Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Hillary’s Bind

Raymond Hernandez writes a very interesting and surprising article in The New York Times. I say surprising because I did not expect this public analysis of a question that started floating around among my friends as soon as Edwards was named Kerry’s running mate. The article makes the point that Edwards and Hillary will be on a collision course for the leadership of the Demo Party--and for the 2008 nomination--if Bush wins re-election. And because Bush is likely to win re-election this is a much more interesting question than the unlikely scenario in which Bush loses, in that case Hillary’s career would be over. So Hillary has to work hard for the Kerry ticket, all the while knowing the problem. The only addition I would make to the piece is that when Kerry-Edwards lose, Hillary should not understimate Edwards’ potential to give her a great fight for the nomination: He is just as ambitious (and perhaps as clever) as Bill Clinton was at this stage, and he is much more capable of turning into a moderate Democrat (a necessity to get elected) than will Hillary. Besides, Edwards is married to a highly ambitious woman who happens to be a very good lawyer with a real job. And, once Edwards loses, he will have a lot of time on his hands (and his own money) to start running for the nomination. Edwards will be around for a long time. Who else could oppose Hillary? Are there other up-and-coming Demo leaders out there?
The future of the Democratic Party will be at stake and the fight will be fierce and without mercy.

Discussions - 4 Comments

I was struck by the report Bill Clinton actively lobbied for Edwards inclusion on the ticket. I believe your point is exactly correct, and I can’t accept Bill Clinton is capable of that kind of strategic blunder. Quite the paradox, hmmm?

Could the fix be in between Edwards and the Clintons for 2008?

Lost amid all the speculation about what Hillary really wants is this point: She is a loyal Democrat, and wants the Democratic party to have more power. In addition, the more power it has, the more power she has.

Also, who’s to say Bill wants Hillary in the White House?


In response to Professor Schramm’s comment about the "future of the Democratic party" being at stake: If there’s any real difference between Edwards and Hillary, yes. But if (as I believe) there is no real difference in substance, then the future of the Democratic party is exactly what it appears to be now: Arrogant, mean-spirited, anti-cultural, appeasement-minded, leftist socialism. This party is unreformable, and a con artist like Edwards just distracts attention from the real story.

"Who else could oppose Hillary? Are there other up-and-coming Demo leaders out there?" How about FDR? After the Dems resurrected first Lautenberg then Mondale, I’m surprised they haven’t put FDR on ticket somewhere. Heck, there’s probably some neighborhoods in Philadelphia where people who voted for him when they were alive are still voting for him now that they’re dead.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/4547