The Key To Republican Success: One Of History's "Great" Presidents

Why is this woman

NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?

Simple. It is because of this man:

I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to  anyone closely associated with it.

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________

What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.

But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:

Why is this man

enjoying his ascendant celebrity?

Simple. It is because of this man:

During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.

Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.

But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.

Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born  of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.

What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.

(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)

___________________

Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man

is where he is because of this man,

and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.

And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.

"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?

You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.

Bill Gnade ©2008. All Rights Reserved.