If then Gov. BIll Clinton of Arkansas ran against George W. Bush in 2004

[NNguyenMD]

would he have won?

I realize that he beat Bush's father under very similar circumstances a war in Iraq, lackluster economy, pandere to th religious right.

It really amazes me sometimes how it was possible that the democrats in 1992 beat the incumbent Republican President during a time when anyone in the party had their named buzzed as a potential nominee.

Just a what if, could Bill beat George?

WHO AM I KIDDING BILL WOULD HAVE MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH CHIMPY'S ASS!!!!

[whistle]

1. Correct, so why were the democrats not able to find a candidate

...who was up to the task?

[Wetzelbill]

2. Clinton had rare skills

It's not too fair to compare him to others, because he could've beaten just about anybody.

[KingFlorez]

3. He would have beat him

And Kerry would have won if not for Diebold. There is no way anyone could be reelected with the problems Bush has caused.

[Eric J in MN]

4. I'm looking forward to the next time a Southerner runs as a Democrat

for president.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. Clinton would have won easily

[Mass]

6. With or without Perot?

[Burma Jones]

7. Don't forget Ross Perot

Perot made a huge difference.

[NNguyenMD]

9. thats true, I forget about him

but I think Clinton's political talents still would have prevailed. He is incredibly adaptable, and would have capitalized on Bush's failures much more effectively than Kerry.

[Mass]

10. Dont forget that Kerry got more votes that Clinton ever got

(comparing with 96. Comparing with 92 would not be fair).

I am not sure Clinton would have done better, given the circumstances and the media.

[blm]

8. The media in 92 was nowhere near the GOP controlled media of today.

If Clinton was being introduced to the American people today after 9-11? No military background? Clinton himself said he doubts that he could win in a post 9-11 election.

The media was keeping Bush propped up for his entire term and throughout the election with their "Bush can't be beat on the terror issue" mantra.

Clinton wrote a book, went on a publicity tour with full access to broadcast media, and he was still unable to change the public impression overall that he was asleep at the switch on the terror issue, as per the GOP talking point.

Clinton would have mopped Bush's ass in the debates, but so did Kerry. The only reason for Bush being in office today is the GOP control over most of the media and the voting machines.

[AlGore-08.com]

11. In your scenario, has everything else happened the same in 2000 & 04?

Was there a moderate Dem President from 1992-96 with who was almost impeached for lying under oath about an affair with an intern?

Was that same President tarred and feathered by the same right wing smear machine and the media until his Administration was considered corrupt beyond redemption and his personal morals were a national joke?

Did his VP run for President in 2000, getting unfairly branded a liar as part of the continuation of Republican noise machine's successful spin that the moderate President and his party were corrupt and evil?

Did the Dem party abandon the 2000 nominee to fight an unfinished and unfinishable battle over whether the left or right would run the party?

Did a stealth, corrupt conservative disguised as a compassionate moderate run against the VP, starting out 20 points ahead and ending up so far behind he lost the popular vote and had to steal the Florida election to "win" the electoral college?

Did that conservative pResident govern like he won by a landslide, watch his approval ratings sink to the 30s, only to have his bacon saved by a terrorist attack on NYC and DC?

Did that conservative pResident ride the ensuing national unity like a pony express mount?

Did the Dems continue to follow the electoral strategies of the moderate President, and lose the 2002 midterms?

Did the Dems spend the 2004 primary cycle in a bloody battle over whether a "left" or "moderate" candidate would lead the party?

Did the conservative pResident slide below 50% approval before the 2004 election?

Did the 2004 nominee listen to the conventional wisdom about why that first moderate President had won, and what it would take to repeat that victory, but still lose the 2004 election to the unpopular conservative by over 3 million votes?

By 2005, were the grassroots Dems in a permenant state of pissed off?

Did the Dems spend the next year lionizing the moderate President and his wife as some kind of political demigods who could do no wrong?

Then the answer is no, Clinton couldn't win in 2008. Because he wouldn't be this fabulous demigod who was President in the 1990s, he would only be one of about 50 moderates who are trying to win the Dem nomination, with the same positions and spin.

Clinton's record would be "seen it, tapped it, bought the t-shirt". His moderation would bring down the wrath of the left even worse than it did when he was actually President - - before the left blamed the moderates for Bush et al. And when folks figured out that Arkansas was the birthplace of Walmart and Clinton did not use his office to nuke their corporate HQ - - Clinton would be toast.

Add to that he would still have his negatives - - especially his admitted infidelities. And any Dem who ran after the moderate President whose adultery was used to smear all Dems as immoral would be a gift to the GOP spin machine in 2008.