Report: Hillary Thinks She Can Win A "Bunch" More States Than Kerry

[whometense]

Arrogant much?

TPM Election Central: http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/06/report_hillary_thinks_she_can_win_a_bunch_more_states_than_kerry

By Greg Sargent

According to a Dem Congressman who had a private discussion with Senator Hillary Clinton about her impending Presidential run, Hillary thinks she can win a "bunch" more states in 2008 than John Kerry did in 2004, today's New York Observer reports. The Congressman, Eliot Engel, spelled out the conversation with Hillary in an interview with the paper:

Hillary Clinton called Representative Eliot Engel on Monday morning to ask him to support her potential candidacy for President of the United States.

“She essentially asked me if she were to do this, she would hope that she would have my support,” said Mr. Engel. “I told her she would.”

In a half-hour conversation, the two asked after each other’s spouses, joked about taking full Spanish-immersion lessons together and reminisced about thrashing their primary opponents in this year’s election.

Then Mrs. Clinton laid it out for him.

“She told me that if she did this, she thought that there were a number of states she could win,” said Mr. Engel. “She could win all the Kerry states plus a bunch of other states. We talked a bit about Ohio and Florida.”

The Observer also quotes Dem Rep. Jerrold Nadler confiding: “She said to me she was leaning heavily toward it.”

[politicasista]

1. I really wish she would reconsider

but she won't.

She has every right to run, but there is so much that's going to be dragged up (i.e. HillaryCare, Whitewater, Monica, etc.).

[MBS]

2. IMO she's delusional

but here's what bothers me the most: there's all this talk about who can win. What I want to know is: WHAT CAN THEY DO FOR THE COUNTRY? This is what I so value about Sen. Kerry: you sense so strongly that he wants to HELP THE COUNTRY. Not just make a good career move, not just to win, but to CHANGE THE COUNTRY, TO CHANGE THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION. I sense that he's really about working for something larger than himself.

this is what I think is missing in other candidates. And Hillary to me signifies power-politics as usual, the same conversation we've been having since 1992.
I hope we can do better than this. Actually, we must do better than this

[wisteria]

5. I hope so too. We need a leader who puts the country first and not

their own ambition's. Someone who wants to take America forward for the people and for the world. Frankly, I don't see anyone other than Kerry,wanting to running for the right reasons. Perhaps, Edwards, but I sense ambition lurking behind his decision also.

[karynnj]

15. Changing or "turning" the country was Kerry's vision in 1971

You are right that none of the others have a clear vision of real change.

The problem with that is that cheering on the Democrat becomes almost like cheering on your team because it is yours - there are a few areas of consistent difference - such as whether judges are pro-choice. I think there may have been a time when Hillary was idealistic - but she sold out a long time ago.

One view of Hillary that I can't shake is that she fought Kerry and Kennedy on filibustering Alito - AFTER making a speech on how very wrong he was. If she believed what she said, she would have led the filibuster (as the NYT obviously wanted her to you.) The speech was pure pander. (This ignores that fact that Kerry seemed more concerned about the balance of powers issues.)

[wisteria]

3. Well that pisses me off, because I know it is not true, no way, no how.

Boy, who has been filling her head with nonsense? Makes you wonder if she even paid much attention to the 04 election. IMO, she will be a disaster maybe taking NY, but she shouldn't just assume she will have all the blue states behind her. I live in a blue state that went for Kerry, and all I hear about HRC is negative comments.
Now, if the plan is to do a bill/hill switch and confuse people, having Bill Clinton campaign and plant the idea that you are voting for him as well as her, then perhaps she has a better chance. But, I think both of them are misjudging their popularity and appear.

[MBS]

4. I don't know a single person who wants Hillary to run

(though to be fair, I do have a FRIEND who knows someone who likes Hillary). It's hard for me to understand where the "inevitable" perception comes from . .

[wisteria]

6. Money, media and good PR. n/t

[whometense]

8. Plus the twisted hopes

of a whole lot of RW media types who are drooling at the thought of another Clinton presidency. I honestly believe that a lot of her coverage stems from their wishes.

[ElizabethDC]

12. I know a lot of people who like her

and who think she would make a good president, they just are concerned that she wouldn't win the general. Honestly, I used to be someone who didn't want her to run, but now I think she'll make the primary process more interesting (in a good way.) We have a lot of great candidates out there, so it'll be interesting to see how they present themselves in the primary.

[politicasista]

13. That's a good take

the more candidates the better. Can't wait for the debates.

[politicasista]

7. There are people who could dig that scenario

They don't care about the issues, dropped pants (we all make mistakes), corruption, BCCI, covering-up Bushco or BFEE. They just remember the Clinton years of peace and prosperity and wouldn't mind seeing Bill again.

[Firespirit]

9. I'm not necessarily going to argue the point

I think it will take a truly colossal screwup by the party nominee to fail to carry a state that JK won in 2004. However, that's not to say "oh anyone we could nominate is better than Kerry," although obviously that's the perception that Hillary wants to give off, self-serving politician that she is. The difference is the political climate in key areas: Pennsylvania is no longer competitive. Ohio probably isn't either. Missouri is more so than it has been recently, and Virginia is a swing state if Sen. Warner retires and Gov. Warner runs for that seat. Iowa and New Mexico are also ripe for pickup. None of it has anything to do with Kerry.

However, Hillary at the top of the ballot would make it a lot closer than it should be. It would drag the contest down to personality politics rather than the issues, and that would hurt our people down the ballot. Possibly badly.

[wisteria]

10. You make a lot of sense, but you do not factor in people's personal

opinions of her. Just because we have more blue states, doesn't mean they will necessarily go blue with HRC at the top of the ticket.

[Firespirit]

11. That's what I mean by "it would be closer than it should be"

If Hillary is it, there will be a third party challenge from the left that would probably garner 5-10% of the vote in reliably blue states.

I for one will not vote for her. I don't trust her.

[wisteria]

16. A third party candidate might even take more of the vote than 5-10%.

Thanks for reexplaining your comments.

[karynnj]

14. Does she have the decency to point out Ohio is winnable BECAUSE the

Republicans are out - Kerry could easily have won the state if Strickland were already governor.

[Dr Ron]

17. She may be right--in 2008

Any Democrat is likely to pick up states in 2008 which Kerry couldn't pick up in 2004. We won't have an incumbent President. It will be after the GOP fiascos from Iraq to Katrina have been exposed. It will be after Democratic gains in red statees in 2006. It is possible that if she gets the nomination she would win all the Kerry states plus others. It is more likely Kerry would keep all his 2004 states and pick up additional states.

[wisteria]

19. i like your second suggestion better than the first- naturally. n/t

[ProSense]

18. OK!

I think Senator Kerry can pick up a bunch more than the bunch more Hillary can pick up!

OK!