Five states and the District of Columbia

June 18, 2005

Guest Post by Morbo

A wag once called former senator Bob Dole “Nixon without the charm.” Actually, I’d apply that description to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak.

I met Novak once. He reminds me of some type of reptilian troll who’s been made to walk upright and stuffed into a three-piece suit purchased in 1974. When he spoke, I swear I saw slime dripping off his lips.

I’m not a fan of Novak’s, but even I must concede when he has a point. In a recent column, Novak said something I agree with: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton will never be the president of the United States.

Make no mistake, Novak’s column overall was snarky. The dark prince of the right waddled out to California, met some anti-Hillary Democrats and pronounced her hopeless as a presidential candidate. She is, but not for the reasons Novak puts forth.

If Sen. Clinton were the nominee, I expect most committed Democrats would come around and support her, despite some grumbling right now. But therein lies the problem. They are the only ones who would come around. I see her having limited appeal to independent voters and practically no ability to persuade Republicans to cross over. Thus, she’s toast.

Let me be clear here. This is not a slam on Hillary Clinton. Personally, I like her and her policies. I admire the woman and wish she were not unelectable. After all, she’s a smart, tough and committed progressive. I’d be proud to call her my president. It would be a refreshing change after two terms of the Madness of George II.

But I also understand that I’m much farther to the left than most Americans. I believe health care is a right, not a privilege, and I have the temerity to think that rich people don’t have a God-given right to a tax cut every year. These days, that more or less makes me a socialist.

I try to look at Hillary Clinton not as the left-winger I am but as one of the moderate-to-conservative Americans who will determine her fate on the national stage. When I do that, I see another liberal senator from a northeastern state. It does not matter that she hails from Illinois and lived in Arkansas for many years with her husband. The GOP would have no problem tarring Sen. Clinton as another Left Coast elitist out of touch with the values of middle America. She would be bologna to the GOP grinder.

In 2008, we don’t need another northeastern senator. In the modern era, that trick worked exactly once, and 1960 was a long time ago. The Democrats need a governor, preferably one from the South, Midwest or Sun Belt. And they need one who can at least pose as a moderate.

Savvy Dems know this. As Novak wrote of his California Democrats:

Talking to some of them, I found concern that Hillary carries too much baggage from her turbulent marriage and her husband’s presidency to do any better than John Kerry did last year. One female officeholder was looking hard for another Southern moderate who could bite into the Confederacy as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had.”

Look hard not at Hillary Clinton as she is but at what will become the average person’s perception of Hillary Clinton after the Rove-ing Bandits of the GOP are done with her. Put down that book, lay aside your bottle of French wine, turn off NPR and take yourself to small-town Pennsylvania. Transport yourself to a North Carolina NASCAR event. Become a soccer mom in the outer suburbs. Be a farmer in Iowa. Consider not what Hillary Clinton is but what the Republicans will turn her into because that’s what will be running under the Democratic banner if she gets the nod. (And remember, the GOP has more money than God and plays hardball. This is a party that does not hesitate to take a war hero like Max Cleland and portray him as a duplicitous coward.) Consider all of this and then ask yourself, honestly, to name one Southern state that she could carry.

Arkansas? Maybe, if her husband campaigned for her hard enough. Arkansas is six electoral votes. That’s not enough. How would she play in Tennessee, in Kentucky, in Louisiana, in Florida?

Lately people like Newt Gingrich and Ken Mehlman have been talking up Hillary Clinton, arguing that she would be a formidable candidate. Of course they know better. A child can see the game they are playing. They want Sen. Clinton to be the Democratic nominee because they know how easily they would beat her.

No, we can’t take the risk. I want to win this time. Hillary is a wonderful leader, and I hope she serves in politics for a long time – as a senator from New York.

If you think I’m wrong, then say so. If you think Hillary Clinton can be elected, make your case in the comments section. I want to hear it. But I don’t want to hear any talk of polls showing Sen. Clinton having the support of 50-plus percent in a hypothetical match-up. The electoral map is all that matters. Show me how she wins on that map. Name the red states she carries.

