I hold no grudge against Senator Hillary Clinton. She has shown herself to be very intelligent and deeply devoted to her career, a refreshing First Lady and a woman capable of both stern belief and surprising mercy. If I had the opportunity, which I feel I may some time over the next four years, to meet her, I would do so without hesitation, and compliment her personally on all of the points I just made.
My problem lies with Clinton's raw ambition, a rawer, public version of the ambition that so famously propelled Former President Bill Clinton to the White House for two terms. In the case of President Clinton, his ambition was not all-consuming; Republican or Democrat, from Newt Gingrich to George H.W. Bush to Robert Byrd, most people agreed that the man liked to talk, loved good company, and enjoyed making friends. Hillary Clinton (and to some extent George W. Bush, but for different reasons) seems to have pushed aside the essential `schmooze' of the business in pursuit of unrefined gain.
Hillary Clinton intends to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for President in 2008. I will oppose this campaign with all of my energy, not out of personal dislike for Clinton, which seems to be about 60% of the Republican reason for destroying her, but to save the Democratic Party from having to lose again. When the day comes that Clinton announces her candidacy, and if the day comes that Senator John Kerry again announces his, I will be prepared to fight as hard as I must to inform my fellow Democrats - and by that process all people I can reach - that Hillary Clinton would be suicide for the party.
It is not that I doubt Senator Clinton's qualifications, although they are a bit slim. I believe that she would be more than capable to assume the Office of the President. The problem is, she would never make it that far. As much as it pains me to say it, to every Clintonite (of which I am one) who wanted resurgence, to every woman who saw 2008 as the year of power, Hillary Clinton would stand little chance of winning the White House. Her problems are twofold: first, she is cast by voting record (and will essentially be cast by Republicans from the start) as a Northern Liberal, much like Senator Kerry. Secondly, no one can deny that Hillary Clinton is a walking, talking lightning rod.
If nominated, it will be all too easy for the Republican Party to roll out the "liberal" title they used on John Kerry, and right or wrong, it will stick. It will stick because the basic essentials of the title are there: she is from the North, which Democrats must now grudgingly admit is a mistake for our candidates, and she has at times spoken radically about health care. Taken alone, these things should cause little trouble. Combined, and added to the second point, Hillary Clinton becomes a pariah to the fastest growing area in the nation - the South.
It is true that Bill Clinton swept many Southern states, a quite impressive showing that has not been duplicated by a Democrat in two elections. There is a reason for that: Bill Clinton, as much as I love the guy, had a libido that sterilized the South to any Democrat bearing the Clinton name, and made winning any Southern state a fight for any Democrat, much less a "liberal" Clinton from New York.
I don't say what I say to ignite the ire of Democrats - I am simply stating what has, in recent electoral history, become apparent fact: the Clinton name and the "liberal" title have become an anathema to the South. The best chance Democrats, the party of hard compromise, has in 2008 is a compromise that the vocal liberal minority is not willing to make: we must nominate a moderate, a man of his own making, preferably from the South.
Governor Mark Warner of Virginia stands out among this field, a Son of the South that could easily bring Virginia and West Virginia into the Democratic fold while opening up the heartland. An ideal Vice Presidential pick, already floated as a Presidential contender himself, would come in the form of Hoosier Hero Evan Bayh. Bayh's standing as a Senator and not the all-important Governor title (although Bayh has held both during his long and respectable career).
So it seems, coming fresh from defeat across the board, we Democrats must be willing to answer one vital question: do we compromise and nominate a man who still holds intact the beliefs and goals of the Democratic Party, though expresses them in a moderate view, or do we allow blind ire and excitement to give us Hillary Clinton and a Republican President in 2008? It's a hard question, but it needs to be answered.
[Brought to you by The New Democrat, http://newdemocrat.blogdrive.com]