their options. Enough of Clinton's campaign recalls the mistakes of campaigns past and the weaknesses of the men who led them as to be downright eerie. Obama isn't much better. What makes Clinton and Obama high risk isn't race or gender but style and strategy.

From the look of it, Clinton for sure is planning a general election just like the last two. The country may be smart enough that, handed the choice of Gore v. Bush or even Kerry v. Bush to do over, it would choose more wisely.

The problem is the Republicans aren't nominating Bush. As things stand, it would be more accurate to think of 2008 as Rove v Schrum III; the fear mongering libelers versus the haughty, multiple position taker. Is the country smart enough to see through that on the third go around? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to put it to the test.

Right now the question is how smart the Democrats are. Chris Dodd may be the Dick Gephardt of 2008. He's shrewd, eloquent, experienced and charming enough to talk a dog off a meat wagon. For the first time since 1992 the Democrat would be the guy people wanted to have a beer with; for the first time in memory, Democrats would be running on a blueprint and not just catch phrases. Have Democrats smartened up enough to give such a candidate the consideration he's due?

Hillary Clinton isn't unelectable, just hard to elect and off on the wrong course. Barack Obama once seemed a great threat to her. He proved a gift: a challenger who was so much like her, only less experienced. He drew money, media and energy others might have used to spark the debate the Democrats and the country, desperately need. He might grow into a winner but it won't happen with this process.

All of the second tier candidates deserved a fairer shake in the debates. One of them will finish fourth in Iowa and get the chance to fight on. I hope it's Dodd. Democrats shouldn't be attacking each other's character. But Hillary should face a seasoned candidate in a real debate on real issues. It's how you get real change, and a nominee worth the effort of electing.

Comments

[LeeFromVA]

Bill, I agree with you up to a point. I think you have some of the characters wrong. No one wants to have a beer with Chris Dodd. He would be the equivolent of Kerry. Not a bad guy and would probably make a good president, but he just doesn't excite the voting public. The smart thing to do is go with either Obama or Edwards. They're youthful and that helps a lot. Edwards could come in with a mandate to get big corporations out of Govt, and Obama does have a record of bringing people together. I know a surprisingly large number of Republicans that really like him and what he stands for. Maybe we could turn the page and put the old politics behind us. Shillary on the other hand would be disasterous.

[kasa5400]

Hillary Clinton (and her fans): If the other candidates attack me or my positions, it will divide the party and let the bad guys (Rs) win.

Georgie II: If the other party attack me or my positions, it will divide the country and let the bad guys (Muslims) win.

Don't see a whole lot of difference.

[RuthieM]

I think you're wrong. Obama is much better than Hillary any day, any time, anywhere! I think he's better than Dodd and any of them in terms of being an overall president. The others may have their Washington experience but not much of anything else.

[swkidder]

Nice post. I'm also coming to prefer a couple of the 2nd tier candidates to the entire bunch of front runners. My favorate used to be John Edwards - back when he spent more time laying out very specific platform, positions, and intentions - and less on attacking Hillary. As for Obama, I don't care if he has "vision." I care what that vision specifically is, and then exactly, and with whom, he plans to implement it in the real world. It would be nice to hear from any of them, whom they would like to see in their Cabinet.
And I believe you that Hillary is nice, warm and cuddly in person. But the current brouhaha about Mark Penn sums up very nicely what I find disturbing about her candidacy, and why I wouldn't get out of bed to vote for her. I'm not seeing principle in action - out where it might cost her something so I could believe that it was real. I need to trust that you truly hold the views you say you do - that you're willing to pay the cost of acting on them. I'm still sitting with the image of Hillary with one finger up in the air testing to see which way the polls are blowing ... which then defines her current position on the issue. Not good enough. I'm also not sure that 8 more years of Bill would be such a wonderful gift given NAFTA, etc. So much of the corporate friendly/public unfriendly positions/actions he took created real damage in this country and across the world.
We need a new corporate model in the world, one that computes its ROI in a triple balance sheet model. That's not friendly, fuzzy, liberal/new age thinking ... that's what it's going to take for the human race to survive. We have to start behaving as though we're all connected to one another. "We hang together or we hang separately." Global Warming is a lesson on survival - ours, not the Planet's. I don't see Hillary as the leader for these times.

[ccurry]

You're right, it isn't about race or gender right now, it's about style, strategy
......and superficiality

[deminmo]

We Democrats were promised change. Then there is
Hillary as the forerunner for President. She is
a smart woman. She is also a Senator who doesn't
show up for important votes. That's true of a
few of the others as well.

If Mr. Dodd feels that his job is important now
its likely he will take the Presidency as a
serious job too. Maybe the Democratic Party
leaders should pay attention to the person who
could be the best President, not the most
electable.

[xrayman]

"For the first time since 1992 the Democrat would be the guy people wanted to have a beer with;"

We've had a drinking buddy in office for 7 years now. I want someone a little more serious this time. The Chris Matthew's "guy people want to have a beer with" maxim is soooooo old and tired. Get rid of it.

