True, but with Hillary, the RWAM’s smear tactics will stick long enough to destroy her and the Democratic Party.
Hillary is smart, but she’s also a bland, boring pedant with little warmth or authenticity. She gets my vote for Wonk of the Week, but president? Not a chance. She’s Dukakis with breeder’s hips and a used car salesman’s lips.
For those who disagree, why not outlined her credentials and track record of success?
You hit the nail on the head there. There are some people who say that Hillary just rubs them the wrong way, but any Democratic candidate will rubt them the wrong way. It doesn’t matter that the right-wing smear machine came up with “evidence” of the Clintons committing all sorts of horrendous crimes during their 8 years in office; they’ll come up with “evidence” of any Democratic candidate committing all sorts of horrendous crimes.
What we need is a candidate who simply turns aside the smears and keeps on campaigning. Remember that when the Republicans were in their most fervent attack mode, Bill Clinton’s approval rating hovered around 80%. The public is smart enough to know that rabid partisan attacks are just a sign of desperation on the part of the Republicans. Clinton won because he had clear stances on the big issues and stuck to his guns. Kerry lost, by contrast, because he couldn’t say anything that made sense with regards to the two biggest issues (the Iraq War and Social Security).
Nevertheless, the Democrats won’t nominate Hillary. First, because she’s useful for holding down that Senate seat in New York, and second because there are better options available. Options that look more like tough-minded political outsiders, rather than long-term Washington insiders. The best options being:
Nominate Bill Richardson
Convince Rudy Guiliani to jump ship and run as a Democrat.
Nominate Barak Obama
Nominate what’s-his-face from Montana
I’ll take this moment to remind people that I’ve offered to wager at odds of 2 to 1 on Hillary’s nomination in 2008, and no one took me up on it. The offer is still open.
Cite? I don’t like Hillary. I never have. But I sure like Chuck Schumer. My other senator. And he’s a Democrat. I even helped to derail what could have become a campaign issue for his re-election.
I hope you mean this in terms of she does decent work there for the party, rather than she’s the only that can save NY’s other Senate seat from going to the bad guys. NY is, for all the Republicanism of the upstate areas, a fairly solidly Democratic state. Pataki is not what I’d consider the mainstream of current Republican thinking.
The thing that pisses me off most about Hillary is that the few times I tune in enough to see how she’s representing my interests (upstate NYer) she’s choosing what I consider some rather wrong-headed or short-sighted long-term policies to endorse. Not that she ignores constituent service, but that she’s eager to support things that I don’t think are good ideas: Her support for a US casino in the Buffalo area helped put the Seneca casino in Niagara Falls on the map, and I think that the plethora of local casinos does not generate wealth, but rather act as a tax on the poorest people, by making it something available to local persons. And the violence on the Onadaga reservation since Turning Stone started to hit it big doesn’t make me any happier. Then there’s her support for a northern border patrol, for “Homeland Security.” I believe that this is simply a way to make GS jobs beholden to the Democratic party, and the actual effect for protection, or even customs enforcement is going to be negligble.
I don’t know that there’s anyone else who will make a good candidate to oppose her seat in NY, and as the incumbent, she’s probably going to make it back. I just don’t really like her policies.
I do, however, hope that the Democrats can nominate someone I can get behind. I don’t want another four years of this religious right Republicanism. I didn’t want it this past election, either, just couldn’t get behind Kerry. (Besides, it was a wash - NY voted Kerry anyways.)
Hillary would be a bad choice simply because in order to win more voters she would lose some as well. The Republicans push the flip-flop angle so often because it works. There is a sizable number of voters(mostly R but a lot of D too) who think someone who believes very strongly and resolutly in their opinions is a good leader by nature. And in order to win more votes Hillary would have to back off and compromise on previous positions, which would damage her character is the eyes of those other voters.
The best option would be do do the same thing Bush did in 99. Pick someone out of the who was few previous recorded opinions that can be used against him/her, but has “big ideas”.
Let me preface this by saying Hilary won’t win the nomination. More on that in a bit.
May I ask a question of those who believe there is a solid core of voters who absolutely will not vote for her because she is (a) a woman who is (b) Hilary Rodham Clinton? My question is, who thinks these voters were likely to vote Democrat in the first place? It seems to me that while there is a substantial group of the public who hates her, this group would consist of hard-core Rush Limbaugh GOP fellaters who would never vote for her in the first place, no?
But she won’t win the nomination. The Democratic grassroots is becoming increasingly angry with her and other moderate Dems who gave and continue to give President Bush a free pass on entering Iraq. This group will become increasingly vocal within the party and will gladly look elsewhere for a presidential nominee; my money right now would be on Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Yes, I used the word “also” to mean “in addition to his national experience.”
I didn’t think you were saying that. I was saying that I don’t necessarily believe that more time in politics will make him a better leader, though it probably would make him more likely to win.
Actually, there are better, more substanstive theories on why voters don’t elect Senators.
