Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Could Hillary Bequeath Us Our Long-Awaited Third Party?

By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted March 7, 2008.


A twist of fate?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Michael Green

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Oh boy. Where have I seen this movie before?

I think it was four years, surprisingly enough. Hey, what a coincidence! Wasn't there a presidential election going on back then, too?

Remember how Howard Dean came out of near total obscurity, how he started walloping the presumptive front-runner, John "Fearless" Kerry, by taking bold positions (at least in the context of American politics) against the war, and against George W. Bush? Remember how Kerry changed his tune to ape Dean's message, and how nervous Democratic voters played it safe and came home to the guy with the experience and the name brand? Remember what an outstandingly effective candidate he then turned out to be? Remember the "real deal"? (Oh, and what a deal it was. I think experienced card players refer to that hand as a 'jack-shit straight, seven high', if I'm not mistaken.)

Is this ringing any bells for anyone?

Only Democrats could lose the White House in 2008. It's hard to imagine a more perfect storm favoring their decisive, landslide victory. This should be 1932 redux, and then some. There's a reviled incumbent from the opposite party, already past his expiration date four years ago when he stole a second election. There's a new nominee from that same party joined to him at the hip on the most important issues, and stupid enough to be seen as such publically. There's the economy heading into a recession after years of lethargy for the middle class. An extremely unpopular war based on lies. A massive national debt. A housing crisis. An environmental crisis. Gas at well over three bucks a gallon. Oil over $100 a barrel. The dollar at record lows and plummeting. Pension stocks falling and cities falling apart - when they're not literally drowning. Scandals everywhere in the Republican Party. Three-fourths of the country believing America to be on the wrong track. And more. Put it all together and it's an amazing scenario! It's like some poli sci professor somewhere was tinkering around with a real-life statistical model, setting all the variables at max to see how big a blow-out is theoretically possible. "Hey, I wonder what happens if…?"

It's a perfect, perfect storm. And then along came Hillary. Look, I certainly don't object to her running if she wants to. But I do object to how she's running, and I think Democratic voters are as dumb as a bag of hammers sitting out in the rain to pull the handle for her. In this year of the great political tsunami, Republicans have managed to - inadvertently, it would seem - choose their best hope to hold on to the presidency, even if they can't quite stand their own choice. Hillary would be the Democrats' worst hope.

She would go into the general election with all sorts of pre-existing baggage and negatives. She would get smashed to pieces by McCain on the very voter selection criteria she herself has articulated for use against Obama: experience and national security. McCain could virtually take her 3:00 a.m. ad, pull her out and drop himself in, and use it against her. And he will. Her candidacy is already ugly to contemplate, and she hasn't even released her tax filings yet. Aren't Democrats just brilliant? Hey, maybe she can get Kerry to be her running mate! Perhaps Bob Shrum is free these days, and can finally push himself into double digits on his personal best lifetime count of presidential races lost (with zero wins), by managing the campaign.

But it's not just Democrats going with the Clintons that alarms me, it's how they might win it. It is almost a mathematical certainty that neither candidate can win the nomination by means of gathering pledged delegates in the months ahead. Under the proportional allocation system Democratic primaries and caucuses tend to use, a candidate has to do exceedingly well in the popular vote to realize a significant shift in delegates. It would appear that Clinton's got some favorable states ahead, and that Obama has as many or perhaps more, unless momentum has really shifted now, after Tuesday. I tend to doubt that is the case, unless Obama goes all Massachusetts at this point, like Kerry and Dukakis, and stands by helplessly watching the steamroller as it relentlessly approaches. In which case, fine, anyhow - get the clown off the stage, he's not ready for prime-time. As a tired American progressive, worn down by disappointment across more decades of losing politics than I care to count, I can abide many things. But one of them is not another wimpy Democratic presidential nominee who gets out-slugged by the latest Karl Rove and manages yet again to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, election08

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at www.regressiveantidote.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If the Democrats lose this presidental election,
Posted by: Rod on Mar 7, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
every single member of the DNC should resign. Every single one, and we need new leaders. Or just disband the party and let a new one form, hopefully something progressive, maybe with John Edwards or someone like that as leader.

I quit contributing to the DNC, sending my modest amounts of money directly to canidates I like, something I started when Hillary started running. She might be OK, she might even do a good job, but I do not trust her. I am sure she will be better than what we have now, but she will be so much less than what we need.

