Parsing the Polls: Can Hillary Win the WH (Can we have civil discussion?)

[DeepModem Mom]

"The Fix," by Chris Cilizza
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
Posted at 09:02 AM ET, 01/25/2006
Parsing the Polls: Can Hillary Win the White House?


....A new Hotline/Diageo survey asked several interesting questions that offer some insight into Clinton's viability as a general election candidate. In the survey, 48 percent of respondents said they viewed HRC favorably compared with 44 percent who saw her in an unfavorable light. Not surprisingly, Democrats were the most bullish on Clinton (75 percent approve/19 percent disapprove), while Republicans were the least supportive (22 percent approve/71 percent disapprove). Clinton's numbers among independents were sound, with 49 percent approving of her and 40 percent disapproving.

The Hotline/Diageo poll also asked the sample to choose between Clinton and a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2008 matchup. Clinton took 41 percent to the generic GOPer's 39 percent with the remainder of respondents undecided. Interestingly, Clinton trailed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by a whopping 52 percent to 36 percent in a potential 2008 ballot test, and McCain's approval numbers were extremely strong across the board -- 54/20 among Democrats, 64/14 among independents and 63/19 among Republicans). McCain's astronomical numbers are likely due to the high-profile role he played on the debate over torturing prisoners as well as for his credentials as a reformer -- a highly coveted title in Washington these days.

So back to our question: Can Hillary win?

Looking at these latest numbers, the answer seems to be a guarded yes. There is no question Clinton is an extremely divisive figure who is beloved by roughly 45 percent of the population and detested by another 45 percent. But given the extreme polarization between the two national parties these days, that 45-45 split is likely to be the playing field on which the 2008 election is conducted regardless of the participants.

Several other interesting things jump out regarding Clinton's unique appeal (and potential problems). Roughly one-fifth of Democrats view Clinton unfavorably, a sign that there remains a significant bloc within the party dissatisfied with her and not likely to come around any time soon. The same poll, though, showed that approximately one-fifth of Republicans view Clinton favorably -- a group (perhaps moderate women that lean toward the GOP) that could push her over the top in a general election....


http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

[herbbrown]

1. Here's Molly Ivans Oppinion

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/13679208.htm

I won't vote for her either!

[SaveElmer]

3. Sorry...Molly's instincts are very suspect...

Having supported Nader...

[herbbrown]

11. And besides your insinuations, what she says

is on the money. Hillary's the proof that there's a one party system in this country!

[SaveElmer]

19. Sorry I respectfully disagree...

That is the argument Ralph Nader mad ein 2000, and we have seen the disaster that kind of thinking has resulted in. I was commenting primarily on Molly's political instincts. I love Molly and will continue to read her column faithfully.

As to your comment on there only being a one party system, and Hillary being the exemplar of that, I again have to disagree. If you take an honest and objective look at her record you will see she is well ensconced in the progressive wing of the party. Also take a look at some of the research of some DU'ers who analyze voting records...such as that of Zodiac Ironfist, here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/18/19162/775

[rodeodance]

24. thanks for your comments about Hil. I agree

[herbbrown]

33. Thanks for the Kos thing very good

but it doesn't sway me. My question of Hillary is how can she run from Murtha and not even speak out about this war? Even Kerry...... we have an anti-war candidate '04 we're not even having this conversation. I know your response will be that she's trying to get elected, but I'll be pushing Al Gore or someone who stands against this atrocity, this thing is bigger than me or you....these massacres must end... I want my country back, and I won't compromise with a republican lite candidate.

[SaveElmer]

40. Actually thank Zodiac Ironfist...

He is the one who came up with it. Actually my answer would not be that she took the position she took on the IWR for political reasons. That would imply she is ok with the slaughter of thousands to fulfill her ambitions. I truly do not believe that is the case. If you take a look at her floor speech announcing support for it, you can see she viewed war as the last option, and though the IWR wouldgive Bush the flexibility he needed to get inspections completed, and as a way to get genuine international support. It looks a bit naive now I agree, and I accept criticism of her for accepting Bush's word on these issues, but I do not believe she did it for primarily political reasons.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[herbbrown]

54. Then why does

she run from Murtha? I'll give you that she couldn't and shouldn't of trusted Bush, but why run from Murtha? More than that I've already seen her republican lite husband in office, between free trade which does its fair share to ruin the auto industry and welfare reform I've had enough of the Clintons. Why wouldn't Gore be better than Hillary, just curious? I once liked Hillary, but too many of her political decisions have swayed me to the "anybody but Clinton" camp.

[Aaaargh]

76. By the same reasoning...

Certain persons who are frequently lionized by so-called 'moderate' Democrats on this forum, including Wesley Clark and DLC spokesman Marshall Wittmann, also deserve to be disregarded because of poor judgments about electoral choices which they've made in the past.

Clark was a Republican-leaning independent who voted for Reagan, and Wittmann, who was and may still be a Republican, presumably did as well -- after all, he worked for self-proclaimed 'Reagan Republican' John McCain's campaign in 2000. Reagan's presidency, as we know, was a disaster for this country which we're all (not just Democrats) still paying for.

As for HRC herself, in '64 she supported Barry Goldwater for president, at a time when she was too young to vote, but arguably old enough to know better (in her late teens.) In any case, youth can't serve as an excuse for her more recent, comparably appalling misjudgments.

Approval polls taken years before an election campaign really gets going mean little or nothing. To cite just one example, Joseph Lieberman did well in comparable polls before the '04 race, but bottomed out in the primaries.

