I've felt for a while that Hillary will be the next president (see also: my bet with Slappy giving him very foolish odds), but lately I have been refining more clearly my thinking as to why she will win, which also makes me believe she's known this a long time.
Josh Marshall at TPM has a very intriguing (and I think accurate) theory of Karl Rove's and the GOP's recent success he terms the republican "***** slap" theory of politics in which Democrats have been the repeated victims of the ***** slap for well over a decade now. The examples of the theory are numerous:
- John Kerry being swift-boated: It wasn't that the public necessarily believed anything the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were alleging that sunk Kerry (pun intended) so much as it was his apparent ineptness to mount a sufficient counter-attack against the claims. In short, he got defined as WEAK.
- Al Gore: He was attacked for wearing earth toned suits and for being associated with Bill Clinton. Instead of telling the GOP to go f*** itself, he went back to a dark suit and put Clinton out to pasture instead of having Clinton campaigning for him. Instead of counter-attacking, he went of defense.
- Other: I think similar things could be said for the congressional gains of the GOP in the 90s and the defeat of Tom Daschle. The Democratic loser gets defined as a puss.
- Obama: Inexperienced, they say. Has too many gaffes on foreign policy to be trusted (specifically, the recent statement on civilian casualties in Afghanistan Obama made that merely reiterated what Bush, Karzai and a U.S. military general had also said.) It doesn't matter that the charges against him are false. He fails to punch back hard and he looks weak.
- Edwards: $400 dollar haircut, anyone? Ann Coulter calling him a fag? Mike Huckabee taking a shot at him (Mike Huckabee for Christ's sake.) And how did Edwards respond? By sending his wife out to attack and giving fashion commentary on Hillary's coat in the debate. That's how you fight back against statements against you that basically infer that you're a homosexual.
Hillary, on the other hand, relishes the opportunities when she is criticized. The Pentagon slams her by saying she's undermining morale by writing a letter to DoD and she calls them on the carpet, demands and receives an apology for SecDef and support from Congressional republicans. Carl Rove trashes her on Limbaugh and she can't wait to bring it up at her campaign rally. She voted for the war, probably against principle and better judgment. Tough. She refused to apologize for this even when basically everyone in the Democratic party was demanding she do so. Unpopular with the base, but maintaining that toughness.
Ironically, the message she is sending is that she's the only one in the race on the Democratic side with balls big enough to win a general election and make her critics her *****, instead of being ***** slapped. The last national Democratic candidate to respond to the ***** slap with a pimp slap? Bill Clinton of course. She ain't dumb, and neither is her hubby. Strictly because of her strength and refusal to be *****-slapped, she gets gradually more popular as the campaign wears on.
Her negative approval ratings will never be higher than they were in the past. What else are they going to bring out on her? She's probably the most opposition researched candidate in the history of American politics.
Could it all fall apart with one false step? Sure. But who's the least likely candidate on either side to make a false step? Hillary. I don't see how Obama or Edwards keep her from the nomination, and I don't see how the GOP nominee can ***** slap her into defeat in a general election. Some might say she's walking a tight rope, but I think she's like a locomotive on a sturdy track straight to the White House.
