Democrats Sigh, Begin to Yield to the Force of Hillary
Inevitability wears on left-leaning Clinton holdouts; Obama supporters start to surrender
By most descriptions, Cintra Wilson, the writer, cultural pundit, and all-around liberal lady, is not your typical, rock-ribbed Hillary Clinton supporter. From the beginning, she thought the Iraq war “was malignantly rotten and insane,” she said. In 2000, she voted for frequent presidential candidate and perennial un-Democrat, Ralph Nader. And for a brief moment this campaign season, she “got romantic” about the notion of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
But in recent weeks, Ms. Wilson has begun to entertain an idea that would seem to run counter to many of the twists and coils of her political DNA: She may vote for Mrs. Clinton in New York’s Feb. 5 presidential primary.
“I genuinely think she’s the man for the job,” Ms. Wilson said.
“With Hillary,” she said, “you get a Dragon Lady who you know can slay dragons.”
This may not be the kind of frothy endorsement most presidential contenders covet. But within the world of liberal-leaning Hillary skeptics, where Mrs. Clinton is resented for everything from her Iraq vote to her perceived political pandering to her “maddening caution” (as one critic phrased it), Ms. Wilson’s decision represents a palpable shift.
Certainly, there are plenty of staunch liberals who still get queasy at the mere thought of pulling the lever for Mrs. Clinton. But as the bloom has faded from the Obama rose, and as Mrs. Clinton has solidified her image as the “inevitable” nominee, a segment of New York liberals are yielding.
This movement stems in part from a tentative warming among some Hillary critics. But it also comes from a sense of stolid resignation among others—a kind of self-vaccination against an unwelcome reality. Some Democrats experiencing this conversion describe a mix of symptoms that sounds uncannily like vertigo.
“It’s hard to describe the feeling that some liberals have towards Hillary’s nomination,” said Fred Gooltz, director of strategic messaging for Advomatic, a left-leaning Web development and strategy shop founded by members of the Dean For America Web team. “It’s not as cut-and-dry as, I used to hate her but now I love her. It’s a complicated mix of feelings.”
Jason Wojciechowski, 30, another online media activist and onetime Howard Dean supporter, put these feelings in sharper terms.
“My biggest moral dilemma is, can I put very much support behind someone about whom I think, ‘People are dead because she’s not doing her job’? Because she’s not being a leader on the issue?” asked Mr. Wojciechowski, referring to Senator Clinton’s ongoing opposition to a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Nonetheless, he has found himself inching in her direction.
“It’s gone from pretty close, but probably Obama, Edwards, Hillary, to Edwards, Hillary, Obama,” Mr. Wojciechowski said, listing the order of his presidential preferences. “So she knocked Obama out of the top spot, but she still couldn’t take Edwards down.”
In a way, Mr. Wojciechowski’s evolution is indicative of something larger happening, in particular, with early, actively liberal supporters of Mr. Obama. The Illinois senator was, until recently, seen as perhaps the one Democratic candidate capable of launching a Howard Dean–style insurgency against the Clinton establishment. He was the one who was supposed to restore Camelot. He was the one who was supposed to be audacious. He was the one who was supposed to give voice to a whole new political generation.
But sometime during the summer months, self-described online activist types like Mr. Gooltz and Mr. Wojciechowski began cooling to him. As they described it, there was no single moment of epiphany, but rather a series of events that irked and disappointed—from the senator’s failure to vote against censuring Move On for its “General Betray Us?” advertisement (he sat out the vote) to his less-than-universal health care plan. Next Page >
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.1
- 41.9
- Obama +4.2
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
This article is all about "perception," and pays scant attention to GE polling in making the contention that only Clinton could defeat Giuliani and the other Republican front-runners. Rasmussen GE polls have rather consistently shown Edwards to have the best chance against the Republican contenders. Recent SUSA state-by-state GE/Electoral College type polls have shown both Edwards (overall he does best against all Republican contenders) and Clinton to be competitive (Edwards wins some unexpected states, Clinton is stronger in others), but Obama is clearly dead last. These polls are routinely ignored in the media.
It is said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans "fall-in-line". Recent history suggests that the Republicans' discipline wins elections. Now for the first time in 2 generations the opposite is true. The Republicans have been decimated by Bush incompetence and carelessness about the travails of his own Party. The GOP primaries have the potential to be messy and the recrimination among the rank and file is likely to be fierce (Who Lost Ohio?)
Democrats are falling in line for a very good reason: Hillary Clinton can and will win the White House for them and as the top of the ticket sweep the more important congressional and Senate offices to finally get a working majority. And more than love, the Democrats, after the abuse by the Cheney-Bush crowd, want to win.
Obama is fresh and a great asset for the Democrat future, but not ready for the big top. John Edwards has an important message, but no organizational depth to go the distance. The Clinton Machine is equal to the task of winning and then governing for 8 years and that more than love is muting the criticism and building Hillary's support.
She will need it.
Roger Ailes et al lie in wait
"This article is all about "perception," and pays scant attention to GE polling in making the contention that only Clinton could defeat Giuliani and the other Republican front-runners. Rasmussen GE polls have rather consistently shown Edwards to have the best chance against the Republican contenders. These polls are routinely ignored in the media."
I think the key point you're missing in from the article is who has the best chances of defeating the Republicans in the election not as a matter of polling but as in response the behavior of the Republicans. The inevitability factor is not static but rather the dynamic notion that Clinton (possibly Edwards and Obama as well) but specifically Clinton has been able to beat Republicans and win them over and can deal what they throw at her. Versus Edwards who may or may not have that ability and in polling can win but whose outcome through an election cycle is untested especially with candidates of this magnitude.