To truly judge the viability of a candidate, we have to make a prognostication based on every factor that might prove significant. HRC's vulnerabilities -- some of which come from the demonization she's received from the Republicans and their whores in the corporate media, and some from her own weaseling and welshing on traditional Democratic principles -- are too obvious, well-known and chewed-over to require a recitation.

This is the bottom line: if Democrats allow a sellout to the DLC's corporatist/neocon agenda like HRC to be nominated in '08, we'll lose again, and we'll deserve to lose.

[William769]

4. Molly Ivans can kiss my lilly white ass.

[herbbrown]

9. That's Your Problem

It's always about your lilly-white ass!

[William769]

12. Yes it always about my lilly white ass.

Maybe if she would spend more time attacking the republicans who have this Country so fucked up, I might listen to her instead of going after Hillary Clinton, who we don't even know if she will run.

[herbbrown]

16. It's apparent to me

that you know not one thing about Ivans!

[NV Whino]

41. Perhaps you don't read Molly enough

She spends about 90% of her time attacking the republicans who have this country so fucked up.

[formernaderite]

71. NO...Unless a third party right winger runs...

there's no way she could garner more than 48% of the vote. Does anyone really think she'd do better than Bill did? He never reached 50% himself, and that was only courtesy of Perot. Sorry, if Hillary runs you will see a larger than normal block of voters going green, and the fact remains even independants don't support her by the degree that counts.

[Andromeda]

81. Molly voted for Nader in 2000.

Her position on Hillary is set in stone and I doubt she'll mellow on Senator Clinton anytime soon.

[madinmaryland]

2. Hillary may be able to win,

but it will be a very close and very divisive electoral college victory. It would probably stunt her ability to lead the nation, and might swing both houses back to repub control, if they are not already.

[flamingpie2500]

5. Unless we get a Clinton/McCain ticket--she can't win.

McCains numbers say a lot about her also, she is too middle of the road. That is why independants like her.

It won't matter anyway unless we get control of the voter fraud.

[coldiggs]

64. Too midle of the road we need midle of the road if we want to take this

contry back from the far right.

[SixStrings]

6. Well, as a Canadian, here is my feelings on this one.

And please correct me if I am wrong...

but I would be very leary of anyone the MSM is supporting. For some reason, I just feel that she is being touted for President because of the very fact that she is guaranteed to lose. She is despised around these parts as a 'say anything, do anything'for votes kind-of-person.
Is that assumption correct?

Again, I'm probably not the most qualified person to discuss this, but all I see is a shallow talking head. She and her ilk are part of Bush's "base" - that outrageously wealthy and powerful 1% of the population that owns everything and runs everything...

And of course I always feel that your country IS , 'Of the people, for the people, by the people" - not this bastardized kind of royalty you have now...I mean, c'mon Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Bush2 , and now a Clinton, AGAIN? Totally makes a mockery of the whole institution.

[Old Vet]

17. I honestly believe your on to something...............

Wondering why many of the msm news organizations are talking so much about it,Almost like its a settled nomination,And nobody else has a chance. Which is NONSENSE.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Bingo!

Just as the MSM says Alito is a done deal, they are trying to mold opinion to suit their corporate masters.

There is a lot that I like about Hillary, but, BUT, there are too many negatives in too many areas. The rabid right would never stand for her election. She refuses to condemn the Iraq war. She refuses to give any credence to election fraud.

Any campaign she ran would be a razor-thin close race - which is all the other side needs to steal another election. So if we buy this MSM frontrunner crap, we will be giving the election to the republicans.

[paulk]

77. a few things -

I don't believe the "razor-thin race" is a valid point, in that no Democratic candidate in thirty years has recieved a majority of the vote. That was Carter, and he got 50.1% - not exactly an overwhelming victory. Any candidate we run in 2008 is going to be involved in a close race and will be equally prone to having it stolen.

And I really don't buy this "MSM pushing Hillary because she's a corporate lapdog" (to loosely paraphrase) - they are pushing her because of the "first woman running for president ratings sweepstakes". If the MSM is going to push a corporate interest, it would be (and has been) a Republican they'd be pushing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. I think, if I did not make it clear, that they are pushing her because

they want a republican victory, and they see her as an easy target - someone with so much baggage that she cannot possibly win. To the left wing of the Dems, she's a DLC corporatist -- to the repubs, she's a dangerous leftist. That leaves her grasping for a steadily thinning center.

If you want to choose the president you not only support the one you want to win, but also support the one you think your candidate can beat - cover both ends.

[paulk]

88. that's a valid point

I'm not convinced that Clinton is an automatic loser, though...

It's all speculation, anyway...

we'll know more in two years - and a lot can happen, especially in politics, in two years!

:)

[spun_in_montana]

7. Too much baggage for her

to get elected and her turn to the right (not the middle, who knows where the middle is anymore:) ) has pushed me and mine away.
I dunno but if O'really and the blowhards are pushing her....

[skipos]

8. From what I've seen, 40% of voters are already commited to voting against

her and she will never be able to overcome that.

No other possible candidate in either party has that much commitment against him or her.

[leyton]

84. I wouldn't expect any candidate to break 60% anyway.

The question is the 20% in the middle. If they haven't been turned off to Hillary in the past twelve years, why would that change in 08?

[msongs]

10. e vote fraud will determine the winner: the dems oughta do something

about e vote fraud if they want to win in 08. and by do something I do not mean blab thru their pie holes, I mean introduce and pass legislation for open source machine code and a whole list of other changes.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm

[SaveElmer]

13. Hillary' s advantage...

I think Hillary has as good or better chance than any of the other candidates. Of all the candidates, no one has had more experience or success than defeating the Republican sleaze machine. For thirteen years she has been accused of lesbianism (in a derogatory way), murder, adultery...and much more. And yet, she is now a very successful, and very popular Senator from New York.

