Kowabunga

Over on the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson has come up with an interesting analogy on the Hillary’s bid for the Presidency in 2008.

As the ancient or merely studious among us will recall, the Democratic senator from Maine, who'd been Hubert Humphrey's running mate in 1968, entered his party's presidential contest in 1972 as the front-runner. His prospects were dashed in the New Hampshire snows, however. As popular memory has it, an indignant Muskie started crying while refuting a silly attack on him (though whether he was genuinely upset or merely sniffling during a frigid outdoor news conference was never authoritatively resolved). Muskie's more serious problem, however, was the Vietnam War, which he opposed.

His opposition, though, had none of the fervor or long-term consistency of another Democratic senator and presidential aspirant, George McGovern. By 1972, seven years had elapsed since the United States had sent ground forces to Vietnam, and Richard Nixon, through his invasion of Cambodia and stepped-up bombing campaigns, had made clear that the road to de-escalation would entail periodic escalations, at least as long as he was president. The Democratic base was in no mood for temporizing on Vietnam.

Party voters wanted out, and they wanted a nominee who'd been right on the war (almost) from the start: McGovern. Sic transit gloria Muskie.

Today, Hillary Clinton seems almost uncannily positioned to become the Ed Muskie of 2008. She opposes the U.S. military presence in Iraq but not with the specificity, fervor or bona fides of her leading Democratic rivals. As Muskie did with Vietnam, she supported the legislation enabling the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and she has been slower and more inconstant than her party rivals in coming around to opposing the continued U.S. occupation.

Meyerson continues the comparison between Hillary today and Muskie of 1972. It makes for good reading and poses some interesting possibilities. Will Hillary be able to galvanize the Far-Left that makes up the base of the modern Democratic party while continuing to support current operations in Iraq, or will she abandon Middle-America in the hopes of appeasing the party base, and throw Iraq to the wolves, siding with the Liberal-Left in pushing for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? Will the fact that it was the Clinton Administration that set the U.S. policy on Iraq to one of deposing Hussein have a negative impact on Hillary?

We all know where she stands on many social issues, and there she has no problem with appealing to the Democratic Hard-Left core. However, it is the anti-war crowd (who are also Hard-Left) that dominates the core of the party, may well be looking for a hard-core anti-war candidate, just as Meyerson writes was done in 1972 when McGovern one the nomination. If so, that may well mean Barack Obama, will be at the top of the DNC ticket come November 2008.

Obama has all the charisma that Hillary lacks, and he has shown himself to be to the left of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (and that is hard to do). Obama, unlike many of the Liberal-Left serving in the Senate, has always been against the war, and lacks the baggage Hillary is carrying for having voted in support of Liberating Iraq and continued military operations in that country.

It’s also interesting to note that in 1992, Bill Clinton was not even in the top three, let alone considered the front-runner when he was campaigning.

Ultimately, the question will come down to: does Hillary have the stamina to stay up front and overcome the baggage she is carrying in regards to Iraq; or will she succumb to one of the middle tier candidates who has been vocal against the war since before the invasion.

No matter how you slice and dice it, it’s going to be a very interesting and heated election cycle. Not to mention a long one.

Tags:

Hillary Obama Iraq