A party that is as motivated by revanchist impulse as today's Democratic Party cannot bring itself to transcend its anger. That is why Hillary will survive the Obama insurgency.Whatever else you think about the Clinton vs. Obama question, this is almost certainly wrong. Among the activist liberal base the people who are the loudest and angriest about what George Bush has done over the past seven years support is way stronger for both Obama and John Edwards than for Hillary Clinton. Hell, in the dKos straw poll, Chris Dodd outdraws her too. Conversely, Hillary is the choice of much of the party leadership as well as much of the rank and file, including women, blue collar workers, and moderates who believe (fairly or not) that Obama simply isn't experienced enough.
Yes, Obama would beat us, bad. We would hemorrhage Republican women and a significant number of conservatives would vote Obama to teach the Republicans in Washington not to deviate from Reagan and Goldwater. We would be forced to return to first principles, and we would.
But that is not what Democrats want....Hillary knows that her base voters are more filled with anger at Bush than they are with hope for the future and change for all the American people.
Conservatives tend to be so blinded by their hatred for Hillary that they're convinced that her liberal supporters are also motivated by hatred. But they aren't. Among activist liberals, Hillary is mostly viewed as as smart and hardworking, but also triangulating and mainstream. She's the candidate of caution and moderation, not the candidate of the haters. The anti-Clinton fever swamp protests too much.