Does that differ so much from the Clinton Admin’s health-care reform package? I know it never included British-style “socialized medicine” nor Canadian-style single-payer health insurance.
The mouth-foaming right hates Hillary Clinton for the simple fact that she (a) has a brain, and (b) wasn’t afraid to use it as a First Lady. Toss in the fact that she was a Democrat, and it was political dynamite. If Hillary had pulled a Rosalyn or a Nancy and relegated herself to being a glorified Presidential prop, to be trotted out during photo-ops, she wouldn’t have drawn half the criticism she did.
But that’s all water under the bridge now, isn’t it?
Isn’t it?
First question shouldn’t be can she win though, but can she do the job?
I think the answer is obviously no as many people still dislike her. I dislike both Hillary and Bill Clinton but my mouth isn’t filled with the foam of rabid rage. As it stands right now I wouldn’t bet on Hillary being able to win the presidency in 2008. Vice president might be a more realistic option.
She is a polarizing figure. Right or wrong most people seem to either love her or hate her. Of course a lot can happen between now and 2008 so I guess we’ll see.
Marc
But Hillary is NOT a polarizing figure. There is no deep and abiding love for HRC on the left to match the foam-flecked rage and hatred felt for her on the right. I don’t think the CENTER is all that worked up about her, either. It’s just the right, and more specifically, the far right, that has this strong emotional response to her – and I agree with rjung that most of that hate is fuelled by sexism, subconscious or otherwise.
The right’s claim that HRC is so widely hated that she could never win an election is pure projection on their part. They know they hate her five times more than they hate any other Democratic political figure, but that doesn’t mean their hatred is automatically spread across the political spectrum. I suspect it’s concentrated on the right end of the political spectrum, and will mostly stay there unless the right wing political propaganda machine can hoodwink the center into believing HRC is the Satan incarnate the right sees her as. But since the right wing political machine will be spewing its bile full-time against WHOEVER the Dems put forth for President, this is a moot point.
You know very well that those two questions are not connected in any practical way. There are the skills and qualities and characteristics you need to win elections, and there are those you need to govern effectively, and IMO the area of Boolean intersection between the two is very small.
That said, I see no reason why HRC could not be as competent a president as her husband was. Whether she could be as effective a president is, again, a different question, complicated by a degree of fierce personal opposition not even Bill ever had to face. The far right would block her, try to find grounds to impeach her, scuttle her programs and proposals at every opportunity even in cases where that were obviously the worst thing for the country and for the far right’s own voter base.
Good point. HRC isn’t like Reagan, in that Reagan had a lot of fierce supporters, and a lot of people who really hated his guts. HRC as a personality doesn’t have many people with a deep and fierce amiration of her as a person.
Not many people admire her? Realy?
Granted, she was chosen by “only” 16% of the respondents, but still no other woman scored higher-- not even Laura Bush. To pretend that she’s just some woman out there is ignoring the facts.
What are the facts? She’s the most nationally well-known female name in politics. Who are her female competitors in the same field?
Just the fact that Laura Bush came in third, solely for the honour of being married to the current POTUS, and tv personality Oprah Winfrey, beat her out for second place, tells me all I need to know about the criteria for this poll.
Sad for the current status of US women, but what else are you trying to imply?
A statement was made that she HRC does not garner much admiration. Why don’t you challenge that statement and ask for facts to back that up? I simply showed that she has been the most admired woman in the US for 2 straight years. I’ve also shown that she is the TOP pick among DEMOCRATS (not all voters, just Democrats) for the presidential nomination in '08. I think the facts speak for themselves. Hillary is in the game, if she wants to be. She’s more in the game than any other Democrat at this point.
John, have you never heard of “name recognition”?
Most admired woman at 16% total vote of most admired American doesn’t equal a sure Democratic Presidential nomination 4 years down the road. I won’t put words in your mouth, but somehow I’m sure you’d agree with that. Please advise if I’m wrong.
She is the top pick for Democrats in 2004, for a nod in 2008. How much credence should we give to that? As example, I give you Howard Dean as the top assured pick for the 2004 primaries, in 2004. How did that prediction work out?
It’s just too soon for this.
