Could the Repukes back Hillary in 2008?

[Raksha]

Everyone,

After over two years on DU and well over 1000 replies, this is my first-ever OP. I'm not sure why I waited this long, but somehow I felt intimdated. Also, it never seemed necessary. Anything I thought about posting (and a lot I'd never think of!) was almost always posted by someone else, and often more than once.

But I found this article in National Review Online earlier and nobody seems to have covered it yet, so I thought I should give everyone a heads-up about what could be a Republican strategy for 2008. At least this one conservative columnist, Bruce Bartlett, has admitted his side probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in 2008 and is suggesting that his readers support "the lesser of two evils," namely Hillary Clinton.

Get Ready for Hillary
Tough choices for the Right.

By Bruce Bartlett

As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.

Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one party’s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can’t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.

If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next president by becoming involved in the Democratic race?

I’m sure that the first reaction of most conservatives will be to say that any involvement in the Democratic party is unthinkable. They view it as the party of treason and socialism. They could no more involve themselves in Democratic politics than a God-fearing Christian would consider working with Satan just because it looked like he was going to win.

For those of you who feel this way, stop reading. There is nothing more in this column for you. But for those conservatives who don’t see the 2008 election as a race between good and evil, but merely a contest between rivals within the same league, I think there is a good case for participating in the Democratic nominating process.

Here’s why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which one is elected.

To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.

<snip>

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzgxMjNlMWMzNzQ1NjlhMWI5YzNiYTM5YzdmZDdiNTQ=

[Skidmore]

1. For two reasons....

they'll get a conservative without having to vote for the inept bunch of idiots they let rise to the top of their own party, and they get to be on the look out for blue dresses at the WH again.

AND the pundits are salivating too.

[Raksha]

2. Yeah, but WE end up with another Lieberman disaster

except on a national scale this time!

It would make sense (from their POV) but I don't think they can pull it off. After all, they've spent 14 years conditioning the troops to hate her guts...talk about flip-flopping!

[Captain Hilts]

4. She's not a conservative. nt

[salin]

6. Not in the GOP style of conservativism.

Only in a relative spectrum to some of the other candidates does she fall to the right... OF SOME OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES - but she is certainly left of center given the entire rep/dem spectrum.

[Captain Hilts]

7. BINGO! Great to see someone who understands this isn't B&W. nt

[Skidmore]

16. Yup. She's fair and balanced. Even Rupert Murdoch thinks so,

and he gave her a campaign donation just to prove it.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Like all large corporations, Murdoch will give to both sides. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

12. I'm glad you said it!

One of the most fatal miscalculations that many DUers make about HRC is to think that she is a conservative because she is more hawkish than the DU average. They then immediately start the chant of "Lieberman - DLC - TRAITOR! - WHORE!" Analysis is left in the wrapper.

But in politics, perception is everything. If we need an object lesson, remember that Al Gore was "wonky" and "wooden," and the Boy King was the kind of jus'-folks you would want to have a beer with.

I think the American popular image of Hillary is as the cool soccer mom. She's just about everybody's favorite -- kids, other moms, and even dads. But you don't give her any disrespect or she'll smack your back-sassing brain back into your head. Most of the adult world perceives Hillary as a strongly liberal leader. They analogize her hawkishness to that of Scoop Jackson. The letters "DLC" mean nothing to them, and they don't inaccurately give the DLC an importance it never had. To the world, the possible election of Hillary Clinton will signal a strong turn to the left, and policy will turn in kind.

As for the eeevil Hillary's hawkishness, she's far more intelligent and amenable to sensible talk than Bush. Her natural instinct is to promote diplomacy -- it worked extremely well for her husband. It makes you more friends and puts more money in all our banks. If a hawk doesn't have a reason to make war, then why go to war? Bush fabricated a casus belli; not even most Republicans would have done that.

The DU image of Hillary as the Huntress, the She-Wolf of War, the Queen of the Metalstorm, is as false as the similar GOP images of her. Our self-selected political interests have blinded us NOT to her flaws, but to her strengths, and more to the point, to the way other people see her. And THAT is what will be most important in the primary battle and the presidential election.

My personal preference? I am not an early Hillary supporter; I prefer Barack Obama. I believe he is more idealistic, more inspirational, less of an administrator and more of a leader. But I do not sell Hillary short; she is no slouch with regards to Mr. Obama's strong points.

And, truth be known, if Al Gore decides to run, it's all over. I will buy a case of sponge envelope sealers and stuff until the cows come home.

Fact is, no matter who we Democrats choose to run, I will vote for him or her. We have an embarrassment of riches in our party. Our mission ought to be not blind compliance to whomever we choose, but the solidarity we need to re-build this country from the foundation up. Fifty years of Rectal Right Republican dominance has left a huge amount of ruin and decay.

Al, Hillary, Barack, John, Dennis, Mike, Bill ... I'd be honored to have any of them as my President, even if I would disagree with a few, some, or even many of their policies. I often disagreed with the Big Dog's policies, but he gave us confidence and optimism. The Republican Party has forgotten how to do that, and in fact do the opposite by promoting fear and cynicism.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is sworn in as our next President, it will still be a fine, and happy day. The world will release a sigh of relief.

