By Dave Lindorff
For two years now, I have been telling people who insisted that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic candidate for president that they were wrong. I even put it in writing a few times.
Now I'm going to really put it out there: Hillary Clinton is Toast. She is not going to be the Democratic nominee.
The reason I always figured she wouldn't make it across the primary finish line was that she was too calculatingly conservative for primary voters.
For years, it has been the case that Democratic primary voters have been more liberal than the broader spectrum of registered Democratic voters. That is because progressive voters have generally been better educated and also more motivated to try to have an impact on the decisions of "their" party than other voters who just mechanically, or out of habit, checked the Democratic box when they registered to vote. Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats.
Clinton, meanwhile, is the quintessential Establishment candidate. She has honed her resume, she has cautiously calculated the impact of every critical vote in the Senate. Even as Mr. Bill's unofficial adviser, she played the role of making sure that White House decisions hewed to the center-right, as for example when she pressed him to defund welfare, or to gut habeas rights for death penalty prisoners. Her craven authorship in the Senate more recently for a flag-burning law (it narrowly failed to pass), and her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization," thus giving President Bush all the authorization he thinks he needs to attack that country), epitomize her politics.
Moreover, while it does sometimes appear that the Democratic Party has a death wish, I've never subscribed to that theory. I think that party leaders do want to win the White House and to keep control of Congress, not because they want to reform the system, but because they want all the perks, patronage and payola that go to the winner. And I think they all are acutely aware that Hillary cannot win in November against a candidate like John McCain. Indeed, she probably could not win against any of the main Republican hopefuls for president.
My guess is that they'll watch what happens over the next month, and if Barack Obama doesn't keep advancing in the polls and the delegate count, they'll do something to sink her candidacy, which we'll see happen when the so-called Super Delegates--the party "ins" and big-wigs--jump to Obama. The talk at the Democratic National Committee about holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida (the two states that held early primaries against party rules and had their delegations ruled unseatable at the Convention), instead of letting them ultimately be seated, is a direct indication that the Party doesn't want the contest going to Clinton. Clinton won both those primaries, which were held before the Obama surge really got going. If the delegations as voted in the primaries were allowed to be seated at the convention, Clinton would be way out front right now.
I predict they won't be. Those delegates will be reallocated at caucuses at which Obama's people will be dominant.
So for my money, it looks like Obama v. McCain in November.
And a good thing that is, because Clinton v. McCain would have resulted in President McCain.
Obama's "change" rhetoric may be ludicrously empty, but it sounds more real coming from his mouth than from his imitators, including Clinton, and that's enough to bring primary voters, who sure enough do want change, over to his column.
You read it here.
____________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
| 8 comments |
|
|
Hillary would be worse than Bill My view of Clinton is that his two terms in the White House were the biggest disaster for the progressive movement in America since the end of WWII. And I am pretty sure Hillary would be more of the same only worse. She is, reportedly, the architect of much of the misbegotten "triangulation" strategy that made the Clinton era such a disaster. I personally would find it impossible to support or vote for her, even with the alternative being four years of McCain (at least we can assume it won't be 8 since he's so old). I think there was this myth that Hillary was the liberal one of the two, but it is clearly not the case. Hillary is more conservative than Bill, who at least in person does seem to genuinely relate to people and understand their problems. Hillary is much more cold and calculating. I would predict that she'd get the US into yet another military conflict just to prove her "manhood." And she'd push for a tougher crime and death penalty stance. I don't see her doing anything to unravel the executive coup that has taken place for the past seven years either. Offered the chance to say what presidential powers she'd give back to Congress and the Courts, she couldn't come up with even one. by
Dave Lindorff (299 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 1:30:31 PM
|
|
I'm a 61year old white guy, Veteran of 66-68, operate my own business with my wife and love to travel. Built a big sailboat in the 70's and went sailing for a few years, which ruined me for real work. Now, I fly hot air balloons for a living. Have been initiated as an Andean Paq'o. Yes, I am a liberal. |
McCain will definately beat Hillary Because there are a LOT of democrats like me who will refuse to support another 8 years of Clinton. Republican lite is not what I want, if forced to a choice, I will vote for the whole Republican mess and start looking for the lifeboats. Veteran, '66-68 by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 300 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 3:59:38 PM
|
|
About the author: welshTerrier2 believes all citizens must focus on restoring power to the people. Corporations control our agenda. They promote war. They export our jobs to the lowest bidder. They pollute our air and water. They promote laws to benefit their greedy shareholders at our expense. They control the puppet politicians through their campaign contributions. They control the mainstream media.