John Edwards was our best hope, sob. Too bad the corprate masters do not like him.

Rod

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought it was just me
Posted by: soldier of fortune on Mar 7, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have meditated on this same idea. I had no problem with voting Clinton if she won fairly but after this crap she is trying to pull, I am done with her. I wouldn't even back a Hillary-Barack ticket. Short of her being Obama's VP or somehow winning more delegates (fairly) before the convention, I will vote third party or not at all. (There is no way in five kinds of hell I would ever vote Republican.) Clinton truly has the power of an evil Helen of Troy, "The woman who destroyed an entire democratic party" (though the party helped out a lot). I would be all over an Obama-Kucinich or Obama-Edwards ticket for 2008.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Ready
Posted by: OldRedleg on Mar 7, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Clinton steals the nomination through the so-called Superdelegate process, or any other underhanded means that goes against the will of the majority voters, I will finally write off the Democratic Party. I don't know yet who I will vote for but I am certain of the ones I will not vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHICH wrong track...?
Posted by: Crazy H on Mar 7, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three-fourths of the country believing America to be on the wrong track.

I always love this factoid, no matter what proportion is stated. The pollsters never ask the obvious followup question, "...and which way is that track going?"

The Limpbone & Coltface crowd will inevitably tell you we're heading too far left. Those of us who get consistent results when adding two and two believe something different...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Inexcusable conduct
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Mar 7, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton's favorable comparison between herself and McCain against Obama was one of the worst political bits of nastiness I've witnessed since Karl Rove was master of the innuendo and smear. She has given the Republicans something to really latch onto, whether she or Obama gets the nomination.

Until I heard her comments after the Tuesday election in which she stated that she has the experience and McCain has the experience, but Obama has nothing but one speech he made in 2002, I thought I'd vote for her if she were the final candidate. Not any more. It might even be different if she had said it once and realized what she'd done. Instead, I heard her give three different versions of the same horrid statements.

If I ever thought Clinton had any strength of character, she has completely removed that notion from my mind. It may take experience to be president, it may take judgement, or - more likely - it may take a combination. But for me to vote for anyone, it takes at least a minimal amount of integrity. Clinton has shown that she has little or none. She's lost my vote for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Over the Hillary
Posted by: Crazy H on Mar 7, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
eh, can you really blame her for playing dirty? Given the overwhelming success of VRWC against her husband, she's probably convinced that it's he only way to play.

Both Bushes got into office primarily with a campaign strategy of, "Vote for me because the other guy's a bum."

Not that I like her little slimefest. While she doesn't have my respect, she'll get my vote if she's nominated. I always vote a strict pary line: ANTI-REPUBLICAN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, I blame her Posted by: foreverhope
It would be nice to have a real progressive lead a new party
Posted by: RyanR on Mar 7, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has change as his mantra, but I don't see him representing a real seachange like we need to make the kind of reforms our country needs to champion the "people." Just a little more modern flavor of the same.
We need the likes of (or even, better, exactly) Edwards and Kucinich and the "new" Gore. Now any of those could lead a real "change" party, one the country could get behind. If only the media wouldn't get in the way. But with enough of us disenchanted, the media (and their corporations) would get trampled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Nader went terribly wrong ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 7, 2008 8:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not establishing a third party whereby a new agenda could be launched ...

Now after all these runs for president instead of having a tried and true third choice all we have is another impromptu Nader run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary's Big Lie
Posted by: John Edward on Mar 7, 2008 10:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the Toronto Newspaper yesterday it was a Clinton aide that assured the Canadians that she was not really against NAFTA. It was wrongly leaked and reported that it was an Obama aide. I get the headlines from Canada daily so I got this early. I have only heard about this here on Countdown on MSNBC. Yet today I heard Hillary still claim Obama did it. She is truly shameless. She acts like she wants to be McBushes VP and she certainly doesn't act like she wants the Democrats to win in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary's Big Lie Posted by: rinpochet
3rd Party YES!!!
Posted by: John Edward on Mar 8, 2008 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree. With McBush and Hillary running as a Joe Lieberman clone as the two choices of corporate Amerika, Obama could take it as a 3rd party candidate. As the only anti war candidate agreeing with 70% if the population. Hillary is running with the same advisors that gave us the Dukacas, Kerry and Mondale campaigns. Is is any wonder she can't legitimately win the nomination. Indeed it would be a much more thorough house cleaning than if he ran as a Democrat. The Internet may return us to Jeffersonian Democracy, who would have thought?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton Transparency & Presidential Pardons
Posted by: foreverhope on Mar 8, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

