That goes without saying.
But I still smile at the thought of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments her election would cause the right wing. Bubba’s Back!!!
I don’t really like her. I got this carpet bagger vibe from her when she ran for NY senate, and I just can’t shake it. Of course these days I think my top lock key could run the country pretty well, so give her a shot.
/won’t happen though
Stupid Democrats…
Run successful governors for POTUS, not senators.
If HRC (or any other women) wants a valid shot at POTUS, she’ll have to do a term or two as a governor of a state.
Preferably, go with a southern or mid-western state.
Specifically exclude these states: New York, Massachussetts, California.
Also, do avoid running one term Senators…
Frankly, I don’t buy this kind of demographic tactics. I don’t believe for a minute that Dukakis lost because he was from Massachusetts or that Kerry lost because he was a senator, and not a governor. It comes down to the actual candidate. Dukakis ran a really bad campaign and his personality was all wrong. Kerry lost through a combination of bad campaign and failure to answer the Bush campaign’s dirty pool in a timely or effective manner, plus he failed again to come across personality wise. Gore actually won in the voting booth but lost in the court room because he was not tough and ruthless enough in the court room or in the press.
Just keep thinking along these lines and you’ll see the Republicans put up a senator and win, and then put up a Massachusetts governor and win, and so on.
Let’s work backwards, shall we, say to 1976 (a good thirty years or so)?
Bush 43: Governor, Texas
Clinton 42: Governor, Arkansas
Bush 41: Legacy from Reagan, One-term former VP
Reagan 40: Governor, California
Carter 39: Governor, Georgia
Five of the last six POTUS are former governors…and the POTUS from Cali was a Republican…And the one non-Governor was a single term POTUS.
And where is your evidence that these characteristics were the cause of their victory or necessary to it? This is a trend, but in my opinion an over-hyped one. All the victors were also white men. Perhaps we should take a look to see whether they were all circumcised.
I don’t beleive that when people go to the voting booth, they are thinking, “Hm. X was a senator and Y was a governor. I’m going for the governor.” And ignoring all kinds of other factors, such as the candidates’ policies and how they successfully or not managed to put them across during the campaign while displaying a “presidential” personality. Show me some proof of that and maybe I’ll change my mind.
But my larger point is that so long as Democrats get lost in this kind of small-level mucking about with details, they’re going to keep losing, and one-by-one the Republicans will prove each of these theories wrong. What’s wrong with the Democratic party is not petty details regarding state of origin or resumes of its candidates. It’s big stuff, starting from a complete absence of a long-term strategy and day-to-day work on educating the public and building a movement and a complete unwillingness or inability to actually meet the Republicans on the political field of battle.
Governors, at least successful governors, have experience balancing a state budget, managing a comprehensive legislation program, share in their state-level party leadership, interact with (and possibly nominate or appoint) state judicial personnel.
As for the Democratic Party’s problem, the over-leveraging of the party by idealogues residing in certain coastal states and an overly left-leaning DNC consistently costs them elections.
The only times that the DP crawls out in recent history is when the moderates and centrists seize control from the DNC, most recetnly via the DLC.
This is how WJC did it, and this is how any recent future DP POTUS candidates will do it.
I did not! 
It’s certainly tough being a woman.
Look at the losers as well for more evidence -
Kerry - Senator (Mass)
Gore - VP, former Senator
Dole - Senator
Bush 41 (VP)
Dukakis - Governor, (Mass)
Mondale - Senator
This is more than a trend. A big part of the problem is that Senators have voting records that can be scrutinized for every inconsistency (“I voted for it before I voted against it”) and used against the candidate.
A long way too far to the right for me already. If I thought she would socialise healthcare (for starters - my list is pretty big). I would like to see a woman as POTUS but I doubt that the majority of American voters are ready for it at this stage (why they are not is another question).
This is a theory regarding who makes better presidents. It is not evidence that people lose elections because they were senators and not governors.
Yeah, this is standard boilerplate “help” from Republicans. Forget the fact that most of these conclusions are based on right-wing propaganda in the first place. Basically, the argument that Democrats can only win by trying to be more Republican with regard to ideology and policy. That one’s a loser too.
This is not evidence that these characteristics were deciding factors in any of these elections. Show me something other than a list. I can make lists too. Which candidates were taller? What were their star signs? What colour suits did they wear during debates?
Do you seriously think Mondale lost to Reagan because Mondale had been a senator and Reagan had been a governor? Can you really look at the 1984 campaign and seriously pick that out as an important factor at all? Same with the other races.
I have already acknowledged the facts you present. I do not believe that these facts are relevant with regard to who won or lost these elections. Politics is complicated. People are complicated. You can’t win elections by pretending that people make decisions based on these kinds of characteristics, especially when there are characteristics that are much more in evident during campaigns.
Gore did not lose the presidential election. He won the presidential election.
The problem with Senators is that the job is essentially a matter of bully pulpit/debating society. One can be a very partisan advocate of a party without much regard for the interest of the state.
Senators are very much creatures of their parties, rather than creatures of their states.
This is because the Senate was opened to popular election. The Senate was originally going to represent the states. The House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people.
Governors, even very partisan ones, are required to work with and compromise with both parties at the state level, with their state legislatures and with their state-level judiciaries. They must also try to play nice with their mayors.
Senators can cheerfully yammer on for decades, with little or no consequence.
This is a big strike against her in my book:
I agree with the chorus who say she’d doom the Dems’ chances of winning. Rove will probably try to make her win primaries, because she could be 2008’s gay marriage - the thing that’s irrelevant but will get lots of knee-jerk people to vote Republican.
The first woman president will be a Republican, or whatever the conservative party is at the time.
Oh Lord, not this again…
Why the need to have it both ways?
Have we? And who is this great Republican who stacks up so poorly against even the crappiest liberal?
We’ve seen a series of liberal or sometimes-seeming-to-be-liberal-or-at-least-somewhat-moderate Republicans – John McCain, Colin Powell, Lincoln Chaffee – fall in line behind the White House on a series of important issues. So to hell with “good” Republicans. There ain’t any.