I'm Going to Make a Prediction Here: Hillary's Toast

By Dave Lindorff

For two years now, I have been telling people who insisted that Hillary Clinton would be the next Democratic candidate for president that they were wrong. I even put it in writing a few times.

Now I'm going to really put it out there: Hillary Clinton is Toast. She is not going to be the Democratic nominee.

The reason I always figured she wouldn't make it across the primary finish line was that she was too calculatingly conservative for primary voters.

For years, it has been the case that Democratic primary voters have been more liberal than the broader spectrum of registered Democratic voters. That is because progressive voters have generally been better educated and also more motivated to try to have an impact on the decisions of "their" party than other voters who just mechanically, or out of habit, checked the Democratic box when they registered to vote. Then you have to add to the mix the reality that independents, who vote in the primaries of many of the 50 states, are often, contrary to conventional wisdom, way more "liberal," or better, anti-Establishment, on many issues than are Democrats.

Clinton, meanwhile, is the quintessential Establishment candidate. She has honed her resume, she has cautiously calculated the impact of every critical vote in the Senate. Even as Mr. Bill's unofficial adviser, she played the role of making sure that White House decisions hewed to the center-right, as for example when she pressed him to defund welfare, or to gut habeas rights for death penalty prisoners. Her craven authorship in the Senate more recently for a flag-burning law (it narrowly failed to pass), and her vote in support of the mortally dangerous Kyle-Lieberman bill last year (which would, if passed in its original form, have declared Iran's main armed force, the Revolutionary Guard, to be a "global terrorist organization," thus giving President Bush all the authorization he thinks he needs to attack that country), epitomize her politics.

Moreover, while it does sometimes appear that the Democratic Party has a death wish, I've never subscribed to that theory. I think that party leaders do want to win the White House and to keep control of Congress, not because they want to reform the system, but because they want all the perks, patronage and payola that go to the winner. And I think they all are acutely aware that Hillary cannot win in November against a candidate like John McCain. Indeed, she probably could not win against any of the main Republican hopefuls for president.

My guess is that they'll watch what happens over the next month, and if Barack Obama doesn't keep advancing in the polls and the delegate count, they'll do something to sink her candidacy, which we'll see happen when the so-called Super Delegates--the party "ins" and big-wigs--jump to Obama. The talk at the Democratic National Committee about holding caucuses in Michigan and Florida (the two states that held early primaries against party rules and had their delegations ruled unseatable at the Convention), instead of letting them ultimately be seated, is a direct indication that the Party doesn't want the contest going to Clinton. Clinton won both those primaries, which were held before the Obama surge really got going. If the delegations as voted in the primaries were allowed to be seated at the convention, Clinton would be way out front right now.

I predict they won't be. Those delegates will be reallocated at caucuses at which Obama's people will be dominant.

So for my money, it looks like Obama v. McCain in November.

And a good thing that is, because Clinton v. McCain would have resulted in President McCain.

Obama's "change" rhetoric may be ludicrously empty, but it sounds more real coming from his mouth than from his imitators, including Clinton, and that's enough to bring primary voters, who sure enough do want change, over to his column.

You read it here.
____________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

History Repeating Itself Over and Over

Hmmm, why do I get a sense of deja vu?

Wasn't Hillary "toast" after Iowa? Didn't every single pundit declare her dead in the water?

Wasn't Hillary "toast" after South Carolina? Wasn't it the conventional wisdom that the Obama momentum was unstoppable; that even her establishment advantage in California would crumble?

Please, Mr. Lindorff; you and all your colleagues need to stop this foolishness. You are proving Santayana's dictum so thoroughly and seriously diminishing your credibility.

None of this is to say that Hillary will win the nomination in the end. Only that the events of the past six weeks should convince all of us that this fight is not over and cannot be determined until either one of the candidates has a majority of delegates in their column or one of the candidates withdrawls.

Until then, let's cease with the premature obituary writing.

Cudo's

David T.

Thanks! Too many people are making too many predictions way too early. Sit down and shut up and let the political process take it's course. The winner will be the winner at that point!

You're entirely correct

You're entirely correct David. Unfortunately, some bloggers have a need to make predictions in order to keep their "pontification rights" alive...;-)

I can't watch anymore

I'll skim the papers and news sites, but quite frankly I can't stomach listening anymore to people tell us what their take on the current state of the primary is.

