COLUMN: This Democrat not voting for Hillary
Occasionally, I like to pull out my voter registration card around friends and point to the line that reads: DEM. Democrat. It’s amazing the different looks people give you when you do this. Their face either shows surprise, disbelief or downright disgust for my political affiliation. The initial alarm is usually abated by the fact that most of my friends are well aware of my active church-going status. Somehow that makes me a bearable Democrat, I guess. I might be a little politically misguided, but at least I’m not a kook, they say. Then the end-all question is inevitably asked by my Republican peers. “But would you vote for Hillary?” This is the litmus test applied nowadays to Utah Democrats. You’re either with Hillary Clinton or you’re against her, obviously in reference to the 2008 presidential election. While John Kerry may have been a pansy, many Utahns view Clinton as the devil incarnate. Her personality just doesn’t mesh with many in the Beehive State. The escapades of her husband while president certainly doesn’t help her cause either. Not surprisingly then, the worry of nearly every red-state loyalist is whether or not Hillary will be our next president. The answer is no. In fact, don’t expect to even see Hillary’s name on the ballot come November 2008. You see, the majority of people worked up about Hillary running for president are Republicans. Nothing will mobilize GOP voters more than Hillary Clinton. They will turn out in record numbers to make sure she loses. Clinton fans will remind me that early polls give her a comfortable lead over all of her expected Democratic competitors. Early polls also don’t mean anything. For example, Rudy Giuliani leads all Republican presidential hopefuls. Though, I do think Giuliani could be competitive in the general election, his pro-abortion and gay rights stance would get him slaughtered in a Republican primary. If he ran as an Independent, it might be a different story. Early polls are almost always about name recognition. Clinton and Giuliani might have it now, but others can certainly catch up. Clinton has made motions that would indicate she has presidential ambitions. Her campaign war chest is unequaled among other 2008 contenders. She has shifted towards the center on various key issues including the war in Iraq and abortion, two topics very important to today’s voters. All of her moves suggest a planned, though unannounced, run for president. But the trouble with Hillary is that very few Democrats are thrilled about her chances in 2008. Whether or not you think Hillary is the best candidate or not, the most important question for Democrats is, can she win in November? After debacles in both 2000 and 2004, Democrats will do almost anything to win this time around. And quite frankly, Hillary isn’t the answer. The word on the street is that Clinton has been offered a deal by current Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid (a USU graduate, by the way). If she gives up her presidential bid, she would take over Reid’s position as the Senate Democratic leader in 2009. My hunch is that she will take the offer. Sorry Bill, no more wild nights in the White House for you.
Though, could you imagine Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader? Two more polarizing figures would be hard to find on the national stage.
Hillary Clinton will soon realize, if she hasn’t already, that the country may be ready to elect its first ever woman president. But that woman won’t be her.
As for my guess for the 2008 presidential candidate of the Democrats, I’ll give you a hint. He might not have a lot of foreign policy experience, but his name does rhyme with Osama.