There is no doubt that she gets the right wing's juices flowing, but frankly those kinds of attacks on our candidates get our juices flowing too. ANd in Hillary we would have somebody with no compunction about fighting back, hard and ruthlessly. Remember how upset we were with the Swift Boat attacks, and just could not understand Kerry's tepid reaction? Well can you imagine Hillary not fighting back against that kind of slime? I can't.

I also happen to believe she is probably one of the most intelligent people we have to choose from, and someone who would bring a competence and maturity to the office.

So yes, I do believe she could and would win.

[karynnj]

18. Kerry did fight back

claims were lies.

One of the biggest problems Kerry had was not having the type and quality of support that the Democratic nominee in "the most important election of our life time" should have had. Part of the problem was beyond the control of Democrats - Bush could manipulate his "terror" machine whenever Kerry's numbers rose and most of the radio and cable TV media was firmly behind Bush.

There were some Democrats who could have done more. Here are three that are easy to identify:

1 and 2) Carville and Begala - they acted like smirky adolescents in 2004. They were 2 of the few Democratic voices on TV and they seemed more intent on making clever jokes than in helping Kerry get out his message. That they now have the chutzpah to complain that Kerry, who was working day and night with his and Teresa's entire combined family to do so, didn't get his message out is unbelievable ly annoying. Even as Kerry was winning the primaries, they were still talking maybe Hillary would be brought in in a brokered convention if there was no clear winner.

They still say they didn't get Kerry's message. As intelligent Democratic spokesmen, would it have been too much to ask of them to really listen to Kerry's excellent convention speech and the speeches designated as major on subjects like Iraq, terror, the environment, health care etc. As they are so good at "quick, war room responses", why didn't they replay Kerry's April statement that the Navy gave him his medals and the facts are what the facts were for 35 years, this short clip and the audio from Nixon tape which comments that Kerry was clean and a war hero - every time the SBVT thing came up. It's interesting that they could defend Clinton for charges that had some merit, but not Kerry for baseless lies.

They did criticize Bush - largely by making fun of him. This to some degree backfired because those type of snarky cheap shots were appreciated only by the people who already hated Bush.

3) Former President Bill Clinton - Bill Clinton's egotistical need to be the center of the spot light hurt in 2004, as it did in 2000, where he had his dramatic entrance at Gore's convention.

One small example: if he had to put out his autobiography a month before the convention, wouldn't it be nice to credit the nominee for things he did. To write as much as he did on the importance of opening Vietnam (as Bill's accomplishment), listing Kerry after McCain and Kerrey as one of several Senate vets whose approval helped is disgusting. In a 955 page book, one more paragraph wouldn't hurt. No one reading the book years later would even notice 3 or 4 Kerry paragraphs - but people in 2004 using the index in the back might be impressed. By mid-February, it was obvious that Kerry was the candidate and this was when Clinton was still making changes - in the case of Vietnam, it was Kerry's hard work that made the accomplishment feasible, so a less self absorbed person would have included a mention in the first place. (One of the best accounts Of Kerry's work on the POW/MIA committee was in McCain's second book where he said that no one other than Kerry could have gotten all the committee members to agree on the conclusion.)

In fact the longest mention of Kerry is slightly unsettling. Clinton talks of deciding to make a campaign appearance for Kerry in 1996 in his race against Weld. He mentions his good relationship with Weld, but mentions he "didn't want to lose Kerry" because he was one of the Senate's leading experts on the environment and high technology. Seeing that a President likely wants to lose none of his party's incumbents, this trade off between his good relationship with Weld and Kerry's value sounds strange. Clinton then finishes the paragraph with, "He (Kerry) had also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the problem of youth violence, an issue he has cared about since his days as a prosecutor. Caring about an issue in which there are no votes today but which will have a big impact on the future is a very good quality in a politician." This slightly weird sentence to me shows the difference between the two men - Kerry doing what is right, Clinton thinking votes and politics first (but conceding that doing it is good). I'll take Kerry's solid core values over Clinton's poll driven value system any day.

When listing Kerry's expertise, note that he left out the years of experience on foreign policy. If he were truly generous - which he's not - he could have mentioned that Kerry was the first (or one of the first) to worry about non-state terrorism. These last 2 things were key issues in the election. Bill Clinton had the biggest Democratic voice - other than Kerry's and he opted during what we all think was a key election to consider his reputation over the party and country.

The problem is that this is in a book that was published to great fanfare the month before Kerry's convention! The paragraph is unsettling because it damns with faint praise. If he couldn't say something nicer, he could have delayed his book 6 months to hit Christmas 2004. At the time the media itself said that Clinton was sucking up all the oxygen.

Bill Clinton gave a nice speech at the convention, but it was too much Clinton, not enough Kerry. Additionally, focusing on things Kerry did in the Senate while Clinton was President would have been good. Kerry didn't need Clinton speaking about how heroic Kerry was in Vietnam (which given Clinton's own views was not sincere) - Kerry had his crew who had first hand experience. Kerry contributed many of the ideas that Clinton used in the COPS program and he and Kennedy had co-sponsored legislation that was re-written to be S-CHIP. To get passage, the Jr Senator's name was dropped, but he had done much of the work.

