I haven’t watched news shows in a couple of weeks, but back when I was watching them, a lot of people were saying Hillary was a frontrunner for the Democratic candidacy. On an episode of Chris Matthews, people seemed to be regarding her as the “of course” candidate–a total shoe in.
Yet I have not one single Democrat friend who is very fond of her, esp. as a candidate.
I myself, after having seen her on a couple of talk shows (Daily Show and I forget the other one) am not impressed.
(I haven’t read her books or studied her policy though so my jury’s still somewhat out.)
Anyway, my question is, is my impression correct that people regard her as the frontrunner for the Democrats? If so, are there many people, for example, here who are Democrats who are happy about this?
She hasn’t declared, of course, but you’d probably have to say that she is a frontrunner at this stage - of course, at this stage, most voters aren’t thinking about their votes very much and they don’t know who is going to run, so that doesn’t mean much of anything. She’s got more name recognition than any other candidate, and probably a strong base of support within the party.
However, it’s worth noting that the candidate with the widest name recognition in 2004 was Joe Lieberman.
Nah – we just like to let the news media say that because it gets the right-wingers so absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth wildly mad!
Actually, I think she can probably be re-elected as a New York Senator for many terms to come. And with the increasing influence of her senority in the Senate, would allow her to have much influence for many years.
I think Hillary Clinton would be one of the best possible Democratic nominees from the perspective of the Republican Party. Other than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, it’s hard to think of a candidate with less chance of winning. About the only Republicans that would not beat her would be anybody named Bush, Newt Gingrich, or David Duke.
I’ve often heard that you must win at least one Southern State to win the White House. That just ain’t happening for Hillary. The woman is despised down here by all conservatives and most moderates. If she’s the nominee, the NRA will have a field day running “Hillary will take your guns away” attack ads.
I don’t want to see another Republican President in 2008, but I’m not sure the Dems can field an electable candidate. Right now, I’d say the next President is likely to be John McCain.
I’ve read opinion columns (and agree with them) that the Right likes to tell their followers that Hillary is the front runner. The resulting grassroots rage makes them contribute more money to Republican coffers.
It seems to me that even the Knee Jerk Foaming at the Mouth Dems (at least, in OKC)were saying that Clinton should bow out of the 1996 elections, because he didn’t stand a chance of winning. All of this talk of Hillary not being able to be elected make me more sure than ever that she’ll be Prez in 08 (Yes, I know she won’t be until 09…).
I’d rather have HRC as president than any Pub, but she wouldn’t be my first choice. She’s DLC all the way, just as much a business-whore as Bill was. That said, I think if she could get past the “unelectable” meme and snag the nomination, she could beat any Pub including McCain. She is politically savvy enough that she’s been working to repackage herself as a less of a “liberal,” which she never was in the first place anyway. Her politics are at most five degrees to the left of Bill’s, more’s the pity. Hell, even now, she won’t even take a clear stand against the war. But even a lot of conservatives have fond memories of how well off the country was under Bill’s administration, and they grow fonder with every year under W. Yes, she is electable.
It may be different in other parts of the South, but, except among the very worst of the knuckle-draggers, Hillary is not that unpopular here in Florida. Granted, in cultural terms Florida is far from typical of the South – this state is partly Southern, partly a Yankee colony, partly Latino, partly retirees-from-all-over. A close friend of mine is a retired, business-conservative Republican, Jewish stockbroker from New York who yearns for the chance to pull the lever for either HRC or Condi Rice, and he’s not sure which he’d pick.
Why is HRC so widely hated? Other than what I’ve already mentioned, what is there about her to hate? I’ve been wondering that since 1992, we’ve hashed it out many times on this Board, and I still don’t get it.
It seems to me that the people who think Hillary Clinton would be a good candidate are those who are deeply into Democratic politics or those from slam-dunk blue states. As long as we have the electoral college, every state counts.
Her name recognition is not an advantage in the majority of states. She is reviled by the right and disliked by many Democrats.
To win in 08, a lot of people who voted Republican in '04 are going to have to switch, and having the name Clinton on the Democratic side is going to make it much harder.
I’m in Colorado, and I’d put the chances of this state switching to the Democrats at 50%. If Clinton is the nominee, I’d put it at a big fat 0%.
Why the leadership doesn’t see this is a huge mystery to me.
If he made it to the general election, a lot of moderate Democrats would vote for him. But I seriuously doubt McCain can win enough Republican primaries to be nominated. Many red-staters consider him a RINO.
