The 2008 presidential election is about change. So we have been told. If the candidates’ public pronouncements and debate performances are any indication, nothing much will change – at least not in foreign and war policies. And I am not speaking of the Republicans. The three top Democratic contenders, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, despite their verbal opposition to Bush’s War, would not commit to complete troop withdrawal from Iraq. All three have indicated that US troops might (will?) remain in Iraq "at least" until 2013. Clinton, particularly seems reluctant to change much of anything, even supporting continued combat operations to deal with Al Qaida in Iraq. We are in the vise grip of the two party system of government which is mostly Tweedledee- Tweedledum of the ruling class.
Some 13 months before Election Day, the race’s dynamic seems immutable. Americans can’t wait to evict the unpopular president and end his disastrous war. As the campaign’s poll-tested phrasemaking constantly reminds us, voters crave change above all else. That means nearly any Democrat might do, even if the nominee isn’t the first woman, black or Hispanic to lead a major party’s ticket.
So nothing can go wrong for the Democrats. Can it? …
The Beltway’s narrative has it not only that the Democrats are shoo-ins, but also that the likely standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton, is running what Zagat shorthand might describe as a “flawless campaign” that is “tightly disciplined” and “doesn’t make mistakes.” This scenario was made official last weekend, when Senator Clinton appeared on all five major Sunday morning talk shows – a publicity coup, as it unfortunately happens, that is known as a “full Ginsburg” because it was first achieved by William Ginsburg, Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer, in 1998.
Mrs. Clinton was in complete control. Forsaking TV studios for a perfectly lighted set at her home in Chappaqua, she came off like a sitting head of state. The punditocracy raved. We are repeatedly told that with Barack Obama still trailing by double digits in most polls, the only way Mrs. Clinton could lose her tight hold on the nomination and, presumably, the White House would be if she were bruised in Iowa (where both John Edwards and Senator Obama remain competitive) or derailed by unforeseeable events like a scandal or a domestic terror attack.
If you buy into the Washington logic that a flawless campaign is one that doesn’t make gaffes, never goes off-message and never makes news, then this analysis makes sense. The Clinton machine runs as smoothly and efficiently as a Rolls. And like a fine car, it is just as likely to lull its driver into complacent coasting and its passengers to sleep. What I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the can’t-miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore.
Accidental Blogger 
8 responses to “The Dynasty Candidate”
Wonderful commentary. I too am distressed by the thought of clinton becoming not just the democratic nominee but, the next president.
On some level I almost feel like a few of the republicans would even be preferable and this is coming from a lifelong democrat who has never voted republican. But, clinton is just too much like Bush for comfort.
When I think about what it would be like for Hillary to be elected I feel the same way I did in November of 2004 when Kerry conceeded. I was in shock and walked around for days swearing everything around me went silent. The usual noise just disappeared. Like the world was in shock. I have that same feeling coming over me.
I cast my first vote for Mondale. Since then every presidential election it seems the democrats stick to script. Pick the weakest, most unlikable and wooden candidate around. If a candidate shows charisma, unthreatening intelligence ( not that know it all and your stupid kind) or promise they are quickly discarded. any hint of a JFK or FDR lurking inside and they are quickly scuttled. They have to lack personality, a good speaking style, creativity and likability. In this, Clinton excels. On top of it, any look at her record and you see flag burning as the most stand out of her legislative career. Mostly she’s tacked her name onto a bill if it looks to advance her career and not something she feels any way about. She has a demonstrated lack of leadership skills as well. Perfect for us to nominate. For icing, she fits in as the perfect DLC candidate of which she is the queen on that group.
After over 20 years of the democrats doing the same thing over and over and then looking in wonderment in Novemeber as to why they lost another election, I am tired. I have decided if Hillary is the nominee I will sit it out. I will not be party to inflicting another disaster upon this country after we had to deal with Bush.
