As military philosophers from Sun Tzu to the screenwriters of “Iron Man” have taught us, adversaries come to resemble each other over time.
And Hillary Clinton has certainly come to resemble her longtime conservative foes — and probably even admire their ability to thwart the loftiest aspirations of Democrats, including hers and her husband’s.
But she seems to have learned too well from her opponents. Her Republican envy has cost her the presidency.
A military tactician knows that when two opponents face each other over protracted periods — the Soviets and NATO during the Cold War, the French and English during the 100 Years War, bacon and Sizzlelean — the tactics and forces of the two sides come to look alike.
And after doing battle with the Republicans for more than 16 years, Hillary Clinton certainly was trying to act like a Republican this year. Too bad she was running in the other party.
How amazing to watch this slow-motion train wreck since the start of her Senate run eight years ago. It wasn’t until Oct. 11, 2002, when she voted for the Iraq war that GOP strategists fully realized that she would run for president not as the doctrinaire liberal they had hoped for, but as someone who would triangulate her way around traditional general election roadblocks.
The Machiavellis of the right know how to beat liberal Democrats: They tell Americans all about them and then admire the Founding Fathers’ wisdom as expressed in the Electoral College.
But Clinton was determined to avoid that fate.
And to be fair, based on the political terrain extant until last fall, it was a brilliant play.
Anyone paying attention was well aware that the Clinton family didn’t just control the Democratic Party, they were the Democratic Party.
Politicos saw what happened in 2000 and 2004 and reached the overwhelming consensus that Democrats would welcome the return of the Clintons. Fundraising, gender politics, control of the party apparatus and Democrats’ frustration at being out of power wouldcombine to make her nomination a coronation.
Unlike candidates of the past, Clinton wouldn’t need to secure the left of her party before faking right unconvincingly in the general. She would be “ready on day one” to start sticking it to the Republicans.
As she is sifting through the ashes of her candidacy following Barack Obama’s North Carolina barbecue, does Clinton realize her strategic folly in taking Democratic victory for granted?
On Tuesday, she sure didn’t seem to, as she explained the superiority of the Republican system, telling a radio audience: “I’ve won the big states. I’ve won the states we need to win in November. If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.”
This is the next logical step for a candidate whose candidacy has devolved into an argument that Democrats should beat Republicans to the punch by pandering to all the flyover country rustics her party usually neglects.
Not much for basic decency, but at least more effective than having John Kerry and his wife looking mortified every time they were presented with some food on a stick or an air-brushed likeness of one of them on a T-shirt.
It only makes sense that if she wanted to out-Republican the Republicans this fall, she would want to have their primary system, too. It’s more like a general election (winner-take-all states and no ballots for Puerto Ricans or Guamanians) and treats indecision as an enemy, not an exciting experience for all to share.
While John McCain has Mitt Romney out raising money from Mormons and Mike Huckabee knee-slapping with Southern evangelicals, Obama will need a court order to get Clinton on the platform with him anytime soon.
So perhaps Clinton was right that the Democratic primary system is inferior and right again that nominating a Northern liberal on the basis of support from blacks and upscale whites is a recipe for November defeat.
But, as she learned with her health care plan, seldom is just telling people you’re smarter than they are a good substitute for persuasion.
