Sunday Discussion Group

February 12, 2006

TNR’s Ryan Lizza has a fascinating look this week at what some are calling “Hillaryland,” Sen. Hillary Clinton’s impressive network of staffers, allies, contributors, and all-around FOHs. If New York’s junior senator runs for president, she’ll have an amazing team of experienced loyalists that, in many ways, mirrors the qualities of the Bush team from six years ago. For that matter, Clinton will also enjoy the benefits of a fundraising machine, universal name recognition, and early polls showing her with a big lead over any potential rival for the Dem nomination. At least now, about 1,000 days before the next election.

So, this week’s Discussion Group topic has two parts: is Hillary Clinton likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, and if so, what are her chances of winning the general election?

The opinions of political observers who’ve studied the question are all over the map. The WaPo’s Chris Cillizza recently made the case that Clinton can win — she’s divisive, but in a nation evenly divided ideologically, every candidate will be. Cillizza is particularly moved by the fact that “approximately one-fifth of Republicans view Clinton favorably — a group (perhaps moderate women that lean toward the GOP) that could push her over the top in a general election.” Similarly, Noam Scheiber argued that a “demographic of affluent, moderate, Republican-leaning women” could push Hillary across the finish line in a general election.

Taking up the other side is Marisa Katz’s piece that makes a compelling case that Clinton’s appeal among Republicans is largely a myth. Also worth reading is Amy Sullivan’s terrific Washington Monthly article, which recites a litany of reasons that Dems should look elsewhere for a presidential candidate. In fact, Sullivan summarizes my own perspective perfectly:

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a longtime Hillary Clinton fan. As in a back-when-she-was-still-wearing-headbands fan. I have found her warm and utterly charming in person; more than that, she understands the challenges facing Democrats in a way that few others in the party do, and her ability to absorb policy nuances rivals her husband’s. This country is long past due for a female president, and I would love to see Hillary Clinton in that trailblazing role (and not just because it would make Ann Coulter break out in giant hives). But — at the risk of getting myself permanently blackballed by her loyal and protective staff — while Clinton can win nearly any debate that is about issues, she cannot avoid becoming the issue in a national campaign. And when that happens, she will very likely lose.

I also liked Jonathan Chait’s take from December:

Clinton’s supporters like to note that she’s not as liberal as people think. That’s exactly the problem. I can see the logic behind nominating a liberal whom voters see as moderate. Nominating a moderate whom voters see as liberal is kind of backward, isn’t it?

But enough about what others think. What do you think?

I think that if she is the dem nominee, then Allen or McCain will be the next president. She has too much of a public record and a history of too many right-wing smears. She will be Gored like Gore only wishes he was.

  • I have two objections to Senator Clinton’s nomination:

    1. She’s a senator. The only sitting senator who’s been elected President in over 100 years was JFK. I prefer people who are serving as executives – e.g., governors. Democrats already treat politics far too much as an academic debating society. Governors live politics 24/7.

    2. She’s a Clinton. We’ve had enough of dynasties in this country. The Clintons are no parallel to the other would-be dynasty, the Bush Crime Family. Far from it – Bill and Hillary are the antithesis of our current Regal Moron. But, in addition to tons of experience, she carries her husband’s baggage (e.g., Republican lite, “don’t ask”, impeachment) with her — as well as her own – e.g., votes for the Quagmire in Iraq.

    During the 1992 campaign my campaign button read “Elect Hillary’s Husband”. I have always had great admiration for her. I hope she will, like Ted Kennedy (the “obvious” choice several times) sit and grow more powerful in her Senate seat. Meanwhile, we must search for a fresh face, preferably a governor, someone who is unabashedly a Democrat. And if the country’s too stupid to want a real Democrat, free of the southern strategery, so be it.

  • Ditto smiley and Ed. No doubt she is a formidable fundraiser and is as famous as her husband. And she probably would easily win the Democratic nomination, But…the Democratics do not enjoy the Borglike organization which permeates the Republican groupthink. Hilary is already a punchline in the “liberal” MSM, and the Diebold problem will not be solved by 2008.

    If Hilary is the nominee, any Republican will win the White House.

  • I like Ed’s position that Clinton should stay in the Senate and continue to amass power, one reason being that Kennedy is probably not that many years from retiring. Over the long-term finding a strong voice to replace Kennedy in the Senate may be almost as important as the presidency.

    I hope that Hillary’s personal ambitions and ego don’t keep her from asking herself where could she have the most long-term effectiveness. As divided as the country has become, it would be better to have someone who could make the problem better, not worse.

  • I tend to think we should support her. I think she knows how to fight, and a lot of the others don’t know how or aren’t willing anymore.

    Maybe I’m not the best person to ask– maybe the counterfactors do outweigh the benefits, and I just don’t have a good enough appreciation of the counterfactors.

    I recall two times recently whe she was face-to-face with the president, and she looked at him with open ridicule/contempt. We need someone who is in dontrol of herself, like that- not someone who is ducking and running.

    Basically all of the other Dems are the ones who to me look like they keep trying to figure out how to do things while only half- bringing it. She’s the only one that inspires my confidence. She’s got force & electricity; the others feel almost empty by comparison.

  • We have entirely too many Democratic Senators whose first act upon arising is to look in a mirror and say “I could be President!”