Until someone can make a convincing case on the only thing that matters — the electoral map — I’m staying far away from the Hillary bandwagon.

It’s natural to agree with you, your line will be the prevelant one throughout the next year or two.

A sticking point is John Kerry. Only a year before the election he was unelectable. And the guy pulled out 50 million votes or so. Who knows anymore what it takes.

9 months before the election, Bill Clinton was unelectable. Never bet against the Russian in chess, never bet against a Clinton in an election.

Bill Richardson is the proto-candidate. Though I don’t think it will happen.

  • I live in a red state and I agree, Hillary can not win. Her nomination would be a disaster for Democrats running at state levels as well, since it would feed into the perception that Democrats are out of touch with voters.

    I’m sorry about it; I like her too and would love to see a female President. It’s just the reality on the ground out here in the Heartlands. We would especially go down in flames if McCain is the Republican choice.

  • It’s not if Hilary can win or not. The GOP will slime & libel every nominee, regardless. They will simply make shit up – as they have, repeatedly, in the past. Rove attacked Kerry on his strongest point – his war record. And won. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, all rolled into one, could not win against the Republican machine. The solution for the Democrats is to craft a better machine. A better machine means intensive, expensive, long-term grass-roots work. As we all know. Do that & both Democrats & Republicans could run rich, drunken sons of ne’er do well politicians & the playing field might be level. Fail to do that & we might just as well sleep late on election day & spend the rest of it at the beach.

    PS: I read the report (available on-line somewhere) of the informal Democratic probe of the Ohio vote from last November. Seems to me that Republican operatives have, in Ohio at least, seized control of local election boards. (And if they haven’t, I’d sure like to know why they haven’t, it’s such an obvious thing for control freaks to do.) If that’s true, then none of this huffing & puffing about Hilary makes any difference at all.

  • I’m not so sure of that.

    The GOP could slime anyone. They ran a coward against a war hero and successfully claimed the coward made the better commander-in-chief.

    I think a big part of our problem was that people didn’t know Kerry. The GOP got out in front and defined him for people. As long as we keep putting people out who need to be defined, we’re open to that.

    With Hillary, she is none beyond their trashing, in her own right. And their slime-fest–is there anyone it would reach who hasn’t already been reached?

    And I don’t like her. I think she’s way too moderate. I just don’t think we can delude ourselves into thinking that we can find some GOP-slime-proof candidate. We need someone already known.

  • It is so obvious that any D candidate from the midwest, west, or south starts with a much greater advantage than a metropolitan northeastern-beltway candidate. I think *at best* Hillary is the 3rd or 4th most electable of the likely candidates. But she or any reasonbly good candidate can beat anybody if the economy is really in the tank….the “change vs. continuity” dynamic will in that situation be strongly in a D’s favor. And even McCain could lose in that scenario – combined with the failure of Iraq. With the housing bubble, I can’t see the economy not being worse than we are now.

  • I see her having limited appeal to independent voters and practically no ability to persuade Republicans to cross over. Thus, she’s toast.

    Well, as long as you see it, it must be true.

    Care to have some facts and figs to back up your assertions, Mr. Carpetbagger? Otherwise you sound like everyone did back when she was running for Senator. Everyone then was calling her the carpetbagger and calling her unelectable. Have any evidence of what you claim to see? Last time I checked a majority of Americans were ready or “likely” to vote for her. (I know you want me to ignore this, but I, and many others, cannot.)

    “I have a feeling” isn’t a good argument.

    I find it very funny that many are ready to discount her, as a candidate, before she’s even had a chance at running. The only other people discounted so quickly are Kerry and Edwards, people who just lost the election. Why Hillary? Why the lack of support before she’s even announced her candidacy?

    I admire the woman and wish she were not unelectable.

    Last election I remember a certain candidate was reported as “unelectable” and now he’s our DNC Chair. I remember another candidate who supposedly was seen as “presidential” and “electable,” but his lack of any substance lost him the election.

