McCain-Clinton '08?
The Washington Times runs an op-ed today detailing what the authors call the "myths of the Deomcratic Party." According to Tod Lindberg, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, two Dem analysts and also two of the architects of the "New Democrat" gimmick that carried Bill Clinton to the White House, deliver a stiff backhand to DNC Chairman Howard Dean's stubborn belief that the way back to power for the Jackasses is to gallop even further and more loudly to the left.
They lay the smack down remorselessly: there are more self-identified conservatives than self-identified liberals (34%-21%), exploding the "myth of mobilization"; the "myth of demography" ain't happenin' either absent the changes Deaniacs don't want to even hear about; and the "myth of language" (i.e. "How can we fool the American people today?") won't work without somebody as skilled at BSing as Bill Clinton at the party's helm, and how often do evil geniuses come along?
Okay, Hillary is the 800-pound exception to the rule, but she won't have any coattails, not if Bill didn't. And what about after 2016?
What caught my eye is a graf toward the end of the piece:
Actually, McCain is a backstabbing, opportunistic prick. Which still makes him a good fit for the Democrats, who could provide him his best platform from which to finally reach the White House.
The only thing holding him back would be the elevation of ideological purity over political pragmatism by the Dem base (i.e. How badly do they want to win?) and how badly McCain wants to shaft the GOP - by defecting and then taking away the White House, or running as a third candidate in '08 and handing the presidency to Hillary Clinton instead.
Either way, the common thread - a Republican screwing - is more or less assured.
And that's no myth.
They lay the smack down remorselessly: there are more self-identified conservatives than self-identified liberals (34%-21%), exploding the "myth of mobilization"; the "myth of demography" ain't happenin' either absent the changes Deaniacs don't want to even hear about; and the "myth of language" (i.e. "How can we fool the American people today?") won't work without somebody as skilled at BSing as Bill Clinton at the party's helm, and how often do evil geniuses come along?
Okay, Hillary is the 800-pound exception to the rule, but she won't have any coattails, not if Bill didn't. And what about after 2016?
What caught my eye is a graf toward the end of the piece:
The recommendations follow accordingly: The party needs a candidate with real credibility on national security, whose convictions on social issues are accompanied by a spirit of tolerance, and who embodies those big-three characteristics of strength, integrity and empathy.
The problem for Democrats is that the man who best fills this bill is Senator John McCain. And he's a Republican who, notwithstanding his maverick reputation, still has a better shot at winning his party's nomination than his Democratic doppelganger, if indeed there is such a one, has of winning the Democratic nomination.
Actually, McCain is a backstabbing, opportunistic prick. Which still makes him a good fit for the Democrats, who could provide him his best platform from which to finally reach the White House.
The only thing holding him back would be the elevation of ideological purity over political pragmatism by the Dem base (i.e. How badly do they want to win?) and how badly McCain wants to shaft the GOP - by defecting and then taking away the White House, or running as a third candidate in '08 and handing the presidency to Hillary Clinton instead.
Either way, the common thread - a Republican screwing - is more or less assured.
And that's no myth.
posted by JASmius at 5:31 PM
<<< Home