When the right warms up to Democratic candidates

Hillary Clinton is out to impress Democratic primary voters, not conservative pundits, but as Bruce Bartlett noted today, Clinton “is rapidly becoming not merely acceptable to many right-wingers but possibly even their candidate of choice.”

Listen to Kathryn Lopez, editor of National Review Online, who was blogging live during the AFL-CIO Democratic debate Tuesday in Chicago: “In response to more than a few answers tonight — on Iraq, on China — I’ve said, ‘She sounds reasonable.’ ” […]

[Lopez’s] boss, National Review Editor Rich Lowry, also has had strangely respectful thoughts lately about Clinton. In a July 27 column, he expressed genuine admiration for her political skill, especially in managing to placate the left wing of the Democratic Party on Iraq without repudiating her vote for the war nor making herself patently unacceptable as a potential commander in chief. It was “brilliant politics,” Lowry conceded.

Clinton’s unwillingness to pander to her own party’s base on Iraq has won her grudging respect from another unlikely source as well: William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

Yesterday we learned that Barack Obama is more popular among Republicans in Iowa than several GOP presidential candidates, including John McCain. Also this week, George Will praised Chris Dodd as “amusing, experienced and a plausible president.”

And today Bartlett is characterizing Hillary Clinton, historically the bane of the conservative movement’s very existence, as a credible candidate who could pick up support from far-right Republicans.

I think there are a few factors at play here.

First, it appears conservatives are quickly coming to grips with the reality that the GOP presidential field is weak and not at all ready for primetime. The candidates are dull, unimaginative, inexperienced, inconsistent, overly scripted, and in a couple of instances, imbalanced. I guess it’s only natural that political observers on the right start to peek over the fence and say, “You know, those Dems don’t look all that bad after all.”

Second, I have a hunch conservatives are also beginning to realize that the leading Dems don’t match their caricatures. For years, the right has blasted the Dems’ top tier, especially Clinton, as unhinged communists who hate America, oppose the military, and prefer radical social policies. Then the candidates actually talk about their beliefs and, to borrow Kathryn Lopez’s word, they sound “reasonable.”

And third, I’d argue that all of the most competitive Dems have done surprisingly well keeping the general election in mind. They’re talking to progressive primary voters, but they’re cognizant of messages that can play with any audiences. Barack Obama’s latest “What if” ad, which is quite good, emphasizes his bipartisan appeal. It’s not a natural message for a primary race, but it’s a reminder that all of the major Dems are thinking ahead, while the major Republicans are running to the hard right.

It’s kind of fun to watch, isn’t it?

Could be. And certainly she doesn’t look like the villain they’ve painted her.

But the Republicans aren’t above trying to make a Democratic primary candidate look better if they believe it will benefit the GOP to run against that candidate in the general election. Fox did it last time.

  • Let’s not start getting overconfident. Romney completely vapid, but he’s a tough, veteran campaigner, who managed to get elected as a Republican in Massachusetts. And let’s not forget that the Republicans aren’t afraid to stoop to the dirtiest of reprehensible lies, racially targeted voter supression, and ballot maniupulation to win.

    We can’t let our guard down for a second.

  • Uh Dudley?

    Romney’s not a “veteran” campaigner in anything but the most literal sense: he’s only run two campaigns (losing for the senate in “94, winning the governorship in ’02). And at the time he won in Massachusetts, the GOP had won the governors race three times in a row (his was the fourth). There really isn’t much evidence that Romney is a particularly solid campaigner, and I suspect that his continued poor showing among GOP primary voters outside of Iowa reflects this.

  • I don’t give a damn what Republicans think. They’re all mean, lying, greedy bastards to begin with who’ve lost the support of the American public. Why Democrats care what they think (White House included) eludes me. Damn the GOP and full speed ahead!

  • Of course they love Hillary. She is most likely to continue many of $hrub’s f__ked up policies and the rich will continue to get richer. In other words, under Hillary, it’ll be business as usual. That is why the MSM has been promoting her as the frontrunner from the beginning, because they want her in the White House. Maybe we should be less concerned about the next president and more concerned about our present “roll over and play dead” congress and their being unwilling to follow through on actual oversight. How many war-profiteering investigations have they started? How concerned are they about $hrub attacking Iran?

