A convergence of ominous signs

A picture is coming into focus, and it doesn't look pretty:

1. Bloomberg will almost certainly run. He'll draw more votes from the Democratic candidate than from the Republican.

2. Hillary Clinton stands a very good chance of being the nominee. I have no problem voting for her, although she is my third choice. But her electability is questionable, even without the Bloomberg factor.

3. Those who favor a conspiratorial view of the NH primary vote seem to be of the opinion that Hillary found a way to rig the machines -- as though the folks at Diebold just love them Clintons. It seems obvious to me that the Republicans would rather run against Hillary.

Alas, "progressives" would rather see her as a Machiavellian schemer. Which brings us to...

4. Clinton paranoia is alive and well on the left and right.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

For an excellent illustration of point 4, take a look at the Democratic Underground reaction to this story by Chris Floyd on the Sibel Edmonds case. Before we study the reaction, we must first take proper note the article itself.

Floyd's offering is really a brain dump, a mish-mash of stuff that has been floating around for years. I'm not saying that he has published anything untrue or unimportant. But there is nothing new here:

The failing Arbusto was later bought out by Harken Energy in a sweetheart deal that landed business failure Bush a plum spot on the Harken board and plenty of stock to play with. Bush soon worked his magic touch on Harken: the company began to tank. It was saved by an unusual infusion of $25 million from the Union Bank of Switzerland, one of BCCI's associates. The deal was brokered by long-time Bush family contributor Jackson Stephens – who, curiously enough, was also a major paymaster for Bill Clinton's political rise. In fact, in 1992, Stephens was the largest individual contributor to both Bush I and Clinton in their presidential contest.

All quite familiar. Floyd does not link Stephens to any of the men Edmonds accuses of wrongdoing, at least not in any direct fashion. (Indirectly speaking, the BCCI tentacles go everywhere, of course.)

Now look at the reaction over on DU. The merest mention of Stephens has spawned a thread filled with the worst sort of Clinton-hate. As always, the "progressives" think they're being hip and clued-in when they spew stuff that could have appeared on a Wall Street Journal editorial page circa 1995.

It is true that Stephens has worked both for and against the Clintons, for reasons complex enough to fill a Russian novel. I'm not going to get very deep into that history here, and neither will I allow my readers to do so. (Take the hint, folks.)

Suffice it to say that this is all damnation-by-association stuff. If you look at the websites devoted to exposing dark Stephens/Clinton conspiracies, you'll see lots of smoke but no specific charges of Clintonian malfeasance. (Example.) As you continue your Googling, you'll note an odd phenomenon: When anti-Clinton "progressives" talk about Stephens, they often cite the Free Republic website and similar sources. The SIBPATS speech soon follows. (SIBPATS = Standard Issue Both-Parties-Are-The-Same.)

Of course, many "progressives" won't tell you that Stephens' primary ties go to the right, and that he turned against Bill Clinton when donation did not translate into purchase. (By the way, I seem to recall reading that Stephens and Jimmy Carter were college roomies. So if we're going to favor the "cooties" theory of politics, we can't ignore Jimmy, can we?)

For the facts of the Clinton years, see Conason and Lyons' The Hunting of the President. Alas, that masterful book seems to be slipping down the memory hole.

The silliness to be found within one DU thread, though insignificant in and of itself, exemplifies a larger problem. Zoom out for a wider view.

If Hillary is the nominee, the 2008 election will not be about the Bush/Cheney legacy, or health care, or the Iraq war, or the economy, or crony capitalism, or the decline of America as a respected power. All of that will go out the window.

No, the national discussion will remain mired in a morass of discredited conspiracy stories from twelve years ago. And I just don't want to go through it again.

If Edwards or Obama is the nominee, at least we'll have a new bunch of hokey conspiracy stories. That should be fun.

Watch out for BACAWT! Prediction: If Hillary continues to do well, the attackers will link her to the unloved lame duck currently sitting in the oval office. The SIBAPTS speech has a corollary, which we may call the "Bush And Clinton Are Working Together" meme. BACAWT, for short.

Mark my words -- it's gonna be huge. BACAWT will engender Hillary-hate on both the right and the left.

Few people now remember that many voices within the anti-Clinton movement of the 1990s were also perfectly willing to damn Bush the elder. For example, John Cummings' Compromised (a book I do not like, because I don't trust his main source) pictured Poppy and Bill C. as partners in crime. Pat Robertson's The New World Order touched on the same theme. Throughout the 1990s, the BACAWT meme was often heard on the lecture circuit and within "patriot" channels. The attacks on Bush I eased off around 1998, just as Bush II was revving up his national campaign.

Look at this Ed Schultz discussion board, and see what happens when "progressives" get their anti-Clinton facts from the Moonie Times: "Bush and Clinton were partners in the Mena smuggling ring! Vince Foster was murrrderrred! AIEEEE!!!"

One both the right and the left, the pseudo-hip will repeat this codswallop until they actually convince themselves that the country was not better off under Bill Clinton than under either Bush -- that Whitewater was an atrocity of the same magnitude as Enron or Haliburton. Call it the victory of conspiracy theory over lived experience. Paranoia trumps memory.

Bottom line: If the presidential race involves both Hillary and Bloomberg, I do not see how the Democrats can win in 2008.

On a related note: Larisa seems impressed by Floyd; I cannot agree with her. He lost me here...

The nuclear proliferation-for-profit ring is just one of the criminal operations that a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks would bring to light. Because once you start exploring any part of the dark nexus...

And so on. Whenever you see that kind of wording, you know that a piece has ceased to be a structured essay with a linear narrative, and has instead become a dumping ground. Back in the conspiracy-crazed 1990s, this kind of scattershot screed was very popular.

Then again, this very post has touched on so many disparate topics that I must also plead guilty to the "scattershot" charge. We thus end here.