One is that, as a Senator, one is required to have public opinions on every national matter, or else be considered less than stalwart (see John Edwards). Governors, by comparison, only need to have opinions on local issues, allowing them to be vague and slippery on issues that kill other nominees. (Dean could say whatever he wanted to on his opinions on the Iraq War; as Governor of Vermont, it’s not like anyone ever asked him about it before he ran for President. Kerry, by comparison, had plenty of votes on Iraq and on other defense funding issues to be crucified with.)
While I think a Hillary candidacy has its problems, it’s important to remember that for a lot of people – not just hard-core Dems – the name “Clinton” is associated with the peace, prosperity and general good government that occurred under Clinton. Hillary might have a surprising pull for MOR voters.
I have to give this a resounding second. This, to me, is the most important issue preventing me from getting behind Hilary (with whom I really have no problem on either a personal or political level that I don’t have with almost every other politician). Think about it. Voters born 1988, when Bush the Elder was elected, will be twenty years old in 2008. This will be their first presidential vote. Their entire lives will have been spent with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, and if Robot Arm’s scenario comes to pass, that will still be their choice. This is a bad precendent to set and it reinforces the feeling that there is an increasingly insular aristocracy that rules America and you have to be born into it in order to have a chance to rule or to be a big success. And that is as unAmerican an idea as I can concieve of.
His name is Mark Warner of Virginia. He is probably the only candidate that can beat Hill for the DEM nomination. The problem for derailing her is not only universal name recognition, but nearly universal fund raising. Of course, I made a fool of myself by saying, a week or so before the Iowa caucus, that no one could derail Howard Dean. YEAHHHHHH!
Here. Here. I am a life long Republican. I voted for Dole over Clinton in 1996 despite thinking Clinton did a fairly good job. [wistfully]In 1996 we actually had good choices. Even Perot was somewhat acceptable. [/wistfully]
Since then? Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.
I voted for Bush in 2000. More because I didn’t want Al Gore to be president.
But caveat emptor, I suppose. This administration has made me very unhappy in both policy choices and implementation (I had used the word “execution” here, but I was afraid people would think I meant the DP. It was pretty clear where Bush stood on that issue!)
In 2004, with a choice between Kerry (Douche) and Bush (turd), I wrote in “ABSTAIN” as my vote. Yeah. Stick it to the man!
I am what people would today call a moderate or RINO, I suppose. But I am really a traditional conservative. I find the current blend of “conservatives” (really “reactionaries”) disagreeable. I just cannot find much common ground with my party. The only reason I am a centrist is because the GOP has moved so far right, that it FEELS like the middle.
I will volunteer to campaign for McCain if he runs (he will) and I would be excited to vote for him. Even when I disagree with him, I admire his position. It seems like he wakes up every morning without a pre-set agenda.
But since I think the far right hates him as much as they hate Hillary, I am worried that I’ll be stuck with a lousy choice. And if the GOP goes and nominates someone too far right, I think I may vote for a DEM even if it is a douche (Hillary) as a protest vote. I am not sure I can remain in a party that calls John McCain or Chuck Hagel “liberal.”
My guess is that the GOP will nominate Senator George Allen of Virginia. Kind of threads the needle between far right and acceptable to the middle.
I would say that Hillary would just invigorate the right but let’s face it, the right is invigorated. No matter who ran for president for the dems the right will go after them with both barrels.
Obama will have only slightly less expierence than JFK.
But when it comes down to it, I hope the Dems nominate someone that speaks with a southern accent.
I agree with what Zebra wrote. Candidates like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry weren’t all that bad - but once they became front runners the Atwater/Rove/Whoever machine worked them over and turned them into the scum of the Earth. They know that they just have to make enough accusations of anything - true, half-true, or false - and eventually some of the mud will start to stick. It’s like somebody posted earlier - they don’t know anything specifically bad, they just have an uneasy feeling.
The candidates I mentioned above made the mistake of trying to ignore the attacks. The Clintons didn’t; they fought back. And that’s why they get elected. And Hillary Clinton has another advantage; the conservatives have already used their best material against her. Anything they try to hit her with now will either be “old news” or the second tier. So Hillary Clinton is probably the strongest Democratic candidate for 2008.
If you want to see something get done in this country…
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I still don’t know a ton about Warner, but I’ve thought he sounded appealing since I heard about him during Kerry’s VP search. I hope he gives it a run.
W can’t run again in '08.
If anything, I hope she goes for VP. Given eight years to get used to a female second in command would probably make it easier for her or another woman to go for the top spot later.
I’ve heard that she’s unpopular to a lot of people, but I wonder how true that is. She apparently fought a lot of unpopularity during her senate campaign, but gained popularity after being elected and on the job for awhile.
If she does run for pres, I would bet that the far right would stay away from gender, as it could backfire pretty easily, and instead attack her as a socialist based on her past healthcare efforts.
See post
#31.
I missed that. Thanks!