  • not that i really care what the republicans may say, but i do find it interesting. i wonder what the reaction will be from all of those who say they won’t vote for hillary if she’s the candidate because she can’t win.

    (ready, set, flame)

  • I’m with Ed Stephan and tko. If the right-wing is starting to like Hillary, that should raise about 1,000 red flags, and make Democrats very cautious about her.

    OTOH, that could be their plan. 😉

  • “The candidates are dull, unimaginative, inexperienced, inconsistent, overly scripted, and in a couple of instances, imbalanced. I guess it’s only natural that political observers on the right start to peek over the fence and say, “You know, those Dems don’t look all that bad after all.”

    “Imbalanced”? Certainly you mean “unbalanced”, didn’t you?

  • When the right warms up to Democratic candidates, the left feels a chill.

    Looking forward to the Unitary Hillary Executive. Maybe she can get the First and Fourteenth Amendments repealed by Congress. A guy can dream.

  • Agree with both points. Further, it does look like many GOPers (especially Wall Street types) see Hillary as the best hope for the GOP, because she is a consumate insider and has finally joined the elite. She is impressive, and she isn’t going to rock their boats. And the GOP field is pretty pathetic.

    Obama appeals to a different type, like my brother-in-law, a GOP in name who hasn’t voted GOP for President in 20 years or more. They see Obama as without the typical baggage of Dems who want to overengineer society. He has also been nonspecific enough that they can project onto him what they want, and he is a safety valve for R’s who don’t like Hillary.

  • I knew there were going to be those who claim Hillary is republican light and this gives them more ammunition…”Look, even the republicans like Hillary”. And sure enough here it comes. I support Kucinich but also who ever wins the Democratic nomination. Dems are going to take the WH and repubs know it. They are trying to see which ones they could get behind if they had to choose. One thing about Hillary is she has come to a point that if you disagree with her she will listen to your point of view and even change if you can show her yours is better. She has learned from this administration that to close off from the public is detrimental to a democracy. All of the candidates have something I don’t like so I look to those who will listen and have dialogue with those who disagree with them. I’m more concerned with getting rid of republicans and “blue dog” democrats and replacing them with representatives who will listen to their public.

    Nice to know that even Republicans are sick of the current Republicans…Is that a sign of hope?

  • One of the shifts I’ve noted in politics lately is plenty of people who vote Democratic but don’t identify strongly as democrats – the party is a tool. Certainly I see far more rational criticism of Democrats by progressive voters than I do of Repulbicans by conservative ones.

    Perhaps this is slowly happening to the Republican party. Certainly clinging to their mid-20% base of syncophants has got to be driving people away.

  • Of course they love Hillary. She is most likely to continue many of $hrub’s f__ked up policies and the rich will continue to get richer. In other words, under Hillary, it’ll be business as usual.tko
    I agree with tko. I’ve severed all ties with my old Country Club Republican (CCR-sorry Credence.) friends, so I don’t have any first hand experience with their thinking on this. However, I have a cousin whose thoughts on politics typically reflect the zeitgeist of her social group-the aforementioned CCR-and she has recently warmed to Hillary. This group votes their wallets. Their support suggests that they think they can buy her off.

    I would vote for her in November, since as we should all know Republican Lite is better than Republican, but I’d prefer someone else.

  • The problem for repubs isn’t how silly their field of candidates appears. It’s that they appear to be the best they have. The party achieved power by riling the vilest instincts of their base, which in turn has demanded viler and more thoughtless politicians. They purged themselves of moderates, and this is all that’s left.

  • btw***you don’t have to be much of anything to be better than what the republican field is offering. Republicans are thinking “anything” is better that this. So of course the dmocrats sound better…any democrat. The most away from republican ideology is Kucinich, but any democrat is better than what their field has to offer. When you’re grasping at straws, just saying the word “republican” is reason enough to support you.

    Mark my words. Bush is not out of office yet and according to the 20yr curse he will be assassinated before he leaves office. Impeach Cheney now…forget everyone else…impeach Cheney just in case. Why take a chance..he deserves it anyway.

