Laughing At Kuttner

Actually, it's more like laughing at what Robert Kuttner wrote in today's Boston Globe.  Mr. Kuttner is the co-editor of the left-wing American Prospect magazine.  He discusses the prospects of Sen. Hillary Clinton of obtaining the Democratic nomination and then the presidency in 2008.  It reads like fawning farce, with assumptions and declarations that are just not supportable.  Let's start picking over the carcass, shall we?

Why Hillary? First, the potent Clinton political apparatus enables her to raise prodigious sums. Second, she has proven in places like upstate New York that she can attract independent support. Third, she is a real charmer, having worked with Republican senators on legislation of joint interest -- people who initially viewed her as the arch-fiend.

The first point I'll give him; the last two are questionable at best.  Rick Lazio was a particularly weak opponent in 2000; nonetheless he won many of the upstate counties, but got predictably swamped in New York City.  Albany went for Hillary, but that's the seat of state government.  All told Lazio won 49 voting districts/counties, Hillary 21.  For the third point to be effective I would've liked to see a reference; perhaps he's referring to Newt Gingrich and the electronic medical records initiative.  That two dissimilar politicians cooperate on a project does not necessarily mean one has been "charmed."  A more likely explanation is that it's in both of their electoral interest to cooperate.

She also has an uncanny ability to charm reporters. New York magazine recently ran an adoring cover piece illustrated by Hillary taking the presidential oath as Bill lovingly looked on. The writer confessed to initial skepticism, but after following her around for a few weeks was totally won over. Last week, the left-wing Nation magazine (The Nation!) ran a story almost as worshipful.

Gosh, a reporter for New York Magazine and one for The Nation were "worshipful" of Hillary?  Go figure.

This does not mean, however, that Hillary is a lefty. On the contrary, she is consciously positioned in the political center, deftly fine-tuning her rhetoric on abortion, casting some pro-business votes, and sounding tough on defense.

That's just it, then.  She is "conciously" positioning herself.  She is "fine tuning her rhetoric."  OMG, she's casting some pro-business votes and sounding tough on defense.  Wow, where do I sign up for her campaign?  I'm sorry, a zebra cannot change it's stripes.  These are concious efforts to appear more centrist; she is not changing her core beliefs.  Mrs. Clinton is the same person she was in 1993 when, using a secret task force, she pushed to nationalize health care.  Her centrist rhetoric no more makes her a centrist than Barbara Billinglsey's ability to speak 'jive' in Airplane! makes her black.

In 2004, women's support for John Kerry lagged Al Gore's in 2000. Presumably, America's women will flock to Hillary.

Scott Rasmussen's recent Hillary polling data would contradict this assertion, with the most recent survey producing her weakest numbers to date.  Only 26% of Americans would vote for her against a generic Republican, while 41% would definitely vote against.  Only 20% of men would vote for her.  Despite that centrist rhetoric 45% label her a liberal, and I would be one of those.  He didn't break down the women here, but in 12/2004 he noted that of women 45% would vote for her against a generic Republican.  He also had her overall support at 39% then, vs. 26% now.

Many Democratic progressives, female and male, just don't trust her because she has trimmed on too many issues too many times. And they're not at all sure she can be elected.

Well, we know the Republicans don't trust her, either.  So who'll vote for her?  Scott Rasmussen says not very many.

Also, though Clinton's issues are moderate, her persona isn't. For traditionalists, she is tainted, unfairly, in two contradictory ways. She is irrevocably seen as a pushy woman, but also a wronged woman -- which makes her seem weak at a time when Americans need someone strong. If she can overcome all these hurdles, maybe she deserves to be president.

Speaking for myself, Mr. Kuttner, as well as a large portion of the 51% that backed Pres. Bush, those issues have nothing to do with it.  I simply don't trust her, not to tell the truth, not to tell us what she really thinks, not to be open with her agenda.

After running through the other potential candidates - Joe Biden, John Edwards and John Kerry - and including a howler in the brief paragraph on Kerry (hint: he agrees with Keith Olberman), Kuttner saves his most foolish contrivance for last.

Any of these three, and possible dark horses like Gore (who gives inspired speeches except when he's running), General Wesley Clark, or moderate Indiana Governor Evan Bayh, could emerge as the non-Hillary. For all the talk of a thin Democratic bench, it's a promising field: the breakthrough-but-reassuring woman, the foreign policy eminence, the credible populist, the seasoned veterans, the general, and the red-state moderate.

Breakthrough-but-reassuring?  Of course, Mr. Kuttner and Sen. Clinton do have at least some history together.  In October of 2003 she spoke at a conference called New American Strategies for Security and Peace in Washington, DC.  The conference was sponsored by The American Prospect, as well as the Center for American Progress, both on the far left.  This was largely an anti-Bush foreign policy speech against the administration's prosecution of the war on terror, occurring just six months after the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent fall of Baghdad, with the speech containing oodles of John Kerry's 'global test' language.

Mr. Kuttner may believe Sen. Clinton has a good chance in '08, and she may well get the nomination.  Scott Rasmussen's numbers at this point would appear to argue against her in the general election, however.  And Will Franklin has some more eye-opening data to seal the deal.

Submitted to Wizbang's COTT XV.