Reply #8: Hmmm

[PATRICK]

Until you got to the word consensus it seemed pretty clear. Hillary does have a natural strength that is hers to lose as far as the primaries are concerned. She does not have the hatred and the big money against her as she would in a national election. The more progressive will indeed split that part of the natural primary base and the activist volunteers and the ability to unite against a frontrunner.

She dreads the frontrunner label, but she has it in many automatic facets, some moreso than past early favorites. Uniting early against her will be impossible, undesirable for the spirit of a primary, and slow as the race becomes more fractious. The sudden onslaught of primary and delegate totals are another automatic factor.

The ironic thing here, in emulating the centrist Dems own moves is that it is also based more on dread than hatred or total disagreement with the frontrunner. A centrist strength in our usually strongly populist primaries where activists mostly vote and campaign, does not mirror the strong negatives that will unite against Hillary once the national campaign begins. She is one of the unhappy few who can blow the race and steal defeat from the jaws of victory. That is also part of her automatic baggage. Many better candidates can split the vote so this consensus strategy is as much based on fear as anything else. It sound very familiar, like the people who lobbied Cuomo not to run and ended up with Dukakis.

Plenty of time if you trust a better candidate with the right amount of success will emerge. Hillary can get slaughtered in the debates. The first Senate campaign debate was against a rude idiot. This time she will be on the defensive or with exceedingly high expectations. I suspect no matter how well she apparently does the air will start going out of the balloon and there is nothing in her talents or stands or record that can stop it. You don't have to join the "hate Hillary" bi-partisan movement to make that assessment. She is dedicated to poor judgment on key issues and ways of governing. I'd much sooner try any progressive candidate at all.

Frontrunners can run rabbit for the pack, stimulating the race, focusing on the kinds of choice, liberating the decisions by their fading. Or they can bring the whole party down. That is because, now as in many past cases, that status is an accident of name recognition, party machinery and some heritage of the past preceding years. If it were a case of a popular giant above all others, such as if often conferred upon a successful first term president, like a FDR(how long ago!) it would not be seen as the danger it is.

To start arguing for Edwards, Obama or Gore, or several others worthy of the office is just going to take the lines we are already painfully familiar with and may create the very havoc one might seek to avoid that would consequentially give Hillary a cakewalk. Also there are candidates jumping in who are no more progressive than Hillary who may be more influential in causing her problems. In the end, this time, except for the very green Obama, I think everyone will be on an even keel. Somehow the seesaw last time when Kerry faded then Dean back to Kerry did not benefit anyone else. This time it will be more of a horse race with most of the field and the workers having more experience the second time around that no one had during the Gore nomination.

However, the burning life or death question is to get rid of the dangerous pResident we have right now.