    I agree it’s time for a woman. Find a woman governor, and put the entire unified strength of the party (type that without laughing) behind her. Ms Sibelius will do nicely.

    I’d like to see all those Bush-voting suburban white women have to confront a clear choice betwen one of their own and the pastor-and-church-approved choice of the Great Pasty White Man’s Party.

    Hillary doesn’t present this choice — instead it will be a bunch of circa-1998 meta-issues that these voters go to the polls pondering. If I have to listen to sixteen months of condoms-on-the-Christmas-tree-Vince-Foster’s-lesbian-lover idiocy I’m going to take the gas…

  • I used to like Hillary. But I think her recent positions and pronouncements are self-serving and based more upon political expediency and less on priniciple. I’m reminded of the Simpsons episode where Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby says: “If that is the way the wind is blowing, let no one say I do not also blow.”

    Hillary will probably be the Democratic nominee. And she’ll be a candidate in the vein of other DLC-molded candidates: like John Kerry and Al Gore. Which is to say she’ll run center right and try to blur much of the differences between her and the Republican candidate. And like the others, she’ll run a lackluster, directionless campaign and lose.

    Republicans are salivating at the thought of Hillary Clinton running for President. She has too much baggage, fictional and otherwise. They’ll keep the White House and possibly retain (or regain) both the House and the Senate. The race is too important. We need someone besides Hillary.

  • We can’t pick our candidates based on what the republicans might say or do. If a John Kerry could be “swift boated” on national tv it doesn’t matter who is nominated. I say go with Hillary and put up a real fight this time around.

  • Senator Clinton will help Republicans get the vote out. While her positives with Republican leaning women are probably good, her negatives with Republican leaning men are worse. I would love to see her elected, but I don’t think her positives with Democratic leaning men and women could overcome her negatives with Republican leaning men.

  • Montana is not exactly a strict ‘Red’ state anymore but at the federal level we are still shaded that way. Much has been written about our turn to ‘Blue’ at the state level, some of it close to accurate. But if I can make a (overly) broad extrapolation from our experience here I don’t think that Senator Clinton has a chance. In a two-way pitting Hillary against any Republican candidate the breakdown in November ’08 would be the same as it was in 2000. The reason my neighbors didn’t just reflexively check the (R) when they pulled the curtain in the Montana poll booth was that frank-speaking, blue collar candidates (men and women) with dirt under their fingernails stepped up and said “Folks, it’s not working for me and it’s not working for you either”. Our new Governor has a) never held elective office and b) he didn’t settle for dividing up the issues in the traditional way with his Republican opponent; he took the “Coastal” issues that are usually used to beat Dems over the head off the board right from the beginning. I can not begin to imagine that Senator Clinton will be able to campaign or differentiate herself by talking about taxing corporations that don’t pay their fair share of tax, that she’ll be able to concede that people do need rifles to insure their kids get fed, that the chance to have your kids go to two-year college is a very big deal, that commodity crop supports are designed to kill the family farm… she is a member of the Congress that puts us where we are and she doesn’t differentiate herself from her peers by her actions now.

    If the Democrats want to win they have to field someone from outside the clubhouse. They will still win in the places they’ve traditionally won but the only way to make inroads into the rest of the electoral country is to understand and champion reforms that will reduce the number of kids getting free lunches, reverse the cost-shifting tax policies of the current Democratic and Republican parties, give working parents any kind of hope and ability to buy health insurance and try and send our sons and daughters to the state college.

    Hillary is seen as a part of the problem and brings some perceived ideological baggage that will never be accepted by enough voters to win. Any other current, nationally recognized Democratic candidate will be viewed the same way. Hillary or anyone else from the Democratic clubhouse will never cut it out here or in Nebraska or in the Dakotas and the sooner Howard Dean gets the brain trusts’ mind around that the more competitive the race will be the next go ‘round.

    Hillary could possibly win in state where “white shoe” has a clubby connotation but to win the whole thing you need to win in states where “white shoe” means rodeo queens!

  • I work with non-voting manly Republicans. If they hear the word “Hillary” they start frothing at the mouth as their faces get all contorted. She, and the democratic party, would be buried if she were the nominee.

  • What Ed S. and prm said.

    And more. I don’t think it impossible that Hillary Clinton could win, and if a viable third-party candidate emerged (a real possibility as the long-time contradictions in the Republican coalition–libertarian vs. social-coercive, deficit hawks vs. big-gummit conservatives, isolationists vs. neo-cons–continue to surface), I think she likely would. But considering the current state of the country, winning with a plurality could well be worse than losing again.

    I don’t think it’s a great stretch to say that America is more internally divided today than has been the case since the Civil War. But my personal belief–YMMV, as always–is that no more than about 15-20 percent of the country holds the views that we as moderate-to-liberal Democrats really fear and revile: that “Biblical law” as interpreted by Dobson/Robertson should guide government, that Constitutional safeguards are meaningless, that the use of force is always the best and often the only answer to problems in the world.

    Everyone else, whatever their political registration, mostly wants the same things: to be safe in their homes and communities, secure in their rights as Americans, and able to avail themselves of opportunities for economic and personal betterment through rationally regulated free markets and prudent systems of public services. The key as I see it is to cut through the noise and trivialties that have flooded public discourse for the last ten years, and rebuild some measure of political consensus toward those shared goals and wishes.

