It's literally been years since I last found a New York Times columnist relevant enough to link to, but this article by Frank Rich lays out the case against playing out yet another round of the "Bill and Hillary Clinton Show" that I'm willing to go against my long-standing policy and recommend it.
To be honest, a part of me is rooting for a Hillary nomination, if only because it would pave the way for the certain victory of John McCain, the only candidate I'm even half-enthusiastic about: a Republican candidate who isn't a religious nut or a panderer to neo-Confederate tendencies, who doesn't flinch in his backing for free trade, and who recognizes that low spending is as important as low taxation, is about as good as its going to get from this libertarian's perspective. I think it would be better for the Democrats if they were to nominate a candidate with genuine integrity who isn't trying to ride a spouse's coattails to the White House, but if the Billary race-baiting and mud-flinging does manage to sink Obama, I won't be crying at the prospect of a President John McCain.
I wouldn't be so sure about McCain yet! Romney has shown that he will pay whatever it takes to win.
Posted by: Kenji | January 28, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Well, I guess what it comes down to is whether the GOP base is dumb enough to vote for a transparently phony moneybags who's willing to say anything to appeal to any audience, over holding its collective nose and choosing a candidate who might not always say what the base wants to hear, but can at least be trusted to deliver on the bits on which he agrees with them. Does the GOP contain enough idiots to buy Romney's transformationn from a former ultra-capitalist and pro-abortion, pro-gay rights liberal into a bible-thumping, protectionist, anti-abortion, anti-gay troglodyte? If so, then the Republicans deserve to lose, and I'd rather have an Obama in the White House any day.
No, the worst of all possible worlds, to my mind, would be a Romney vs. Clinton showdown, a contest of power-hungry phonies ...
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | January 28, 2008 at 03:58 PM
I totally agree---I cringe at the possibility of Clinton vs. Romney. If that happens, Bloomberg had better be there to rescue us all!
Posted by: Kenji | January 28, 2008 at 04:05 PM
I don't understand the point of Hillary Clinton.
Normally candidates are popular with their party either because they represent a party's core voters or because they have enough cross over appeal to win. The Clintons' constant triangulation means that she is a centrist (her actual beliefs are probably considerably further to the left) with zero appeal to moderates and independents.
Posted by: Ross | January 28, 2008 at 06:25 PM
Hitchens has a pretty decent lock on the Clintons as well.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182938/?GT1=10837
Does anyone see a joint McCain-Obama ticket like I do? If Billary wins the Dem, McCain wins the Republican side, and offers Obama the Veep on a bipartisan ticket. Change, n'est ce pas?
Posted by: Chuckles | January 29, 2008 at 01:13 AM
Whatever "crossover" potential Obama has had
(and, in a race in which everyone else is pretty objectionable for one reason or another, an "empty suit" looks damn good!), it's draining away fast as old caporegimes like Ted Kennedy get on board. His support probably costs Obama every undecided, Republican-leaning vote he was likely to get and a fair number of those leaning slightly his way.
It looks like the MSM is beginning to wake up to the fact that Clinton was never "their" man--they were simply his chumps. It's good that they all have different names--it's the only way he has of telling them from Monica.
Posted by: gene berman | January 29, 2008 at 10:40 AM