SEN LIEBERMAN'S LESSON FOR HILLARY

Regular commenter Pope George Ringo on Hillary:


No doubt Sen. Joe Lieberman is a good man--a middle road Democrat who was so embraced by his party that he was its VP standard bearer in 2000. Now, six short years later, in the eyes of his fellow Democrats he is about as popular as GW Bush (some would even give W the edge). All of this can be traced to one thing of course; the Senator's support of the Bush Administration via the Iraq war. Icing on the top of Lieberman's cake of discontent would most certainly be his name being dropped as a replacement for Don Rumsfeld (should Rummy ever decide to go, that is).

Now, the good Senator is in a primary battle for his political life against Ned Lamont a cable co executive--who is opposed to the Iraq war. Whatever the end result of Lieberman's primary, the horns are sounding to bring down the walls of security for one Democrat who is just a little "too" secure--Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton should take Liebermans plight as sage advice: if you endorse Iraq watch out for your base constituency. Democrats don't give a damn about "who" you were or pretend to be; what they do care about is putting up candidates that (right or wrong) oppose Bush 100% of the time.

Hillary is a potential victim of one of politics deadliest sins, the sin of overconfidence. Name me ONE candidate who expressed sheer overconfidence who went on the an election victory (with the exception of Ronald Reagan, who could have defeated Jesus Christ himself in 80 or 84). Overconfidence weakens a candidates foundation and allows his opponents to build upon their own.

Too many political hacks (at one time His Holiness included) assumed that the nominee in 08 would be Mrs. Clinton. But we weren't counting on her running a General election campaign in the Spring and Summer of 2006. She has been heckled at commencement addresses by those who once adored her; she is tied to a policy that would now at this stage be very difficult for her to withdraw from--she speaks of fighting the good fight and has done the silly dance to the tune of "Let us Protect our Flag!" (as if anyone is in fact attacking it).
What Hillary seems to be forgetting is that there "is" much to be protected in our country: low wage workers, those who have no work at all; those who have enormous health care costs, those who have no health care at all; the list goes on and on and yet, in her mind the General Election is on.

All the while, the one who many on the left feel was robbed of a Presidency, Al Gore, has sprung up again. His environmental/ lecture film is doing quite well for a documentary--think about it--a lecture on film by AL Gore is making money (this should scare the Hell out of the Republicans and Hillary). He is appearing on talk shows and is much more likeable now that he is free of "handlers". One would have to harken back to 1967 for a similar situation. Dick Nixon popped up out of nowhere from his Law Practice in NY to appear at various Republican functions. He didn't have a movie, but the appearance on Laugh IN made for some great inroads amongst the middle road voters just as Mr. Gore's recent Saturday Night Live appearance has.

Of course, a Gore run would depend on several outcomes; Whether Mrs. Clinton ceases her General Election flag waving routine, whether the war situation improves, and most importantly the result of Sen. Liebermans primary race. Should Lieberman lose or win by a slim margin--this can serve as a signal to Mrs. Clinton to get her act together. It is common knowledge that Republicans are more forgiving of those who lose in their party--Democrats on the other hand are quite viscous about it--and one thing Democrats do not want (whether Politically wise or stupid) is to nominate a Pro War candidate for President. Many people will be tuning in to see the primary results--Al Gore will be one of them--whether Hillary does or does not may very well be the deciding factor in her future as a Presidential Nominee.

NOTE: I just watched the Hardball debate between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. When Joe wasn't calling his opponent a far lefty or a Republican (which is it?) his only defense to the principled arguements his opponent presented was he brings home the pork. Aren't we all tired of politicians bragging about things they should do anyway?