    Can Hillary Clinton do this? I think the answer is almost certainly no. Love her or hate her (and I’ll admit to a mild dislike, based on her politics of personality and over-eagerness to triangulate), she *is* divisive. People don’t respond to her rationally. At a time when we desperately need togetherness in public life, she simply can’t offer it. Though I’d likely vote for her, with great reluctance, over a semi-palatable Republican like McCain or Hagel (I know, I know), I think the country probably would be better off with someone like that winning than with Hillary.

    For the good of the country and of the Democratic Party, I pray she doesn’t run. If she does, I hope that the anti-Hillary elements in the party, whom I believe constitute a majority, come together quickly and decisively around an alternative.

  • It boils down to this:

    Can Sen. Clinton put together 270 electoral votes?

    In normal times, I would tend to say “no.”

    2008 will not be normal times.

    The country will be coming off a hangover like nothing since Watergate (and perhaps not before). Even many Republicans will be (already are) sick of the corrupt, amoral, cult-of-personality Politburo their party has become. In this environment, even Ernest P. Worrell could win, know what I mean, Vern?

    If Sen. Clinton is EVER going to win the Presidency, 2008 is the time.

  • I have to agree with smiley, Ed, et al. She could probably be easily nominated if she chose to run, but prm nailed it on what would no doubt happen next.

    A huge portion of the country is so fed up with the criminal stupidity in Washington these days that they’d be willing to vote for almost anyone whom they thought would do a better job. But Hilary is already such a lightning rod for right wing hysteria that she could still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have to give them someone they aren’t predisposed to dislike to have any real chance of success.

    The hit squads are already targeting Obama with their slander, but that could work to our advantage even while being painfully unfair to him. By taking the bulk of their attention now, it could allow another candidate to start building a campaign on the side ready to burst forth at the proper time and take the knuckle draggers by surprise.

    What we have to have is a candidate with a proven track record of strong, competent and reasonably taint-free governing who carries no Beltway baggage to get in the way. That means a governor, as others have suggested also. Preferably, in my view, a non-veteran since the Repubs have shown that military service is the perfect vehicle for character assassination.

    But that governor should immediately and publicly surround himself or herself with military and economic people of impeccable stature to assure the voters that s/he’s serious about both national defense and economic improvement.

    And for God’s sake get rid of all those high-priced “veteran consultants” who have only proved that they know how to lose races! There are plenty of bright, creative progressive operatives out there and now more than ever they need to be given a chance to show what they can do.

    Ok, so that’s the plan. I think it can work. Let’s see if anybody in the halls of power is listening. 😉

  • “I think that if she is the dem nominee, then Allen or McCain will be the next president. She has too much of a public record and a history of too many right-wing smears. She will be Gored like Gore only wishes he was.”

    The general consensus above is in agreement with smiley. However, I tend to think that any candidate for the Democratic party is going to be the subject of a lying campaign of slime and character assassination. By election day the candidate’s negatives will be in Hillary range wherever they started.

    That being said, she apparently hasn’t been in New Hampshire since 1996, but the minute she says that she isn’t running, her formidable campaign apparatus and revenue stream crumbles. That revenue is being shared generously with less fortunate Democrats, so I say “Run Hillary, run” (until the very last minute).

    I liked Jonathon Chait’s column today.

  • In what country are y’all people living? Even blue states are not ready to vote for ANY woman to be president. We have to get real here. Sometimes you just have to go with the country you have….

  • I absolutely agree with Ed and prm and the rest of the “liberal dittoheads” here this morning.

    Yes, she can get the nomination. And, if she does, then once again we go down the tubes on the national election. We absolutely cannot let this happen, not another four years of some far right drooler who’s been annointed by Bush/Cheney/Dobson, not if we want to live out our years in a country that at least vaguely resembles the one we grew up in.

    There’s a good possibility that with a non-Hillary candidate, some of the far right just might not be so energized to go vote. But with Hillary, it will be 2004 Republican Get Out The Vote on steroids.

    Let her become the female Ted Kennedy, compiling an honorable record as a Senatorial stateswoman – she can do far more good for both the country and the party there than on the presidential campaign trail.

    And I agree with CB and Amy Sullivan about their beliefs in her. But we just cannot give the Right another huge campaign motivator, not now. We cannot afford 4 more years of these moronic bozos.

    I also agree with Montana View that it would be very good if the Democratic Party decided to recognize that agricultural price supports not only destroy the family farm by subsidizing corporate agriculture, but – by their support in NAFTA – they are a major contributor to the problem of illegal immigration, as Mexican and Central American farmers who would otherwise be happy to stay on their farms are forced off them and forced across the border because they cannot compete with American Corporate Socialism with its subsidized agriculture andhave to feed their families somehow, while the former owners of American family farms are merely corporate employees using corporate-approved methods that deplete the land and make it less productive year by year (while making the corporations richer and richer by needing more and more bad fertilizer), all the while making us all less healthy with their frankenstein foods. This is an issue I wish some national Democrat would see for the value it is.

  • Also, evenif she was God’s Own Candidate as the best possible presidential candidate ever, I would not be in favor of her because Republics do not function well under dynastic leadership, and 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton is just plain Not Good for our constitutional democracy. Even FDR was pushing it with his fourth term, which he could only be allowed given we were in the middle of World War 2 and the Republicans would have botched the outcome worse than they have botched the only war they’ve run since the Civil War – Iraq.

