Last night’s GOP debate was something of a watershed moment for me, call it a political epiphany, if you will, regarding the Republican chances against Hillary Clinton next year. To be sure, Clinton shouldn't be underestimated, but she certainly can be beaten. Her aura of inevitability and invincibility is fading somewhat and the eagerness and ease with which Republicans took aim at her was very encouraging. Clinton simply has too much baggage that will come back to haunt her and ultimately this will doom her chance at becoming president. Karl Rove was right in defining her as a “fatally flawed” candidate. Democrats should wise up and choose someone else: I’m thinking something along the lines of an Obama/Richardson ticket. Clinton is a deceptively good choice to settle on, but just scratch that surface and the stench of corruption hits you in the face. She’s a perfect kamikaze candidate: “I have a million ideas and America can’t afford all of them.” So said the queen-in-waiting not too long ago. Giuliani had a field day with her on that one. “No kidding Hillary, America can’t afford you!” John McCain whipped Clinton for her recent support for a one-million dollar Woodstock concert museum. “I wasn’t there, I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event” said McCain, “I was tied up at the time,” referring to his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam as a POW. Ouch! Savor that. The debates between Hillary and GOP candidate McCain/Giuliani/Thompson/Romney are going to be delicious. So much of what Hillary has said or done in the past can be thrown right back at her. Incidentally, I’m beginning to sense an emerging Giuliani/McCain ticket, or vice versa. Either one of these men would eviscerate Clinton on the debate stage.
What also caught my eye last night was how eager the Republican candidates were to identify themselves as conservatives, and further, to duke it out over who was more conservative than the next guy. In contrast, the Democrat candidates do not have a philosophical point of reference to signal out as their guiding principle. Or if they do have one (call it liberalism), they dare not publicly tout and embrace it. Granted, they are all hardened liberals, but they cannot embrace that label with gusto since they recognize that America is a center-right nation. There’s no chomping at the bit among Clinton, Edwards and Obama to prove who is the most “liberal.” They are simply running against Bush and in doing so they are allowing themselves and their message to be defined by someone who will not even be on the ballot in ’08. Take heart Republicans.
I think Jodi Bottum over at First Things has said it best:
ReplyDelete"The weakest set of candidates in living memory has taken the field, and we still have more than a year left of watching these people, lumbering and blumbering toward the goal line."