« Bush's "surrender" rhetoric | Main | Bush's attack on Congress and the press »

July 03, 2006


These are good points about Hilary, but I wonder what other options you see for the Democrats in '08. Who are the "generic Democrats" that might fare better, and what are their prospects? Another Kerry run would be a disaster. Gore may be better but is likely to be perceived as too left at this point. Moreover, his campaign might be tainted by the bitterness he still exhibits over the 2000 results. You mention Edwards, but he's receded from the public eye significantly since 2004. I doubt he could contend with a high profile Republican candidate like Giuliani or McCain. Who else is there? Joe Biden is a bit too weird, frequently referring to himself in the third person, to have much personal appeal. Lieberman is not likely to win much support from the Democratic base, who perceive him as a traitor. Mark Warner? Bill Richardson? I'm not sure any of these people could do better than Clinton.

IMHO the winning candidate (Republican or Democrat) will be one that the voters see as least connected to Washington. It'll be a candidate who can run on "clean up the mess in Washinton," a theme that worked in 1976, 1980 and 2000.

I found your site through the link from Matthew Yglesias.

This is a good post, and dissects the pros and (mostly) cons of a Hillary Clinton candidacy quite well.

I've always found it a little odd that H. Clinton supporters have touted her win in NY state as some sort of strong point, as it's a pretty solid Democratic state, regardless of who runs.

Your observations on Hillary's possibly polarizing are, I think, spot on. I'm a Democrat, and she still manages to rub me the wrong way. One can only imagine how the center and the right will feel about her presidential candidacy.

What we're left with in 2008, unfortunately, is a dearth of really good Democratic presidential candidates. Everyone still seems to love Barack Obama, but he's just a junior senator, barely in his first term, and the track record for senators being elected president isn't too good. His platform would therefore have to be mainly style and rhetoric over substance and performance. Politics has been won on those before, though.

I really respect Al Gore a lot more these days, and American might, too, but if he ran, it would definitely re-open old wounds, and I'm not sure that's what we need right now. Then again, look at Nixon in '68. Who knows?

All I know is that if the Democrats choose a Northeasterner, a liberal, a person with lots of baggage, or a senator to run in '08, then we'll most likely lose. I guess that sort of knocks out all our potential candidates, doesn't it?

"The obvious conclusion is that Hillary did about as well as your average Democrat in a Democrat-leaning state."

Actually, not really -- Schumer was running against a complicated figure in D'Amato, but regardless of how one assesses Al's unique strengths and weaknesses electorally... one must acknowledge he was a FAR more daunting candidate than non-entity Lazio.

Any who do we only discuss the money spent AGAINST Hillary -- did she not also both raise enormous sums AND benefit from independent expenditures as well?


What about Wes Clark? Southern, four star general with little political baggage. Strong cross-over appeal, and international credibility and respect. He's also probably one of the smartest of the potential candidates.

OTOH, her not exactly a landslide was larger than George W. Bush's "mandate" the last time out.


I forgot about Wes Clark. Yes, he'd be good. I was rooting for both him and Howard Dean early in the 2003/2004 primary season. As we know, Dean imploded and Clark never gained traction. I was a little befuddled by Clark's lack of momentum, as it seemed that Democrats were trying to go for what they perceived as the older, grizzled, battle-tested (literally) candidate. Why they thought John Kerry fit that mold over Wesley Clark is anyone's guess. Must have been the old "let's favor the DC insider" thing.

Oh well. Maybe we'll have learned better by '08?

To begin this conversation, it's necessary to ID at least one state Hillary could win that Kerry didn't.

Carville and Penn suggest Arkansas, where I happen to live.

I don't know a single Democrat here who wants her to run, or who thinks she has the proverbial snowball's chance of carrying this state. Even personal friends of hers and the Big Dog's.

Hillary should stay put. Period.

The media gives Democratic candidates a very hard time, and Hillary would present an even bigger target for our corrupt, corporate-owned right wing media.
Plus, there would enormous resistance to her from within the Party- the progressives have no time for Hillary, and it would get ugly.

"Remember, Hillary's unfavorables are over 40 percent before she has come under serious attack by Republicans. What will happen when battleground states are saturated with negative advertisements? The sky is the limit."

This just isn't true - because she's already had 14 years of unbelievably negative saturation bombing from the Right-Wing Noise Machine. For years, Republicans have said the most incredible things about her - up to and including that she murdered a man - and yet, she still has a net positive favorability rating.

The reason these analyses are misleading is that, almost entirely, people already know what they think about Hillary Clinton. Opinion is not fluid. Thus a race with her as a Democratic nominee would be all about turnout, and managing to up the negatives of the Republican nominee.

I think Hillary can win. I don't want her to do so, for any number of reasons - not the least of which is that democracies don't have lines of presidential succession that look like this: [Bush]-[Bush]-Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton.

I am not a politico, nor am I a democrat or a republican, but I think one major factor is being overlooked. I think what I am is a realist, and it is my opinion that the huddled masses, men, women, black and white will see Hilary as a woman that could not control her man, thus making the assumption that she can not possibly control a country.

This is a basic fact of life. If you are weak at home, you will be perceived as week on the job. If the dems are going to win, then they should pick someone who appeals to the masses. Likewise, if the gops are to win they should do the same with the additional challenge of finding someone with no connection to W.


Of course not... http://canhillarywin.com

The comments to this entry are closed.