  • Those encouraging Hillary to run for president start with an implicit assumption: that national security will NOT be the main issue in play.

    Notice how seldom anyone talks about HC and national security. Notice how seldom anyone from the HC brigades talks about national security. Notice how little credibility HC has on national security. Notice how easy it would be to draw her into a debate on national security. Notice how easy it would be for the Republicans to run someone – anyone (McCain, Hagel, Jeb, Condi – and no, I’m not joking) who would be stronger on national security than Hillary could ever be.

    Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate on many issues, and she might even appeal to female swing voters and left-leaning Republican women. But she’s soft on national security, she’s untested, she’s a domestic-policy Democrat and that’s the last thing we’re going to want or need in 2008.

  • The Democrats need to find a new candidate, not another same-old demo crap. If she runs, that madman McCain will be the next president and he is worse than Bush.
    In my opinion, if the elections don’t throw the house and senate back to Democrat hands in 2006, the election of 2008 will be the same mockery of 2000, and 2004.
    We are in the hands of a one-party government and I don’t see much hope in the hands of such corrupt people running an apathetic country.

  • My biggest worry about the possibility of another Clinton in the WH is that if she gets there without the Dems holding a substantial majority in BOTH houses. Otherwise we’ll have a reprise of the first Clinton years–endless battles over any perceived vulnerability.

    That said, I think she’s going to run, going to win, and if she has a Democratic majority, she’ll be a strong president. The notion that she can accomplish more by staying in the Senate is dangerously close to sexism. True we need strong people in the Senate but does anyone seriously believe that the senate is where she REALLY wants to be?

  • Well,first you assume that king george will allow an election in ’08. I spy, with my psychic eye, a terrorist incident passing by. Followed by martial law and NO election.

    Back to reality. We need an anti-war candidate to redeem the dems. They should not be afraid to start calling the present administration war criminals, or to deny the great fallacy that we are a nation at war. Bare knuckled truth and strict constitutionalism are the way.

    It’s just a fuckin shame that there is nobody out there with the spine to carry that message.

  • If you want to know if she should run, look at a poll, not at the comments here.

    I think the Republicans are scared of Hillary runnding like Europe was scared of the Huns.

    Hillary would be an intellectual match for the Roves on the other side. She’s really the next-best thing on our side to Bill. We don’t need a sucker in the White House.

    Besides that, because she’s a woman, the Republicans will be playing a very dangerous game with their favored weapon, smearing opponents. It could easily backfire on them.

    One option for them would be to run a woman, which they probably don’t want. They might not even have one who coudl touch Hillary, and that could also be convinced to run.

    It could almost be a slam-dunk. Hillary ’08.

  • As the Dem standard-bearer, Hillary would be a disaster. She is so reviled among the right, fairly or unfairly, that she would be spotting the Repubs 40 points right from the start, and that’s before the swift-boating begins. In addition, I’m very put off by all the poll-tested, triangulating positions she’s been taking in order to appeal to moderate voters. I’d rather vote for someone who speaks their mind, even if I disagree with much of what they say, like McCain back before he transferred title to his balls to the GOP party establishment.

    And, most important, likeability counts. Hillary is lacking in the personal warmth that voters demand nowadays. Fans of the Daily Show may recall Jon Stewart’s line after replaying Bush’s reference to Bill Clinton in the SOTU address and the subsequent cut-away shot of Hillary in the audience: “That’s the look where boners go to die.” I laughed harder than I had ever done since I started watching the show. I also became convinced that Hillary is unelectable.

  • Fair or not, I can’t see Hillary winning any states that Gore and Kerry didn’t win, and that won’t be enough. I give Warner, Clark, and Feingold – and perhaps others – a better chance to take the swing states.

  • I like Hillary, but like most of you, I doubt that she can win. Having said that, I need to point out that we don’t have a crystal ball, and I, for one, have underestimated her in the past. Go Hillary!

  • I am glad I tripped onto this site. You guys actually think Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy has an honorable Senate record that PIAPS should follow?

    One thing is for sure, if she is does get the nomination ALL the “Broken Glass Republicans” will drag themselves to the polls reguardless of their nomination.

  • No, no, no, no, Hillary. I say this as a New Yorker too. There is just no there, there. Tell me, would we be talking about her at all if she hadn’t been a heavyweight first lady? Is that what makes a presidential candidate, even in these anemic times? Has she gotten out in front of any issue of importance, any at all? The war, the relentless lies of this administration, the assault on the Constitution, the gutting of the middle class, anything? This is just ridiculous. I too lament the fact that we have no real spokesman/woman at this point with cred and charisma. But no Senator, please. I’m looking at Wes Clark to be someone the country could rally around. A thinking, gutsy General, who, as yet, doesn’t seem to be neutered by handlers.

  • I’m not a fan of Clinton but, putting on my pragmatic hat, I’m convinced we need many more women with political power. We are suffocating from paternalism and militarism — and damn tired of adolescent recklessness. I question whether Hillary is entirely free of the first two. On the plus side for Hillary is her tenacity and strength.

    Beale’s quote from Jon Stewart is terrific and reminds me that we sure could do with 8 years without boners — in every sense of that word!

  • Oh, and let me just add, unelectability for our pragmatic readers. Her negatives are high and she inspires no real loyalty even among her so-called supporters. As I said, nothing there–but defeat that this country surely cannot afford.