    Unelectable is the word you throw when you have no other argument. I also noticed that your litany of her faults could be said about any possible Democratic candidate.

    Stop being afraid of every ghost and straw-man the Republicans throw at you. It’s interesting how you say Republicans are gunning for her:

    Lately people like Newt Gingrich and Ken Mehlman have been talking up Hillary Clinton, arguing that she would be a formidable candidate. Of course they know better.

    And at the same time, you’re quoting Robert Novak, who clearly doesn’t know better and is critical of her. Who’s more in the know: Novak or Gingrich? Which Republicans are you telling us to believe?

    You’re constant worry over what Republicans think is somewhat funny, considering. Bush is the most conservative leader we’ve had in a while. Republicans didn’t seem to have much worries about picking him over a seemingly more moderate McCain. They didn’t care what Dems would think.

    Perhaps you should start worrying more about whether YOU are excited about her as a candidate, and not whether everyone else will be. If you can’t get excited by your candidate, no one will.

    I am also very suspicious of people who eliminate the candidate before she’s even out of the starting gate. I haven’t made my mind up about Hillary yet, and I won’t until she gets a chance to run and state her priorities. I won’t discount any candidate, precluding any occurrence of blatant stupidity, until I see what they’ve got.

    You want us to make special requirements for her, something you haven’t done for any other candidate.

    The electoral map is all that matters. Show me how she wins on that map. Name the red states she carries.

    What about Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark? What states are THEY going to carry? What about their chances on the electoral map? Why does she have to jump through hoops for you to consider her and they have a free pass? By virtue of what? Why do I have to work my darndest to convince you she has a chance before you will support her? What do Bill and Wes got that she hasn’t got? I think we all know the answer to that, Mr. Carpetbagger.

    And for the record, I too am from a red state. Her chances are as good as any Democrat here. It’s the D that’s the problem in red states, not whatever reason you seem to be alluding to, but yet are unable to state.

    As I said, unelectable is the word you throw when you have no other argument. “I have a feeling” also isn’t a good argument. You can do better, Mr. Carpetbagger.

  • I should have said Morbo, instead of Carpetbagger. I apologize to both for the name confusion.

  • Right on, Morbo. I’d vote for Hillary in a heartbeat, but most of our countrymen and women will not.

    There was some excitement in Democratic circles about a month ago when USA Today/CNN/Gallup released a poll showing that a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008. (29% were “very likely�; 24% were “somewhat likely�).

    But a lot of folks overlooked the less-promising numbers in that poll. For example, 39% said they “were not at all likelyâ€? to vote for Hillary. There’s your hardcore anti-Hillary crowd, and they’re a massive group. And they’re not going anywhere. These folks think Hillary had Vince Foster knocked off.

    You just can’t start a national campaign with 39% of the electorate utterly opposed to you.

  • I am tempted to agree with the logic that Hillary is unelectable, except that if that’s so, why is the Republican noise machine so afraid of her? If Bush & the Republicans can’t pull the economy around before 2008, the Clinton years will start to look really good to the average voter, and anyone who can lay claim to that mantle might benefit hugely.

  • I’ve been saying the same thing as Morbo for some time. Some may even remember the comment I posted on these very pages not long ago that every senator, not just Hilary, carries too much baggage in the way of a voting record that can be spun and twisted into grotesque and monstrous forms regardless of its true nature, as happened to Senator Kerry last time around. And Hilary, who I respect and admire as much as anyone, is burdened with even more than most. Younger folk may not remember when she, as First Lady, was put in charge of developing a national health care system by her husband and was pilloried without mercy by the entire right wing for even daring to attempt it. All that and more will be dredged up if she were to run for president, with even more sophistication and evil than they did back then.

    No, Morbo is exactly right, and Robert Novak is only stating the obvious, much as I hate to admit that anything that partisan hack says is even partially true. A Democratic governor will be a much stronger candidate than any senator, and even better would be someone like Gen. Wesley Clark who has no political baggage at all as far as we know at this point. A shameless plug, I do confess, but hey it’s a free country, isn’t it?

