There's been a lot of talk about electability and Hillary Clinton wants to argue that her "35 years of experience" as well as her experience taking on the Right-wing Attack Machine during the 1990s gives her the edge over Obama on this score. Perhaps not...
(brought to you by: http://www.freedomroadproject.blogsp...
I'll leave aside the fact that "35 years of experience" is a liberal interpretation of Clinton's record and the fact that I don't recall the Clintons fighting that vigorously against Republican assaults in the 90s. Rather, I recall one capitulation after another to the policies of the Right, but that is an entirely different diary...
... Here is why I think Hillary is the least electable Dem left in the race... and it is not for the obvious reasons:
• Hillary starts with a roughly 50% anti-vote
• Hillary will mobilize an otherwise demoralized Republican base unlike any of the other Dems
• Polls show Obama and Edwards faring better against the top Gop contenders
It isn't for these obvious reasons that I think Dems should think long and hard before casting their lot with the retro-Clinton wave. Rather...
• Hillary, unlike Obama or Edwards, actually demoralizes a significant portion of her own party. This should scare the heck out of Democrats. Let's all admit it, whether you prefer Hillary or not, we all know several other liberal/progressive/lefties that are utterly turned-off by the prospect of 4-8 years of a Clinton restoration. Many of those folks may hold their nose and vote for Hillary in the end, given the disaster of the last 8 years and the fervent desire to elect a Democrat, but I suspect they won't be animated beyond that and won't be energized to work on behalf of the party in the election. And, this could be the difference, particularly against John McCain, who clearly seems to be competitive with all of the Dem nominees.
Here is another way to look at it: I live in Nebraska and Jim Esch, an Omaha Dem, came within a whisper of beating Republican blow-hard Lee Terry in '06. Most thought he would run and win in 2008, no small fete for a red state like ours; it would have been a HUGE pick-up for the Dems. But, Esch isn't running. When he opted out, one of the reasons he cited was the likely prospect of Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket and the realization that her name would bring out every evangelical and hard-Right voter in the state. His analysis: Hillary at the top hurts Dems down the ticket, particularly in red and purple states. Right there, the Repubs saved a seat they very well could have lost... and the election is 10 months away! Thanks Hillary.
Look, I live in the middle of conservative-land and I can tell you even out here people are yearning for change and a new direction. The Dems have a great chance to grow the party and make inroads into areas that previously were staunchly Republican: in the Midwest and West, particularly. There is little prospect of growing the party under a Hillary administration, though. Rather, we will see 4-8 more years of deeply partisan politics, a deeply divided nation and a resurgence in the Rush Limbaugh media who have made zillions off of Clinton-hatred. All of this bodes ill for the long-term health of the Democratic Party and for American democracy, in general.
Seriously people, let's think about this before we jump on the Clinton bandwagon!