Hillary Clinton's Iowa problem

[Purveyor]

Des Moines, Iowa (CNN) -- In Iowa, the state that pulled the first block out of her wobbly Jenga-game of a presidential campaign six years ago, Hillary Clinton enjoys stratospheric approval ratings, well-heeled outside groups toiling on her behalf, and important political connections that date back decades.

From a distance, she appears invincible once again, far outpacing her rivals in the polls and primed to redeem herself in the caucus state that has never been especially friendly to the Clintons, or to female candidates.

Iowa has not elected a female governor, senator or member of Congress. In 2016, Clinton could finally put those demons to rest.

But beneath the surface here, familiar pitfalls might await Clinton should she decide to run: A restive and emboldened progressive base long suspicious of Clintonian moderation, a hunger for fresh Democratic voices, and a caucus electorate that boasts a cherished tradition of voting with its heart rather than its head.

"One of the great things about our party is that we are always looking for new leadership and new faces to represent the changing face of the Democratic Party," said Kimberley Boggus, a 34-year-old Democratic organizer from Beaverdale. "We are looking for new leadership because that's what's needed right now."

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-problem-2016/

[exboyfil]

1. Give me a viable alternative that

beat the Republican. I am voting for Clinton with her faults unless someone better comes along.

[TammyMintonHaley]

25. "a house divided will not stand"

no matter what happens, we cannot allow the regressives back in the White House, period...

[loudsue]

26. Welcome to DU! There are many of us who feel the way you do.

And....there are many who feel like Clinton is the second coming of....well, Clintons.

I personally am with you! I don't think she would make a good president. There are other women in the Democratic party that I think would make great presidents, but she is part of the war machine, and I don't want that.

[Beacool]

2. Are you planning on posting every anti Clinton article for the next three years?

If so, you missed the latest one by Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo.

[Purveyor]

3. No. I'll stop when the Democratic nominee is decided, which should be around early-mid 2016.

[Beacool]

4. Are you planning to post articles against other Democrats too

or is this just a Clinton thing?

[Purveyor]

7. Of course I have my favorites, i.e. Warren but I'm sure there are many others that will make sure

all the candidates are covered, good or bad, as well.

You were around this joint for the 2008 primaries so I'm sure you remember how it goes and indeed, it is not always pretty.

It will be alright at the end of the day but a process we must work through.

[dionysus]

5. yes, yes they are...

[Beacool]

9. Hi, sweets.

Right back at you.

[SidDithers]

8. Looks like it...nt

Sid

[Beacool]

10. It's going to be a long 3 years.

[Whisp]

13. very curious as to why you think

Hillary deserves some kind of cloak of protection here when the President has been insulted day in and day out by DUers, using vulgar language and out and out lies to demean him.

And you had your punches in there too in that way you have.

anyway, just saying this for the record. I don't expect a response because you can't have one other than that language you have called Eyerolly.

[question everything]

6. Obama was the first and only non incumbent candidate who won the Iowa caucus of either party

and then the nomination and the White House. And one reason was that he was not Hillary nor Edwards.

The other is that in both parties the extremes are the ones who participate in caucus night in the middle of winter. Meaning that the Democrats who went to the caucus really wanted an African American to win. I participated in the 1988 caucus and Jesse Jackson had an impressive show. As a matter of fact, he lost by a toss of a coin. Not only that, his supporters stayed to the end so all the delegates for the next conventions and state party were Jackson's supporters.

I suppose it is OK to leave Iowa and New Hampshire the "first in the nation" but we should remember that they do not even begin to represent the country as a whole.

And if a candidate chooses to skip Iowa, this should be his explanation.

[hrmjustin]

11. I think we should go to all primaries and ditch caucuses.

[polichick]

16. And all on the same day so everybody counts.

[questionseverything]

27. caucuses are much harder to rig

so I disagree

[hrmjustin]

28. But they make it harder for people to vote.

[apnu]

12. The solution is simple. And "Clintonian"....

... embrace the changing face of the party. Bill was famous for, and often chided over, the way he "governed by polls" as one Republican I know likes to say.

If Hillary would simply embrace progressives. Listen to our voice and our points; give us a seat at the table. I think the problem the article mentions evaporates.

[leftynyc]

14. If you could get 1000 self described liberals

to agree on what it meant to "embrace progressives", I'm sure you would have a point.