[Truthortradition]

I just hope at the next debate, the Democrats don't eat each other alive.
I hope at the next debate, Hillary knocks them dead in the ground if they continue to try to sabotage the party.
I will vote for Hillary because she seems to understand the basic principles of politics, "United we Stand, Divided we Fall."
She is a seasoned warrior who has withstood public scrutiny for decades and despite all the hard bumps in the road, she always comes out ahead of the pack. Her agenda will benefit this country and when all is said and done, that's all that matters.

[fmoramar]

Why does no one ever mention Richardson? He gave us the best line in all the debates about experience and newness. And people keep talking about wanting Democrats to take a stand instead of talking on both sides of an issue as Hillary has. So why don't we stop saying Kucinich doesn't have a chance and support him--at least to send a message to the candidate who emerges that we want this war over pronto and we want single payer univeral health care. He's the only candidate who speaks directly and clearly about the two most important issues.

[godemsinnc]

I am not a Hillary supporter, but if she is the nominee I will certainly vote for her against any of the Republicans AND against a third party candidate, who would not stand a chance of winning and could ensure a Repub victory. It really disturbs me to hear Democrats promising not to vote for any one of our potential nominees. While we are all entitled to our favorites at this stage of the game (I go back and forth between Dodd and Biden), when November 2008 comes we need to elect a Democrat, plain and simple.
I disagree with Hubert who described Dodd as a gruff, angry, dry-martini kind of guy. I don't know what Chris Dodd drinks, but when I've seen him and listened to him, he strikes me as thoughtful, smart, and -- not to be discounted after 8 years of the Shrub -- a grown-up who knows himself and knows what the country needs. If he is angry, it is at the way this administration has hurt the country he has served for many years. In my view, as he likes to say, Dodd has the experience and gravitas to be President.

[Nutcase]

Electability, regretably, has to be the primary issue. Hillary is the most vulnerable Democrat. When are the Democrats going to realize that they don't elect the president. They need the independents and should welcome any Republicans.

Not only is she the wrong answer on this issue, she is wrong on several others. Iran? W could have cast her vote for her. Healthcare? Do you ever wonder why the pharmaceutical and insurance industries support her?

All of the candidates are ambitious but Hillary takes it to a whole new level. If she is the most vulnerable and still running, she is running for herself. The mere chance that she could win is what drives her, despite what the likely loss would mean to the country.

Give us Biden. Give us Dodd. Give us Edwards. They are electable.

[wangmo]

Hey, Mr. Curry, you are wrong about this label: “That Hillary Clinton's one tough gal.” Ma Barker was one tough gal, Bonnie of Bonnie and Clyde was one tough gal, Hillary Clinton is NOT one tough gal at all. She is one full-bodied real woman full of encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs and politics rooted in Rule of Law, who has, as a 35-year dedicated, well-educated and vastly experienced public servant, developed a solid workable vision for America both domestically and internationally. She is a fully focused passionate woman who is dedicated to fulfilling her destiny as a more than qualified great leader who can, has, and will continue to make the world a better place. To reduce all of her superlative leadership qualities and integrity to the One Tough Gal description is pathetic and ludicrous of you. Sort of reveals how true it is that even thinking men of our society who should know better, seem to have some behaviorally conditioned and mostly unconscious need to psychologically “level” (demean, make smaller, reduce) great goodness, talent, warmth, integrity, honesty, experience, knowledge and leadership
when it comes in the feminine package, and label all those great attributes of character as “tough gal,” when in fact you mean “great Lady.”

[nixau]

Yeah Dodd would be great, Kucinich would be, but if Clinton is the nominee I'd not think twice about voting for her over Guiliani. The Clintons are a package, their leadership style will be similar, but it will be miles better than Bush or Rudy. Clinton ran the Kosovo war brilliantly, so I cant imagine Hillary taking on an Iranian lost cause. She voted for the Iraq war resolution because she thought the president should have a big stick. Turned out all Bush had was a big mouth. She fights back and defends herself but is remarkably free of personal attacks against the other dems. All the Clinton naysayers seem like they've been drinking the media kool aid and regurgitating it. The fact is you do have to work with congress and Hillary has been praised by the likes of John McCain for doing so. She's a good girl.

[Grace]

Sorry to break this to you, Bill, but out here in America, gender and race will be what will be the deciding factor if either Clinton or Obama are nominated by the democrats. The democratic party has not learned anything in the last 7 miserable years. Edwards or Dodd will have a much easier time against any Republican nominee this time. Do we really want Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? THe answer is no, and Edwards, and Dodd, etc. would do better if they emphasized this over and over and over. But their handlers are living in a different world than we are. They are getting bad advice and worse yet, they are following it.

[Purple Girl]

As a white, 44 yr old female- I Don't want her in the WH. We've seen what the wrong women in the wrong positions can do- Nancy,Diane. The results have been a disaster- this is hard for a life long libber to concede. Hillary is Cheney in a dress. I was a major Clinton supporter in throughout the '90's, so I think I recognize 'the middle' when I see it- she is not 'the middle'. What did W. do to her at that Luncheon??I'm starting to think there's more the the name "White" House then was ever intended ('a little snort before lunch, Hill?'). Honestly nancy & Diane look drugged- they are certainly acting like they are under the 'influence'