Hillary has actually taken the game plan Karl Rove did for Bush but with her husbands cake mix.Play to your base:women with needs, working poor,elderly etc. and solidify them with strong promises..Healthth care, childrens education,retirement cash right up the middle ..of course Edwards said this but he doesn't have a "winning" track record..he couldn't even carry his own state against Bush, and according to pollster.com he now trails miserably in SC and Fla even after all those fits Elizabeth threw his numbers didn't move. Hillary has that win/ win situation in the primary and the general. If they press too hard against her she gets that old "Lazio" victim support from the women- they know this male abuse masquerating as criticism. and Obama lets have a fresh air moment as Quiote: young, ambitious,articulate etc...yet sadly flushed with 80 million he hit the cold hard invisible ceiling no one will dare to admit... "Hmmmmmm.If he hadn't ran, Would any Presidential candidate would have even taken on a Black v. p nominee" even in their top five choices? And he wants to be THE numero uno, CEO, but fresh out of "school" . Nice college try.maybe next time.(And I love him and I woke up to this as a 54 year old black man rooting the hell for him)But somebody has to say it.There are people who vote by Race- it goes to both sides ....no? But, he is cute, cuddily, photogenic. thats what they really saw first. deny deny Then where was the support for Charlie Ranger, Harold Ford,Sheila Jackson et al.. all those with experience AND judgement ? Okay he has a special message and Thus the double edge sword- be the soft non-threatening peace maker and you will be eaten alive- renenge on this hope- audacity- Oprah hold hands moment and you lose all creditbility.Didn't think that thru huh junior? So its Rudy vs the Clintons the subway series that only New Yorkers and the press can really salivate over this bloody match. Rudy isn't about to lose his nastiness now, its in his DNA,so nasty that even his children deny him after all these years and Hillary will show what a true determined Scorpio woman will do.So its 2004 all over again, The same battle ground states plus some ..Get the popcorn, its gonna be a fight
For me, as Obama proved to be worse than a dud, my order of preference went from Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Hillary ... to Dodd, Edwards, Hillary, anybody else including Obama.
Obama doesn't just shy away from fights, he doesn't know what one looks like.
Hillary in 2009 will NOT be Bill in 1992. Hillary knows who her enemies are. She knows that on many points there is no compromising with the thuggery of the radical right. In that way, she is an improvement over the first term of her husband's reign which was a series of demoralizing capitulations.
clinton could well be an intelligent moderate republican of the baker/chaffee template. left of bush on domestic issues, but that not much different than bush on foreign affairs. look at her voting record, her relationship with the military-industrial complex.
if clinton becomes president, the outrageous war in iraq, the saber-rattling directed at iran, and the lives, resources, and international prestige wasted in the the phony global war on terror will continue. the 'gwot' is a death spiral of endless war. that alone will destroy any domestic programs she may advance. her guns and butter premise is untenable. her environmental positions are after thoughts.
the media focusses on the inevitability of clinton as democratic nominee in the same way they are obsessed with britney spears. the frivolity of the press and its coronation of clinton, will fall away with an edward's win on iowa. if that happens, it will be a two way race. add to that the possibility of an obama endorsement of edwards after new hampshire, and clinton's campaign will implode.
from my perspective edwards is the transformational candidate. he has reframed the notion of an endless war on terror to an international police action, he has the best universal health care plan, environmental plan, and he has rightly linked structural poverty to our success or failure of the great american experiment. clinton is a small mind with small ideas. she wants to become president. besides that she has few goals and no imagination of what america should be in the 21st century. she seems driven to go after the 'vast right wing conspiracy,'and managing the status quo, rather than leading this country into the new century, invigorated and repairing the damage we have done to the world and ourselves over the past 50 years.
i urge those who are reluctantly being drawn to clinton because of the propagandistic notion of her inevitibility, to fight what is best and not settle for what is least.
Wendy
It was Bill Clinton, I believe, who coined that phrase: Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.
I mention this because anotehr posted used the phrase and because one benefit of Hillary, who now has my vote, and will have many others--who was not my first choice, but who will bring Bill back maybe to solve Mideast intractible peace making, and who does seem to be riding the wave now.
If I, who NEVER EVER thought I'd be for Hillary have changed my mind due to many factors and after supporting Obama financially, I bet many others are doing the same.
The old notion that everyone who is for Hillary is still so, and everyone against her candidacy is already in their foxholes--has been upturned as witness this article and my preference. I don't care about her vote for the war anymore; I care only for a win against this insane bunch of repubs in the WH and running for it. I think the tide has truly turned, as your vote box shows as well. Let's line up and get behind a winner before it's too late, is my take.
Oh, great.
We will now wind up with the one candidate sure to bring out the foaming at the mouth, apoplectic right wing nut jobs and unite them.
Molly Ivins (rest her soul) said it best: "If the Democrats nominate Hilary, I consider it a failure."
This whole "business as usual" attitude among the Dems is just maddening to me. The country is starving for a candidate that will call Bush and Cheney liars, demand that we leave Iraq yesterday (not tomorrow) and say "enough" to the erosion of middle-class jobs and benefits.
They (Dem party leaders) are just too cautious to realize that they have the wind at their backs.
Please, please, anyone but Hilary.
It will mean we've gone Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for the last four presidencies.
(sigh)
I like Sen. Clinton and I like Sen. Obama. I will always vote (D),if my party nominate Sen. Clinton I hope and pray that she picks Sen. Obama as the V.P.
US. Army