Hillary in '08?

RealClear Politics points to a good piece on whether the nomination of Hillary Clinton is as inevitable as it seems. Given her moves to the center and successful networking with some Republicans, this is an interesting question to ponder. And if you're a Democrat who agrees with me that the Dems ought to do something a little more radical than pander to the religious right, the article makes some good points. These both make me optimistic that Hillary isn't quite a shoe-in, and ought to appeal to Democrats who'd like to win with a better party.

First, effectively nominating the candidate in a smoke-filled room didn't work in '04 and might not be such a hot idea now.

For once, some political insiders are trying to put the fix in for a woman for president. But a smoke-filled room of political power brokers handpicking a female presidential nominee is no more appealing than one that selects one of the boys. And it is likely to be just as inefficient when it comes to choosing a winner.

Democratic loyalists exerted all their influence to derail former Vermont governor Howard Dean and make Massachusetts Senator John Kerry the party nominee in 2004. With help from Dean and voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, they succeeded. Then Kerry lost in November.

So annointing Senator Clinton isn't necessarily a good idea.

Second, while some of Hillary's moves (coupled with a less small-governmentish Republican party) make me nervous, the article points out indirectly that the folks in the red states may have longer memories than Hillary might care for.

But is [the recent Clinton trip to Southeast Asia a] beautiful enough [photo-op] to make Clinton-haters forget why they hate the Clintons?

To believe that is naive. It also fails to acknowledge the GOP's well-established path to victory. Republican campaign strategists create their own image of the Democratic challenger; they do not accept the image promoted by the opposition.

The GOP-inspired image is seared into voters' minds through relentless advertising, talking points, and conservative talking heads. So far, Democrats have not come up with a successful antidote.

This is giving Karl Rove more credit as a tactician than he deserves, George Lakoff more credit as a theoretician than he deserves, and the American people less credit as judges of their elected officials (counting Hillary, who acted like an official during the attempt to socialize medicine) than they deserve. All the Republicans have to do is jog their memories.

So Hillary's political and personal baggage make her a hard sell.

And thus, third, when the author, John Vennochi, says the following, he is more correct than he cares to admit.

She has the next three years to build her case – and so should other Democrats with different ideas about party direction and agenda.

And this is because...

As a couple, the Clintons are skilled at political repositioning. Right now it's all about grabbing the middle, as defined by the 2004 presidential election.

But as I've been lamenting a lot lately, the left and the religious right both seem to agree that "middle equals religious right." The religionists are not really as strong as they and their Democratic suitors think, and Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily points out that Hillary's desire to give felons the vote may harm that strategy anyway.

So gettin' religion might not snag a large enough part of the electorate if it can be done at all, and Hillary keeps doing things that make it even harder to appeal to that segment of the electorate.

I agree with Vennochi that the Clintons could pull off a Hillary win in '08, but I also agree that this is far from a forgone conclusion. There is still room for a better, more secular kind of Democrat.

-- CAV