  • N.Wells

    The Republican leadership uses Hillary as the boogeyman Democrat to fire up their base. It isn’t that they are really afraid of her but it is the reason her negatives are high. She has baggage in the public impression department and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. Add in the percentage of those whom would not vote for any woman, and you’ve got a huge handicap.

  • When Bill Clinton first ran I wore a large button which said “Vote for Hillary’s husband”. I admire her intelligence, her courage and her leanings (modified, of necessity, by having to politic enough to get elected). I thought her work on universal health care, while botched (for a number of reasons) were positive and prescient.

    That said, I hope she follows Ted Kennedy’s example over the years. Keep teasing the party with a possible run (it infuriates the GOP and energizes the Dems) but stay where you are and get more and more powerful in the Senate.

    Americans haven’t elected anyone to the Presidency directly from the Senate since Kennedy in 1960, almost half a century ago. I think we need a governor (executive experience) who can address the bread-and-butter issues that blue-collar and middle-income voters are now forced to care about. We need one who can constantly remind us of – certainly not personify – those divsrsionary issues the GOP has learned to count on when they themselves have worse-than-nothing to offer.

  • It’s to early to tell what the political landscape will be like in 2008, but as one poster mentioned above, if the economy is seriously in the toilet and the list of GOP scandals continues to grow the chances that any Democratic candidate will get elected will increase substantially.

    I tend to wonder about her ability to connect with women votes. If she connects really well and a lot of husbands end up having to sleep on the couch for a few nights we could see a lot of sudden converts to Hillary. This is not scientific but we could have a societal test as to how much influence women really have.

  • Quint, here are some figures.
    Record of Democratic pres candidates since WWII from ex-slaveholding states: 5-2
    ” ” ” ex-free states: 1-7
    In America politics, “liberal” is a cultural designation, not a political one. Regardless of what Hilary says or does, in the eyes of a majority of the voters she is a liberal, and will always be a liberal. Which for a majority of the voters means someone they will never vote for. The fact that she is apparently considering a run, and that important fundraisers and contributors plan to support her if she runs, is a huge tragedy, for the Democratic Party, the country, and the world. Please, Hilary, don’t do it.

  • I’m not sure she couldn’t win, but I don’t want her to run because it’ll be better for both the Democrats and, much more important, the nation, if the 2008 election is conducted more on issues than personality.

    Hillary’s my senator, and I’m not a huge fan anyway–she’s irrationally hawkish, IMO, on the war, and has fallen short on a number of domestic issues. None of that would preclude me from voting for her against a Brownback or Allen type Republican, but after the disaster of the Bush years I just don’t want to play to the Republicans’ political strengths: tearing down the opponent and fudging the differences.

    I’m also not very eager to see the perpetuation of our recent trend toward dynasticization in politics: even if she wins, the notion of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton holding the White House for 24 or 28 years just isn’t good for the country.

  • Has Morbo or any of the people posting comments been to upstate New York?

    Upstate is a pretty conservative state. It is hard to tell the difference between upstate and places like Ohio. I am not saying that Hillary can win over the conservatives of Texas or Utah but, watching her for the last 5 or 6 years, it is pretty obvious that she has done a great job winning over a significant portion of the conservatives upstate.

    If Clinton can carry the Kerry states and add swing states like Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada then she wins in a cake walk.

    Don’t sell her short. At least don’t sell her short until you see how well she has done with the conservatives upstate.

  • Raenelle,

    I knew John Kerry pretty well. He had been and is again now my Senator. I voted for him despite the fact that I knew him–that and GWB is so damn awful.

    Feingold probably couldn’t win either, but at least I’d feel that I was working for someone worthwhile. Not so with HRC.

  • Frankly, I’m more interested in the substantive defense of Hillary than I am the electoral defense. Even if she might win, I just don’t see her as being a net plus for the Dems. Here’s the substantive argument against Hillary.

