I just caught a couple of “Hillary is inevitable” type articles covering the Democratic primary process. So, I wondered to myself, what was going on in October 2003 as the Democrats jockied for position. According to pollingreport.com, the public’s preferences went something like this:
1. Howard Dean
2. Joseph Lieberman
3. Dick Gephardt
4. John Kerry
5. Wes Clark
6. Al Sharpton.
According to Wikipedia:
Ten candidates vied for the nomination, including retired four-star general Wesley Clark, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, John Edwards, and John Kerry. For most of 2003, Howard Dean had been the apparent front-runner for the nomination, performing strongly in most polls and leading the pack in fund-raising. However, the Iowa caucuses yielded unexpectedly strong results for Democratic candidates John Kerry, who earned 38% of the state’s delegates, and John Edwards, who took 32%. Afterward, Kerry continued to dominate, winning in all but four states and the District of Columbia. Wesley Clark won Oklahoma, Howard Dean won Vermont and the District of Columbia, and John Edwards won North Carolina and South Carolina.
So, I’d be careful about buying into the “Hillary is inevitable” narrative. I think it’s less news reporting and more a public relations effort by the Clinton campaign and its supporters designed to create momentum and to make actual elections an afterthought.
Are there any other Hoosiers out there who are burned out with political coverage of the primaries?
It’s hard for me, personally, to get excited about an election in which the decision will be made by the time the Indiana primaries happen.
But it could just be me.
See previous posts on the crime of Hoosier primarys…
As to the Hilary destiny, I give it a little more respect than Howard Dean since it has been talked about for years.
Seems to me that it started about 5 minutes after Kerry lost.
The last election was just weird. Basically the Dean people did all this grassroots stuff, going door to door to convince people to support him. Then, for the first time, there were cameras in some of the caucus locations so we could see the magic of the serious, studious Iowa voter in action. And it basically consisted of people in living rooms dividing into groups, followed by someone from the Kerry cluster yelling to the Dean group, “Hey Edna, come stand with us over here!” It was pretty sad realizing that they were basically picking the nominee right then and there and what looked to be a statewide Tupperware party. Kerry people knew it worked that way and had basically wargamed how to get people to switch after the initial counts. The Dean people just stood there looking confused.
Yeah, I remember watching that on C-span and being very disappointed. Dean seemed like such a breath of fresh air and most of the rest of the Dems just seemed so bland and milquetoast. The Democratic establishment and mainstream media crushed the Dean campaign pretty effectively after that though.
First of all I still wish Gore would run. However, I believe that deep down Gore has developed a deep rift with the Clintonistas. Short of Hillary suffering a massive trainwreck Gore knows that the Clintonistas will do all they can to stab him in the back. I think Gore understands that he greatly damaged his own political legacy by helping Slick Willy pass NAFTA and China PNTR. Now Gore feels that the Democratic party has been throughly corrupted by the Clintons, the DLC and their Corporatist permanent political class consultant and lobbyist allies. Gore simply feels he can achieve more positive goals outside of politics until the climate changes.
As a second choice, I would love to see Edwards get the nomination.
However, right now I see Hillary getting the nomination and the potential for the Democrats suffering a massive
Dukakis style trainwreck.
Here are the reasons why,
1) Hillary is enjoying the benefit of the ultimate stalking horse candidate in Obama. Obama supporters refuse to see that Obama is basically only slightly to the left of Hillary’s DLC triangulation political agenda. Once folks take a hard look at Obama they will
realize that he is running a shallow personality based campaign that is really out of touch with the vast majority of hard pressed working and middle class Democrats. Meanwhile Obama is attracting tens of millions of dollars that would have gone to Edwards or even Kucinich.
2). Hillary has massive Beltway DLC and entrenched State level permanent careerist Democratic party support. Hillary is getting more Corporate money than any of the Republicans. That tells you that Corporate America is counting on Hillary delivering the same anti American worker Free Trade and Open Borders mass non-immigrant indentured labor visa agenda Slick Willy supported.
The only thing that will stop Hillary from getting the nomination is her spectacularly arrogant personality and sense of entitlement. That along with the public waking up to the corruption that hangs all over the DLC and the Clintonistas. Perhaps folks will simply come to realize that the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton oligarchy is not a good substitute for democracy.
3). The primary schedule is simply massively stacked in Hillary’s favor. Hillary’s pandering to the Latino vote on Comprehensive Immigration Reform along with a super Tuesday vote dominated by states with a large Latino electorate means that Edwards does not stand a chance.
I have come to hate everything that the Clintons have come to represent and what they have done to turn the Democratic party away from the legacy of FDR. Still I do not see how Hillary can be stopped in the next 3 1/2 months.
You might be right, and the polls showing her support are coming from somewhere, but I don’t see where the popular Clinton support is coming from. Probably it’s just the company that I keep, but I don’t think I know anybody who is all that enthusiastic about her candidacy.
She tends to command the debates, too, which helps quite a bit.
Edwards is my pick. I’ve never understood why his campaigns don’t gain traction.
I doubt the owners of television stations and newspapers like Edwards’ populist ideas one bit. That can’t help matters. And, you know, he has good hair — apparently an indictable offense, not something minor like killing Vince Foster or starting a war on false pretenses.
In considering who would serve best as President I look first and overwhelmingly at foreign policy. Put in blunt terms I want whomever looks most likely to survive a knife fight with Putin in a locked room.
In ordinary times, which the present seems to fit well enough, I prefer not to see “leadership” on domestic policy coming from the executive but rather from Congress, or the States. You may (think you) need a Lincoln or a Roosevelt when confronted with difficulties, but such activism should be reserved for dire emergencies. The temptation to conjure or imagine emergencies on the part of the President in order to project one’s self as a Lincoln or Roosevelt is usually the greater danger. (I also think we should remove the busts of Presidents (and A. Hamilton ) from all the coins and currency, but that is another matter).
On foreign policy I strongly prefer Sen. Clinton to either Obama or Edwards and accordingly would prefer her to either of those gentlemen as President.
Anyone else see Pat Bauer come out in support of Clinton, and look like he was being forced to eat a caca sandwich while doing it?
Struck me as a really bad political move for anyone from Indiana.