First you say—quite correctly in my opinion—that running on an “I’m not Bush” platform is the wrong way to go. Despite the fact that i would have voted for him over Bush, i thought Kerry’ campaign was awful, and his platform was mediocre at best.
But what puzzles me is the second half of your post. If Hillary does indeed run in 2008, why must it necessarily be an “ignoble, disastrous defeat”? After all, you’ve already taken the position that the platform itself is important, and yet your criticism of Hillary Clinton’s possible candidacy seems not to be based at all on actual issues. Surely, going by your own logic, if she runs on a soild, convincing platform there’s no reason that she can’t win?
Whatever else anyone thinks of Hillary Clinton, anyone with more than three functioning neurons has to concede that she’s an incredibly intelligent woman and a savvy politician. While it may indeed turn out that she runs on an “I’m not Bush” platform, surely it’s a bit too early to be making definitive statements about her campaign strategy and about her likely defeat when she hasn’t even officially entered the race.
I agree. I thought that was odd too. Hillary certainly won’t be running on an ‘I’m not Bush’ platform. She has her own agenda and is married to a guy who is arguably a political genius (though of the slimy sort IMHO). Also, she has a pretty good ‘pro-war’ record during the Iraq conflict that can’t be used against her (by Republicans at least), has a reasonbly good Senate record…and was even involved in getting a computer game banned (well, having it changed to Adults Only), which should score some points somewhere. All in all I’m not seeing an AUTOMATIC ‘ignoble, disastrous defeat’…I’m seeing a viable and solid candidate. Personally I think she’d make a better VP candidate than as the main ticket, but thats just me.
No, it makes perfect sense, but for a different reason. It signals that the Democrats will try to win an election in a basically conservative country with a liberal candidate.
This presents major problems, as 2004, 2000, 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1972 should have demonstrated by now. Hell, Carter almost lost in 1976, after the Republican Party did its level best to commit electoral suicide.
Now, Democrats can win, but they have to strip away moderate votes and moderate states to do so. And they can’t do this with candidates that are too liberal under normal circumstances. Perhaps they can under abnormal ones, but that’s pinning your electoral hopes on the country’s failure, and is a position I wouldn’t want to test.
I’m not persuaded that Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy would be ignoble or disastrous. As a senator, I think she’s done a good job of carving out a relatively centrist role. She’s certainly placed herself to the right of Dean, Pelosi, Kucinich, and that crowd.
I don’t think anyone is going to be running on an “I’m not Bush” platform in 2008. Bush isn’t running; neither is Cheney. For the first time since 1968 (IIRC) neither an incumbent President nor an incumbent vice-President is going to be running. Should be interesting.
Hilary needs, in my opinion, to run on an “I’m not Bill” platform. Somehow she will have to distance herself both from his sleaze, and stuff like the cattle futures and Travelgate and the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy[sup]TM[/sup]. My perception is that this is what she is up to in the Senate - building for herself a centrist portfolio of her own.
Should be an interesting election. I wonder if Hilary’s name recognition will build her an insurmountable lead in the primaries, so she can concentrate on whoever the Republicans pick, or if she will be bloodied up and have to struggle the way the Dems in 2004 did.
Hillary certainly has a lot of “liberal baggage” attached to her-- some undeserving and some deserving. And, her adoptive state of NY isn’t going to help her in the South. But… she’s doing a very good job of positioning herself as a reasonable centrist with a consistent record. I give her a lot more of a chance to win in '08 than I would’ve given her 2 years ago. It will be interesting to see how she votes on Roberts, although I’m not sure I could accurately deconstruct what a yes or a no vote would mean in terms of how she’s positioning herself politically. That’s a tough one. But Schumer, Biden, Bayh and Clinton will all be trying to outmanuever each other on that one, and the next one, and the next…
The reason I think that Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous candidate in '08 is because IMO, she is far to polarizing a figure to make a successful run for the White House. She may be trying to seem more centerest lately, but the party as a whole is not, and she is too firmly identified in the public’s eye as being a solid to the core liberal first and foremost and a party woman to boot (true or not) to change the way she is perceived now. A lot depends on who the Republicans run, of course, but a credible Republican candidate beats her handily and if they come up with a really good one, she’ll be massacred.
