This past weekend, the first onset of winter temperatures saw
the convening of what I like to call the Unofficial Southwestern
Connecticut Caucus & Cocktail Hour: a gathering of politically
minded Nutmeggers who meet all too frequently over adult beverages
and tobacco to discuss the upcoming presidential primary season.
This elite conclave included representatives from the conservative
wing (all three of us) as well as those on the Democratic side.
After settling in on our barstools, we proceeded to a discussion
of who would support what candidate, and why. On the Republican
side there were predictable results, with a slight disagreement
over whether a non-vote for Rudy Giuliani would constitute a vote
for Hillary Clinton, and whether that matters much in a blue state
like ours. But the most interesting comments came from our
Democratic friends.
As I’ve said before, Connecticut, like many northeastern states,
sends mostly Democrats to Washington, yet usually elects
Republicans to the governor’s mansion. In other words, while they
favor the federal nanny state, most still trust daddy-types to
handle executive decisions. Which was why I wasn’t surprised that
none of the Democrats we tippled with expressed any real support
for Mrs. Clinton.
So herewith I will make my case that Hillary will not win the
Democratic nod and that the winner of the Donkey Derby will likely
be…John Edwards. Yes, I know that this is a long-shot
prognostication and one that will perhaps end up with me consuming
much crow in the next few months, but stay with me for a
minute.
Recent polls suggest that Mrs. Clinton’s negative poll numbers
are holding firm at nearly 50%; a big problem for any candidate.
And while it’s true that her husband never garnered a majority of
the votes, the real fear is that she will attract great numbers of
“broken glass” Republicans — those who would gladly crawl to the
polls over shattered shards in order to defeat the “world’s
smartest woman” — who would presumably vote across the board
against any and all Democrats who might otherwise stand a chance,
should Hillary be defeated in the coming months.
Add to this her vulnerability on national defense which has
polarized the considerable anti-war wing of her party as well as
their perception that she’s got her finger in the air:
We all know the worst-case scenario:
The GOP gets its dream of Hillary being the candidate.
She gets beat like they and some of us Democrats expect, and we get
stuck with another ruinous Republican president….When the
supposed “leader” of the Democrats, Hillary, blows with whatever
wind she thinks will get her elected, then we have no
leadership.
The leftists who are smart enough to know that Hillary’s candidacy
is in trouble were dealt another blow on Monday when carbon credit
king and
venture capitalist Al Gore again said that he
will not be running for the presidency. Apparently Mr. Gore has
decided that his role as global savior is, shall we say, just a bit
more rewarding. And so the far left base of the Democratic Party
must look elsewhere for their prince; and it’s not Hillary. But who
is it, and how to deal with Mrs. Clinton?
It’s not news that the mainstream media play no small role in
national elections. In fact, with the limiting of non-media free
speech due to McCain-Feingold campaign “reform,” their power to
influence the vote has only increased. Now it’s no secret that
they, like all liberals, have learned that merely gaining a slight
majority in the Congress is not enough to accomplish their goals.
Recent override-proof vetoes by President Bush have only increased
their urgency to retake the White House and their apprehension that
Hillary may not win it.
Fueling this fear is Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to one of the only
“gotcha” questions she has faced out on the campaign trail — as if
addressing the important issue of illegal immigration in her own
home state is somehow too “tough.” Her response is an indication
that, should some prudent members of the media wise up and begin to
question her as they would any Republican, the inevitability of her
divisive candidacy can be avoided.
And that is what I believe will happen. Don’t forget, Hill is
not Bill. She has none of the charisma so often attributed to her
better half, although she might still have all of the FBI files.
Unless there is an outbreak of SADS (Sudden Arkansas Death
Syndrome) among the press, look for the media to start
“swift-boating” New York’s junior senator, while pumping up a
certain Southerner who has properly atoned for his Iraq War sins in
a way that Mrs. Clinton has not.
When this happens, look then for the magnanimous John Edwards to
offer her his unctuous hand and the vice-presidential slot. Whether
she would accept it, or return to a lifelong Senate seat, is
anybody’s guess. After all, that choice would determine whether she
has a future as the next Ted Kennedy or the next Geraldine
Ferraro.
