It seems a woman and her body are protected by these pols until they have to face the fundie base of the GOP party.
Manny on the Democratic side of the divide are laughing at the intellectual and political dishonesty of Mitt Romney as he desperately seeks the approval of the Christian conservatives, the only base left, really, in the Republican Party (that in itself should cause shudders throughout the Republican establishment). While hardly a flaming lefty, Romney was a pretty moderate guy when he ran against Ted Kennedy for Senate back in 1994, as well as during his tenure as governor. The contortions and distortions he is currently undertaking in order to get the Republican nod are evidence that, when it comes to demanding purity, there are fewer harsher task-masters than hard-core believers (especially those who believe in the concept of born-again virginity, something that is entirely relevant here).
Not only is Romney under fire for his sudden embrace of positions he has never held before. On the Democratic side, it is conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton has not repudiated her vote authorizing American military action in Iraq. That is simply not true, and is easily disproved. What Bob Somerby over at The Daily Howler calls "The Clinton Rules", however, have an extended warranty, and can now be used against the former President's wife; those rules mean that you can keep spouting off disproved lies and no one will call you on them, as long as they apply to the Clinton's. Whitewater. Rose Law Firm Records. Aides trashing the West Wing before leaving. On and on and on and on . . .
Of course, should it suddenly pierce the stupidity of those who continue to crow about it that Sen. Clinton has indeed repudiated her vote, in fact gone so far as to co-sponsor a bill that would specifically revoke the AUMF from 2002, she will then be accused, like former Gov. Romney, of . . . flip-flopping. The difference between the two cases is, of course, important as well as instructive. In Romney's case, he is merely showing that it is necessary to prostitute your core principles to the ideological demands of those whose blessing is, in all likelihood a curse. In Senator Clinton's case, it is the realization that she made a mistake, has repudiated that mistake, and is seeking to make amends for it. We can go back and forth praising all those who id not vote for AUMF, but that is neither here nor there at the moment. What is important is that Sen. Clinton's integrity and consistency are always on trial by her critics, left and right, and no amount of evidence, no action on her part, will ever convince either end of the political spectrum that she is acting on the up and up. Again, the Clinton Rules mean that critics never have to say their sorry.
Romney is a victim of the demands for ideological purity, the same kind of thing some further to the left are demanding Democrats should do as well. I agree it is important that candidates who have the imprimatur of the Democratic Party should stand behind at least most of what the Democratic Party holds important. The problem is one of degree, and a certain acceptance of a whole new set of circumstances in which the Democratic Party can how offer itself too a whole range of political beliefs and people that might not have considered it before. The political map is in flux right now, and signs are pointing the way back to the Party of the Good Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ (the non-Vietnam War, pro-civil rights LBJ), and George McGovern, but in order to consolidate those gains we must not allow ourselves to demand ideological purity. Pro-choice allows for people to believe that abortion can be a bad choice for individuals. Pro-gun control can mean that one hunts on a regular basis (like Al Gore and John Kerry, the latter of whom is a life-long member of the NRA), and unlike Romney. One can see minor tinkering with the tax code, or with the health care financing system as more conducive to long-term effectiveness than sweeping changes a la Bush's Social Security Plan. In other words, we can have good intra-party debates that allow for differences, and allow for both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to call themselves Democrats without either one tossing the other out, or without supporters cringing at one or the other.
This is a long way of saying that we need to be very careful of how we treat the woman who is most likely to be the Democratic nominee and most likely our next President. Should she get the nomination, I will support, defend, and vote for her. It will also be a moment of schadenfreude as all those Hillary-haters out there screech in pain as our 44th President, our first woman Chief Executive, is the one they revile the most. Hell, I might even go to her inauguration.
