Inevitable Hillary?

[babylonsister]

Inevitable Hillary?
She's ahead in polls and fundraising. But that does not mean she's a shoo-in for the nomination.

from the October 11, 2007 edition


Hillary Clinton now has what a presidential candidate seeks: a sense of inevitability about eventual nomination. "Can Clinton be stopped?" headlines ask, as she tops polls and tops off campaign coffers. For the sake of a healthy democracy, it's time to invoke Yogi Berra's caution: It ain't over till it's over.

The Democratic New York senator has worked hard to get to this point, a position that has its advantages. A presumptive winner in the primaries commands campaign dollars and media attention (though the latter can be a mixed blessing). This necessarily weakens competitors, who are then forced to spend less time promoting themselves and more time trying to knock out the frontrunner (another mixed blessing).

Historically, the early leader usually bags the nomination, though there may be some stumbles along the way. That's why a string of candidates – both Bushes, Al Gore, Bob Dole, and Walter Mondale, to name a few – worked to create the perception of presumed nominee.

When Senator Clinton took the usually slow summer fundraising season and turned it into a record-setting clam rake, when she appeared on five Sunday talk shows in one morning last month, when even President Bush spoke of her as the one to beat – then she must have known she was wearing that invisible crown of inevitability.

But there's danger in perceived early coronation. It can dampen the competitiveness of campaigns and ideas.

more...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p08s01-comv.html

[niceypoo]

1. The media chose Hillary a long time ago

The media in this country has been obsessed with her for a long, long time. Similarly, the circular firing squad here at the DU and the freepers that are allowed to rant about her freely here at the DU are also thoroughly obsessed with her. Ironically, the hatred of Hillary here has turned into hatred of Bill Clinton also, with many. It is as if a lot of DUers are metamorphosing into republicans. I personally find the whole mess disgusting, top to bottom.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. I don't want Hillary as the nominee, and I am so far from being a right-winger

that I can't even SEE the right wing from where I stand.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. I think you're seeing what you want to see

There are many of us here (I've been posting since the spring of '01) who have always expressed SERIOUS problems with Bill Clinton; it's not like this is new and just some blinkered slop-over. You'll find many people on this board who don't cling to black-and-white simplicities and who can still like certain things about a person and his/her policies and dislike the rest.

I, for one, have been pretty acid on the subject of our veracity-challenged appeaser of an ex-president, although I've generally been pretty clear about crediting him for some serious achievements like keeping the wall up between corporate accounting and investment banking, raising taxes on the rich and balancing the budget while drawing down the debt, and a host of other things. At the same time, I've also been VERY critical of his pathological need to be loved and his willingness to suck up to the reactionaries who never stop trying to destroy him.

My extreme dislike for Senator Clinton comes from the left, and I'm hardly a bright red bolshevik; I'm a liberal democrat. It's BECAUSE of my liberalism (and loyalty to honesty) that I dislike her.

Think back. Although many have always gushed endless love for Clinton on this board, a lot of it has been a personality thing for plaguing the right and getting away with it. In fact "getting away with it" is such a personal leitmotif that it'll haunt him well beyond the grave. It's also his Achilles' heel, and precisely how the right "got" him in the end. Never forget: even though he came out of the scandals on his feet, he would have been SO MUCH more popular and the Democrats in SUCH A BETTER MORAL POSITION had he not looked us straight in the collective face and wagged his finger at us and lied.

My and many others' dislike for Hillary was a parallel development. She's an embarrassment as a senior figurehead of our party, just like her pal Dianne Feinstein. To stand up straight and flatly say--without qualification--that one likes her is, to me, tantamount to saying one is a Machiavellian "winner" and has no ethical underpinning at all. It's that bad.

It matters, and your characterization of this as some kind of groupthink that leads us to suddenly hate Bill and turn into Republicans is wrong in every way possible, as is your intimation that being a "circular firing squad" is somehow insidious and destructive.

We have the right to question our potential leaders; they're the ones we choose to represent us. We also have the right to throw 'em in the lake and see if they can swim; there's nothing any of us is saying that the monarchists aren't going to throw at her too, and if she can't survive the candid recounting of her various idiocies from within her own party, she'll never make it through that long almost nine months from February 6th to the election.

Apparently you're shocked that people can be so upset by her to such a degree that you attribute it to the old bugaboo of conservatives under our beds. I and others are shocked that anyone who cares about pluralism, peace, worker's rights, and a plausible economic model could even entertain voting for this maneuverer. It's not so much anger that many of us have, it's true disgust. It's moral, ethical revulsion.

[Echo In Light]

2. Inevitably BIG $ determines "democracy"

[sellitman]

3. Dean was Inevitable too.

Remember?

[babylonsister]

5. Did you read the OP? There's a question mark there for a reason. nt

[flpoljunkie]

4. "in 2004, more than 2/3 of Dem caucus-goers did not decided until the last month--many in last week"

And yet Iowa and New Hampshire often buck the national trend. Pat Buchanan upset Bob Dole in the New Hampshire GOP primary in 1996, and John McCain did the same with George W. Bush in 2000. Even though Clinton recently took the lead in Iowa, it's a slim one.

Voters in these states take time to decide. In 2004, more than two-thirds of Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa did not decide until the last month – many in the last week.

Clinton may be in an enviable position. But she is not yet in an inevitable one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p08s01-comv.html

[OHdem10]

6. We cannot compare Dean and Hilary and make a mistake

when we try.

Dean had the Media and DLC colluding against him.
Hilary does not.

Dean did not have the Party Machine behind him.
Hilary does.

There is no basis for comparison.

right now it appears Hilary would really have to blunder
big time. However, it is a long time before the Primaries.

[sellitman]

7. She has blundered.

A whole lot.

The Media just won't report it.

[bpeale]

9. i don't think how much money you've raised

is a good indication of whether you will win or not. the number of people who have donated doesn't necessarily equate to the number of eligible voters. it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

[mtnsnake]

11. I dont think it's so much inevitable Hillary but inevitable Democrat in the WH

BUT....Hillary has earned her spot. The media hasn't given her anything, as previously suggested. As someone who was hoping for more from Obama, I'm delighted with the way things are panning out for the Goddess of Peace. Not only is she stronger than first imagined, but the country is changing its tune toward her as far as her being perceived now as a winner in the general election as well as the primary.

In a perfect world, Kucinich would be the frontrunner and become our next president. But we all know we don't live in a perfect place. Hillary will be just fine, though, brilliant lady that she is.

[babylonsister]

12. Goddess of Peace?