  • I would be reluctant to personally support Hillary because of the “dynasty” issue. For the health of our republic, I hope someone else emerges. But, because of the the dynasty (read: name recognition) factor, this may be difficult if Hillary and her machine decide to go for it. I think she is bright and a competent person, and I think she knows how to think and act strategically. I also believe in her dedication to serving the public as opposed to her cronies (although I am not so naive as to believe she would not engage in some cronyism). So, in her case, I don’t believe her pursuit of the office would be predicated on one thing and one thing only (as is the case with the present holder of the office) – her family name and connections. But she would benefit from those things in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

    If she wins the nomination, I believe she carries baggage that will sink her chances in the overall election. I have heard many people write her off without much more explanation than she is married to (and serially cheated on by – apparently) Bill, and she is too “strident.” People don’t like her “tone.” She is too brittle – not soft like that wonderful first lady, Laura… Such attitudes are disheartening, but I do not think they simply can be dismissed. I think they are conventional wisdom / folk lore, and that is hard to drive out of the psyches of many voters.

  • The final analysis is really whether her demerits neutralize her benefits.

    Remember, the choice is not between Hillary’s weaknesses and “not-Hillary’s-weaknesses.” The choice is between Hillary, or someone else besides Hillary.

    So, can you really say that Hillary’s possible weaknesses are so bad that they’re going to make her worse than an alternative who is certainly an unknown in comparison?

    Hillary was kind of hot with the public while she was a first-lady, at times, at least. I really think the anti-Hillary stuff is overblown. All the Repubs who hate her can go to hell for all I care. I think the lack of Dems support for Hillary is an illusion. We should look at the polls.

    It seems to me that picking a relative unknown over Hillary is a real big gamble.

  • The Democrats shouldn’t “waste” a nomination on Hillary because as many of you have already stated, she will be an issue. We don’t need any “issues”, real or fabricated by the Repubassholicans, to divide the Democrats votes or we could really face 4 more years of stupid Repubassholican excesses. There will be some people that favor the Democratic policies that will not vote for a woman. For the future sake of what remains of our country we need to ensure we “purge”, like flushing a toilet (good analogy), our government of all of these shit-for-brains like Bush’s puppetdom and the likes of Ted Stevens and Pat Roberts that keep lying for their own sakes in defiance of facts, which are becoming more obvious every week. If people hadn’t wasted votes for Ralph Nader, maybe President Stupid wouldn’t be our dictator now. Same way Hitler first came to power. Opposing parties couldn’t or wouldn’t unite to block someone that was worse. Hillary isn’t nearly as bad as the Shrublicans, but she has supported many of Shrub’s policies like his war. She is being criticized for her anger, by the Rethugs. In any other “democracy” in the world, Bush and his alleged government would have been thrown out long before now. As for Hillary’s outrage, every Democratic should be just as vocal. They with few exceptions have allowed Bush’s warrantless citizen spying to be converted to Terrorist Surveillance Program to minimize the part were BUSH BROKE THE LAW. Feingold would be the best choice for a Democratic Party nominee. He is untainted in the respect he did not support Bush’s Illegal War or the Un-Patriot Act. Feingold appears to be thoughtful and not run by poll numbers as Hillary and Bill already displayed when they were in the White House.

  • Seriously folks, she’s a woman. Do we really see any of the Promise Keeper states voting for a woman? Do we think we have enough electoral votes without those states? Of course not. We need to focus on finding a Y chromosome candidate (as much as I regret to say that as a double X).

  • The issue is voter turn-out.Dems can’t ever really plan on picking up a lot of the religious right voters no matter how moderate we appear. The goal is to suppress that crowd – make them want to stay home. Dems can do that by hammering on corruption and pointing out how little the republicans have delivered on conservative social issues.

    But if Hillary runs – the religious right will turn out in the midst of a cat 5 hurricane to vote against her.

    I don’t think we’re getting a real read on her intentions as she has to win in 2006 to even consider 2008. I think everything she’s doing now is geared to 2006. If she retains her senate seat, then we can start reading the tea leaves for clues to 2008…thekeez

  • “don’t think we’re getting a real read on her intentions as she has to win in 2006 to even consider 2008. I think everything she’s doing now is geared to 2006. If she retains her senate seat, then we can start reading the tea leaves for clues to 2008…thekeez”

    If you don’t think she is running I have a bridge to sell you. She has been running ever since she got her ticket stamped with her first senate term. With the money she has alone, I don’t think she can be stopped during the primary, but I am not very confident of her ability to win a general election. I think the Bible brigade will be out in droves to stop her. Her gender alone will give the Repugs all they need.

  • I have no problem with the male-female issue. It’s should be part of our Democratic principles that gender doesn’t matter (or should be made not to matter). After reading all these comments, which are excellent, I still have a problem with (1) Senators and (2) Clintons. I like Wes Clark and I really like governors. Remember, Carter and Clinton were unknown governors from less-than-populous states at this time in their careers. So here’s a list of Democratic governors to chew over.

