Friday, May 27, 2005

Revenge Impending? 

My god, even Matt Drudge is trumpeting this one, noted over at Eschaton: a majority of Americans say they would vote for Hilary Clinton as president in 2008, including 33% of conservatives. The figures break down to 80% of Liberals (no surprise), 58% of moderates (nice surprise) and 33% of conservatives (big surprise). If nothing changes about those numbers, you do the math -- whoever the Republicans pick to run in that election is going to have a tough time of it. Maybe.

We don't know yet. The (R) candidate could be McCain or Giuliani, which would make it a horse race, since both appeal to moderates. Or, the party could go all stupid and pick someone like Frist or DeLay (we can only hope), in which case I think Al Sharpton could win for the D's. (That's only a little bit facetious).

I think it's really too early to start guessing or projecting, obviously. The election isn't for nearly three and a half years, and it's a long time before the campaigning starts. A lot could happen by then -- world war, Civil war, impeachment, terrorism, resignation, scandal. So I take this poll with a grain of salt. Although, if it turns into a Hilary/Condi competition, I think the only way to pick the winner would be a full-on Dynasty-esque catfight, including fountain.

I keed, I keed... but, sadly, I know a lot of wingnuts who'd hear that idea and think, "Yeah, why not?"

No one would ever make the same suggestion about, say, a McCain/Dean contest. Although seeing Dean standing on McCain's head and screaming "Yearrrrgh!" as he declares victory would be priceless.

Yes, I think it's time that we had a woman running this country. Actually, that time was, oh, about 1920. Or earlier. Although it's more on the principal that women make up just more than half the population, and yet represent exactly zero American presidents in over two hundred years. And it has nothing to do with the idea that no woman could ever act like a testosterone-laden, belligerent, war-mongering man.

Margaret Thatcher and Condi Rice, anyone? Imelda Marcos? Madame Mao?

Still... there's one hidden factor in a Hilary nomination that I don't think the Republicans are even aware of yet, or don't take seriously. She'd be going into such a nomination practically bullet-proof, thanks to the Republicans. You see, Bill and Hilary are probably the two most-investigated politicians currently alive. Every aspect of their lives has been dug into, gone over, contested, picked apart and analyzed. And neither one of them has even been caught doing anything criminal; neither one of them was ever caught doing anything more scandalous than having a little extramarital thinga-thinga with a young intern. And if you don't think that activity isn't rife in the halls of power in Washington, well... you're just plain old naive. And don't forget, also thanks to Eschaton: Hilary's former finance director, David Rosen, has just been acquited.

So, thanks to the Republican witch-hunt, there will be no surprises, no scandals, no further dirt that can be thrown up against Hilary in a campaign. It's all done been dug, and there was no "there" there. Thanks to the Republicans, Hilary would be about the most scandal-proof candidate any campaign could ever hope to run, provided she keeps her nose clean for the next three years. And how could she not? I'm sure she can't walk out of the ladies room with a micro-square of TP stuck on her heel without some Republican flunky noticing it and reporting it to their superiors.

In that regard, then, a Hilary vs. Anybody competition in 2008 would be hilarious. With no further mud to fling, the Republicans would be helpless and unable to smear her. But, given typical Republican behavior, they likewise have no chance in hell of fielding a candidate who doesn't have a dozen hidden skeletons in their closet. Probably the only way they could do that would be to dig up the corpse of John Paul II and put him in a red tie.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?