I agree with some of the bloggers out there (like this guy) who repeatedly make the argument that Hillary's willingness to go all bare-knuckles is a point in her favor. But I find her willingness to ape the GOP's own tactics a little too distressing. Once a Nixon Republican, always a Nixon Republican, I suppose. Still, exciting racial tensions and trying to shut out voters in a democratic primary? She certainly gets points for sheer chutzpah. I would be morally outraged, but it's not like I didn't think Hillary was completely unburdened by principle, scruple, or dignity from the beginning. I'd like to live in a universe where politicians show those qualities, but until we can replicate the Spock with a Beard incident, we'll just have to keep picking the lesser of two evils. Fine. I'm cynical, I get it.
My problem is, largely, that Sen. Clinton doesn't seem to realize that her Reagan/Atwater playbook is going to have some real consequences should she get the nomination. Since she's probably not going to be winning an historic mandate, she'll need every Democrat she can get turning out for her in November (assuming she gets the nod). If many Black Democrats are so annoyed by Clinton's treatment of Obama and stay home--especially in states she's banking on, like Arkansas and Michigan--she loses. And her loss to "Uncommitted" among Black voters in Michigan is a bit of a clue that this effect might be in play. Is it any wonder she's worked so hard in recent days to try to move the discussion onto other areas?
Of course, this might not be a terminal problem--if things get too bad, picking Obama as her VP candidate might be an effective way to turn this problem around. We will have to see if the damage is already done.
As regards Hillary, I trust her not at all, and I wonder if, at her core, she's a true-blue liberal or a true-blue conservative. There's plenty of evidence for both, and I suspect that even she probably doesn't have the answer. Perhaps that confusion is why she's tried to paint such a centrist line in the Senate. I'm willing to accept that she will probably govern as a liberal if she wins, which is what matters. And I do think that a reasonably popular Clinton II Administration, led by that bugaboo, that bete noire of conservatives across the land would probably do more damage to the era of conservative dominance than an Obama administration that, while liberal, made constant shows of centrism and outreach to conservatives. I do think that, from the perspective of wanting to smash the conservative movement, the act of Hillary Clinton being popularly elected twice (and having a united Democratic congress throughout her time in office) would be most devastating. However, I can't help but feel that there is a tradeoff, as the GOP knows this and, as a result, a Clinton Administration would get less accomplished than would an Obama Administration.