    Janet Napolitano – Arizona
    Ruth Ann Minner – Delaware
    Rod Blagojevich – Illinois
    Thomas J. Vilsack – Iowa
    Kathleen Sebelius – Kansas
    Kathleen B. Blanco – Louisiana
    John Baldacci – Maine
    Jennifer M. Granholm – Michigan
    Brian Schweitzer – Montana
    John Lynch – New Hampshire
    Jon Corzine – New Jersey
    Bill Richardson – New Mexico
    Michael F. Easley – North Carolina
    Brad Henry – Oklahoma
    Ted Kulongoski – Oregon
    Edward Rendell – Pennsylvania
    Phil Bredesen – Tennessee
    Tim Kaine – Virginia
    Christine Gregoire – Washington
    Joe Manchin, III – West Virginia
    Jim Doyle – Wisconsin
    Dave Freudenthal – Wyoming

    FWIW, I like Christine Gregoire from my own Washington State. As state Attorney General she took on the giant tobacco lobbies and won. Washington State is a major player in the defense industry and a major player in agriculture. At any rate, I’d like to see us arguing about one these to put forward to represent real Democratic values. When push comes to shove, when people begin comparing Republican values to Democratic, there are far more of us than there are of them. As I’ve often said, I’ll never be rich enough or mean enough to be Republican.

    Have I overlooked security issues? A Democrat (Wilson) won World War I. A Democrat (Roosevelt) won World War II. A Democrat (Truman) set the terms for ending the Korean War. A Republican (Nixon) lost the War in Vietnam after lying to us all. A Republican (Shrub) has us bogged down in the Iraq Quagmire and looking over our shoulders and under our beds every time he farts.

  • Something else I neglected to add in the list of Christine Gregoire’s assets: Washington State is a leader (some would say the leader) in information science (computer software, Bill Gates) and also bio-tech research. As defense and agriculture have been the backbone of America’s international trade positions in the past, computer science and bio-tech will no doubt be the backbone of the future. Anyone who can become governor of such a state must have a lot going for her.

  • Ed, Granholm is ineligible – born in Canada. Blago in Illinois is a bad soap opera and will be lucky to be re-elected.

    As for Sen. Clinton, I have very mixed feelings. She would not be my first choice due to a personal preference for a Governor and a non-dynastic candidate; I think at times her temper makes her vulnerable to errors in debates, and she and Bill are both a bit Machiavellian for my tastes.

    On the other hand, I refuse to pander to the portion of the population who simply will not vote for a woman president. Hillary is extremely bright (I always thought she was more intellectually capable than Bill), has a long history of working for children, has a nice mix of left and center credentials (not unlike Gov. Dean), has proven able to rise above her high negatives, and can raise money like no other. She also has a husband who can move and motivate Dems like no other candidate in my lifetime.

    I find the thread as a whole interesting for its apparent inconsistencies. We want someone “stronger on defense and security issues,” yet Hillary — precisely because she has been moderate to hawkish on the war — would likey play better with the general public (and particularly the swing-vote portion thereof) than the more liberal candidates I might prefer. We want someone who will “fight back” and hit the Rethugs hard, but are worried Hillary is seen as angry — I’m not sure you can have it both ways on that one.

    In the end, while she isn’t my first choice (at this early date, at least), I also do not think she would be a disaster. Those posts that have noted that any candidate we run will be Swift Boated and end up with Hillary’s negatives are exactly right. And with the Clinton War Room (quite possibly including Carville and Begala again) we KNOW that Hillary wont take it lying down like Kerry did in throwing away the election. At least she’d fight back and fight back hard — and have all the money in the world to do so. All she has to do is hold the Gore states, plus get Ohio which is presently a total mess for the Rethugs and which Hillary may be able to get via pulling upper-middle class, educated suburban Repub women. (of course, this is essentially the same strategy no matter who our candidate is. . .)

  • In a nutshell: The GOP can’t win an election by talking about their good points; they’ve put all their eggs in the “bad-stuff-about-the-other-candidate” basket. There’s just not enough mud to sling at Hillary to counter the incredible disaster that has been the Godlessly Obese Pachyderm these past five-plus years. In exchange for the few twigs they could even hope to brandish at her—she’s got a lumber-yard to pummel them with. If she runs, I’m looking for something along the lines of the Johnson/Goldwater escapades of ’64…and we were stuck in a nasty quagmire of a “war” then, too….

  • It looks like Cheney needed something for the wall over his fireplace for his new house. Better luck next time, huh? Dick, make sure you get your whole head in front of the shotgun. How do you “spray” somebody with shotgun pellets? Either you shoot him or you don’t. Couldn’t have happened to a bigger bozo. Maybe Shrub was going to put Whittington in as VP after VP Torture gets busted? Talk about the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. A bigger bunch of crooks probably never existed but they are never boring.

  • By the time the Rethug media gets done spinning Cheney’s hunting misadventures, it’ll go down as an unsatisfatory field test of the new Don Rumsfeld body armor system with Grand Inquisitor Cheney being almost uninvolved. Ted Stevens and Pat Roberts will immediately head an investigation to ensure fairness. Normally I wouldn’t be pleased about someone being shot, but this time I’m going to make an exception. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, I say let Whittington’s wife return fire and shoot Cheney. It’s only fair. What should he be investigated for first. Now moving to the top of the list. You couldn’t pay somebody to come up with the stupid crap this administration’s people do, intentionally or unintentionally.

  • I like Gregoire, but she ran an incompetent campaign against the business whore Rossi. WA is a blue state and she barely won. Admittedly Rossi had a boatload of money and national-level consultants, but still. Not a good track record for the national election.

