I rather doubt she would be considered a southerner by southerners, but I’m hardly the judge of that. I think of people from Indiana as southerners.
I view her as too Lieberman-like, which means I have exactly the same problem with her as I do with a man possessing the same personality.
Who in the presumed race does have executive experience?
Richardson (governor of New Mexico) could announce tomorrow. Vilsack (former governor of Iowa) was the first to announce.
Thanks. I had forgotten Vilsack.
On the Republican side, McCain doesn’t. Giuliani? I don’t know if that counts. Huckabee does. The Virginian guy does.
Any individual may support or oppose Senator Clinton for any constellation of reasons. In looking at what sort of chances Senator Clinton has to capture the White House, however, I am looking at the fairly large number of moderately vocal persons I encounter IRL or in the various polls, blogs, letters to the editor, and other places who express antipathy to Ms. Clinton that does not appear to be based on actual stances that she has taken on genuine issues. This in no way indicates that anyone who opposes Senator Clinton is merely a misogynist, closet or out. It is merely an observation that Senator Clinton has a rather large obstacle to overcome when attempting to secure enough votes to be elected president.
We’ve got two announced governeors already (with a couple more sniffing around the sidelines). Then there is Giuliani with a city with a larger population and budget than a number of U.S. states, (along with a police force that is larger than two Army divisions, five squabbling boroughs, an international seaport and airports, and any number of other issues that provide genuine experience similar to running a country).
Kerry’s appeal was so limited that he captured a mere 48% of the vote, even though he ran a completely inept campaign and even though it was well before Bush’s big nose-dive.
It’s easy to forget how close that election was, and how much things have changed since then. If an election were held tomorrow, it’s hard to imagine the Democrat who *couldn’t beat Bush.
Of course it won’t be Bush in 2008, but anybody who runs is going to have a hard time getting out from under his legacy. The Republicans have a chance, but only if they do everything right and the Democrats do everything wrong.
Those of us who don’t like her often get accused of not liking her because she’s female because our reasons aren’t good enough. But if we don’t like a male candidate for the same reasons, those reasons are fine. So the street does go both ways.
Okay, but from most of what I’m reading, the horses that people are backing so far aren’t the ones with the executive experience. From what I’m reading, and obviously this isn’t more than conjecture, Richardson and Vilsack aren’t considered to have a chance. Giuliani and the Virginian guy (must be a great candidate if I can’t even remember his name) aren’t considered to have a chance. It seemed like you were singling out Obama as not having the experience when the other frontrunners also don’t.
I agree with Tom. If Hillary or Obama run in the general then the Dems lose unless something goofy happens in the Republican camp. I think Hillary will make it close while Obama would lose huge.
There’s still nearly two years of campaigning ahead of us. Ugh…
I think he got a large number of his votes strictly as anti-Bush votes. He got my vote that way. I could not stand him, but I hate the Bush Admin more and despise Cheney as the most evil person to hold high office in America in my lifetime.
Jim
At the moment, Hilary has the best chance of winning the nomination. As far as I can tell, she has the most well-organized political structure in place, and that counts for a lot in the primaries. She is also way too savvy to be sidelined by political mistakes the way Kerry was. I think that most Dems would have to avoid running “against” her.
Kerry had a solid, moderate political organization behind him, but he wasn’t a charismatic or astute politician, and I think that hurt him. Hilary’s not the same.
In the final election, it’s a much tougher call. A lot depends on who the Republicans pick, and the condition of the country and the world. I mean, if we’re still in Iraq with no end in sight, and we’re not facing some real threats, then the Republicans won’t have a lot to run on.
Two years is a long time.
I agree completely. However, the discussion is whether the Democrats have a lock on the White House. Clinton is the current frontrunner. Clinton carries a lot of “gut level” antipathy baggage in Middle America.
We are not talking about the 88% of the electorate that is committed to the Democrats or the Republicans or to thinking for themselves. We are talking about the 12% of the electorate that swings around enough to influence elections without necessarily being committed to a platform or an ideology (or, too often, to thinking). Ms. Clinton suffers a really bad perception problem among that demographic.
Not that they have formally or even informally announced, but let’s not forget John Edwards, who can probably carry the South and Al Gore who seems to be garnering a lot of attention (to what end one can only imagine… a presidential run…hmmmmm) And, the distinct possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket. If he were to be her running mate, he would obviously be the frontrunner in 2012 if she were to be elected in 2008.
Well, unless she completely screwed up or had health problems or something to make her declare that she would not seek nor accept the nomination, she’d be the frontrunner in 2012, with Obama eyeing 2016.
:smack: darn math… I stand corrected 
The other thing to consider is that Americans seem to prefer divided government (the last few years showed us why). That give the Republicans a bit of a boost. Of course it all depends on the candidates.
Clinton/Obama would be a disaster for the Dems, and I don’t think Hillary would pick him in a million years. If she won the primary, she’d pick a nice, safe running mate-- maybe even Edwards.
Or Richardson.
I think Richardson would make a very good VP candidate. He’s not particularly… vivacious, I’ll admit. But he seems sensible and he’s Hispanic (but with a great “white guy” name).
If he really wanted to go “ethnic”, he could change his last name to Ricardez. But yeah, he gets the best of both worlds. He can be Anglo when he wants and Hispanic when it suits him. Seriously, though, he wouldn’t be a bad choice at all, and not just because of the Hispanic connection. He’s a well respected governor with considerable name recognition, as well as a sensible politician.
And in witness whereof, I give you 2004.
Of course the Republicans have a chance. We have no idea who will be in play six months from now, let alone twenty-one months. Nor what kind of shenanigans both sides will pull against the front-runners - remember who first brought up Mr. W. Horton, and Joe Biden’s plagiarized speech?
Put it this way - suppose we start pulling back from Iraq by this time next year. Who will be the front-runner then, and what will he/she talk about?
Regards,
Shodan
I do, but I don’t think *you * do. :dubious: Even though we’ve been over those pesky little facts with you before, many times.
What would you like your guy to run on instead, whoever he is (he’ll be a white man)? Continuing the *other * wildly-successful Republican policies of the last 6 years? Who of your candidates is a “somebody”, in your estimation?
As it stands now, it’s the Dem’s to lose.
My best pick would be having Gore make a deal with Hilary or Obama, with Gore running as a one term President, allowing either to take over after 4 years.