The expected transformation has begun. The Long March from Goldwater Republican to radical Wellesley socialist to reasonable and moderate centrist is nearing its end. As with Mao's dream of conquering the vast and populous land of China, the goal appears utterly unthinkable, and yet, is this not the woman who once declared: "The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible."
The bars to a second Clinton presidency seem, a priori, insurmountable. She is a Democrat in a country where the Democratic Party is not only in national decline, but burdened with a low-watt lunatic at the helm of the Democratic National Committee. She is a U.S. senator – a position which rarely serves as a stepping stone to the top. She is the most widely recognized liberal symbol in the world, at a time when even the most liberal politicians attempt to evade the title. Even with her Arkansas connections, she is a Northeasterner in spirit, breeding, education and demeanor, and politicians from the Northeast do not win national elections anymore.
TRENDING: 'Art of the Deal': How Trump turns COVID issue into 'win-win'
Above all, she has the handicap of her sex, and many men and women will vote against her on that basis alone.
How, then, is it possible that a recent USA Today poll conducted by Gallup could report that Hillary Clinton has as much support as Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore had at a similarly early stage prior to the 2000 election?
In the poll, 29 percent were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24 percent were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39 percent were "not at all likely" to vote for her. Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.
There are several possible explanations. The least convincing is that her travails were simply the result of Clinton Fatigue, which is now wearing off after six years of the second Bush presidency. Such fatigue is more journalistic ennui in writing about the same subject for an extended period of time than anything else – no one else really cares about such things. "ER" and "CSI" have both been around for an apparent eternity, after all, and millions of Americans still watch them.
A second explanation is that celebrity trumps all other considerations in American politics. One could make a reasonable case that Paris Hilton would command the support of at least 25 percent of the American electorate were she to run for national office tomorrow. Consider, if you will, the genuine excitement expressed by the John Stewart crowd about one of the most shockingly uncharismatic men to have ever run for president, John Kerry. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide celebrity candidate, her icily sexless public persona makes her a feminist icon, and still she is the femme de la cr?me for the editorial spinstresses at Vogue, Vanity Fair and Cosmpolitan.
The fawning media coverage she is guaranteed to receive from them and the more activist elements of the legacy media cannot yet be fully counteracted by talk radio and the blogosphere, barring the appearance of a sex tape starring Hillary and the aforementioned Miss Hilton.
The chief reason, however, for the likelihood of her ascendancy in 2008 is that the omens point to it being her time. Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown, Professor Carroll Quigley, once wrote of the 1896 U.S. presidential election:
The inability of plutocracy to control the Democratic Party as it had demonstrated it could control the Republican Party, made it advisable for them to adopt a one-party outlook on political affairs, although they continued to contribute to some extent to both parties and did not cease their efforts to control both.
In the process of moving her political persona to the center, I suspect that Hillary Clinton has sufficiently demonstrated to many important people who have been skeptical of her in the past that she is willing to temper her national socialist instincts in favor of continuing George W. Bush's international program. As is the case with Europe, a "no" vote is not permissible, and who better to oversee the transformation of the United States of America into a transcontinental entity than the woman who does not know the meaning of the word? Just as there were signs that George W. Bush was the Chosen One prior to 2000, this push to reinvent the former co-president appears designed to set the stage for her rise to power.
These are early days, of course, but look for the Republicans to nominate an unelectable candidate in the Dole mode to serve as a sacrificial lamb. Jeb Bush would be ideal, although Rudy Giuliani might be even better as a candidate who looks credible on the surface, but who will suppress the turnout of the Republican base.
But there is a silver lining: At least health care will be free.