She doesn’t offend me at all, I’d be fine with her. Her problem is that she is viewed as a bitch. She’s cold, puts up with a philandering husband for reasons of status, she moved to a state she’d never lived in because there was a winnable Senate seat open, etc.
These are not my opinions, this is the way regular people feel about her. Although most people can’t recall the details of it, they remember that she was responsible for some long-time White House staffers losing their jobs.
Simply put, there are few if any warm feelings associated with her. She didn’t do anything memorable in a good way. Laura Bush is seen as a nice, quiet, librarian. The elder Mrs. Bush was seen as funny and matronly. Hillary just doesn’t have anything like that.
The anti-Clinton Jihad didn’t really hurt Bill though (except his “personal honesty” numbers), so I don’t see why it would have hurt Hillary that much.
In someways I could see this helping her though. In the same way that the impression that Bush was a moron helped him when people saw that he could make it through a speech or debate without drooling on himself, people who have had 8 years to build up an image of Hillary as the BitchQueen in the absence of much exposure to the woman herself may be suprised when she doesn’t tear out Mark Warner’s still beating heart and devour it in front of his children.
She was really popular in the early years of the Clinton presidency, no? Again, I was fairly young, but wasn’t her high popularity the reason the Clinton administration decided to use her (unwisely, in retrospect) to hawk the universal health care plan?
Yeah, but the missuses Bush never got elected to office, nor is there any sign they’d be electable. Getting into office requires different skills than getting First Ladihood.
Are there any presidents that have been seen as nice and quiet, as warm and cuddly, in the way that the Bush ladies are and Hillary isn’t?
Certainly true, though Hillary hatred far preceedes her senate seat. Honestly I’m not sure that being a carpetbagger in anycase matters that much to most folks, doesn’t bother me in anycase (interestingly her possible 2008 opponent John McCain was also accused of carpetbagging during his first successful senate race)
Meh, true of any politician.
True, but that’s hardly uncommon. The current resident of the White House certainly had some family coattails to help him out, and that doesn’t seem to have scared off American voters. And it’s not like her husband is her only qualification, she’s been successful both as a lawyer and senator.
Dunno, I certainly think the White House is on her mind, but she seems to enjoy being a senator (and is apparently doing a good job at it, at least according to her constituants). If she looses a presidential race/primary in such a way that a future run is unlikely, I bet she will continue being a senator.
You mistrust her how? Do you think she is lying about something specific.
Certainly some people have this problem, but I don’t think in general sexism is prominent enough in the US anymore to make it impossible for a woman to win the presidency.
That is hardly a recusal. Sure she is smart but how do you figure she is a successful senator? Has she been able to get any of her agenda items passed by the senate?
I am a constituent and I don’t think she is doing a particularly good or bad job and I am sure if she lost a presidential bid she would try to keep her seat as a senator.
Nothing specific but the combination of the conditions of her ascendency to the senate (carpetbagging, coattail riding, opportinistic, calculated ascendency), and her higher than average susceptibility to polls, her support for the war, etc.
Maybe not IMPOSSIBLE but I would be surprised if she could hang on to all the blue states and even more surprised if she could win even a single red state.
This combination of factors just makes her unelectable, I wish she were but she’s not. I could see her as a Vice Presidential candidate because she would basically kick butt during the VP debates and would result in a huge Dem turnout to vote for the first woman VP without deflecting too many other votes but the top of the ticket is impossible. Then maybe the President has a stroke and everyone asks her to resign but she doesn’t and we have to deal with Bill Clinton as the First Gentleman and we can revive the show Commander in Chief.
As regards the OP, I would characterize the prospects for moderate centrists (assuming that Lieberman and Hilary are both moderate centrists) as “cautiously optimistic”, at least insofar as Connecticut is determinative.
The polls that I can discover seem to indicate that Lieberman enjoys a substantial advantage in a three-way race between himself, Lamont, and the Republican.
In other words, the Democratic primary voters are not very representative even of the general electorate in Connecticut. Thus I would be hesitant to believe that they point to any general trends in the nation. The voters nation-wide I would expect to be a good deal more centrist that either the primary-voting Dems of Lieberman’s home state, or the SDMB.
Yeah, she is trailing by a whopping 4%…and I don’t believe anyone has even offically declared yet.
As I mentioned in a post above, a lot of things can happen between now and the primary election/caucus. BTW, it looks like Nevada will be the second state in the primary process this year, following Iowa and before New Hampshire.
It’s mostly name recognition at this point, but it’s not all name recognition. If it were, Kerry would be doing better in those Iowa polls. It is meaningful that Hillary, though the presumtive “frontrunner,” trails in Iowa to a guy who (to my knowledge, at least) hasn’t been doing any active campaigning.
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton has zero chance of getting elected president in 2008. I’d like to say she has zero chance of getting nominated, but my party has done silly things before.
[hijack prompted by DMark’s post]
You know, the primaries should really all be on the same day in all the states - it’s just not right that the earliest states weigh so heavily purely because of their earliness. And the states all know it; they’re going to be going earlier and earlier so that THEY can each have the weight. Soon we’ll end up with the first primary taking place just before the previous election. :dubious:
I think we should go to a single, super-primary day when all states vote. Then we get the candidate the members of the parties want the most, NOT the one they latch on to because s/he did well in the earliest primary or causcus and therefore must be the most electable.
[/hijack]
With respect to the actual debate, what -spoke just said. Thanks for saving me the typing!
I think we want stggered primaries. Otherwise the Candidate with the most pre-existing name recognition would win. I do think that we could choose the early primary states more carefully, perhaps it would make sense to let the purple states go first.
