Wow -- I caught the CBC Democrat debates on FoxNews last night. Such vitriol against W and such a rush to the left (the questions made me laugh!) I am not the guy to advise the party of Jefferson but both of these are going to hurt you in the General as much as they will help you get the nomination.
So here's the jk theory: Senator Clinton (in '08 I think) will have a huge advantage in that she does not have to establish her liberal bona fides. She can sound moderate in the primaries and still excite the base. Did anybody ever clap once for Senator Lieberman last night? HRC could be at least that moderate and they would still go wild. Then she would not be painted into the left corner for the general election.
Posted by jk at September 10, 2003 09:33 AMIt speaks volumes about the ideological condition of the modern Democrat party that a former first lady who's failed to deliver any of her promised programs in Arkansas, D.C. or to date in NY, is the front runner for their presidential nomination in '08. And I'm sure you're right that the base will go wild for her, despite her objective failures. Why? Because she's a mirror reflecting their desire to outlaw cause and effect and erect in its place a nanny state panacea.
Posted by: johngalt at September 11, 2003 10:42 AMThey do not exactly have a deep bench, johngalt. John Fund claims they are paying the price for losing state races in the 90s. Gray Davis was a hope (oops). Sitting Senators have not been convincing candidates since the 60s.
Senator Clinton has not delivered but she has fought the fight (She did try to nationalize 17% of GDP in '93!) That and her celebrity status count for quite a bit.
I see Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh or Harold Ford growing into presidential timbre someday but the bench is pretty shallow these days.
Posted by: jk at September 11, 2003 11:39 AM