January 24, 2006

THE PARTY OF THE SELF (via David Hill, The Bronx):

I won't support Hillary (Molly Ivins, January 20, 2006, Sacramento Bee)

I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

So Hillary has to drop out of the race, huh?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 24, 2006 11:36 AM

That's called a feint

Posted by: Genecis at January 24, 2006 11:48 AM

Someone runs the Democratic Party?

Posted by: Mikey at January 24, 2006 12:23 PM

Rube Goldberg

Posted by: oj at January 24, 2006 12:26 PM

The Head.

Posted by: Luciferous at January 24, 2006 12:29 PM

So, she's supporting Ronnie Earle?

Posted by: ratbert at January 24, 2006 12:29 PM

She's got some wild poll numbers in there. For example:

"The majority (77 percent) think we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment."

Al Gore must be president of her magical fantasy land.

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at January 24, 2006 12:57 PM

Ivins is one of the leading moonbats, so this might well portend widespread hostility to Hillary! among the Angry Left . . . which means Hillary! doesn't get the nomination.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 24, 2006 1:30 PM

By being the point-person on the far left for the inside scoop on the real George W. Bush before the 2000 presidential election due to her Texas roots, Molly probably did as much as anyone to help elect him, by convincing Democrats that he was a drooling idiot trust-fund probably-still-drinking lightweight who Al Gore could wipe the floor with in the general election. Given that record, having her come out against Hillary! is probably the best thing that can happen to the missus.

It burnishes her image as a moderate for the general election more than it's going to cost her in the primaries, as long as she can maintain sway over the party's black vote (hence last week's "plantation" pandering remark). A bad word from Ms. Ivinis doesn't matter, as long as she keeps getting good words from the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.

Posted by: John at January 24, 2006 2:05 PM

John: you may be right, but I'm not so sure. The Kos/Atrios/DU/Soros Angry Left is slowly but surely taking control of the party. In 2004, they could control the buzz enough to make Howard Dean the apparent frontrunner, but didn't have the infrastructure to turn buzz into votes. Since then, they've taken control of the party infrastructure (Chairman Dean, etc.). The Dems are a more hierarchical organization than the Republicans--they give far more power to party bosses, even to the point of making them automatic convention delegates. The moonbats are the bosses now. In 2008, they'll be the ones running the show, in ways that they couldn't dream of four years previously.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 24, 2006 3:34 PM

" In 2008, they'll be the ones running the show, in ways that they couldn't dream of four years previously."

So who gets to play the part of Mayor Daley in their recreation of That '72 Show? They've already purged everyone to the right of St.Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 24, 2006 4:42 PM

Good golly, Miss Molly!

Posted by: obc at January 24, 2006 5:58 PM

Mike-- I don't know how things are shaking out in the rest of the country, but the WA state Dems are about to make a man who was too liberal to get elected to the Seattle City Council their state chairman. With Dean coming in from the top of the party structure and his addled children making a play for the bottom of it, I suspect we'll see lots more like that.

And hey, it could be that some of these far-left Deaniacs will be savvy campaigners and it won't hurt them as much as it appears. But somehow I have my doubts...

Posted by: Timothy at January 24, 2006 8:40 PM

Mike --

The angry left is getting more and more in control of the party, but it's going to be iffy as to whether or not they can drive turnout that much better than they did for Howard Dean at the Iowa caucuses four years ago (Russ Feingold is less scary than Dean if he's the one they rally around, which means voters are less likely to flee to a liberal-but-dull candidate like John Kerry, but Russ has the charisma of John Kerry on qualudes, while Hillary still benefits from both basking in her husbands glow and the anger she's raised in Republicans over the past 15 years).

Posted by: John at January 24, 2006 8:48 PM

The Democrat left has been saying that sort of thing since the last election. We didn't go left enough, we need to be real socialists. Hillary cannot win a primary if that is the base, and the nominee will will be uterly unelectable.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 24, 2006 11:41 PM
« SPEAKING OF BLACKS VS. LATINOS... (via Glenn Dryfoos): | Main | THE 38% PARTY: »