I'm afraid to add to the Hilary fray that is going on here at dkos. But this diary is about much more than Hilary, she is just one of several examples about a certain type of very succesful politician:
The hated politician.
Now, all politicians are disliked by a lot of people (even the best are disliked by a third). and all politicians are hated by a few people (there are always a few). But what about that special breed of politician that causes a significant number of people to froth at the mouth and speak in tongues just at the mention of his or her name? This is an elite crowd and we need more of them!
'What? we need to be hated? you are crazy.' you say? Democrats have a natural inclination to want to be liked. In our lives and our politics. We really earnestly think we are right on the issues. And if are detractors would just take the time to listen, just look at the facts, then they would realize the truth. They would like us, our laws, our party. We strive to convince them.
What is the result? We aren't very abrasive. We are a party of appeasement, a party of debate and discussion.
I think in examples, so I will use one here: Kerry.
I know that some people HATED Kerry (Swift Boat Vets), but the truth is, that was a small minority of people. Most people just disliked Kerry, or thought he was sort of OK. I will guess some random numbers that are more to illustrate a point, than be accurate:
Americans felt about Kerry:
5% frothing at the mouth hatred
10% said bad things about him in a loud voice in crowded rooms
15% didn't like him
20% just didn't quite trust him
20% wasn't the best, guess he was better than Bush
15% a good solid Democrat
10% respected him for his life of amazing service
5% loved him with all their heart
Regardless of the numbers, the point is clear. Kerry had a bell curve, with most people in the middle regarding him as a person. I would say this is very comparable to Bush Senior, another example.
So is this the model for success? In one way, you could think that it might be. Lots of people are in the middle for Kerry to convince. If he can show people that he is right on the issues then they will vote for him, because there aren't a lot of personal barriers in the way.
So lets look at another example: George W. Bush
30% hate his stupid guts
30% aren't sure what to make of him, respect him, think he's nice, at least he means well etc.
30% love him like he is God incarnate
so this, if anything, is an inverted curve. You have majorities crammed at the ends. With the left hating, the right loving and the middle not sure what to think. So who is going to win out in this kind of fight? the lovers or the haters?
Well, we saw what happened. In a lot of ways the haters alienate the third that is in the middle.
Imagine you don't pay too much attention to politics (hard, I know). You don't have strong opinions. And you are trying to decide what to think. person A comes up to you and says:
'I just think _ is doing a great job. He/she is sweet and honest and good. I love America and I love _ and we need __ to help America and stay positive and do the right stuff.'
and person B says:
'TREASON! ECONOMIC DISASTER! ALL IS BAD! ___ IS A HORRIBLE SLIME BALL WHO WILL DESTROY OUR COUNTRY!HATE, VENOM, HATE'
well, person A sounds nice and reasonable and person B sounds like a nutjob. So people in the middle just decide to side with person A (or tend to). Regardless of the facts. The more we screamed about how bad Bush was, the more Moore and others cried treason the more we alienated people who didn't know what they though, but they knew they didn't want to sound like person B.
I know that person B sounds like Anne Coulter or Rush. But they are feeding the tiny super base, and not speaking to the middle. It is thought that there are 'those people' on both sides. But when a politician is hated like Bush (or Clinton) one entire side starts to sound crazy and alienates the middle (remember Clinton's approval numbers during the full court Monica Gate press?)
So hated politicians tend to rise above the hate. Think Reagan and Clinton and Dubya. As long as 30% of the population loves them then the hatred becomes a positive that works for them. The love and positive vision is so much better. Politicians who naturally make people indifferent have a harder time making a mark. Kerry, Bush Sr.
So now I get back to the beginning and mention Hilary. Hilary Clinton as a Presidential nominee would send the far right into a tizzy of hatred like we have never seen. They would be forced to reveal themselves as the maniacs that they are. It would be scary, because there would be a lot of them. These are the same people who went bezerk over Monica-gate. But, remember, they are only about 30% of the people. And their insanity drives the middle right to us.
I just hope that Hilary stays smart and reminds us that she is a Democrat in the style of her husband, someone who brought us peaceful economic prosperity. That way she can hold onto that 30% who will love her.
For all the Hilary bashing that I think is legit (criticizing her on the issues), I just think the MSM claims that she might be too contentious have it exactly backwards. Being hated as a politician is a sign that you stand up for something and if used right can lead to real success.