I have about had my fill of diaries and comments slagging Hillary as some sort of Great Deceiver and proxy Republican. This is the same sort of bullshit that was floating around in 2000, and gave rise to the Nader fiasco, and 8 years of Republican nightmare. Sure, Hillary has the taint of corporate corruption that Bill did, and every other successful Democratic politician has had as well--but to deny her potential value to our party, and our country, at this critical time in our history is just plain stupid--just like it was stupid in 2000.
I know this has all been said before, but I'm taking my shot at it, because I've finally come to the conclusion that Hillary, taken as a whole, is the best candidate for the job. I make my case after the fold.
First let's look at the country today, and the Democratic Party's current political status. The country is insecure across the board, regarding its economy, diplomatic standing, and national security. How else could it be, after watching 25 years of Reaganite dreams devolving into dust? The Repugs think they need another Reagan, but they are grasping at old straws--Bush's politics may be a perversion of Reaganism, but it isn't a reversal of its principles. A new Reagan won't be able to sell this stuff, because Bush WAS the new Reagan, and he fucked it up. We all know, deep in our hearts, that the United States is entering a decline in world standing that has nothing to do, really, with Bush's fuckups, but because of the inevitable rise of China, India, and other players in the world economy. The 20th century was our century--by 2100, this century will clearly be either China's, or nobody's.
Bush's fuckups are hastening our decline, however. Bush the elder created a viable role for the US, as global policeman, that if maintained would have at least created a bigger seat at the table of world affairs. However, that role required maintainance of the world's trust, and Bush has completely screwed that pooch. What's at stake here is whether by the end of this century we are have the stature of, say, Germany with a strong EU, or of Brazil--the latter a worst case that would require us lapsing into full basket-case potential. Once could easily see that happening if BushCo had its way with us for a few more decades.
So the Democrats offer America a way out. However, although Reaganism is discredited, the Dems still haven't completely rehabilitated themselves in the public eye. The old Democrats WERE complacent, driven by constituent politics, and economically undisciplined, as Reagan had successfully pointed out. They were also in a funk of their own design regarding foreign policy and security issues, after having created, then abandoned, the Vietnam War. Thirty years of Reaganite propaganda still hasn't been overcome in the public eye--YET.
The Democratic Party stands at the cusp of completely taking over the political reins of this country, and resetting a course for the new realities of the 21st century. But in order to do so, it requires a massive act of rebranding the Party and overcoming the negative stigma that still prevails. It will not be done overnight--it will, first and foremost, require one unequivocally successful presidency, the way that FDR's first term singlehandedly brought back the Party from NOTHING in the Great Depression.
That's why, in my heart of hearts, I am relieved that Kerry didn't win in 2004. Kerry was too much of a sap, too easily painted with the old Reaganite brush strokes, and had a terrible political partner as well in his wife--a walking PR liability who never seemed to care whether or not her husband got elected. He would have been a terrific fall guy for Republican failures, another Dukakis-style, detached figure who was smart yet clueless. What we need this time around is a sure winner in the general election, and a sure bet to be regarded as a "successful" president in the public's eyes. And I've come to feel, at last, that Hillary offers us the best hope to do so.
I've been talking to fellow Dems of various stripes, and although many of us feel closer to Obama and Edwards on the issues, we are not impressed with their campaign and PR skills. Obama is terrifically "inspirational" (as they say) as a person, but he is NOT an inspiring campaigner. Rather he comes off many times as flat, tentative, and cerebral. Frankly, Kerry was a better debater. And there is little doubt that as a Party nominee he would be the MOST vulnerable to being defined by the opposition--simply because he does so little to actually define himself. Lack of ego is a tremendous interpersonal asset, and I admire him for his circumspection--but in a campaign, its a bit like watching your favorite football team play AND try very hard not to hurt anyone. In short, he looks more and more like somebody who might very well lose the general election, and just might stumble as a President if he were elected.
Edwards is exhibiting similar problems on the charisma front. For one thing, it has to be said that he is running for POTUS in the worst year ever for white males. Try as he might, he is not generating passion from the greater population on his admittedly noble issues, which suggests that either these issues are not the public's issues, or the framing is wrong--or he's just not the vehicle to sell them. Another possibility is that he is selling old-time Democratic policies in an era when Democrats, as I suspect, are looking for a new brand. Mind you, I think Edwards is a very good man--but this just doesn't have the whiff of a winning campaign. The declining poll numbers in primary states are suggesting that the more the Dems look at Edwards, the LESS they want to vote for him--which does NOT bode well for the general election. All this is typical for populist candidates, I might add--like it or not, machine politicians usually carry the day.
And Hillary is indeed The Machine, both as a candidate (with her New Improved Persona and bulletproof debate style), and the political heft of her posse. She has staked out a moderate liberal stance, with tactical militaristic highlights, that basically says--"I can do pious Methodist, I've learned how to do warm and fuzzy on demand, and yet I'm bitch enough to bomb Iran if I must." Not necessarily a pretty sight--but does anybody here think that Americans want pretty in their POTUS? They want ass-kicking potential, and in the primary so far Hillary has far more of this commodity than any of her competitors. She is the lawn mower, and her opponents are the grass. And despite the fact that she is the Establishment candidate, she has the luster of being the first woman that has a real shot (to say the least) at being President--which may be "identity politics", but given the fact that the majority of voters are women, it's certainly the best identity once could have. Her election would in fact make women "The Establishment" themselves--which, when you consider it, could itself have unforeseen and far-reaching effects for our country.
For those who doubt her Democratic credentials, well, I'm not sure I can sway the delusional among you, but at least consider this. Let's assume (though I think it's untrue) that Hillary is a pure centrist. Toward the middle of the political spectrum, the main determinant for what party one joins becomes who you want to hang out and do business with. Do you want to hang out with the country club set and religious fundies--or would you rather be with gays and minorities? I think there is little doubt who is going to be sitting at Hillary's table. But if you cannot wrap your head around the idea that Hillary will be a good Democrat, good for the Party and the country, well, you'll probably get to vote for Nader again if you want to, or sit it out, or whatever. Frankly, nobody will give a shit come Inauguration Day.
It is increasingly clear that Hillary is winning over Democrats--and for the reasons noted above, I think she will win over many independents as well, maybe even some moderate Republicans. (Especially women.) This next general election will be a knife fight, no doubt about it. This is the modern Republican coalition's last gasp at retaining power, and they know it. The stakes couldn't be higher for the Party and the country, and even the chance of a Kerry campaign, or Carter presidency, can't be tolerated. Hillary is the toughest campaigner we have, the one I would want in a knife fight, and thanks to the experience of her team is the sureest bet to be a competent and successful President--hence ensuring the rebranding of a new Democratic Party, as socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and above all, able to lead us into an uncertain future.
Whatever ideological adjustments we need to make can be done in the future, once we have convinced the American public once and for all that Democrats know what they're doing. And if I'm right, and we're successful, I'm pretty sure that in the end even the purity trolls out there will be convinced that some good was done.