Remember The Wizard of Oz. When Dorothy opened the door, the world turned Technicolor. Whether Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else opens that door, it will be a similar change. On that day, our real work begins.

--p!

[ronnykmarshall]

22. For you and the orginal poster.

:yourock:

[papau]

13. LOL - GOP misinformation gain - After Feingold and Gravel she is the most liberal! n/t

n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. Can 'Clinton fatigue' be far behind? nt

[papau]

14. The National Review - this source - has called her the most liberal - guess they think Dems have

short memories.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. the notion that Clinton

is conservative is dumb.

[MrSlayer]

3. That theory has come up here many times in the past.

And I don't know that it's wrong. The corporate media and rw talking heads push her for the very reasons stated in the article. They think she's very beatable but if she wins it doesn't hurt them too bad.

[salin]

5. Interesting read - esp

given not just that it is by a conservative - but that it is written for conservative readers.

A) recognizing that there is a dwindling chance (onethat is tiny now, and growing smaller) that any repub can be elected;

B) the irony after all of the years of conservo bashes of all things Clinton - to suggest that Hillary is essentially "the best of bad choices".

Interestingly enough there is a thread in GDPolitics stating that several hundred bushjr donors (to either one or both of his presidential campaigns) - have already given to Hillary and/or Obama.

Thanks for posting this - and congrats on jumping into the thread starting fray at DU!

[Raksha]

23. That's what I thought was so interesting,

that the article was addressed directly to conservative readers. I haven't seen that before and it's why I decided to post it. Many of the other observations are well known and have been discussed many times on DU, such as that Rupert Murdoch has been very public in his support for Hillary, that the Republicans think she's very beatable but that it wouldn't be so bad if she wins, etc.

I was also impressed with the author's concession that "all the energy is with the Democrats." That's obvious, but it's unusual to see a conservative honest enough to come right out and say it like that.

[Kip Humphrey]

8. Neocons will.

[ThomWV]

10. They May As Well, Most Democrats Don't

At least around here when I talk to most people I hear that she's just an opportunist, but many go so far as to say she is nothing but a Republican in disguise. Personally I don't see a thing in her worth voting for other than she seems to be on the right track on health care but that is of no importance because no matter who the next Democratic President is we're gonna get universal health care.

[Missy M]

11. This article is funny because...

in a Rasmussen poll yesterday 52% of American voters viewed Hillary Clinton as politically liberal, 44% viewed Obama as politically liberal and 39% viewed Edwards as politically liberal. The people who were polled view it just the opposite of what this ridiculous article says.

[KharmaTrain]

17. They'll Go Third Party First

I know what you mean about posting...I rarely do it myself as most of what I find important few others around here do.

If there's a time ripe for a third party to emerge it's next year on the GOOP side...and the signs are already there. Many aren't happy with their choices in candidates...especially Rudy McRomney...and the other candidates have little chance of breaking through...and with it a small fraction of that splintering party. Tancredo gets the immigration racists, Brownback appeals to the fundies, Hucklebee has his group and so on...whomever comes out with the nomination will have to pull these factions into support...and the natives appear not to interested in that. If you think people here are polarized...read a right wing board and you'll see a party of very frustrated and mad people and the GOOP looks like it's gonna take a direct hit.

Of the Repugnicans I know and speak with, many would rather stay home than vote for a Democrat...ESPECIALLY Hillary. If anything, they're waiting for their "Gore"...and that person could be Gingrich. He's hoping that's the case...that he'll be the "savior" of the CONservative movement...and that's not exclusive to the Repugnican party. I still predict we'll see the Gnewster jumping the ship and opening a big rift in the GOOP big tent.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Without reading the article and just answering the question many Repub women will vote for her

Not because of her political views either. Its because she is a woman.

Think about where the "womens place" is at in the typical beer drinking Republican mans mind for a moment.

Its "Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen."

A woman president explodes that stereotype into outer space.

Many Republican women are ready to break their chains and this may be their only chance to do it.

That is my take on the question.

Don

[Captain Hilts]

21. Correct! Suburban/Security Moms WILL vote for her in significant percentages.

They are conservative, but pro-Choice. The Supremes helped the Dem ticket this month.

I was in pol. polling for 8 years.

[NNN0LHI]

24. Isn't just being a woman a great advantage?

I mean there has to be a lot of Republican woman out there who are just plain tired of waiting on some beer swilling Republican drunk hand and foot like she is some kind of slave.

A woman president would be a sign that true equality may be coming between the sexes. Let the beer swilling jerks wait on the wife for a change.

I expect to see lots of Republican couples going to the polls and canceling out each others vote with this scenario.

Don

[Captain Hilts]

25. Once Republican couples hit 65 they're already cancelling each other's votes ...

But, yes, I think that's where a lot of HRC's shadow vote comes from, the votes she gets that are not represented as in public opinion surveys. Her numbers are really interesting.

[Clark2008]

19. Edwards is the most liberal?

On what planet?

Gravel and Kucinich are the most liberal.

Geesch.