That’s silly. The only people who hate Bill Clinton are people who wouldn’t vote for Hillary in a million years no matter what platform she ran on. As far as I know, Clinton remains a popular president (well, ex-president).
Actually, I think her credentials as a Southerner are better than those as a Northerner. Being First Lady of Arkansas trumps being a carpetbagger, IMO.
Definitely.
Yes indeed. But, FWIW, I predict she will vote to confirm, if for no other reason than to score some indirect pro-life points. And the Democrats, at least to date, are not getting much traction painting Roberts as an extremist.
I suspect Hilary can treat the radical feminists and pro-abortionists as Reagan did the religious right - they are so far into her pocket that they can be taken for granted. She doesn’t need to score any points with them; they ain’t going anywhere else. And she can position herself as a centrist by quietly voting for a Supreme Court justice who, so far, looks quite moderate.
This is a hard spot for me with Hilary. If she could only convince me that she really means what she says now. Back when she was [del]co-President[/del] First Lady, her big idea was a federal takeover of the health care system. Did she mean it then, or does she mean her centrist positions now? And which will she implement as President?
Well, I think there is a group who would vote for Hilary if they thought she was different from her husband. As for Bill’s popularity, Carter got the Peace Prize, and I would be surprised if anyone tried to run on his coat tails. I think you are overstating the level of both Bill’s popularity and hatred of him, at least as it will be in 2008.
Nobody knows what will happen between now and then for Hilary either, of course. Or who the Republican nominee might be. Thus I disagree both with those who say Hilary is a shoo-in and those who say she doesn’t have a chance.
I see. So the problem has now shifted, in your mind at least, from the Democrats’ lack of policy, to the polarizing nature of Hillary Clinton in the minds of some Americans. You made your original statement about Clinton in the context of Democratic policies, but have now shifted it to being about people’s personal reactions to Hillary Clinton. Nice moving of the goalposts.
Why don’t you make up your mind. Is it politics or perceptions that should govern the choice of a candidate? Or is it, perhaps, that they should only choose someone that you personally find acceptable?
Not only that, but i think your analysis of the Democratic Party’s current positions is fundamentally flawed. The Democrats, despite the presence of Dean, Kucinich, and a few others, are, and have been for quite some time now, a centrist party. They are certainly not a party of the liberal/left end of the political spectrum. Sure, they’re further to the left than the current position of mainstream politics as defined by Bush and his incredibly conservative doppelgangers in Congress, but that doesn’t mean their positions are radical in any way.
It’s amazing how, with the political center in Washington constantly moving to the right, people still have the gall to claim that mainstream Democrats are a liberal/left party.
[pedantic correction]
Actually, Hubert Humphrey was the sitting VP in 1968. You have to go back to 1952 (Governor Stevenson vs. General Eisenhower) for an election not involving a sitting president or vice-president.
[/pedantic correction]
Hillary, and for that matter her colleagues on both sides of the aisle; Kerry, Bayh, McCain and Frist - may get their party’s nomination - but the odds of them winning in 2008 are slim. The American people don’t usually put sitting Senators into the White House (Kennedy & Harding are the exceptions) because they see Senators for what they are; do-nothing, debate team hacks.
Look for Richardson or Warner vs. a GOP Governor or mayor.
…Unless of course the Bush Administration carries out its evil ‘Keep the Neo-cons in Power’[sup]TM[/sup] policy - where Cheney steps down for ‘health reasons’ while an insider like Condoleeza Rice grabs the rei(g)n in the VP’s office.
I think you missed my argument. Arguments that the Iraq War was handled utterly incompetently, for example, *are *arguments about Kerry’s positions (Kerry would not have gone in so hastily, would not have appointed such fools to run the CPA, would not have said he knew something to be true when in fact he only guessed it, etc.). Again, as I’ve shown several times now, criticism of an opponent for not having certain qualities (honesty, say) is an argument for one’s preferred candidate. Little time needed to be spent on what Kerry would do differently – to many Democrats, if he did absolutely nothing in the White House but twiddle his thumbs it would have been a better alternative than Bush’s presidency.
And nowhere have I said that it ought to be a winning strategy. I’ve just been arguing against your original explicit and implicit claims that SDMB Democrats don’t have any sort of platform and that there style is to just repeat unsubstantiated attacks.