More importantly, Clinton was in a unique position to explain Kerry's prescient warnings on non-state terror and his persistence in fighting to close BCCI, the terrorist bank. The problem is it shows Kerry in a better light than either Bush or Clinton.

Of course, Bill Clinton, Begala and Carville would be the first people insisting that all Dem,ocrats rally around Hillary if she is the niominee.

[karynnj]

21. The Republicans would not need to swiftboat Hillary

With Kerry, we had a remarkably clean candidate. He is a genuine war hero - as even Nixon administration adversary admitted among themselves on the Nixon tapes that were intended to never be public. They had to have a lie campaign to tarnish his image.

With Hillary, you get Bill. While there is much good in that, it may lose the people in the middle.

Incidently, Gore ran better than Hillary in upstate NY even though she had a very weak opponent. (Kerry did as well - but in a later election so the comparison is not as clear.)

[SaveElmer]

29. Actually I would argue they could not Swift Boat Hillary...

If the definition of Swift Boat is to smear unfairly. They could try, but Hillary has shown an aptitude for turning that to her advantage. Plus, I get the feeling that so many false charges have been thrown at Hillary over the years, the public, whether they support her or not, will have trouble believeing them (except among the righties).

Hillary's main problem in my view is that she is perceived as too liberal generally (not by most here at DU however). A well run campaign can remedy that however.

[karynnj]

50. and the general slease that is unfortunately a factor from the 90s

It's unfair because it was Bill not Hillary - but if slease is part of the issue - it's there.

I am a liberal Democrat and would vote for Hillary in a general election. I am thinking more of people in the middle committed to neither party or to the Republicans won over in 2004. A relative, who is a WWII vet Main street type Republican voted for Kerry. He had been very pro- Vietnam war, but he took the time to read Kerry's entire testimony and commented that he saw where he was coming from and that he was an honorable man.

In contrast, he voted against Clinton in 1996 because he was sickened by how sleasy he was - even though he had voted for him in 1992 (nearly his fist Democratic vote). He is someone not really tied to a party, who we could win with most possible candidates mentioned - but not Hillary.

[hwmnbn]

14. I doubt she can win........

She has lost my support by making too many political triangulations. Flag burning?!?WTF!

The fact the MSM and the GOP are portraying her as the unstoppable democratic nominee is a red flag. You know damn well all the Clinton bashing red-state fucks would go even harder after her. She will not win them over.

So she has no chance of winning the presidency. That's why the GOP is happy to promote her.

More than anything, I'm sad she has become a consummate politician. I was hoping she'd become a true leader.



BTW, regarding that poll, as far as I'm concerned, there are no moderate republicans. Whoever supported and voted for the chimp are all red state fucks. There is no way in hell they were moderate.

[AlabamaYankee]

51. She lost me with the flag burning amendment support

Although I think it's way too early to get all lathered about the 2008 candidate, Ms. Clinton in my opinion has burnt too much credibility with her moves to the right. Those who think she's too liberal will never support her, and she's damaging her credibility with the progressive wing.

I'm an old lefty pacifist who is fed up with the whole spineless bunch of Democratic "leaders". I think there's time for a strong candidate to emerge from outside the beltway if we could start looking and grooming one now.

[paulk]

53. she is opposed to a flag burning amendment

she supported a law that would ban flag burning - a law similar to a law passed in 1991 - which was then overturned
by the Supreme Court. Only 4 Dems voted against that law, btw.

there is a major difference between supporting a flag burning amendment
and supporting a law that you know will be overturned by the courts

and I realize many will still criticize this as a sellout

but it's politics

George Bush Sr. won an election with this phony issue

it's used by the Republicans to divide

and it works

[AlabamaYankee]

58. My mistake

So doesn't her support of a LAW make her position even more cynical? Taking a position she knows is unconstitutional, and hopes she never has to seriously defend reinforces the perception that she will do anything to get elected. As you pointed out, it's a very Republican strategy. I expect better.

[paulk]

62. yes, of course it's cynical

she's a politician. It's a cynical occupation. Where people do a lot of nasty things to get elected.

I don't expect much from politicians. Any of them. So things like this don't bother me much...

The flag burning issue is one that does bothers a lot of voters out there - people really do get upset about this - upset enough to vote against their own self interest - I pointed out that it's a Republican strategy to exploit these sort of hot button issues - the right would use this issue against her is she becomes the nominee in 2008 - so she's trying to pre-emptively innoculate herself against those attacks. She's trying to take the issue off the table.

I don't have a problem with that - insofar as I understand the strategy. I do have a problem with a law against flag burning - and especially against a flag burning amendment.

I don't see myself supporting Ms. Clinton in my state primary. It wouldn't stop me from voting for her if she wins the nomination, however.

[AlabamaYankee]

68. In the end I'm ABB

I've held my nose and voted for the less worse candidate often enough, so if it's Anybody But Bush, so be it.

[SaveElmer]

73. Correction to that even...

It wasn't a law to ban flag burning...it was a law to make it illegal to use the burning of a flag to intimidate others. It is modeled on the hate crime laws against cross burning and such. And, it would only apply to federal property. More limited than most think.

I personally do not think it is necessary, but it's not high on my radar.

[paulk]

75. noted. n/t

[Totally Committed]

15. Bottom line, and very civil:

No, Hillary cannot win the White House.

Want my reasoning? If so, it may not stay civil.

TC

Edited to add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2389782&mesg_id=2389782

[DeepModem Mom]

26. LOL, TC! Thanks for your restraint --

:)

[Totally Committed]

35. Thanks!

I'm glad someone realizes the monumental restraint it takes to even read this board these days!