    Also..

    The GOP will pretend GWB didn’t exist. They’ll run on a reform platform, just as Dubya did in 04.

  • The American people–as a whole–have been accused of being stupid. Electing Sen. George Allen of Virginia to be president over any candidate–except Marx or Lenin–would confirm that stupidity. What are the odds of that?

    P. S. — If you haven’t notice, George Allen is an “aw-shucks stuffed-shirt.”

  • I’ve posted before that I like the Clintons, and I have the highest respect for their efforts during his administration. I think back how Clinton defused crisis after crisis – I used to tell anybody who’d listen to me that Clinton made running the country all look easy – and rather set the stage for an incompetent like Bush, i.e. “anybody can do it.”

    I’ve seen Hillary speak in public and she’s perfectly plausible…her triangulation to date doesn’t particularly offend me…I think the gender thing is more and more a non-issue…and New Yorkers overwhelmingly approve of her now – despite the savaging she received from Repubs and their allies in the press when she first announced she would run for Senator…

    Having said that, I’m afraid that the memory of the so-called scandals of the Clinton years will be revived….I believe that Hillary and Bill carry an enormous amount of baggage…dunno if the spin on the “Clinton years” will ever be positive or not…

    Obviously nobody has an organization like Hillary’s at this date…but the presumptive Dem nominee often collapses after the first couple of primaries – I’m thinking of Muskie, Dean – and even Gore was seriously challenged by Bradley…

    Bottom line: I don’t think her nomination in 2008 is a done deal in the least.

  • It would be helpful if we could know who our person is going to run against. You have to think about that.

    If it’s McCain, then that’s really a certain kind of dynamic. McCain’s done a lot to make himself look less-than-objectionable to us: quivering-lipped, wet-eyed questioning of witnesses to Senate committees, for example. I don’t know if I buy that anymore. But I digress- the point is, McCain v. Clark? I think maybe that ends up looking like Clinton v. Dole– one guy ends up looking a little boring.

    If it’s versus McCain, who’s got the hots to beat him? If it’s McCain v. Obama, I think they emphasize McCain’s relative experience– I think the story is that Obama is a youngster who doens’t know what he’s doing. If it’s McCain v. Clark, then McCain is a scamp by comparison; Clark is stoic + staid, relative to McCain. Against Hillary, I think they may have a harder time going straight-out nasty. I think they try to make it subtle and play off of mysogynistic stereotypes: that she’s fuzzy-headed and incompetent (even though we all now she’s much more qualified than like, any Repub), that she’s too mean for a woman.

    Mayeb Clark is a better choice, I don’t know. But I think Hillary’s a warrior. I say give her a helmet and pads and let her go. Let the fur fly.

  • Here we go again with absurd questions of whether one person can win election when no opponent is even posited. Elections are always a choice of whether to vote and if so for whom to vote.

  • Mort, I disagree. In the 1994 Repub takeover of the house, individual matchups were almost wholly subverted to the nationalized message and the desire for “change.” In 2004, if one was a Rethug, you really didn’t care who the Dem was – Bush’s campaign was going to be almost identical (except the issue used in the inevitable smear would be different), and sadly the result likely would have been the same.

    Moreover, when making crucial early decisions about who to support as a partisan Dem – with your money, your visibility, your time – you dont have the luxury of knowing the opponent. You know the likely universe of opponents, but that is all the better you can do. Candidates still have to start campaigns, supporters still have to make choices. We make those decisions based on how a candidate would do against the known universe, or even how adaptable and flexible their positive traits are in running against whoever might arise.

    By the way, I am surprised at the Clark support here. He could not have run a worse campaign in the 2004 nomination race, and while he did speak some truth to power and often show a lot of common sense and a common touch, he nearly as often sounded completely unpolished to the point of being a loose cannon sayng crazy things. I think he would be an unmitigated disaster as the top of the ticket — particularly if the party theme will be competence, someone suggesting their first elected office should be President just wont cut it. He might be good Veep material, but thats about as far as that can go.

    Finally, re Cheney, maybe with this new, um, ammunition, we should try again to get info on his hunting trips with Scalia and the like. Seems there may be more of interest in these trips. . . stuff worth shooting an old friend over!

  • Almost everyone already has an opinion on Hillary. There is something unpleasant about this woman and it will come across big time in a national election. To me she is a Machiavellian opportunist whose main goal is power. Why else would a woman put up with what she has had to live with all these years? I agree with the many posts saying she will motivate the right wing voters to come out in droves to defeat her. So, let’s get someone nominated who doesn’t polarize people. And I agree that it is hard to elect a sitting member of Congress, with their endless voting record as a target for smear. So, in a word, I don’t think she can win.

    I worked hard for John Kerry in 2004. If Hillary is the nominee I will probably sit on my hands. In addition to my visceral discomfort with this woman I deeply disagree with her positions on the Iraq war and and also her uncritical support of the policies of Bush and Ariel Sharon regarding the Middle East.

    So if I am representative of a significant bloc of moderate Democrats you can see the problems ahead if Hillary is the next nominee.

  • RWH wrote:

    Why else would a woman put up with what she has had to live with all these years?

    Maybe because she believes in what she’s doing, like a lot of the rest of us?

    She’s not a Machiavellian anything. She’s a hard-working and very intelligent person. A good candidate.