If you want to talk about the strategy of an implicit platform via criticism of Bush that’s fine. I don’t think it’s a winner either, but I don’t think it mattered in the last election. In my view, which is supported by polling evidence, Kerry lost because too many American people didn’t know basic facts that both sides accept as true (in addition to anti-gay and pro-choice sentiment).
In general, I think that a strategy based on pointing out foreign policy blunders is unlikely to succeed because most Americans don’t really care all that much about foreign countries. What’s more, Americans want optimistic rhetoric, not criticism.
This argument was about your claim that the Democrats have no platform. I think I’ve proved my point on that issue.
Do you have any debating tactic that does not consist of accusing your opponent of “moving the goalposts”? You must have that phrase hot keyed you overuse it so much. In any event, what I said what the Hillary’s recent efforts towards the center will come to naught-unless the party moves with her, and so far I haven’t seen that happening- because she is already so identified with the liberal wing of the party that she won’t be able overcome that stigma in the public’s mind. Which, incidentally, is the same thing I’ve been saying all along.
I’ve said nothing about what should govern the choice of a candidate. I’ve not indicated one way or the other how I personally feel about Hillary. Why the repressed hostility, hummm? What I am talking about is the fact that perceptions DO govern how a majority of people chose to vote. Wishing it wasn’t so will not make it any less of a fact.
And as long as the Democrats keep telling themselves that, they will continue to be baffled as to they continue to keep losing elections. But thats OK, it’s not the Democrats fault, it’s everybody else’s. The poor, poor Democrats are just so misunderstood. :rolleyes: I’ve been a registered Democrat all my life and it sure would be nice to have a viable party again instead of the same old collection of liberal idiots and ivory tower geezers whose idea of reasoned debate is to viciously attack anyone who, in the apt words of another poster from this thread, doesn’t drink all of their Kool-Aid and then ask for seconds.
I’d just like to toss in my $.02 in agreement with Sam and others.
I’m pro-choice.
I’m disappointed with Bush’s spending.
I’m appalled at the lack of any control on the borders and the continuous proposals of amnesty for illegal immigrants from Bush.
I’m pro-stem cell research.
I’m an atheist, and I always have been.
I’m still pro-war in Iraq, but I’d agree that many conservatives are unhappy with developments there.
I’m a registered independant, and always have been.
I’ve voted for Bush twice and also tend to vote for libertarians/republicans in local elections.
It would seem that on paper I’d be a good candidate for conversion to the Democrats, or at least maybe voting for a Democrat next time around. I’ll tell you right now: No fucking way in hell would I do it. Any issues I disagree with Bush on pale in comparison to the danger that the Democrats represent right now. They are a party controlled by ulra-radicals like Moveon.org and others. They are a party run by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. These people are way outside of the mainstream.
If you put 1,000 Americans in a room Bush might be more conservative than 700 of them. But the four liberals I just mentioned would be farther to the left than all but a handful of radical leftists. (This is all simply MHO of course.)
I’m not opposed to the idea of voting for someone more left of center than right, especially on social issues. But the Democrats are way too far out there for me to consider right now. I wish this weren’t the case, but that’s the sad truth of it.
We are in Iraq already. The question at hand is, what will you (Mr. Kerry) do differently now?
If the response is, “I would not have gotten us in there in the first place”, then the response from Republicans is twofold. [ol][li]Then why did you vote in favor of the war, and [*]We are there. What are you going to do that is different from what Bush has been doing?[/ol]The response on the SDMB tends to be to attack Bush in an increasingly hysterical voice.[/li]
But most of the electorate is not made up of yellow dog Democrats. And “vote for me, I will do absolutely nothing about the war in Iraq” is not the ringing call to victory that some suppose.
Well, considering my explicit declaration above that
I guess I should congratulate you on your resounding victory refuting a position that nobody has taken.
You are doing as well as the Democrats did in 2004, and for many of the same reasons.
All in all I’m not seeing an AUTOMATIC ‘ignoble, disastrous defeat’…I’m seeing a viable and solid candidate. Personally I think she’d make a better VP candidate than as the main ticket, but thats just me.