[apnu]

15. well yeah... no plan is perfect. However...

... she can be receptive to progressive causes. To know what they are and have an attitude that's both informed and compassionate. Instead of dismissive and demeaning like everybody else. That's not so hard I think.

[leftynyc]

18. Again - and in no way

am I trying to start an argument - everyone has their own causes. I consider myself a very liberal person but I don't have a problem with people who feel they need a handgun in their home for protection. But that comes with a lot of responsibility and should only be allowed after an extensive background check. So I have a position that both sides hate. Just like I know people who vote Democratic and consider themselves liberal but are anti-choice. It's a tricky dance when you're trying to appeal to the majority of voters.

[apnu]

19. Agreed.

And I'm with you on the gun issue. I see no reason for people to not have them, but I also see no reason not to have extensive background checks and tracking of firearms.

I see your point, and I also concur with it. There is a tricky dance and, honestly, toes will be stepped on from time to time. However, giving progressives a seat at the table, like anti-choice democrats too, plus corporations, would got a long way to helping Hillary, or any politician for that matter, to heard the cats that are the Democratic Party.

My idea is simple: We are a very diverse group, instead of fighting against diversity, we should embrace it. I see no reason why, with a Democratic President, that Progressives and Corporate interests can't sit at the same table and advise the President. They may not agree all the time, and that is fine. That is a better situation than listening to only one perspective.

[leftynyc]

23. 100% agreement

Pres Obama has been the most progressive President in my lifetime (I'm 53) and he has still disappointed me. I really do feel that income inequality can bring this country down faster and more completely than al queda ever dreamed of and I think that fight can bring many, many Democrats together. Like most "relationships", we need to build on a common ground and I think that's the ground that can bring us together.

[polichick]

17. Embracing progressives would mean not serving corporations first...

Ain't gonna happen with HRC.

[apnu]

20. You are probably right.

I am simply engaging in the exercise of thinking of one way to solve the problem. None of that considers Hillary's character.

[polichick]

21. imo it's time to fight it out...

Is this party about serving the corporations/mic/1% or serving the people? Third Way candidates (like the Clintons) are in the first category; we'll have to wait to see if there is someone in the second.

Last time many of us were fooled (if only by our own need to hope) - we'll have to wait to see if we're fooled again. One thing is for sure: true blue liberals will not knowingly vote for a corporatist n 2016.

[4dsc]

24. I'm from Iowa and I agree with you

Come caucus night there is going to be a fight all right. In fact, the 2014 caucus is coming up and I'm going to be there to help change the direction this party is going. Hillary does not represent the kind of change we need and liberals need to let their voices be heard.

[Sognefjord]

30. Iowa here also. I helped stop her before

and will be quite happy to do so again!!

[Rowdyboy]

22. It'll be interesting to see if any "new faces" run. Right now I don't see any on the horizon

that could offer a serious challenge. I may be the only one here that believes Elizabeth Warren doesn't bullshit and she has said she won't run. O'Malley is also out. Bernie Sanders won't even join the Democratic party so he doesn't offer any real alternative. I really like Sherrod Brown but he's more vice presidential material at this point. After some of his recent comments, I don't even consider Brian Schweitzer vp material.

The "progressive base" can be as restive as it likes but its hard to win when you don't have a candidate. You can't beat somebody with nobody.

[Auntie Bush]

29. Isnt it more important to have an experienced person who can win an elction

and have foreign policy experience than a fresh new face without the necessary political experience?

[Rowdyboy]

31. Depends on the election. In 2008 when any Democrat would have won I was willing

to take a chance on Obama, especially after Geraldine Ferraro pissed me off with some of her commentary. 2016 will likely be a much different, and harder election for Democrats to win. In my case, I have no problem backing Clinton (depending of course on the eventual field) and hope she runs. I think she would win both the nomination and the office based on her abilities and experience.

Many here on DU don't share my sympathies, however, and I was merely musing on who might potentially run against her. Right now I don't see much of anyone with the stature and qualifications to offer her a serious challenge. Certainly that could change but I don't see it and so far no one on this thread has suggested any serious competition that is inclined to run.

Could she beaten? Certainly, but not without a quality, substantive, and well-funded opponent who doesn't seem to exist at this point.