OT: Wow!

[ProSense]

ON THE TRAIL

Hillary's Primary Problem

By Chuck Todd, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006

As the months preceding New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's eventual presidential announcement dwindle to weeks, it's worth exploring just how difficult her path to the Democratic nomination really is. It's tricky to write about her these days, because it seems that everything's been said -- just not everyone has said it. But let's attempt a fresher look.

Too many of us have awarded Clinton the '08 nod too soon and too easily. The conventional-wisdom crowd is easily impressed by two things about her candidacy: money and her last name. There's also a dirty little secret that those of us in the media are leery to admit: She's good for business (particularly expense reports).

Take the money and surname drama and add a dash of media anticipation, and you get the simplest explanation of the perceived Clinton juggernaut.

more...

:wow:


The Premise:

But that says nothing about whether Democrats will actually accept responsibility for cleaning up the carnage that George Bush is going to leave behind. The prospective candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama strike me as a tacit admission by their supporters that national security and Iraq will not be front and center because neither of those candidates has any national security credibility. While Republicans may have trouble accepting what their party has done, Democrats may be tempted to try to win the White House not by accepting responsibility for national security, but by distancing themselves from responsibility while simultaneously placing blame with the Republicans.

So where does that leave things? Honestly, I’m feeling a little sick at the thought of it, but I can see clear reasons why both parties would want to push Iraq to the side and deal with other issues. And I’m not happy about that. I still think, however, that the party that takes national security and the war in Iraq seriously will win the White House. Which is why I’m going to revise and extend my remarks about Mr. Romney, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.

I believe Mitt Romney has the inside track for the Republican nomination. In order to win against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani he only has to put forward a national security agenda and Iraq policy that is at least as credible as that put forward by Mr. McCain or Mr. Giuliani. And if that seems like a tall order, thing again. John McCain wants to pile more troops into Iraq and stick with the neocon game plan. Rudy Giuliani is a liberal Republican who looked good on 9/11 but has no more innate national security credibility than Mr. Romney. If Mitt Romney talks a good game he can win the nomination.

On the Democratic side, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are weak on national security. They can win the nomination by steering the discussion away from the Iraq War and blaming Republicans for the problem, but only as long as there are no Democrats running who are truly credible as commander in chief and head of state. If they have to go toe-to-toe with Democrats who are strong on national security and foreign policy they’re going to look weak, and they can’t afford to look weak in 2008.

[MBS]

1. it's about time someone started to say this!

I'd seen The Premise, but the National Journal was new, and especially surprising. Oh, yeah.

[karynnj]

2. This explains what they are doing to John Kerry

Al Gore is obviously iffy on running. (and the nastiness against Kerry could work either way - he could see it as something he doesn't want to go through or he may see that he is the person who can end this (I have no idea how he sees Kerry)

Clark has gone both ways - with rumours he's out than in.

That leaves only Kerry - who has both - and whose prescriptions for Iraq are now being sen as more sensible.

If all three of these are eliminated - then there is no one to have more national security experience than Hillary - who will have to hope Romney beats Guilliani, McCain and Hagel.

[MBS]

3. I've long thought the primary

would come down to Kerry vs. Hillary in the end. (I'm not sure how Obama would affect things, though, if he decided to run)

[ProSense]

4. Good points!

And to your last point, the GOP shill media is really trying hard to set up the Repubs for a win:

No, it’s still not ‘Hagel’s moment’

Posted 4:00 pm | Printer Friendly | Spotlight

Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this

There are a few Republican lawmakers whom I feel like I can respect, despite policy disagreements. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) is one of them. In a sense, he’s the McCain that John McCain pretends to be but isn’t — Hagel is a decorated veteran who isn’t afraid to criticize his party or his party’s president. He’s a bit more sensible, and a bit more honest, than nearly all of his GOP colleagues, especially on Iraq.

But I’m afraid the WaPo’s David Ignatius pushes this tack too far today,

Snip...

All of this leads Ignatius to suggest Hagel, who’s weighing a presidential bid, is the right man to lead. “American politics turned a corner this month and that we are in new territory,” Ignatius said, implying that the electorate’s desire for change could sweep Hagel into the White House.

Snip...

Most notably, Hagel may be more honest than the typical Senate Republican, but he’s no moderate. Ezra explained this well a couple of months ago.

Snip...

But back in the Senate, away from the cameras, Hagel didn’t actually do anything. He’d say all the right things on television, impressive everyone with his candor and insights, and then go right back to work as a conservative Republican who votes with his party on everything of any significance. He can’t be a great president if he’s a shallow senator.

more...