:hi:

TC

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. highly unlikely that she would win.

although her name recognition is extremely high, higher than many people in the administration, her negatives are also huge. She offended many people in the past. Her secrecy about national med insurance truly scared millions in this country. It also set the stage for allowing the Bush administration to become even more secretive (while hiding behind 9/11 and terrorism). They learned how much they could get away with, and they took it a step further.
Hillary continues to offend people, but this time for other reasons. She started going to church, but only when there are TV cameras present. She has started supporting the troops, but only on TV. She has taken a straddle position on many hot button issues, attempting to triangulate much like her husband did, but without the deft talent and innate ability that he had. In doing so, she loses support from both sides, one of which does not trust her, and the other which finds itself shocked that she refuses to support the logical position. In summary, she perfectly represents someone who is preening and primping in order to stay on the national stage, while refusing to take any strong, difficult or stressful stance on any issue that might be divisive.

It is a major mistake on her part. She ends up looking like a panderer, rather than a pragmatic leader.

Is she all bad? Of course not. By some indie accounts, she is a fair senator. She works hard, she is prepared, she knows the issues, she crosses the aisle to talk and negotiate, she pursues several important issues as an example, but those accomplishments are far exceeded by a few of her faults. There is no question that she is smart, anxious for success, and hungry for higher office. Good. One has to be, if one wants to be in the limelight. There is no question that she avoids pitfalls so often that she appears to refuse to take the obvious position in public. Bad. If one continues in that approach, they end up standing for nothing, and they lose all credibility. She is at the abyss of standing for nothing.

She has done nothing to gain back those she offended during Clinton's first term. She has done little to change the minds of those who absolutely hate her today. That in itself is not fatal. As Lee Atwater and James Carville both noted, 30% will hate you, 30% will love you, and 30% will be undecided, even if you were born of a virgin and walked on water. But, how you deal with that last 30% makes or breaks you. She is not doing well in that category.

[Village Idiot]

22. I honestly cannot see the appeal, BUT:

She will hit it big with people of colour and women in particular.

The problem is, she will be pathetically easy to "swift-boat" due to all the '90s investigations. She, as a "moderate centrist," would be very easy to counter with an appropriate RePIGlican candidate. McCain, in particular (as Ivins suggests), would win in a LANDSLIDE against her.

Having said this, she would have moderate to incredible success over a more right-wing candidate - say if Kindasleezy, Jebbie, Katkiller or Rich Sanctimonious were put up against her.

Still - I can JUST HEAR the RW squawk machine:

"If she couldn't keep her man happy, how will she keep 'Murka happy?"
"Whitewater, Whitewater, Whitewater!"
"Plantation, Plantation, Plantation!"

Even amongst Democrats, she is viewed as a polrizer and a complete opportunist. I can't for the life of me imagine a Democratic Administration dumb enough to nominate her, but then again, perhaps I can.

She might do better as a running mate for Gore, Kerry, Dean or Clarke, however...

[realFedUp]

23. If GWB can "win"....anyone can sit in that White House

I happen to think Senator Clinton is much smarter, competent
and world savvy than the current resident. She's
respected in her state by both pubs and dems and works
hard, grasping the issues easily and addressing them
with legislation.

Now we've all had it up to here by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Senator Clinton voted for the authority for Bush to
pursue diplomatic means first and as a last resort
use military means as did a majority of Senators, based
on what this administration said and presented as fact.
We can fault them all for not having the prescience many
of us had but it doesn't address what now has to happen
regarding our withdrawal and aid in helping Iraqi citizens
get a semblance of a working nation together.

Outside of some political junkies who don't want Hillary to be
President, mainstream women think she's one of the best
proven female politicians in this country and she certainly
has the will, smarts, political understanding to win and
lead as President.

[mmonk]

25. No,

the republicans have sold her as an extremist liberal and socialist threat that probably even independents and moderates believe. Those of us who oppose her in the democratic ranks think of her as a panderer and compromiser to the rightwing. Don't see how she can overcome that.

[sarcasmo]

27. No, if Rove is pushing her to run you know the Repukes think they can beat

Her.

[SaveElmer]

31. Well...

IN 1980 Democrats thought they could beat Reagan. Last time Kerry was nominated because of his electibilty. If the Republicans were truly interested in getting her as an opponent they would simply shut up. She is already the perceived frontruneer, why raise Democratic suspicians by praising her?

[MadHound]

28. No.

First off, a run by Hillary would mobilize the Taliban wing of the Republicans like nothing before, and they will turn out in droves to vote against her. Combine that with the fact that she leaves the leftist base cold, and they would probably either stay home on election day, or vote third party. Between the two, she can't find enough votes to win, and thus would lose, probably by a landslide.

[MostlyLurks]

32. I think some of that is countered though.

In regards to the idea that she leaves the liberal wing of the party cold, that may be true. She certainly does nothing for me.

However, I learned my lesson in 2000 when I voted for Nader because Gore left me cold. How foolish and stupid I was. So I'd vote for her in '08 almost solely to help kick the Goddamned Republicans out. I certainly can't speak for anybody but me, but I suspect a lot of people are in the same boat right now: any port in a storm. As a result, I don't think she'd be victimized by a large third-party movement by liberal Democrats et al.

But I heartily agree that the Talibornagainlicans would moblize like an invading army against her.

Mostly

[MadHound]

42. Go check around the boards here,

Go check out your local PDA chapter, the left is definetely pissed at Hillary, and if she gets the nod in '08, a lot of them will walk. This is very much like what we had back in '68, with warhawk Humphrey getting the nod, and a concerted effort for the Democratic party to ignore the anti-war people. Thus, a lot of leftist voters dropped out, many for good, and we wound up with two terms of Nixon.

