Why Clinton Is Losing
Daniel Henninger looks at why Hillary Clinton is losing to a political neophyte who has served only three years in national office – or even less if you consider that Obama has effectively been running for higher office since he took his job in the Senate. He compares it to a Hollywood tragedy: it's all about the casting.
What the netroots has done is bunch up the party ideologically. While the Republican Party slices conservative ideology as thinly as aged prosciutto, the Democrats, in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, are all swinging a populist anvil — with the left hand.
This pushed Hillary out of the Clinton comfort zone. She established her Senate career as a reasonable person, winning public compliments from GOP colleagues. Came the campaign and she finds herself onstage with wall-to-wall men of the ascendant populist left.
On trade, the Democratic Party is as far left as at any time in its history. Both Al Gore and John Kerry ran as economic populists, but there was nothing on trade like what we have heard in this campaign. In Al Gore's 2000 nomination acceptance speech, trade was the last issue mentioned: "We must welcome and promote truly free trade." His running mate was Joe Lieberman, also a Nafta supporter. Labor "held its nose" and voted for Gore……
….Barack Obama slipped smoothly into the antifree-trade current in his party. Hillary Clinton, one guesses, operates inside a structure of intellectual integrity of her own devising, and her antitrade riffs (the "time out") sound strained.
It's often said that she lacks Bill's political skills, whatever that means. Her retail skills are pretty darned good, though, good enough to defeat John Edwards or virtually any other Democrat one can imagine. So why is she losing to a three-year senator?Partly because she's running in the wrong century…..
…..The part, however, is challenging. The Democratic platform may be familiar, but it is also infused with the quality of a dream. Actually, the word "dream" gets used a lot in Democratic rhetoric. What are essentially bureaucratic arrangements, such as health insurance or after-school programs, are promised as "universal." Meanwhile, "the middle class" is being offered a version of never-never land — total public protection from the traps and betrayals of the private sector, which has been reduced to a kind of Grimm's Fairy Tale abstraction, the wolves.
If you are selling a dream you need the best possible salesman to make it seem somehow possible. They found him in Barack Obama.
Hillary can't defeat Obama's star power – he has been cast in the role of Saviour, messiah and the great left hope, all rolled up into a slick package. Because there is so little distance between their policies, the only differentiating quality is that star power. McCain can – and will – be able to crack through that slick facade, Clinton has been unable to do so.
By syn, February 28, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Hillary is losing because Oprah campaigned for Obama; this is what liberals do, they stab even their mothers in the back if it means getting one step closer to the VIP room.
The VIP room belongs to Obama now; McCain will never be allowed inside because he is a "rethuglian" as in ‘extension of McChimpneonconnazihitler which is an extension of evil warmonger-aids-causer Reagan which is an extention of hayseed rednecks too puritian to have sex which is an extenion of the racist bigot nativist ruining America’.
I know this because it happened to me when all I said was ‘I support the liberation of Iraqi people’ back in 2002 then was subsequently ostricized from the Collective.
By bill-tb, February 28, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Hillary has proven to neither have the brains nor the talent of BJ. Simple as that. Campaigns fail because of the candidate.
By FedUp, February 28, 2008 @ 10:38 am
She’s losing because she has: no clue, no positive experience, no morals, no scruples and believes the her name and money can buy her anything. Too bad… so sad… see ya…
By syn, February 28, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Yup, when McCain loses in November it will be his fault.
By JonSK, February 28, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Like many, I long for the final collapse of the House of Clinton. But don’t count Hillary out just yet. I for one won’t believe she’s finished until someone lays her broomstick before hte Great and Powerful Oz.
By curtis, February 28, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
I’m still pulling for Herself, especially if she takes it at the last moment by nefarious means. Can you imagine the nutroots/trustifarian conniptions? All things considered, I’d rather be a sexist than a racist for opposing socialism/dhimmitude.
By Mockinbird, February 28, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
It’s the creeping socialism, served with a smile. I also have a problem with lies; I never transact with the liars, again.