Frankly, I always saw Hillary as a nanny-politican. “I know what’s good for you, you don’t, so take your medicine.”
That’s what bothers me about her. Now, I don’t have the cites to back that up at the moment, but I think I could find evidence of that in her history if I worked at it.
The DINO charges against Bill were never as vehement as RINO characterizations against McCain. It’s a matter of degree; a lot of Republicans hate McCain as much as they hate Hillary.
“Name recognition” isn’t always positive; in her case it may not be.
Her performance in a state election may not be of much help to her in a national election.
Again, potentially a sizeable negative.
That will help.
The first woman president will have to be conservative, not centrist, in order to overcome the perceived disadvantage of being a woman. She will have to present herself as tough without coming across as a bitch – America’s Margaret Thatcher, if you will. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is working against a negative reputation on the national level that stems from what some see as excessive interference in her husband’s administrations – a reputation that, in fairness, I personally don’t think is merited. But it is inarguable that she is working to overcome negative perceptions. This would be hard enough for a man to do; I don’t think it’s something she, as a woman, will be allowed to do.
Note that this has more to do with the circumstances under which I think the U.S. populace will elect any woman as president, than it does with a gender-neutral evaluation of Ms. Clinton’s fitness to hold that office.
No, she’s not a frontrunner. She’s a “straw man,” the one the DNC is putting out there to distract the GOP until a solid Democratic candidate can emerge. Don’t expect much of an effort here; the Dems are biding their time, getting their act together for the next decade. The big fight between Howard Dean as DNC chairman and the party’s chief fundraiser (I can’t recall his name right now) is all about Dean trying to create a vision for the party’s future. Dean wants Democrats all over the country to start feeling good about being liberals again, so young turks like Barak Obama will someday have a reasonable shot at the presidency. To that end, he’s spending money like crazy so reasonably good Democratic candidates will come forward and run in the state and Congressional races and start winning again.
Now, remember that, as much as conservatives despise her (and largely BECAUSE conservatives despise her) Hillary Clinton is the darling of the party, but everybody knows she’s simply not electable in a presidential race. And yes, it has everything to do with her gender. So the DNC is letting her become the face of the party, largely to excite the rank and file and get us to open our checkbooks to local (or more local) young candidates. And it’s working. Here in Colorado, Angie Paccione’s campaign is working hard to get Hillary – not Bill, but Hillary – to attend a fundraiser, not so much because Paccione needs the funds (although it couldn’t hurt) but in the hopes that Hillary’s cachet will rub off on Paccione. As a Democrat, I’m pretty excited about that and I hope it happens.
I hope **Oakminster’s ** right – I’d love to see John McCain in the White House. I can’t think of a man who deserves it more or who would do a better job. I think the Republicans have a lock on the presidency for at least two more terms and the best the rest of us can hope for is that our fellow Americans become a helluvalot brighter in the next couple of years and elect a real statesman to the job.
We must hang around with different Republicans. A lot of the them don’t like McCain, sure, but I don’t know any party-Republican who hates McCain as much as they hate Ms. Clinton. Any one who would speak in terms of “hating” her (as a political matter) hates her worse than anyone else. It’s often an almost irrational dislike; and it’s the precise visceral, irrational nature of the dislike that I think Ms. Clinton will have the hardest time combating. You can moderate your stance, you can change everything from your day job to your hairstyle, but if some people just don’t like you (because of your gender or who your husband is or some other quality), it’s extremely difficult to make them change their minds.
Ah ah. Bear in mind the question. Is Hillary the apparent frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
All of those points I cited are tremendous pluses in acheiving the nomination.
Her name recognition is tremendous among democrats. This makes the others have an uphill battle (except maybe Kerry at this point).
Margin of victory in state level offices promotes positive recognition and perception in the electorate.
If you think Bill Clinton isn’t a plus in democratic circles that’s just silly. He’s still testing at 58-60%. Hell, he and Obama were the biggest draws at the 2004 election. He’s a wildly popular, two term ex-president of her party. If he says ‘Vote Hill’ a lot of the delegates are going to vote Hill.
Money never hurts.
I realize the ‘it has to be a conservative’ meme has been out there for both blacks and women but when it comes to the nomination that’s out the window. And I’m not actually sure that it’s correct in the first place. Could Jesse Jackson get elected? No. But could a center black politician do so? Sure.