I had my list of candidates prioritized in my mind months ago. Who ever is left standing at the top of my list when I cast my primary vote next week is who I'll vote for.

This never-ending drone of "experts" that want to tell us how we are going to vote is sucking my will to live. There are other things happening in the world besides this year-long beauty contest.

Absolutely correct GM...

This has been a nasty campaign so far. I see no way for the dissension to diminish as we approach the convention.

We, the general run of Dems/liberals did not choose our candidates. We selected our personal choice from the group that chose to run. They may not have been the best candidates for the job...but they all have made considerable investments in their campaign to gain the job.

For two elections we have suffered from the attacks of the Kucinich Brownshirts. Last time around, the Deaniacs fought the same senseless battles over gained or lost territory.

This time, the Brownshirts sort of faded early, the Edwards supporters picked up the gage and started infighting for a short time, then Edwards decided to 'suspend' his campaign. So, that part of the fuss was over.

The nasty's have now circled the wagons around Obama. Doesn't matter his positions on anything, doesn't matter what he may or may not stand for, dosen't matter that he may or may not be a decent candidate--he is now the chosen one among the nastiest of supporters.

And, now, we come down to the wire...and the pundits are outdoing themselves to be the first to announce the winner of this rather futile exercize.

People used to get along. We have lost that ability. We are finding that we don't get along at all.

Pity.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

 

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

I agree totally... let's wait till people vote...

What troubles me most is the general tone and vituperation from the anti-Hillary Democrats. (e.g. Hillary is "toast", Hillary "cried", etc.) If they are wrong in prognostication (she did win CA, NY and FLA after all) and if she is the nominee, they have handed the GOP a set of talking points that when we have to fight them, they could say... well you said it first! It just plain foolish to do that....
Some of the langauge from the Obama crowd just doesn't smack of the politics of "hope" that they profess is so compelling.

I don't like the republican goose-step, I mean lockstep... but they are ruthless about winning and one thing we could learn is not to eat our own and air all the dirty laudry before we even get to the general campaign.

As a non-sequitur observation, has anyone noticed how the GOP and MSM are handling old man McCain like Alzheimers Reagan? I see lots of pictures of him and lots of comments "summarizing" his words/ actions... but I have not heard a word out of him for weeks... Reminds me of the days when Reagan would be passing the press corps with his hand at his ear, gesturing... I can't hear you! That ploy protected him from really showing how much he was losing it...

Never say never.

Many predicted her end was near right after the Iowa Caucus.

Well- New Hampshire's Primary shot that theory to hell, didn't it?

We really don't know anything for certain, at this point.

What's really 'toast' is

What's really 'toast' is many of cour civil liberties, as Dems in Congress bend over for Bush yet again and hand over more power..but I digress.
IMO there is a fissure in the Democratic party and  it continues to get bigger and bigger.
If these divisions between people (in the party) can't be overcome, then look for John McCain to walk through as the next president.

Hillary

Hillary is dead in the water as far as winning the election for president.

syzito, If as you say, "Hillary is dead," ...

you might want to take note that Obama was to take CA by 13%. He was beaten in CA by Hillary who took the state by 10%. 10% is an overwhelming win for Hillary.

The two candidates are only about two delegates apart at this time.

Taking Florida, NY, and CA seems to indicate the reverse of what you suggest.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

 

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Republicans are calling McCain a traitor

So tell us which opponent wearing a republican pedophile label is going to whoop up on a Clinton.

Mittens, right?

Usama bin Forgotten

Doesn't matter

I don't care who is on the ticket, I will vote as I have done all of my life, a straight Democratic ticket.  I hope all will do the same.

Obama vs. Clinton

As I watch Obama give his speeches and talk about how he will change Washington – it led me to look at his record back in Illinois before his two years in the Senate.  Obama was the state legislator from Chicago and I was interested in the change he brought to the area he represented for the majority of his time in public service.  Two things jump out:

–        46% of his constituents live in poverty.

–        Only 25% graduate from high school. 

If this is the type of change and impact we can expect from him in Washington we should be very afraid.  Talk is cheep and actions speak louder than words – his actions didn’t bring change to the place he should have had the most impact – his own district.

Sound like...

...he was elected to a district in great need of help.

Sort of the mess that the USA is in after a near decade of Conservative rule.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.