-
Would she make a good POTUS?
-
Is she electable?
2.a. Is she nominable?
And what would they call Bill? First Man? First Gentleman?
I might vote for her, depending on who runs against her.
Why would she not be electable or nominable?
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Is nominable really a word? It sounds too much like abominable … which (to segue cleverly back to the OP) is what might make her unelectable. I’ve never really understood it, but she does seem to excite intense negative feelings against her. Her electability will depend on her being able to dispel that once she’s in her own spotlight.
In summary, I’m going for nominatable, not nominable.
Because, for reasons never entirely clear to me even though we’ve tried to thresh them out many times in this forum, the right wing hates HRC more fiercely and viscerally than any other prominent Dem. Nominating her would insure the highest Pub turnout level we’ve ever seen. Knowing this, the Dems might be hesitant to nominate her at all, to go with someone safer.
Well, she’s not just a Democrat you know. She’s also a woman.
Seriously though, I might vote for her. Or maybe Obama. I’m not about to cast my vote without doing all of the necessary investigatory things, though.
I think she would probably make a good Prez and it would be worth electing her just to hear the collective sound of Dittheads popping all over the country.
On the other hand, she’s a little too conservative for my taste and there is a non-trivial segment of voters who have been brainwashed into such a virulent, irrational hatred of the woman that I have doubts about her electability. She’s exactly who the Republicans want to run against.
Well, she’s not just a Democrat you know. She’s also a woman.
Seriously though, I might vote for her. Or maybe Obama. I’m not about to cast my vote without doing all of the necessary investigatory things, though.
In other news, dog bites man.
-
Yes.
-
No. The negatives are too high. Republicans have conducted a long and largely successful smear campaign. And beyond that, I think a lot of people (myself included) still have some serious questions about those cattle futures.
-
No. She stayed married to the Iraq war far too long. That, plus primary voters think about “electability” and Hillary ain’t got it.
I am not sure if you are intending to be snarky but you made a key point. A liberal female cannot POTUS right now. A conservative female in the Margaret Thatcher style certainly could and the U.S. is perfectly capable of electing a female POTUS right now just not Hillary.
One of the ironies of our post Civil War era is that the Southern states control the presidency. It doesn’t matter what the citizens of our most populous city, NYC or to a lesser extent Los Angeles or Chicago, want, it only matters what our Southern states want.
Hillary is absolutely hated by a large constituency especially in the Southern states so, in a presidential races where a 5% swings the race either way, she can’t be elected president.
It is as simple as that and always will be.
Brainwashed into a virulent, irrational hatred? Golly gee, I thought I disliked the woman because of her personality and her politics.
Seriously, off the top of my head I can’t think of anyone who would be more likely to doom us to 4 more years of a republican in the White House than Clinton.
-
Good President? No. Better President? Obviously.
-
Electable? I doubt it, but stranger things have happened (twice)
-
Nominate? Maybe. I could go either way on this - there’s probably a group of Dems that would nominate her just to piss off the Right, but I think (hope) there’s a larger group that has the best interests of the party in mind and won’t want to take the chance.
Under American etiquette rules, he’d still be entitled to be called “resident Clinton”. At formal events, they’d be introduced as “The President of the United States, and President Clinton”. 
As for the smear campaign we’d all expect, I am forced to disagree with my learned colleague spoke-. It’s already been done to da max. There is no more damage to be done, there are no more minds left to change, there is no more than the rock bottom left of people who’ll actually listen to that stuff anymore, and they would never have considered voting for her anyway. Yet her ratings are still pretty good. Given what’s left of the public standing of the partisan right, the smear campaign is more likely to work in her favor. Clinton hatred was never more than a large minority position anyway, and it’s much smaller now that we’ve had some, er, contrast.
Her biggest problems in the campaign are more likely to be caused by the Iraq war vote she still hasn’t repudiated or fully explained (and by now it’s probably too late), her low-wattage personal charisma and life story, and the ticklishness of explaining her experience at actually running organizations. I do think she’d be as capable a President as her husband/closest adviser was, with him by her side the whole time. It will look simply like Bubba’s back in charge, but that could well work in both the campaign and the administration.
If forced, I’d bet on Obama right now, though.
That’s what they WANT you to think. 
Seriously, I’m obviously not suggesting that everyone who doesn’t like HRC is irrational or have been brainwashed, just that there are enough of them like that to make it very difficult for her. I think a large portion of the elctorate is going to be completely unreachable for her, no matter what she does.
- What Bobotheoptimist said. She’s as much of a hawk as Bush. She wouldn’t be nearly as stupid, though. Not sure how much daylight between the two that would give us.
- Very electable. Underestimating her got her opponents in NY precisely nowhere. If she runs, she will win.
- She needs to get past a bunch of pissed-off doves in the Dem party first. Her continued waffling on Iraq is not earning her any points, so if she wants the nomination, she’ll have to grow a spine. Fast.
Heh, I was doing both. The comment wasn’t directed at the poster, but just at the general hostility toward women in politics (especially liberal women) that I have seen – it’s mind-boggling. I’m not sure I agree with you that the southern states control everything–we did get the Senate/House to swing Democrat, after all (I live in Michigan.) But I don’t think of the sexism as being a southern thing, either. I think of it as a human thing… and a really dumb thing. There is no question in my mind that the reason she is so hated is because she is not only tied to Clinton, but she is also a woman. To understand why her womanness is so problematic one need only look at the visceral hatred leveled at Nancy Pelosi for daring to suggest she was the most powerful woman in America (which, from a government POV, she absolutely is.)
I vote independently, I have no allegiance to either Democrats or Republicans and I think politics in this country are an embarrassing joke due to the complete stupidity and unabashed bias of the media. I’m certainly not about to vote for Clinton BECAUSE she’s a woman… and I’m also not convinced this country would elect a conservative woman, either. If she were truly representative of social conservative values she’d be in the kitchen making babies, not meddling in politics. I don’t see how anyone who loathes feminism could tolerate a woman in charge of the country… and a LOT of social conservatives loathe feminism.
Do you think I’m viewing this too simplistically?
If the Democrats miraculously win the Presidential '08 election he’ll be white and have a penis, nice hair, a square jaw, a leader’s shoulders, etc. Sorry guys.
-
Good president? Maybe – we’ve had worse.
-
Electable? My gut feeling is, probably not.
-
Nominatable? Yes.
A friend of mine (a lfelong Democrat and retired USAF master sergeant) recently suggested that tapping that old vein of Hilary hate could backfire on Republicans by making it look like they don’t have anything else to oppose.
Also, her failed 1994 health care effort might be less of a liability now that people like Arnold are starting to embrace similar measures.
A miracle? I admire your loyalty to the party but at looking at the current Iraqi situation, a Democratic victory in 2008 will be about as miraculous as the Republican victory was in 1968.
So, I guess it wasn’t “Republican porn” afterall. It was good prognosticating.
I’d say she was a hawk when she thought it was politically expedient to be one, and now she’ll figure out some way to disavow that stance and tack to a non-hawkish side. I wonder how much her timing for the announcement was forced by Obama. No reason to let him hog the spotlight between now and when he formally announces.
I’m an outsider. But haven’t the Democrats only won anytime in the last 25 years by nominating a Southerner?