There is a lot of anger and resentment concerning Hillary and her saber rattling against both Iraq and Iran, along with many of her other stances. I guarantee you if she gets the nod, enough of the left will walk away to insure her defeat.

Getting out of Iraq is a popular, in fact majority opinion amongst Americans. Why don't we run with an anti-war candidate and tap into the sentiment? Why does that seem like such a radical idea when it is now so very popular:shrug:

[paulk]

55. the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue strategy"

brilliant.

and why the left has marginalized itself politically.

[MadHound]

59. Gee, so much for the hope of a civil discussion

:eyes:

Look friend, I'm simply pointing out realities, both historical and current. No need to make snarky comments that contribute nothing, there are plenty of other threads for that, OK. And despite what you think, going with a pro-war candidate i '68 did cost the Dems the election, and will do so again in '08 if they run Hillary. Perhaps the Democratic party should learn the lessons of history and stop trying to buck the anti-war tide.

[paulk]

66. Subject: I don't find it a "snarky" comment

I am simply pointing out realities, at least as I see them.

If the "left" wants to sit at home or vote third party... agian...

it is the equivalent of a child threatening to hold it's breath until it turns blue....

-----------------


There was a time in my life when I agreed with your "historical" realities. I don't any more.

I've come to see the far left - as exemplified by by the anti - war protesters who vilified the Humphrey campaign - as just
as destructive as the far right. They could be as easily blamed for Nixon as the Democratic Party could.

You seem quite certain that Clinton, as a "pro war candidate" (which is another bit of leftist disingenuity that wins them no points from me), will lose the election because ... people like yourself, I suppose, will either sit at home or vote for a third party. You could be right. But, what is your solution? Run an anti-war candidate? You speak of the "lessons of history"... where does George McGovern fit into these lessons?

And what would you and these others you speak of... hope to gain from the election of a Republican? One certain to carry on Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic?

Because that would be the result of your actions.

[MadHound]

67. So you continue to reward the war enablers, the fascism bearers

With your vote simply because they have a D behind their name? LOL, how is that supposed to change anything? Fascism with a D or an R is still fascism friend. And if you continue to reward these enablers within the party, how do you expect things to change?

And the fact that you blame the leftists, the supporters of Kennedy and McCarthy, either one of which would have been a sure winner, for the debacle of '68 is simply blaming the victim friend. Who was it who called down the clouds of tear gas, who exhorted the police to go on a frenzy of rioting and bloodshed? Oh yeah, that guy, Daley, the ultimate fixer in the party. Yeah, it was all the fault of the leftists:eyes: Go re-read your history pal, you really need to.

[paulk]

72. you call Ms. Clinton a war enabler, a fascist bearer

and wonder why most Americans reject far leftism? Most Americans are sensible enough
to see your characterizations for nonsense.


---------------

I expect things to change, at least in the next few elections, by putting Democrats in office rather than Republicans.

EOM.

[MadHound]

74. Let's see here

She voted for the IWR, has supported every war funding bill that's come down the pike, in spite of ample evidence that the causes for our being there are both illegal and immoral. She now starts to rattle the saber against Iran. She supported the Patriot Act, and all of it's susequent permutations. She supported the bankruptcy bill, denying the people the relief of bankruptcy. She is in favor of censorship. She has voted for every fascist crackpot nominee that Bush has put up there.

Hey pal, if the shoe fits. . .

There's a definition of insanity that goes something like this, doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result everytime. I've been insane for a long while now, voting for Dem after Dem, and expecting something different, something better every time. I refuse to engage in anymore insanity friend, but hey, if you want to bedazzle yourself with that chimera, welcome to it. I'm much more into dealing with the reality based world these days. Cheers.

[MostlyLurks]

30. Also, remember that no Sentor has won in ages.

As we saw in '04, negative campaigning works particularly well against senators because of the way a voting record can be spun (she voted 4 trillion times for higher taxes!).

Even if she weren't such a polarizing figure - and I think it's inarguable that she is - she'd be hamstrung by that fact alone. Simple odds say she's a longshot.

Mostly

[wiggs]

36. I admire her skills, but she's a flawed candidate in several ways

Besides the reasons posters have talked about, there's the issue Lakoff has described: Hillary and Kerry both have trouble reaching meat and potato, mid-America, salt of the earth, purple state folks. They don't speak the language. They don't engage strongly enough to inspire a sure vote, much less volunteerism, donations, loyalty in political discussion among broad swaths of voters. There is a clear disconnect.

Personally, I would rather have qualifications, thoughtful approach, and intelligence, but the reality of voting is something different. Regretably, northeast progressives who talk in complex, long, thoughtful, nuanced terms may get points from thoughtful dems but, we have to face it, the number of thoughtful voters is declining (results of 2000 and 2004 should make that abundantly clear).

Having said that, I think she'd be a much better president than a presidential candidate.

[AlGore-08.com]

37. The problem with pitting specific pols with "any member of the other party

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.

[NYCGirl]

38. No, I don't think so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-chinks-in-the-hillar_b_14330.html

[revolutionrock]

39. Her negatives would be pushed to an all-time low...

All the bad stuff would be regurgitated. She cannot win.

[zann725]

43. No "civil war" intended...but NEVER would I or many vote for Hilary.

I would love a female Prez, and a Dem Prez too. But Hilary honestly fits neither category in my mind at least. Again, I'm NOT H-bashing...simply speaking my mind.

