My must read of the day is "The Hillary-Industrial Complex," by Jonah Goldberg, in National Review Online:
In 2008, Obama pandered to liberal hopes while Clinton appealed to their good sense. Obama promised miracles and magic. Clinton promised more homework.
"Cynicism" was Obama’s real opponent, he explained. And he used Clinton as a stand-in for it. She played her part, pointing out that the Civil Rights Act got through Congress because of LBJ’s hard work, not Martin Luther King’s speeches. She insisted that politics was toil, not performance art.
And, as we have learned from a president who so often thinks giving a speech is a substitute for solving a problem, she had the better argument. One need only look at the reaction from Democrats to President Obama’s handling of the VA scandal to see that even they would trade some inspirational claptrap for a bit more old-fashioned competence.
That attitude helps Clinton immensely. Burned by disappointment, many liberals want to vote with their heads, not their hearts, this time around.
And the Hillary-Industrial Complex is ready to exploit that sentiment. The HIC is the vast network of loyalists, retreads, activists, pols, hacks, fans (in and out of the press), Friends of Bill, and, of course, Friends of Hillary who want to see a Clinton restoration. They are waiting for her to run like 19th-century land speculators anticipating news that the railroad will go past their lots. Would you want to be left with 500,000 "Ready for Hillary" bumper stickers in your garage? (It’s a solid rule of business that you’ve made a poor investment if a Hillary Duff comeback is your Plan B.)
Goldberg seemingly contends that the apparent practicality of Hillary inspires the "HIC" but is not something that will appeal to the broader population. Here I disagree. The dichotomy of a whimsical Obama and a sensible Hillary is very compelling, and it shouldn’t be dismissed.
"Americans almost never reward a party with a third consecutive term in the White House," Goldberg writes, "and when they do, it’s because they want more of the same."
That’s true, but if Democrats message it right, the contradiction between Hillary and Obama’s outlook could be drastic enough that it separates her from the party in office. If people can separate the two and think of Hillary as her own entity, the "HIC" is smart to exploit the disappointment liberals feel right now.
The question then becomes, is there enough substance in Hilary Clinton’s past to make her this kind of candidate. On that point, Goldberg is right—she doesn’t have much to show for her record as secretary of state and while people may love Bill, running on his record is not compelling.
Hillary 2016 might fail, but I don’t think it will be because her supporters banked on the wrong sentiment. It will be because Hillary doesn’t have a strong enough past to be that trusty, realistic candidate.