Republicans, who were probably heartened at the prospect of a “Hitlery” candidacy, will have to redouble their efforts to prepare for a race against Howard Dean or Wesley Clark, either of which can beat George W. Bush.
I’ve really never understood the fervor with which the pundits and partisans have cheered on the political career of Hillary Clinton. Her accmplishments remain few and far between. She is more wooden and dispassionate than Al Gore. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Hillary discuss an issue without feeling she was motivated more out of ego and political ambition than some transcendent duty to foster the common good.
Hillary Clinton, like Dick Gephardt, makes my stomach turn. And barring some Giuliani-like transformation, I do not want her as my president. Not now, not ever.
In the end, the excitement surrounding Hillary makes one thing clear: There is little difference between Democratic partisans and the Republican stalwarts they love to ridicule. Like the Republicans, Democrats would clear the field for an empty suit with little political experience, more starstruck by their candidate’s last name than proud of the person’s history of public service. The “bases” of the parties are the same, really, in that their standard-bearers exemplify the low regard with which the followers regard the presidency.
An election in which Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee would likely mark the third time I support a Republican. (I supported John McCain over Gore in 2000, and Sam Katz for Philadelphia mayor over John Street in 1999.) Her eventual candidacy is not some grand achievement to be heralded, but rather, a looming electoral train wreck for the party.
Maybe I’ll just stay home and watch her lose in a landslide in 2008. Either way, her supporters need to learn a lesson about their lemming-like behavior, and this race to the bottom has to stop.