    By the way, if Hillary is our #1 person according to the polls, in terms of both support and recognition, and then we pass over our #1 choice, I think we almost deserve what we get. That would be the ultimate stupid move.

  • My local NPR station, KQED, is acknowledging Black History Month with a variety of profiles of Black social leaders. Yesterday they had an hour on the life of Barbara Jordan. It was sobering to hear her strong message of moral centeredness, historical concern and relentless truth-telling. Folks in this country on both sides of the political divide are listening for a voice as irrefutably no B.S. as Barbara Jordan’s. She cut through the fog of politics over and over again and it’s what we need now. It’s pretty impossible right now to tell who’s going to speak truth, not to power, but to the American public.

    Many days I don’t give the American public much credit but other day’s I don’t think they’re given much to work with. A lot of B.S. has piled up over the last few years and it’s heading even higher. People will be listening. I will be listening. If Hillary cuts through the fog, I could vote for her. She’s very smart and tough as a boot. But anyone who seriously runs for president in ’08 had better be both of those things already. It’s the truth-telling that I hope ties it together and whoever combines all three, (if it happens), will be a force to reckon with.

    A good indication of common sense will be shown by any candidate who ignores the phone calls of established and failed Democratic political consultants.

  • I think we have to give Hillary a chance because I’m sure she is the one who will be the nominee. I think she does have the right to try, and she is plenty smart. It would be foolish to allow the prepugs to frame the issues again. I do think Bill is a plus for her because he has that magic charm. I saw it again at the King funeral — he is just charming. He is also a very intelligent man who, as was pointed out, is pretty good at diffusing a crisis. I wouldn’t mind having a person like that there giving her advise.

  • It will be very hard to convince me that (a) the public wants truth telling and (b) that we will ever win with pure “truth telling.”

    History — the defecits caused by Reagonomics and the economic improvements created by Bush Sr.’s 1991 tax increase and Clinton’s tax increases — have completely vindicated what Walter Mondale said at the 1984 convention. He told the nation that he would not lie to them: the circumstnaces of the country and its needs would require him to raise taxes.

    He began dropping in the polls almost immediately and never recovered.
    That is how America thanks you when you tell the truth.

    You say that was a long time ago? Well, Max Cleland wasn’t.
    Max Cleland happened because America is willing to believe any lie, no matter how repugnant and far-fetched.

    I don’t see any evidence that the electorate has changed since Mondale.
    You give me your best truth teller and I’ll put a smooth liar like Bill Clinton against him or her any day of the week — both to get elected AND to be a success running government (see, e.g., the example of Jimmy Carter in office). I’d bet my life savings on Clinton and not lose a moment’s sleep.

    Bruce Babbitt was a truth teller. In his own way, Paul Tsongas was a truth teller. Mike Dukakis was an incredibly decent man. And there’s never been a President Babbitt, Tsongas or Dukakis. There have, however, been 12 years of Presidents Bush, and another 8 of that lying SOB Reagan.

    The last thing Americans respond to favorably is truth.

  • Count me in with those who say Hillarys negatives are too high to win the general election. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that there is already 50% of the population who would not vote for her under any circumstances, even were she running against a Satan/Karl Marx ticket.

  • I think Hillary could win the primary (though I wouldn’t vote for her) for no other reason than the Democrats can’t seem to get their shit together for primaries and because they seems to have this obsession with having the candidate chose in the first primaries so they can “get behind the candidate” (or jumping on the bandwagon) instead of choosing someone who best represents the party and who has the best chance of winning the general election.

    I don’t think that she could win the presidency however. The only reason I would vote for her was because I don’t not vote in the presidential primary and because another Republican presidency would effectively kill this country’s soul.

  • zeitgeist, I certainly see your point(s). They were lurking in the background all along. But the lies of our current government seem to have reached new height’s of audacity and pure everyday business as usual mendacity.

    Maybe we exist in the natural progression of a culture of delusion in which case we’re screwed, (which is quite possible), and it doesn’t really matter who gets nominated because the chosen person is just going to be the best purveyor of B.S. at every juncture of the decision making process.

    I can’t disagree. We are far down a road that proves your point(s). I guess I feel a need for both truth telling and truth hearing. If the right person speaks in the right way and can make a connection deeper than what’s on sale at K-Mart then truth-telling can make a difference. If people want to chose lies then so be it. But the huge price those lies have extracted over the last 6 years is speeding our unnecessary race to hell.

  • I ran across this after I wrote the previous:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/13/13253/8887

    From the post:

    Rather than being reactive, the Montana Dems have been proactive, firing the first volleys and firing them early. This is very much different than recent Democratic SOP, and it’s obviously working remarkably well. It obviously helps that Burns is a corrupt SOB and that Montana Dems have plenty of material to work with. But there are few Republicans who can claim a squeaky clean record at this point.

    More of this, please. It works. – Kos

    It can work. But first people have to hear it. As often as they hear the lies. And with as much ferocity. The press in this case is helping. No guarantees but what’s the alternative? Business as usual is killing us.

  • Swan, enough already. Can’t you tolerate dissent? And “look at the polls?” What, 1000 days out? That would have meant nominee Joe Lieberman in ’04.

    One thing is for sure – Hillary’s blog comments supporters are not especially good at the game. Unflagging support of Hillary with nothing but a series of assertions is just juvenile.

    • Comments are closed.