Reply #37: The problem with pitting specific pols with "any member of the other party [View All]

[AlGore-08.com]

Is that you're comparing apples and oranges. "Any member of the other party" will not be the opponent - - it will be a specific opponent with a specific record, a specific platform and a specific campaign strategy.

Out here in Cali, Governor Gropenfuehrer's poll numbers are in the toilet. When they poll "Aaaaanold vs. any Democrat", "Any Democrat" stomps him. But when they poll Aanold against specific Dems who might possibly run against him, Aaanold stomps them.

This poll is another excellent example. HRC is polling right now at 48% and "any Republican" does worse, leaving a large percentage of undecideds. But when the pollers offer a specific Republican - - McCain - - HRC gets stomped.

The possibility for HRC winning depends entirely on who is the opponent. Many of the policies HRC voted for as a Senator have proven to be major mistakes and are the reason that Bush is polling so miserably right now. If HRC runs against somebody who was also in Congress, who voted for the same bad policies, it makes it very difficult for her to position herself as somebody who will govern differently - - the campaign will come down to questions of experience and character.

HRC will lose the experience argument to almost any Republican you can name - - she has been a Senator for less than one term at this point, and what she has accomplished in the Senate is not impressive. (Quick, without googling, what's the most important piece of legislation she wrote and how has it made life better for average Americans?) Her life experience doesn't add to her resume. She was a lawyer (I'm sorry lawyers, but y'all know you are not beloved in America) and then she was the wife of a controversial politician. (Yes, Clinton is still "controversial". Even in 2004, the Kerry campaign worried that Clinton's visible involvement would lose more votes than it would gain.) If anybody thinks being the First Lady will be viewed as an important resume credit by independents and moderate Republicans, play "shoe on the other foot". Would you buy the argument that any of the following are qualified to run for President, based on being the First Lady: Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan or Betty Ford?

Even if her opponent is the biggest scumbag who ever lived, HRC will lose on the character issue, because she's using the same Democratic machine which has been unable to figure out how to win the character battle for the past fourteen years. These folks think they're so brilliant that they can elect a ham sandwich President - - and are constantly surprised by the way that the right wing smear machine works. Then there's the question of whether HRC can successfully navigate that media environment on a national level. Her "Plantation" remark doesn't bode well. Either somebody in her camp okayed this remark, being totally oblivious to how it would play out in the media - - or HRC thought it up off the top of her head, and lacked the political savvy to realize that it would completely overshadow anything else she said, and be used to pummel her for months if not years.

The folks in the media and DNC who promote HRC for the 2008 nominee believe that HRC's triangulation will win over independents and moderate Republicans in swing states - - because this is how Bill Clinton won in 1992. Clinton's 1992 strategy may or may not have been the best one for 1992, but it is long past time to admit that today is not 1992. Whoever will be running for the GOP in 2008 will not be George H W Bush, there will be no Ross Perot, and the Democratic party has a different set of negative problems to overcome.

Things look gloomier if HRC runs against somebody who either did not hold national office during the Smirk Admin or has plausible deniability as somebody who actually stood up to Smirk all during this time (McCain is the most obvious example). Then HRC has the additional problem of claiming that she presents a different view of Government, when her opponent can say things like "But you voted for the Iraq war, how is that different?" - - leaving HRC to say one of the following:

1.) "Gosh, I was lied to and I couldn't figure out that I was being lied to, so trust me to be able to figure who to trust when it matters even more." and watch her support fall
2.) "I stand by my vote, invading Iraq was the right thing to do" and watch her poll numbers plummet
3.) "Hey, I just voted for it because I knew I couldn't vote against the war and ever become President, all those dead American servicemen are acceptable losses because I'm the nominee!" and watch her lose in a landslide.

And make no mistake - - the Republicans will not hesitate to use the Iraq war vote or any other terrible, pro-Smirk votes against HRC or any other Dem who was in Congress during this time. Book it.