Remember In '00, When Conventional Wisdom

had it that Bush was too much of a moron to be elected? That he was a daddy's boy and that the Republicans were nuts to nominate him, because he would not make a strong candidate in the general?

Are there parallels here with Hillary Clinton and '08? In other words, could the conventional wisdom about her - she's unelectable because the rightwing hates her too much, she'll never be as good a campaigner as Bill, etc. Could all that actually be working in her favor, because the MSM, and much of America, is completely underestimating how effective this woman will be if she wins the nomination and how she will fight in the general?

So far, what I've seen is a master campaigner who's doing nothing but getting better and better. She comes across as warm, funny, unfazed, incredibly intelligent and tough as nails. Not an easy combination to pull off.

And I've always thought she was far, far more disciplined than her husband.

Makes you wonder if she could turn conventional wisdom on its ear.

her "naive" insult against Obama. I won't vote for her under any circumstance, not in the primary, not in the general--I'll vote for Bloomberg, or stay home. She's in bed with the neocons.

Did I already mention I really like you :-)?

:toast:

and think for themselves

you really expect people to go without their weekly fix of "Dancing With The Stars?"

:)

bush was a "popular" governor with a known last name, a bottomless bank account, no scruples at all about dirty campaigning and the media on his side. I (and it seems like you) knew that people would be nuts to elect him, but I really don't think that conventional wisdom held that he wouldn't be a strong candidate.

Of course, that doesn't mean that people aren't wrong to underestimate Hillary. I'm supporting Edwards, but I think she can also win the general if she's nominated.

She somehow embraces all sides of every issue, while saying nothing specific and never standing up for anything.

She is absolutely amazing at this.

that's well-oiled and aiming to obliterate everything in its path.

There's a bit of bitterness here, but she has every right to do that, and they're doing it in the traditional method of the establishment. To their credit, they're doing it with more finesse than huge rumbling bandwagons and seige engines usually use, and they're trying to be polite about it.

There's a bit of difference here, and it's VERY important to bear in mind: whereas so many lefties dismissed Junior as a pathetic dim bulb and the massive money behind him as just a futile last-gasp of the primitives, the reactionaries take Hillary quite seriously. Much as I subscribe to the theory that she's their candidate of choice, I don't think they're going to be smug and slovenly about fighting her. If she clinches it on that idiotic Super-duper Tuesday, they will have been quite quiet and polite--even supportive, as many of the pundits have been--up to this point; the moment the votes are there, however, they'll come out with every hoary Vince Foster allegation and a host of new ones. They'll come out with an energy that will be breathtaking. The next nine months will make Elizabeth Bathory and Lizzie Borden seem gentle, Typhoid Mary seem safe and Carrie Nation seem diplomatic. We'll hear about the commodities deal. We'll hear about every vote and every word ever spoken.

Democrats were to a great degree overconfident and drunk on their own self-satisfaction in '00; Republicans know how to win.

The only reason Democrats ever win is that their policies generally benefit many more people than their opponents. The only reaon Republicans ever win is that they're much better at campaigning, manipulating, playing upon fear, dangling the carrot of "belonging with the cool, rich people" and working fundamentalism and greed like a bilge pump in a squall. They're better and we should learn from them.

Sadly, we don't learn from history and we look like we're heading for another lesson.