|
A Golden Nugget Tucked neatly inside Dave's post was this golden nugget: "Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats." Well ain't that the truth? Listening to the mainstream media and Democratic centrists, one would think "independents" can't quite make up their confused little minds between the two parties. The media selects independents for interviews who say things like "I wish we could all just get along." The picture they paint is that independents value harmony over any kind of ideological agenda. Perhaps the most ironic trend during this year's Democratic primaries is that Hillary, Queen of the Centrists, can't seem to get much traction with independents. Oops, so much for centrism and her soulless triangulation. Is it just possible, as Dave suggested, that the reason for this is that independents are generally to the left of the Democratic Party? Independents, perhaps by their non-alignment, have no real voice as a voting bloc. When they vote, by definition, they vote as independents with no effort to form a unified political front. But who are these independent voters and what do they really believe? Are they mostly the "I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore" alienated left or are they just plain alienated with the corrupt political process? That topic would make a very interesting article. One thing's for sure, if a political movement could be formed by appealing to a union of progressive independents with those who are so alienated they don't vote at all, something with real political power might be born. Building unity from what is admittedly a wide spectrum of the electorate would be no easy task. The rewards, however, could be substantial. by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 6:38:24 PM
|
|
Midwesterner, veteran of VietNam era naval service, I still feel an obligation to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." |
That's right Independents are not a bloc between Republican and Democrat, although they are often thought of in that way. There are many reasons for a person to refuse to align themselves with a political party. Their politics could be anywhere on the political spectrum that the extant parties don't reach. It could also be that their personal philosophy encompasses a range of opinions that the parties cannot stretch to cover. We see often enough in the postings on OpEdNews that many readers are considerably to the left of the Democratic Party. We cannot make a judgment regarding an individuals politics from the fact that they are political Independents. by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 886 comments)
on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 6:28:02 AM
|
|
You underestimate the power of the press and the Clinton-Bush CIA goons. This game is sold not told. The stakes are too high not to continue the Clinton-Bush mafia control. The largest looting and money-laundering racket in history could be uncovered were it not for the continuity of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies. They just forked over 5 million bucks of their own ill-gotten gains to hedge the bet. You think there aint mega-profits at stake here? This election is about money and its permanent flow to offshore accounts. Hillary is the next president period. by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 347 comments)
on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 8:46:02 AM
|
|
Oekoman is an economist of thirty-two years. He has spent his entire career in the building industry working in a capacity that allows him to witness daily the inner workings of the so-called 'free' market. Oekoman studied at US and French universties earning his Economics degree in 1976. He is bi-lingual. He supports and promotes green building and tries to incorporate green principles in every project on which he is assigned. He has built high rises in the US and Africa. He is a committe... |
Billary's NAFTA and other great deeds Lindorff is spot on. Hillary is the neocons wet dream. She cannot possibly beat any of the Republican leading candidates. Worse, her neo-liberalism is the same neo-liberlism that her hubby practiced when he signed the (Republican authored) NAFTA, which heralded a wave of free trade agreements that have impoverished both US and foreign workers. Hillary has left a trail of poor decisions behind her that have harmed the average American. Those behind both the neocons and neolibs are the same, hence the wide corporate support, uh hum... donation$, for Clinton. They have candidates in both parties (duh) who support their cause/agenda. Obama has raised his money from the people, a monumental feat in itself worthy of high acclaim (which is why its not mentioned in the MSM). If there ever was a people's candidate in these times it would have to be Obama, no? by
oekoman (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 1:53:55 PM
|
|
About the author: welshTerrier2 believes all citizens must focus on restoring power to the people. Corporations control our agenda. They promote war. They export our jobs to the lowest bidder. They pollute our air and water. They promote laws to benefit their greedy shareholders at our expense. They control the puppet politicians through their campaign contributions. They control the mainstream media.
|
The Source of Obama's Money Please read this diary to see the source of Obama's money. by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 2:45:37 PM
|
| 8 comments |