  • With all due respect, I think what the pundits are trying to do here is simply to protect their paychecks in the new administration. They know the Republican ship will sink to the bottom in the next election, and after seeing how FOX News has been cut out of the Democratic loop in this cycle they’re suddenly afraid that nobody will want to talk to them if they don’t start making nice way ahead of the election. Right about now, actually.

    So don’t give these vampires too much credit, here. They still despise every Democratic candidate the same as they always have, it’s just that now their venom and bile might start having some serious backlash in the old pocketbook.

    And that, for them, is the only thing that really matters.

  • I think you have to understand two things about the conservative view of the Democrat hopefuls:

    Conservatives are a practical bunch and there is the distinct possibility that a Democrat could win, so they are looking at the field not so much from an appreciative perspective, but would be the least objectionable and perhaps the most beatable.

    In both cases the answer is Hillary Clinton–there is pretty much a consensus about this among conservative bloggers. We know she is smart, and like Bill, her political self-interest trumps her ideological elan. Conservatives can work with that.

    Secondly, she is eminently beatable. Hillary strikes me as “the Republican candidate” in the Democrat primary. I’d be much more worried about Obama, who has genuine charisma and is much more of an authentic Democrat. Hillary has the Clinton name, but Obama is Bill’s spiritual heir. Charm is going to be a big factor, and let’s face it, Hillary can’t charm anyone.

  • I echo some of the sentiments of tko and just bill. My (admittedly few) friends on the right see her as the more attractive democratic candidate. As much as I would like to believe that they are earnest in finding her policy positions “reasonable” (even though I do not), part of me wonders if they don’t just see her as the most vulnerable to attack in a general election and, therefore, beatable.

    phoebes: Certainly you meant “meant,” didn’t you?

  • rege wrote:

    This group votes their wallets. Their support suggests that they think they can buy [Hillary] off…

    She’s done nothing to suggest otherwise.
    Not like Obama going into Detroit and telling them they are making stupid cars…
    Or pointing his finger at Osama and saying: I’m really gonna get you prick…
    Or telling the country in general that Iraq is a stupid war.

    Nope. Not our Hillary.
    She says what she has to say where she has to say it to get as many votes as she can.
    To get elected as President… it takes a village.
    Quite a gal.

    And that’s to be expected:
    No way in hell this country’s first woman President is going to be someone who talks like Kucinich.
    Nope.
    Said Lady has to prove she’s got some Cheney genes in her:

    “Hell yes… nukes are good things!
    And hell no… they aren’t under the table they are on the table!”

    To be president these days you have to walk loudly, rattle a sabre, and drool like a brute.

    [Must be all that WWW crap the country has been watching for the last 10 years. Eh?]

  • I have a cousin whose thoughts on politics typically reflect the zeitgeist. . .

    Your cousin reflects me?

    I think it is interesting how this is used to attack Hillary, but not Obama (or Dodd, although examples of his “support” from the right is much more limited.)

    It may be true that non-fundie-Rethugs vote their pocketbooks, in which case HRC is a good choice not because she can be bought, but because the economy was great for them under Clinton/Gore. It also happened to be great for everyone else. It is hard to attack this possible line of thinking, yet have “Democratic” books like “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” out there advocating that Republicans should vote their wallets – by voting for Dems.

    Frankly, I don’t think we should read much into the praise for Clinton, the polling for Obama, a pundit for Dodd. We had a Sunday Discussion Group on who we could most accept among the Republicans – can you imagine the headlines? “Progressives Say They Could Support Huckabee!” “Liberal Bloggers Admit Romney ‘Isn’t So Bad'”

  • The rightwing wants HRC to win because she and Bill will be easier to attack. Simple as that. The MSM is just going along for the ride.

  • With all due respect, I think what the pundits are trying to do here is simply to protect their paychecks in the new administration.

    [Curmudgeon]

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    Either that or they’re afraid that with all of the SuperExecutivePowers Shrubya has claimed, she’ll be able to extraordinarily render their arses to Syria.

  • Pushing Hillary is a transparent Rethug tactic. They can live with her, but should lightening strike and a dark horse emerge, truly one of their own, they will do everything in their power to destroy her. Is there a darker horse than Cheney? Hardly. What have they got to lose?