I won’t even go into the dynasty thing, the soap operas and dramas of the Clintons, their grating self absorbtion, ect.
We do have a candidate that is the ideal of a president. Intelligent, thoughful, good judgment, graceful, good humor, extreemly charismatic, can work with anyone and gets alot done and is hard working and cares about this country and the people. My senator, Obama.
I do have to correct on one thing. At the debate, the bloggers and journalists took the answer to that question of what they would do 2 years from now. they did not so much mean they would not end the war. Anyone with any brains cannot make cold promises not knowing what the future holds. I cannot outright promise I will do something 2 years from now. Who knows what will happen between now and then. it’s unfair to hold someone or make them promise something like that. No one is a psychic.
LikeLike
vwcat, you are not alone. Independent voters in the US are a plurality today or close to it. Organizations/groups that are dissatisfied with the two-party system are visible. Open Debates exists. I’ll start despairing when third-parties are banned. We live in a country where it is still possible to speak out, organize and take action.
Say what people will of Republican voters, I do admire them that they vote with their convictions, even if I don’t agree with those convictions. On the other side, even with Democratic candidates like Gravel and Kucinich, the common refrain among anti-war voters is, “yeah, he’s anti-war but he can’t win.” (So I won’t vote for him.) Well, if people actually voted for the candidate(s) who support their views, maybe they would stand a chance of winning!! I just don’t understand this dithering attitude and it boggles my mind. It would be another thing if there were no anti-war candidates. Or maybe I’m very naive. :)
The media already decides who has a chance and who doesn’t, when it should be reporting on issues and candidates’ stands on those issues. It’s a Catch-22: one doesn’t have a chance of winning unless media focuses on you, but media won’t focus on you if you can’t win.
LikeLike
And here’s a handy little tool to find out which candidate is closest to your views. :)
LikeLike
Hey, thanks Amit! I took the test. Here is the result – I wasn’t surprised but I am not satisfied either.
1. Kucinich (91.7%)
2. Edwards (78.5%)
3. Clinton(!!!), Obama and Mike Gravel tied at 75%
But guess what? As you lamented, I won’t vote for Kucinich. Not because others won’t vote for him nor because the media won’t promote him. I myself consider him a flake. While his positions on issues resonate with me, I don’t trust the guy much. Why? I am not a prude by any yard stick and I usually don’t care about a candidate’s personal life and “youthful indiscretions.” But with Kucinich, I question his mature judgement. Any 61 year old guy who has a 29 year old wife with a pierced tongue and looks like a cross between a flower child and a female Druid, has too much passion (and irrational optimism?) and too little common sense.
LikeLike
What Ruchira? You’ve been living in Texas for too long. Such antiquated and conservative views regarding a tongue stud!! :D :p
(j/k)
Mine was Gravel followed by Kucinich. Well, to me, the voting record of a candidate and their stance on issues is what matters more.
LikeLike
Yep, the specter of these old geezers with nubile women brings out the “aunty” in me, as it does for all my women friends of all ages – in Texas and elsewhere. Men may be more sympathetic. Have you noticed that the “family values” Republicans have a much worse matrimonial track record this time? Thompson (another senior citizen with a glittering trophy wife), Giuliani and McCain among the front runners? But that doesn’t matter to the marching squad as long as they are all for God and war.
The voting record is crucial which is why Ms Clinton is causing a headache. There is one Democrat who has surprised me favorably. But he’s not running. Watch out for my next post.
LikeLike
Slight correction to my previous post. The URL I meant to link “Organizations/groups” to is http://www.unity08.com/
LikeLike
Aha, but the irrational optimism of Kucinich paid off when he persuaded his 29-something wife to marry him. I suppose that may be part of his appeal for some voters.
My top match was 95% Gravel (which means I’m truly in touch with my inner curmudgeon, I guess!)
HRC was way down on my list way below Gravel, Obama, Kucinich, Biden and Edwards.
LikeLike