[StoryTeller]

10. I have to agree on his assessment of Hagel

I'm from Nebraska, and I know there's a pretty big disconnect between how he speaks in public (including how his staff speaks when I call them about an issue) and the decisions he actually makes in the Senate. He never goes against his party, never goes against the president. Definitely no moderate, no matter how much he may talk like one at times.

On the good side, I did almost literally bump into him a couple years ago on Christmas Eve at a tiny neighborhood grocery store in mid-town Omaha. As much as I don't agree with his policies and decisions on things, it was rather cool to meet up with a U.S. Senator on Christmas Eve at a grocery store. :)

[ginnyinWI]

5. I don't think the Iraq problem will be gone by '08

And it's true that Hillary and Obama don't have the foreign policy experience. Even if we are gone from Iraq--and it's hard to imagine we'd be totally out--there is still a Middle East in turmoil. Carter is pointing out how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been ignored for six years and things are going from bad to worse. We need someone with a strong foreign policy background who can get in the driver's seat and steer a clear path for us. And I've got just the guy in mind. ;)

[jillan]

6. Am I just being prejudiced?

But I think Kerry is the only one that the repugs can't beat.

Hillary - baggage - repugs would love to have her to run against.
Obama - I'm a fan, but his lack of experience will hurt him.
Clark - a great VP, but not Presidential.
Edwards - c'mon! what a joke!
Gore - ??? It's hard to say if he would even have a chance.


Other than windsurfing and telling a bad joke, there is really nothing they can go after on Kerry. The swifties are not going to get away with it this time.


Unless it's someone like Vilsak or some other Guv somewhere, I don't think there is a stronger candidate than Kerry.
Am I just being prejudiced?

on edit: I would just LOVE to see a Kerry v McCain debate! hahaha. Kerry would have McCain crawling on the floor begging for mercy.

[BlueIris]

7. Nope.

And for the moment, I'm trying not to sweat the current new wave of hostility against him. People will figure it out sooner rather than later, and if you look at who has been defending Kerry of late, you can really feel the sooner approaching.

[beachmom]

8. Well, Sully just jumped on the dump on Hillary bandwagon

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/spare_us_hillar.html

She really shouldn't run. It would divide and polarize the country; she's dreadful on the stump; she has very high negatives; most Democrats only like her; almost no-one loves her; and do we really want 20 years of two families in the White House? Besides: what do you do with Bill? Chuck Todd lays out why the primary season could be much rougher for her than expected. I think she'd make a great Supreme Court Justice or Senate Majority Leader. I had a chat recently with a senior Republican and former presidential candidate. We were discussing how deeply divided the Republicans are. I asked him: what could unite them again at this point? He answered in one word: Hillary. She's the last hope for the far right. Please, Senator Clinton. Don't do it.




He's seems to be all about Obama on the Democratic side. Problem is Obama's lack of experience.

Also, he held is fire on the Quinnipiac poll -- here's hoping my e-mail DID have an impact.

Oh, and is the Republican John McCain?

[wisteria]

9. I am confused. Why would a Republican like Sullivan be concerned

about the prospect of Hillary reuniting the Repubs? I would think he would want them united and fighting against her.

I don't know about him sometimes, why would a supposedly smart man like him be so quick to back an inexperience senator like Obama. He knows what a shambles Iraq is. He has also been around long enough in Washington to know over hype when he sees it.

I have questioned his knowledge and sincerity since I heard him denounce Kerry they soften his tone after watching -get this- The Daily Show-at the time when they played the whole Kerry statement and he realized Kerry was smeared. I still can't believe he had to watch John Stewart to get the truth.

I realize you like him, but I am not so sure how to take him.

[beachmom]

11. He's not a Republican -- he's an independent conservative

If you look at the beginning of his book, you will see that over the years he endorsed both Democrats and Republicans for president. In short, he's a "swing voter", because Republicans are oftentimes NOT the one for limited government (in a REAL sense -- like keeping spending down and protecting civil liberties).

I just thought it was interesting because he seemed to be wanting to give Hillary a chance for a while, and now suddenly is saying no. He's also VERY disillusioned with John McCain. I consider him a Washington Pundit thermometer, that's all.

I guess I read him because I come from an Independent background; although I have zero respect for Republicans, I will never be the type to dismiss ALL ideas conservative. In short, Andrew keeps me honest. That's why no matter how much he bashes Kerry, I'll always end up taking a peruse on his blog (plus looking at the funny YouTubes he puts up -- really funny atheist one from the other day, btw).