Something’s perplexing me.
Why is it that, in a fiercely anti-monarchical country like the US, that Democratic candidates Edwards and Obama are not using that fiercely republican feeling as a campaign strategy?
Why not use the fact that, should Hillary Clinton be elected, there will have been two dynastic presidents back to back, as a weapon against her? You’d think it a no-brainer: they only have to point to Bush to show the dangers of the hereditary principle in politics. But no, on political dynasties they are silent, though it would likely gain them advantage. Why is that? Are they saving it for later or something?
If they leave it too long they’ll find that the Republicans have picked up that particular ball and run with it, despite the fact the right hardly have much ground to stand on themselves when it comes to political dynasties and nepotism. But when has the truth ever stopped this bunch of theives and conmen? They’ll use anything, they have no shame.
Of course it might be that the Democrats would prefer not to open that particular closet: without dynasties, nepotism and financial patronage of its own the party would collapse.
Best not to go there, perhaps – but they’d better go there, and fast, or the Republicans’ll get there first.
The Republicans are skilled in the art of offence as defence and before the candidates know it they’ll have had the Democrats painted (with the willing co-operation of the major media) as pro-monarchy and pro-elite and themselves portrayed as the party of the common man. If Hillary is nominated the wingnuts’ll be all over the blogosphere within minutes with their talking points, talking up a potential dynastic Hillarian gynocracy should she be elected. Expect Chelsea Clinton to be bgrought into it too.
There are any number of reasons why I think Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous choice for the Democratic nomination – in short I don’t think she’s qualified, she’s never run a city or a state – the dynastic thing is just one of them. But speaking purely from a campagning standpoint the candidates and the party must realise it’s an issue the wingers will use against them, and withg gusto. Never underestimate the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans, especially not when they’re getting desperate.
It seems to me that either Edwards or Obama or both must use the issue of mixing family and politics and the danger of establishing presidential dynasties against Clinton, both to advance their own cause and to preemptively draw the poison away from their party’s candidate should Clinton eventually be nominated.. So why haven’t they?
