Johnson ('64), Carter('76), Clinton ('92, '96). All southerners. I’d like to see HRC pretend to be a southerner.
The whole expedience thing is why I think she’ll have a tougher time getting her own party’s nomination than actually winning if she does get it and runs for President. As for whether she’s really a hawk or not, well, who can really tell? Your hunch is as good as mine. Given that, I distrust her on Iraq. Obama’s a lot clearer on the subject. It’s true he didn’t have to vote on it, but he did have to vote on the Military Commissions bill, where his was a nay, along with Clinton’s nay as well, which is the only reason I don’t reject her out of hand.
It depends on what you mean by ‘feminism’ – the original definition simply called for women to have access to roles traditionally reserved for males; more recently, feminism has been associated with more activist efforts to this end. Plenty of female pols get votes from conservatives by decrying the latter definition.
Plus, a woman can go into politics after raising a whole bunch of babies, which is less offensive to conservative sensibilities than would be a childless/unmarried female pol.
Also, I think you’re overlooking the way political liabilities can be ‘inoculated’ against by balancing – the classic example is that Nixon was able to go to China because of his impeccable cold-warrior reputation. For this reason, IMO, the first woman president is likely to be conservative.
What does it say about the south if not being a southerner is considered relevant?
A couple more thoughts on the Clinton candidacy.
One thing I think nobody’s mentioned here is the Bill factor. They’re going to have to figure out a way for him to campaign for her without overshadowing her. And there’s the related legacy issue - some people are going to argue that twenty years is long enough for two families to share the Presidency (obviously, the ones saying this will be Republicans - and they will forget it when Jeb Bush gets the 2012 nomination).
The other thing is the swing vote. Let’s face facts, most of the people who are saying Clinton is unthinkable are not going to vote for any Democratic candidate. And by the same token, there are a lot of voters who will support whoever the Democratic candidate is. The battle will be for the swing votes in the middle - the people who actually are willing to consider voting for either party. And Clinton does have an edge here - as the first major female candidate, she will attract some female voters off the fence to her side. And the Republicans know and worry about this - I predict you’ll see no serious trash talk, even in the hardcore conservative camp, about Clinton’s gender. The Republicans will be worried that attacking Clinton as a woman will look like they are attacking female candidates in general and could backfire into a defensive solidarity among women voters.
She can also say that Obama wasn’t in Congress, and didn’t have access to the info she did, so we really don’t know what his vote would have been. She’s already disavowed her vote, saying if she then what she knew now there would never have been a vote in the first place.
Probably average, which is lightyears better than GW.
I actually think she’s more electable than nominable, though I have my doubts as to both. Personally, I will never, ever vote for anyone who supports any manner of anti-flag burning legislation. Considering I had been planning on voting Democrat no matter what in '08, they would lose my vote.
See above. I think Dems are scared of her. If they’re not already, the Pubs will make sure they are by the time primaries roll around.
Of course, everything depends on what kind of campaign a candidate runs, who they’re running against, and what the “big” issues of the day are. Since we know none of this yet, this is all very idle speculation.
If that were true, Dole would have won in '96. It’s not that a Democrat has to be able to win the South, it’s that a Democrat has to be able to win in the South. That is, a Democrat has to be able to peel away two or three Southern states from the Republican column.
That is not to say that the South “controls” the elction, but rather that if your appeal as a Democratic candidate is broad enough to peel away a couple of Southern states, you are probably going to win.
Is it mathematically possible to win without the South? Yes, but that misses a larger truth: if your appeal is not broad enough to pick up, say, Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky, then you’re probably not going to win in Ohio and Missouri either. See Kerry, John.
Having said all that, I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton winning a single Southern state in the general election.
Well yeah, but you thought Kerry was electable. 
Depends on what you think happened in Ohio, don’t it? 
Well, now you know better.
Cattle futures?
Cattle futures. Her biggest political liability, opens her to plausible tu quoques.
[shrug] She already pretended to be a New Yorker and pulled it off.
I think Clinton can win. She’ll lose most of the South, but will have a chance in Florida, and perhaps Louisiana and Arkansas. She can be competitive in Ohio and hold the rest of the Kerry states. Like most recent presidential elections, the battle is really over a few states. Clinton isn’t going to win Mississippi or Texas and Republicans aren’t likely to win Massachussetts or New York.
I’m voting for her.
Not from Official Campaign Voices, no. You’ll see plenty on Fox News, radio talk shows, and the right-wing blogosphere.
That’s it? She did a commodities trade on credit in 1978? Meh.
More on the cattle futures thing here.
It just looks highly suspicious. In her husband’s first year as governor of Arkansas, Hillary turns a $1,000 initial investment into $100,000. It turned out she was getting investment advice and assistance from a friend and fellow attorney who also was outside counsel for Tyson Foods. It just looks like a favor by someone who might want a favor in return down the road.
There’s never been any proven impropriety. It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Oh, yes, I agree. I thought you meant, “In 2008 a conservative woman could theoretically be elected President.” I was just saying that given the current cultural climate, I would be shocked if a woman were elected in 2008 – on either side.
As far as when it eventually does happen… yes, she will most likely be conservative. Why? Because that’s less threatening to both conservatives and “middle of the road” folks in general.
The problem is that Hillary doesn’t really inspire anyone. If I vote for her in the general election, it will be because I want a Democrat in the White House, not because I necessarily want Hillary to be in office. Most of the people who vote for her in the primary will do so because she’s somehow considered the most “electable”, not because they necessarily like her.
Obama and Edwards, on the other hand, are candidates that I could actually get behind, instead of just place holders. There are plenty of reasons why I’d like to see them in office, instead of just a lack of any specific reasons why not.
Kerry had this problem to an extent, but there was such a passionate movement to get rid of Bush that it didn’t affect him quite so much. The 2008 nominee will not have that advantage.