In any case, as a NY Senator, and a nationally-known figure, I agree that she does have high ratings. Do you really think that matters much in regards to her chances as a Pres. pick in 2008???
I never said it did. My response about “most admired” was simply to refute the claim made above. See my post and it should be clear.
I never said I thought she’d get the nomination. Only that I thought she could contend for it. There are many posters here, like elucidator, who continually claim that HRC’s viability as a presidential candidate is nothing more than “Republican porn”. My main thrust is to demonstrate that that statement is pure bullshit. HRC is a viable presidential candidate, among Democrats. Whether she will choose to run remains to be seen.
Absolutely. I said the exact that in my first post to this thread.
I think she can be a viable candidate in the Democratic primaries if she so chooses. Nothing more, nothing less.
Elvis: Ever heard how much mileage you get with name recognition? I don’t understand what your point is. Yes, HRC gets lots of notice because of her association with WJC. So what? Do you think Arnold would have won the governorship without name recognition? Do you think “W” would have had any political career at all w/o latching on to Dad’s legacy? Look how many Kennedys made it into high public office. Ignore name recognition at your own peril.
The point is that you can’t tell shit this far away from an election. Poll responses aren’t based on support but on name recognition, until that part of the election cycle where people (most of whom are not junkies like you and me) start to pay attention. Repeat: The poll you cite, and any others you hear about for the next 2.5 years at least, mean nothing of substance.
Read annaplurabelle’s post about Dean.
Or try this: How often does name recognition 3 years ahead of an election translate into actual support on Election Day? Got any examples to offer us? President John Glenn would like to talk to you about that, for instance.
Do you not understand, that coming from you, it only proves elucidator’s point (yes I know, you are not a self-identified republican, but still…)
Look, I don’t know how all the personal feuds came into existence, but it is obvious to me, a political neophyte, that you are associated with the right-wing, if not directly than as apologist for. If it’s an unfair assessment, then I’d think HRC’s nomination in 4 years would be the last thing you’d be concerned with.
Then again, maybe you just like bucking trends. Okay by me. But I’ll still call 'em as I see 'em.
I’d ask you again: What high profile Democrat is pushing HRC’s future nomination? Anyone who isn’t a right-wing pundit???
If you just want to say “it’s too early to make any predictions” then fine. Don’t play the game here. If, on the other hand, you are predicting that HRC won’t be a viable candidate 3 years hence, then I think you are mistaken. I’m sure there will be several Democratic candidates in the primaries that we’d never predict right now. I’m also certain that if HRC wants to be one of the candidates, she will be, AND she’ll get lots of support.
I agree that it’s too early now to predict who the winner will be. It’ll be to early in Dec '07, too. But don’t think it’s too early to say HRC will be a top contender, provided she choosed to run. I actually suspect the Republicans will cut her to threads if she wins the nomination, and maybe Democrats will be smart enough to realize that early on. But I’m not so sure about that. Remember, they picked Kerry because they thought he could beat Bush.
No, John, it is you who are interpreting name recogntion to mean actual support. It doesn’t. You’d do well to back down from this claim, often repeated by rightist “commentators” as it is, that Hillary is broadly supported as a Presidential candidate within her own party.
Yes, she’d have *some * degree of real support if she chose to run (“lots”, you say? Hmm…). But there is no factual basis upon which to predict that she will run, and certainly none upon which to predict that she’d win. If you’d like to place a bet with Bricker on the 2008 nominees, I’m sure he’d take it. But don’t be a sucker.
Do you not understand that it’s NOT coming from me? That’s why I keep quoting polls among DEMOCRATS. You can dismiss them by saying it’s too early for such polls, but they are the only facts we have right now. Unless, of course, you want to limit this discussion to opinion only.
I agree that many Republicans would LOVE to have Hillary run. What you don’t seem to understand is that that fact is not inconsistent with the fact that many Democrats also want her to run.
What high profile Democrat is pushing ANYONE for the '08 nomination? OTOH, we know that a good chunk of the rank and file want HRC to run. She’s also able to raise more money than any other Democrat right now. I can show you 1 + 1, but if you can’t see that it equals 2, I really can’t do anything more.