"the pardon scandals that marked Bill and Hillary Clinton's final days in office are remembered as transactions involving cronies, criminals and campaign contributors, the FALN clemencies of 1999 should be remembered in the context of the increasing threat of domestic and transnational terrorism that was ramping up during the Clinton years of alleged peace and prosperity. To wit, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Tokyo subway Sarin attack, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1995 "Bojinka" conspiracy to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, Osama bin Laden's 1996 and 1998 "Declarations of War" on America, the 1998 East African embassy bombings, the 2000 USS Sullivans bombing attempt, the 2000 USS Cole bombing, and the 2000 Millennium bombing plot.

It was within that context that the FBI gave its position on the FALN clemencies -- which the White House succeeded in keeping out of news coverage but ultimately failed to suppress -- stating that "the release of these individuals will psychologically and operationally enhance the ongoing violent and criminal activities of terrorist groups, not only in Puerto Rico, but throughout the world." The White House spun the clemencies as a sign of the president's universal commitment to "peace and reconciliation" just one year after Osama bin Laden told his followers that the United States is a "paper tiger" that can be attacked with impunity.

It would be a mistake to dismiss as "old news" the story of how and why these terrorists were released in light of the fact that it took place during the precise period when Bill Clinton now claims he was avidly engaged, even "obsessed," with efforts to protect the public from clandestine terrorist attacks. If Bill and Hillary Clinton were willing to pander to the demands of local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights activists defending bomb-makers convicted of seditious conspiracy, how might they stand up to pressure from other interest groups working in less obvious ways against U.S. interests in a post-9/11 world?

Radical Islamists are a sophisticated and determined enemy who understand that violence alone will not achieve their goals. Islamist front groups, representing themselves as rights organizations, are attempting to get a foothold here as they have already in parts of Western Europe by deftly exploiting ethnic and racial politics, agitating under the banner of civil liberties even as they are clamoring for the imposition of special Shariah law privileges in the public domain. They believe that the road to America's ultimate defeat is through the back door of policy and law and they are aggressively using money, influence and retail politics to achieve their goal.

On the campaign trail, the Clintons like to say that Bill is merely supportive and enthusiastic, "just like all the other candidates' spouses." Nothing could be further from the truth. Returning Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House would present the country with the unprecedented situation of a former and current president simultaneously occupying the White House, the practical implications of which have yet to be fully explored.

The FALN clemencies provide a disturbing example of how the abuse or misuse of presidential prerogative, under the guise of policy, can be put in service of the personal and private activities of the president's spouse -- and beyond the reach of meaningful congressional oversight."

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This pretty much say it all... Posted by: herronsmith
you are correct about hillary, but
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 9, 2008 11:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
unfortunately obama isn't the best person for the job, either...his stand on issues is not that much different than hers so for me it doesn't matter if hillary or obama is annointed by the democratic party. i agree that hillary is without any sense of fair play but again, obama isn't that much different...they both proved their mutual lack of decency when they did not come to the aid of fellow democratic candidate (the dis-invited dennis kucinich) by not insisting he be included in the msnbc "debate" prior to stuper-tuesday. obama and hillary are just status quo candidates wearing the dnc label...

i had hoped - by the title of your article - that you were going to unveil a REAL 3rd party candidate, alas it was just more of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can someone "steal the superdelegate vote"?
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 10, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that estimates are both candidates are courting the superdelegates and have about a 50/50 split makes such accusations look sick.

I do not object to Obama supporters telling us why their candidate is better. I do object to Obama supporters telling us why they hate Hillary. Yes, we know the Clinton-haters are legion. We don't need you to stand up and wave your ugly flag of hate.

I hate ambition--everywhere except in politics. If you have a problem with an ambitious woman politician, that's your problem, not ours. I have had my fill of "don't care if I do" losers. This nation has no *give* left for the miss manners approach to campaigning: don't put your elbows on the table, dear.

No one knows the office of president better than Hillary. No one knows how to use it better than she does. No one is more committed to the welfare of working Americans. So go spread your venom somewhere else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]