    First, she’s inexperienced. I’ll grant you that she was probably the most active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, but still. Being First Lady is NOT being president. And she hasn’t demonstrated much in the Senate. If relations with N. Korea get extra dicey, does anyone really want Hillary making the decisions instead of Richardson?

    Second, she has demonstrated little executive competence. I’ll let Brad DeLong deliver the definitive assessment:

    My two cents’ worth–and I think it is the two cents’ worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn’t smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

    Third, the Democrats need someone who will be a leader of the PARTY. It is not enough to simply win the WH. Since getting rapped over the head for her VRWC comment, Hillary has dutifully tucked her tail between her legs, made nice with Lott and Gingrich, and pretended that there isn’t a churning, frothing mass of Right Wing bile in America. I don’t care if Hillary is a moderate (I’m a moderate), but the PARTY will continue to struggle as long as the party leadership treats the GOP as moderates and the Dem base as extremists.

    Fourth, it doesn’t matter if she is “smart.” The Democrats haven’t nominated a non-smart candidate since before the New Deal. Nor can I think of too many dummies in the primaries. Kerry is smart. Edwards is smart. Dean is smart. So are Gephardt, Lieberman, and Clark. So were Gore, Dukakis, Biden, Mondale, Simon, Hart, etc, etc, etc… This isn’t the GOP. The Democrats aren’t in danger of nominating a stupid candidate. Is Hillary smart? Yes. Does that matter? Not particularly.

  • I like Hillary and would vote for her with no qualms. But….

    She is not electable. Full Stop. I am from the south (though no longer live there) and I will tell you – most of them would rather walk through pits of fire before they vote for her for anything much less president.

    While agree that any candidate the Democratic party runs will be the target of the right wing slime & lies machine – Hillary just provides more ammo.

    And we best not fool ourselves. Republicans talking how Hillary would be a formidible candidate DON NOT HAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S BEST INTEREST AT HEART! They want us to run Hillary because they know damn well that she would loose and it would not have anything to do with here politics or abilities. They want the Democrats to run her because they gives them the ability to contine with the Bill & Hill bashing that they obssess over – just think a whole election cycle of blaming Bill for all the worlds problems. They figure that the Dems running Hillary would be another nail in the coffin and the GOP would be one step closer to a generation or more control over the government – their end goal incase anyone wasn’t pay attention.

  • As a Democrat who wants the party to regain control of the White House (and the Senate at least) I would feel obligated to vote for Hillary, but she is not my first choice among Democratic candidates. Many independents and left-leaning (somewhere left of the extreme right) Republicans will not feel this obligation as long as the next Republican candidate’s name isn’t Condi, Jeb, or Cheney. If they can get rid of the old administration without changing party lines that would be there preference. However if the Dems want to attract these voters, they need a more approachable candidate. A candidate that appeals to the sensibilities of these voters. A candidate that can clean up the fiscal nightmare left behind by the current administration. A candidate who has a record of fiscal resposibility. And if we could find a Democratic candidate who has proven time and again that he can win in a red state. That candidate exists and his name is Evan Bayh. Or to a lesser extent Mark Warner.

    P.S. Even the Wall Street Journal likes Evan Bayh.

  • I’m also from a red state. I honestly cannot believe that HRC will take a single southern red state. She might take Iowa and New Mexico, but THAT STILL LEAVES US SHORT!

    As for the argument that HRC has convinced upstate New Yorkers of her credentials, please remember: she didn’t convince them in 2000. For her first appearance, the upstate voted against her. It took her 4+ years of moderate positions to work the Clinton magic.

    In 2008, HRC won’t have the chance to get people to open their minds. She is the virtual devil incarnate to conservative southerners and they will not vote for her. Yes, if she wins, she would probably be a decent President and might get their votes for a second term. But she will never receive their votes initially.

    Please do not believe Gingrich and Mehlman; they are not going to tell the truth to Democrats.

    • Comments are closed.