Saturday, November 27, 2004
Howard Dean for DNC?
During the last primary season, I was a closet Deaniac. I gave money to his campaign, subscribed to his newsletters, got caught up in the whole "[fill in the blank] for America" Web fever. Never attended a Meetup, however, and by the time the primary season came to Florida he had already been outmaneuvered (in part, by his own inexperience with a national campaign).
In Eleanor Clift's commentary at MSNBC (via Oliver Willis), she gives a progress report of sorts on the drive to name him the next head of the Democratic National Committee. I agree with what she says -- that he probably isn't (certainly wasn't) as much of a lefty as portrayed at the time and since. Until the pressures of the primary campaign kicked in, and he started to hedge a little, I always thought HD was someone with more than his share of common sense and decency, who just happened to be a Democrat. And just happened, of course, to be passionate in stating his positions.
I'd love to see him chair the DNC. But I sincerely hope that if he does so, it does not (as Clift claims it may) happen thanks to a political maneuver by the Clintonists -- in order to take him out of the running for 2008. Not that I think he should run in '08; I just believe running the Senator from NY would be a disastrous mistake. Oh, I'd vote for her, all right, as would anyone else who's set themselves against the Bushist agenda. But it would be with the unhappy certainty that even if she won -- even in a landslide -- we'd have to face at least four subsequent years of horrific anger and recrimination. Jesus, the thought of it makes my blood run cold. That is not what I hope the next liberal Administration turns to be.
Whether you think Hillary Clinton has the potential to be a great President is beside the point. For whatever reason, with or without justification, just the mention of her name simply pisses too many people off. I don't believe liberals can't successfully run and then govern with a candidate of the superego, as long as he or she arouses the id so violenty in so many voters.
In Eleanor Clift's commentary at MSNBC (via Oliver Willis), she gives a progress report of sorts on the drive to name him the next head of the Democratic National Committee. I agree with what she says -- that he probably isn't (certainly wasn't) as much of a lefty as portrayed at the time and since. Until the pressures of the primary campaign kicked in, and he started to hedge a little, I always thought HD was someone with more than his share of common sense and decency, who just happened to be a Democrat. And just happened, of course, to be passionate in stating his positions.
I'd love to see him chair the DNC. But I sincerely hope that if he does so, it does not (as Clift claims it may) happen thanks to a political maneuver by the Clintonists -- in order to take him out of the running for 2008. Not that I think he should run in '08; I just believe running the Senator from NY would be a disastrous mistake. Oh, I'd vote for her, all right, as would anyone else who's set themselves against the Bushist agenda. But it would be with the unhappy certainty that even if she won -- even in a landslide -- we'd have to face at least four subsequent years of horrific anger and recrimination. Jesus, the thought of it makes my blood run cold. That is not what I hope the next liberal Administration turns to be.
Whether you think Hillary Clinton has the potential to be a great President is beside the point. For whatever reason, with or without justification, just the mention of her name simply pisses too many people off. I don't believe liberals can't successfully run and then govern with a candidate of the superego, as long as he or she arouses the id so violenty in so many voters.
