You don't have to be Michael Ignatieff to know that being a front runner in a political campaign doesn't really guarantee anything. It seems that Hillary Clinton's hopes of steamrollering the Democratic presidential nod for 2008 may also be dimming.
In today's Washington Post, Robert Novak writes that Hollywood is already abandoning Hillary for Barrack Obama.
"What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."
"For many months, long before Clinton confirmed that she was a candidate, her agents have been pinning down commitments from a staggering array of Democrats who were connected in large or small degree to her husband to create an aura of inevitability about her nomination. That effort hit a bump two weeks ago with the announcement that David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, the founders of the DreamWorks film studios who all were thought to be staunch Clintonites, were sponsoring a fundraiser for Obama."
"The real reason for not desiring a Hillary coronation, as described to me by California Democrats, is resentment of her cautious sidestep rightward over the past six years. They still cannot get over her sponsorship in 2005 of legislation against flag burning. The whispered worry is that Clinton as the presidential nominee would be a loser in a year when the stars seem aligned for a Republican defeat.
"What's wrong with Clinton was pointed out by Edwards in his "Meet the Press" performance. He not only said he was "wrong" about Iraq when he first supported the intervention, but he advocated universal health care and asserted: "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes." Clinton has hedged on each of these issues (as Edwards pointed out in the case of her stance on Iraq)."
No one can count Hillary or any of the other leading contenders out at this point. They're all vulnerable and they're all capable of making a campaign-ending blunder. As for Hillary's misfortunes, Bill Clinton's influence remains very powerful, perhaps even Hillary's greatest strength.
3 comments:
I think you are right. Racing to the middle and pursuing a triangulation strategy won't work for this Clinton.
I wouldn't necessarily bank on Bob Novak's commentary as an unbiased voice for American politics. As a mouth-piece for the right, his commentary on the Democratic party race has to be viewed from the "what would be best for conservatives" angle.
And what would be best for conservatives would be a bloody contest for the democratic nomination. Fox has been playing the rivalry up big-time, including attributing blatantly racist attacks on Obama as coming from "unnamed sources" from the Clinton campaign - a charge both Obama and Hillary have decried, to their credit.
At the end of the day, I do think it will be Hillary vs Obama, but praying it will be a contest of ideas not personal mutilation. I think they are both bigger individuals than that.
I agree with you about Novak. I cringed at using his writings on this blog but I think he's right about Hillary. My pick? Edwards, all the way.
Post a Comment