Now this is scary...

I think it is time for all democrats to ask themselves, what we really want for the future of this country.  I know that alot of us here are Obama supporters, but some of us would reluctantly support Sen. Clinton if she were to claim the nomination.  But we need to ask ourselves if this is what we want, there is an article in the weekly standard that we as democrats should all take a look at:

the Hillary of May 2008 is radically different from the Hillary of two months ago, much less the one of last year, or of eight years back. And this one (at least till the nomination is settled) has some traits the right wing can love

Umm excuse me...Do we want a President or leader of our party that the right wing will love?  I don't think so...

After March 4, she suddenly seemed to look and sound different:

Remember, "Shame on you Barack Obama."  Remember the leak of the photo of Obama in the Somalian garb.  Remember, "I would not have sat in that church for 20 years."

She's running a right-wing campaign. She's running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues, the campaign that the elder George Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, that the younger George Bush waged in 2000 and then again against John Kerry, and that Ronald Reagan--"The Bear in the Forest"--ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale. And she's doing it with much the same symbols.

She has said her opponent is ill-prepared to answer the phone, should it ring in the White House at three in the morning. Her ads are like the ones McCain would be running in her place, and they'll doubtless show up in McCain's ads should Obama defeat her. She has said that while she and McCain are both prepared to be president, Obama is not. They act, he makes speeches. They take heat, while he tends to wilt or to faint in the kitchen. He may even throw like a girl.

Maybe that is why she says that Rush Limbaugh has always had a crush on her, or why she sought an endorsement from Richard Mellon-Scaife.  And maybe that is why she signed on to McCain's gas tax holiday plan.

And better--or worse--she is becoming a social conservative, a feminist form of George Bush. Against an opponent who shops for arugula, hangs out with ex-Weathermen, and says rural residents cling to guns and to God in unenlightened despair at their circumstances, she has rushed to the defense of religion and firearms, while knocking back shots of Crown Royal and beer. Her harsh, football-playing Republican father (the villain of the piece, against whom she rebelled in earlier takes on her story) has become a role model, a working class hero, whose name she evokes with great reverence. Any day now, she'll start talking Texan, and cutting the brush out in Chappaqua or at her posh mansion on Embassy Row.

Kinda like when she is in the south she becomes a southerner, when she was in Pennsylvania, she made it appear that she was from there.  When she was in Texas, she proclaimed her political roots started in Texas, and now that she is in Indiana, she says she identifies with Indiana values because grew up right next door in Illinois.

In the right-wing conspiracy, this adaptation has not gone unobserved. "Hillary has shown a Nixonian resilience and she's morphing into Scoop Jackson," runs one post on National Review's blog, The Corner:

She's entering the culture war as a general. All of this has made her a far more formidable general election candidate. She's fighting the left and she's capturing the center. She's denounced MoveOn.org. She's become the Lieberman of the Democratic Party. The left hates her and treats her like Lieberman. . . . Obama is distancing himself from Wright and Hillary is getting in touch with O'Reilly. The culture war has come to the Democratic Party

.

She might run to the right of McCain, if she makes it to the general election, and get the votes of rebellious conservatives. Or she, Lieberman, and McCain could form a pro-war coalition, with all of them running to pick up the phone when it rings in the small hours.

.

Is this what we want? Is this what we as democrats will accept?  This maybe the only "true" (there is some truth in it, not completely true) article the Weekly Standard has ever written.  I welcome your comments to see what people think and to see if they agree with the premise of the article...I am not sure I completely agree with it, but I think it is worthy of discussion.  Here is the link in case anyone wants to read the whole article

•  It's the logical outcome of triangulation

  As the GOP constantly moves the goalposts further and further right, and the Democrats refuse to draw a line or dig in their heels anywhere, then the triangulating Dem eventually crosses lines that not so long ago  where the GOP rightwing goalposts were.

  by ActivistGuy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:09:22 PM PDT

  •  The whole "gun" mailing

    is a great case in point confirming what the Standard's analysis indicates.

    by ActivistGuy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:11:04 PM PDT

    •  She's not Hillary, she's Sybil

      Kinda like when she is in the south she becomes a southerner, when she was in Pennsylvania, she made it appear that she was from there.  When she was in Texas, she proclaimed her political roots started in Texas, and now that she is in Indiana, she says she identifies with Indiana values because grew up right next door in Illinois.

      by MooseHB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM PDT

•  This is exactly why alot of us will not vote for

  Hillary:

  She's running a right-wing campaign. She's running the classic Republican race against her opponent, running on toughness and use-of-force issues, the campaign that the elder George Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, that the younger George Bush waged in 2000 and then again against John Kerry, and that Ronald Reagan--"The Bear in the Forest"--ran against Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale. And she's doing it with much the same symbols.

  If we were inclined to fall for right wing rhetoric, we would be republicans.

  by atlliberal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM PDT

  •  There is a deep irony to the whole mess

    Obama says rural Penn's are bitter and cling to guns and God, basically.  Hillary says nonono, these are swell little chipper squirrels, everything is all hunky dory.  Then she runs on exactly the ignore-the-economy,-pander-to-the-basest-greed,-and-work-in-the-guns-and-God-to-boot stratgy that Obama was pointing out, and PENNSYLVANIA BOUGHT IT!!!  They probably still hold out for finding the WMD's!!!

    If these people decide the future of the United States when they can't see the cynical pandering that suckered them over and over pulling them right back in, even when Barack Obama hits them in the face with a pristine crystallization of it, then we get the government we deserve.

    And God help us all, and our guns if he won't.

    by MooseHB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:31:51 PM PDT

•  Maybe a McCain-Hillary ticket?

  by Valatius on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM PDT

  •  I'm actually half expecting that

    it would ironically make a great deal of sense.

    by Inky99 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:57:17 PM PDT