And that "plantation" comment...while "courageous"...was pandering...which is a hint at the most what should expect from her as Prez.

We need a REAL Dem Prez this time. Not DLC in a skirt. A REAL Dem. (Durbin, Dayton, Boxer, Conyers...)

[SaveElmer]

46. Respectfully...

It is only pandering in my opinion, if she is expressing a view contrary to her record. The fact is Hillary Clinton has championed the causes of women, minorities, labor and the environment (among others), her entire life. And her voting record backs that up.

[lastknowngood]

44. She is a woman and a dem so No repug man will vote for her

less than 2% of repug women will vote for her. My guess is that 40%of dem males will either vote against her or not bother to vote. Another guess 20% of dem women won't vote for her. Why you ask because she is a woman. I'm sorry to say that discrimination against women in powerful positions is still a strong feeling here in the last empire. Many dem activists wont vote for her because of her "I'm more of a warmonger the Bush is" bull crap she's been spouting. If she is the nominee we will see at least a 49 state loss and huge surge of repugs in congress and the senate. To win back the house or senate we need a strong MALE who not only won't back down from the NSA/CIA/FBI/ who knows what else spying and dirty tricks machine. Any "I'm a moderate repug/conservative dem who wants to play nice" will have his head handed to him. We need a person who speaks out strong and calls the criminals what they are without apology so people get the idea that the Dem's stand for something. Just saying I'm not Bush won't cut it, we need that to energize the local Dem's to start taking back the house, forget everything else we need a brake to apply to the fascists/corporatist who have illegal taken control of our county. Sory if this offends but reality is what we have to deal with not iealism.

[AtomicKitten]

45. in spite of the wild speculation here at DU, nobody knows what will happen

Hillary's prognosis for a successful candidacy is directly commensurate with how one feels about her.
Nothing more, nothing less. Yet people speak with such authority on the subject, lashing out at those that disagree with their wild guesses. I think it would be beneficial for people here at DU to agree that we cannot predict the future.

[SaveElmer]

48. I predict...

We will not be able to predict the future...;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist

[AtomicKitten]

49. I predict ...

you are right.

[NV Whino]

47. No for two reasons

1. It is the wrong time to run any woman candidate. I wish it weren't so.
2. Hilary carries too much baggage, part of which is called Bill, part of which is her voting record. She's too liberal for the conservatives. She's too conservative for the liberals. The centrist base is not enough to elect her.

[EXDIA53]

52. No...

Why do we Dems continue to obsess on candidates who don't have a chance of winning? Most of the people I talked to before the 2004 election really didn't like Bush, mainly because of the Patriot Act or the WMD thing. After the election, most admitted to voting for Bush. As my boss said;"I never thought I'd vote for him, but the Democratic activists in the primaries managed to find someone even worse."
Please Dems, let's find someone who could also win in Florida, Arizona and Nebreaska.

[mdmc]

56. welcome to DU!

peace and low stress

[mdmc]

57. welcome to DU!

HRC can win. I hope Gore / HRC win in 2008.

I also don't think that HRC will be able to be swift-boated. She is pretty public in stature - everything is known. She can stand the stream.

Florida, AZ, Nebraska? No Dem fits that description. Voter fraud + GOP stronghold = no chance. At least Gore + Hillary will have MSM support. Corporations won't mind this ticket at all.

[incapsulated]

60. Here is my civil take (She is my Senator, btw)

Ok, I'll break this down into a few pro and con points. I'm against Hillary running for several reasons, but I was never one to say "she CANNOT WIN" for no other reason than that sort of argument has stopped campaigns that I think should have been given a chance. Because you never know. On the other hand, why go with "hey, ya neva know" when nominating someone for President?

Pro:

Maybe the polls are right, and people don't feel as badly about Hillary as conventional wisdom says. She has done her job rehabilitating her image, nationally, which was never as bad as the repukes wanted people to think. She is likable and her "stand by your man" episode helped her a lot. She is charming and attractive and intelligent and maybe that has seeped into the national consciousness (beyond the beltway). And she certainly won't need to waste campaign money on building up her name recognition.

Her moves to the right, although not known by most people who aren't political junkies, will work for her when a rethug campaign tries to throw any specific charges at her and simply doesn't have much to work with. She will be able to defend herself as a moderate in any debate or interview because that is what her record really shows.

She has Bill. On the stump. What more can I say, the only thing he is better at is selling himself. He will remind people of much, much better times. He can help her in the south, especially Arkansas.

She is a Clinton. Her campaign will have the best staff, the most money, and fanatically loyal people supporting it. No charge will go ignored. Their war room will be something to see. Never. Underestimate. The Clintons. They play to win, period.

Con:

The polls are probably accurate as far as superficial sentiment goes among people who don't live to hate her. They are also before the rethugs have launched their well-funded, organized smear campaign against her, which they are working on right now. Polls at this point mean little when discussing "general feeling". Those are exactly the kind of "feelings" that can turn on a dime. Or a good swiftboat campaign.

Her moves to the right may help deflect some of the image of her as a extreme liberal but that sort of image is very hard to shake when it's deep in the consciousness of the country, and it is, according to every poll, including the most recent. The repukes and the media don't even have to work on this one, people think she's a flaming liberal and it's going to take a massive effort on her part to change this. The fact that she is a woman and we are in a war is difficult enough to sell, add "loony lib" and it's really going to be tough. In addition, while her campaign is so busy trying to define her as "not a liberal", the repuke she is running against doesn't have to worry about that at all, and her attempts to actually be more like him (to the right) make it a catch-22 for her to make a case that she is somehow better because she is different. When she has to spend so much time saying what she has in common with her rethug competition, when will she have time to define herself as anything other than a poor substitute for the real thing?

