I think
Dick Morris is only partly right. Republicans are calling Senator Clinton "angry" to spook her into dialing back, because when she looks bland, she looks just like a bloodless career politician as opoposed to a "real" person. This is a key to the Republican success in recent cycles, as their campaigns are run on character contrast, rather than on policy differences. If I'm right, then Hillary, if nominated in 2008, will fall into the same trap that tripped up Al Gore and John Kerry.
The Republicans appear to have come across a valuable bit of information: The public is inclined to believe bad things about career politicians. Namely, the public believes that "career politicians" will say anything to get elected. If Republicans can portray their Democratic opponent as a career politician, substantive policy disagreements can be neutralized. After all, there's no reason to care what a candidate's position is on, say, health care, if he'll just say anything to get elected. But the issue cuts deeper than that.
Since Kerry and Gore, for two recent examples, looked like career politicians, it was easy for BushCo to tar their characters with negative traits that both suited the purpose of the campaign cycle and fit the career politician stereotype. Gore, was branded a "liar" (career politicians lie, right?), because BushCo felt that honesty was an important trait to seize in the wake of MonicaGate. While the charge against Gore didn't withstand scrutiny, it appeared credible to the public (not to mention the media) because he looked like a career politician.
In the next campaign, Kerry was branded a "flip-flopper" because "resoluteness" - or something like that - was believed by many to be needed in the face of the country's post-9/11 security issues. Bush's stubborness on Iraq wasn't good policy, but at least the guy held his ground! And that's what the Republicans concluded the public wanted in 2004. Personal characteristics trumped policy differences. The Republicans don't attack on policy susbstance, they run on character contrast.
So, what will happen to Hillary in 2008? Let's say corruption is the big issue at the time. What would the public likely want in a President? They'd probably prefer the candidate who looks like an authentic straight-talker. Will a bland HRC, too fearful of invoking images of Howard Dean's scream or her own tea and cookies comments of the past, look authentic and straight-talking to the voters? Not likely, and especially not when measured against the mysteriously loved McCain or the affable cipher George Allen. The Republicans appear to be setting her up for a negative character contrast.
The HRC team, as detailed in Ryan Lizza's new article, are falling right into the trap. They think positioning the candidate as a moderate will appeal to the public, but, as we've seen, that's not how it works. After all, the public has been voting in conservatives for years without actually agreeing with them on most issues. Bush essentially got re-elected despite unpopular situations in Iraq, the economy, etc., because the Republicans have figured out that it's not what the candidate says about the issues, it's what the issues say about the candidate.
If the Democrats wish to regain the White House any time in the near future, they need to stop fretting so much about focus group ratings or appearing "shrill", and worry more about nominating candidates that the public can relate to on a personal level.