    The serious tactitions in the GOP must know how pathetic their field is, and neocons are not likely to just walk away after spreading their form of murder and mayhem throughout the world. The right amount of fear mongering and manipulation of the polls could give us King Dick, or is it just President Prick! This dick has already screwed us all so thoroughly it shouldn’t hurt us too much if he keeps doing it.

  • Something else to consider while discussing the GOP’s newfound love of Hillary is the Republicancerous tactic employed in Connecticut where they changed their party affiliation so they could vote in the Dem primary for Lieberphlegm. The Republicretins may very well be the ones deciding who the Dem nominee is.

  • Most of the opinions here have touched on what I think are the two great truths in this scenario – the Right doesn’t really like Hillary (or even respect her) as much as they let on, but they fancy her as much easier to beat than Obama. Besides, they have tons of dirt on her, from her flip-flopping on the nuclear issue to her war vote. Obama came from basically nowhere, politically. The Repubs are pimping her because they think they can lick her – figuratively speaking.

    Similarly, I think there’s a lot of mileage in the theory that Hillary just wants to be president; badly enough that she’ll be whatever kind of president the folks that put her there want. And I don’t mean the voters. Whatever she might say, Hillary has nothing in common with the electorate. She comes from a good family, and she’s always had money. She’s not interested in becoming the peasant president.

  • Fair and balanced.

    These pundits are ginning up their ;fair and balanced; creds.

    When they go on the attack, their names will be prefaced by a ‘sometime Hillary/Obama/etc. supporter” or somesuch lukewarm piss-bucket statement.

    And, as previously and so astutely mentioned, to help secure a paycheck in the new administration.

  • Zeitgest:

    You wonder why Hillary takes crap for her popularity amongst Republicans, but Obama does not. Might I suggest that the cause is that their popularity is derived from different sources? Tucker Carlson, for example, has called Hillary a neo-con, and not just recently either. He did just over a year ago today, and again in the wake of her dispute with Obama over nukes (though I can’t find that link, unfortunately).

    Obama, meanwhile, seems to be drawing praise from Republicans because he touts his ability to work across the aisle and speaks the language of Christianity fluently, but then is able to pivot and translate that into ecumenical values that appeal to angostics and moderate religious types alike.

    I think he has a lot of appeal to the Republican voters who came out for Bush’s compassionate conservativism in 2000 and felt betrayed by him.

  • Just to build on that point, while its mostly speculation on my part, it is worth noting that Hillary’s support from the Right seems to be coming from the Very Serious punditocracy, while Obama is getting trashed by same punditocracy, but doing well with Iowa Republican voters. Which kinda fits my narrative nicely.

  • “Conservatives are a practical bunch”.

    – Mick Stockinger.

    Oh, reeeeeeally?
    This must be some new strain of conservatism, then…
    Or a very old one enjoying a recrudescence.

  • Obama comes across very positively even in quick interview clips: he’s smart, calming and unifying. He works across the aisle, tries to call to the best in people, and seeks out language that pulls political strands together that have been forced apart in the past. (He’s also an interesting one-person harmonious amalgamation of white and black – he’s not just talking the message of all of us getting along together, he epitomizes it. Not that that won’t stop a whole bunch of white americans from voting against him because they see him as black, but still….) Given the number of independents who decry divisiveness and partisanship in politics, one has to figure that polarization is a concern for a certain number of moderate republican voters, and for them Obama could easily look like a soothing candidate for troubled times.

    Anti-Hillary sentiment on the right is mostly reflexive knee-jerking. Rush et al. have been demonizing her so long, rightwingnuts have a hard time seeing anything other than the hooves, the horns, the tail,and the pointy pitchfork. If any of them somehow managed to get a clear look at her they would see a moderate democrat who sort of presided over good times, started out as a Goldwater supporter, and is trying her damnedest to be unobjectionable.

    However, CB’s interpretations, like mine, do imply that some Republicans are becoming a bit more rational and sensible. Republicans? Rational and reasonable? Republicans????? So maybe the cynics are right on this one.

  • Comments are closed.