She has Bill. With all the baggage that brings. They both have one thing in common, people feel very strongly about them, and not always in a happy way. Bill can stump in the south all he wants but Hillary isn't Bill Clinton. How she can win a single red state in the south is beyond me. Hating Hillary down there is a hobby, an obsession, a sport. I don't see how she can break through this. I don't see how we can win with that sort of very personal and intense hatred directed at her in red states.

She is a Clinton. This is like a red flag at a bull for the repukes. It will galvanize them because of their hatred for her. Those who may have sat out will get up and work to beat her to a pulp. Those who planned to vote may quit their jobs to beat her. Never. Underestimate. The Hatred. Toward. The Clintons.

Edit: Two things I forgot, pro and con: The "liberal-activist" wing of the party may be so pissed at her nomination that they don't work for the campaign. These are the sort of people that are really needed, too, they work their asses off. They did it for Kerry, even though he wasn't their choice for the most part, but they may revolt over Clinton.

On the other hand, many astrologers think it looks good for Hillary to take it all. If you believe in that sort of thing. :)

[BenDavid]

61. I do not know if HRC

is even going to run for the presidency. Do any of you have insight that she has announced? NO! So as of right now in this moment in time, if she decides to run then it is her's to lose. I know she can win!

Give me the "big dawg" and a damn good campaign team, unlike what Gore and Kerry had,and you will see a marked difference. She will not stand by and let the GOP get an upper hand as Gore and Kerry allowed them to do. HRC will give WJC free rein to campaign in places that Al Gore did not use him. Al Gore was to damn afraid to use Clinton. All because the GOP dared Gore too. HRC will not be afraid to use WJC. She will turn the tables on them as he did in the 92 campaign....

So if she decides to run and wins the nomination, I do hope all that oppose her here on the forum will support her.As, I will support the candidate the Dems bring forth.....

Remember, the media darling will be McCain....He is now and will remain so.

[AZBlue]

63. I'm going to interrupt the Hillary discussion for one moment to say this:

Take it from an Arizonan, McCain can not become the next POTUS!! He's two-faced and opportunistic. Let's not forget:

Who was eating cake with Bush as New Orleans drowned?
Who referred to the Vietnamese as "gooks" during his own presidential campaign?
Who bent over and took slurs from Rove/Bush and then played Bush's best friend at every photo op?
Who asked "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno"?
Who was was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips?
Who has acknowledged his difficulty with keeping his pants zipped but voted yes to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment?
Who has publicly supported Bush's right to use the NSA to eavesdrop on citizens?
Who claims to be pro-choice but was given a 0% rating by NARAL for his voting record?
Who voted no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes?
Who voted against the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon ban?
Who wants to privatize social security?
Who supports school vouchers?

And...everyone who dislikes Hillary says she supports the war in Iraq. Well, meet cheerleader #1:
"Saddam would have acquired terrible weapons again."
"The Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble."
"The cause of the Iraqi war was just. "

There are some things that I fully agree with McCain on and he's certainly not as bad as Bush or some of the others, but he's also certainly not the agreeable, strong, moderate he's portrayed to be!

This is not a pro-Hillary post, this is just an anti-McCain post.

[incapsulated]

65. Um...

You just listed all the reasons why a hardcore democrat/liberal won't vote for McCain. Not why your average non-partisan american, who doesn't pay attention to the boring details and listens to the MSM to find out about Candidates, won't. Yes, he has some issues that they won't like. But ordinary people don't have litmus tests like we do. They vote for the image, what they perceive is "character". He's very popular with your average joe and jane if you haven't noticed. They DO believe he has integrity and think he is just "independent". And remember, he has the media eating out of his hand, already.

McCain is a very dangerous candidate for us to run against on a national level.

[AZBlue]

70. That's why it's up to us to make sure the truth gets out (nt)

[guidod]

69. Who says she's even running?

The repugs and the media. I think the energy in this thread is going in the direction.

[IndianaGreen]

78. The only way Hillary can win is by getting enough GOP voters

to compensate for the loss of progressive voters.

[madrchsod]

79. no

does anyone think there will be a honest election in 2008?

[radio4progressives]

80. amazing this bizarre call to have a civil discussion on this candidate n/t

on edit: all things considered, this is not the time to bring it up.

she was great on the Senate floor today, but will she lead a fully necessary filibuster?

let's first get through this agonizing battle with a-lie-toe before seriously calling for an open and fair discussion on this candidate for for a race that is three long miserable years away.

[Neil Lisst]

82. I see this latest story for what it is: an attempt to besmirch Hillary.

Whoever the frontrunner is, they'll get a dose of this.

I have issues with Hillary on issues, and I think she may have some electability problems, but this story and poll have winger fingerprints on them, although they probably wiped the crime scene clean.

She's got high negatives, but she also has high positives.

[SoCalDemGrrl]

83. The country is only ready for a female prez on TV..

I rate Hillary's chance at 1%... There are just too many people who would never vote for a woman.

[leesa]

85. Why would we want her to?

[IndianaGreen]

86. Hillary will make a fine Secretary of Health and Human Services

She will never be elected President. The moderate Democrats that I know, the majority of them, don't like her one bit. They all voted for Kerry in '04, but they have said that they won't vote for Hillary.

The antiwar activists won't vote for her at all!