Bruce Bartett in NRO: vote for Hillary
q=3DNzgxMjNlMWMzNzQ1NjlhMWI5YzNiYTM5YzdmZDdiNTQ=3D> May 01, 2007 Get Ready for Hillary
Tough choices for the Right. By Bruce Bartlett As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats = will win the White House next year. It=92s not quite 1932, but it=92s = getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they = are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if = any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates =97 even among Republicans. Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to = seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one = party=92s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence = can=92t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind = of year for the Democrats. If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important = decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican = ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next = president by becoming involved in the Democratic race? I=92m sure that the first reaction of most conservatives will be to say = that any involvement in the Democratic party is unthinkable. They = view it as the party of treason and socialism. They could no more = involve themselves in Democratic politics than a God-fearing = Christian would consider working with Satan just because it looked = like he was going to win. For those of you who feel this way, stop reading. There is nothing = more in this column for you. But for those conservatives who don=92t = see the 2008 election as a race between good and evil, but merely a = contest between rivals within the same league, I think there is a = good case for participating in the Democratic nominating process. Here=92s why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal = than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among = the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the = left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that = they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever = which one is elected. To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them = like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is = pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John = Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between. The hard-core right-wingers who kept reading past the point I told = them to stop probably think I=92ve lost my mind by now. But remember, I = am talking about the politics within the Democratic Party, not the = nation as a whole. Moreover, at this stage of the nominating process, = all of the candidates in both parties are appealing mainly to their = bases. These are well to the left of the country among Democrats and = well to the right among Republicans. It is in this context that one must evaluate Sen. Clinton=92s position. = Given the views of the Democratic base and the enormous unpopularity = of the Iraq War, it is a real act of courage for her to steadfastly = refuse to say her vote for the war was wrong. Of course, like all = Democrats and most Americans, she opposes the war today and favors a = rapid pullout. That is why the easy thing for Sen. Clinton to do would be to just = throw in the towel, admit her vote was wrong, and move on. And that=92s = why it is an act of courage for her to refuse to do so. If = conservatives weren=92t so blinded by their hatred for her, this would = be obvious. On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton=92s policies = would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton=92s. This is not a = bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget = was far better than George W. Bush=92s. While Clinton raised taxes in = 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a = cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no = worse than the current administration and probably better on net. Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like = Bob Kuttner, are attacking Sen. Clinton for being a clone of her = husband on economics and criticizing her support for =93Rubinomics,=94 = named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential = elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization =97 = which are both anathema to the Democratic party=92s liberal base. It = wants a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive = fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs. At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to = recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only = choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the = nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.