Hillary for President

[DanS]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What is "gutless" about not wanting Hillary to run?

She has high negatives due to her time as first lady. She was something of an enforcer for her husband, among other negatives (socialized health care, Whitewater scandal, covering for her husband's many infidelities, etc.).

Many Dems think that she is unelectable in a general election because of those negatives and will get savaged by the GOP, so they are trying to get her not to run. For all her negatives, she's a strong candidate. Much stronger than any Dem that I can think of. So not wanting her to run is gutless.

[DanS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We're talking about the Dems here, remember?

Repeat after me: "we'll put it in a lockbox."

[Spiffor]

Thanks for the explanation, Dan

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DanS

Blah blah blah meaningless drivel blah blah blah.

Case in point: DanS isn't paying attention. Hillary is a bad candidate because she plays whatever role she needs to play in order to get by instead of the role she was elected to play: Democrat. She doesn't take strong positions and has often given cautious minimalist support (or at least meek opposition) to the actions of this administration. Notice how her name is almost never in the headlines UNLESS it's an article or blurb about the possibility of her candidacy. She plays it safe and keeps her head low.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS

Many Dems think that she is unelectable in a general election because of those negatives and will get savaged by the GOP, so they are trying to get her not to run. For all her negatives, she's a strong candidate. Much stronger than any Dem that I can think of. So not wanting her to run is gutless.

You've said this three times now in a single thread, and I'm still waiting for you to back it up. She's run for office exactly twice, counting this year. This time, she has token opposition. Last time, her opponent imploded. She might well be a strong candidate, but how would we know? It's not exactly like she's been tried and tested.

Moreover, her high negatives are exactly what will make her a bad candidate. Let's face it, if discipline and an iron will could get you elected, Pat Buchanan would have been president some time ago. But Pat's got certain problems when it comes to a general election in the age of television, and so does Hilary. Specifically, she's a craven political opportunist who has no warmth, no charisma, and no ability to connect with ordinary people. She can be some of those things, as Clinton and Bush both were, and still be a strong candidate. But to be all of those things makes her a real longshot in a general election if she runs against anybody but a buffoon (which is why I'm pulling for George Allen).

Or, put another way: as a candidate, she's got all the same qualities as Nixon -- but she has to run with liberals, not against them. Good freakin' luck.

Admittedly, with her husband at her side and the Carville organization behind her, she becomes more formidable. With Wes Clark on the ticket with her, she might have a real shot. But Hilary, on her own, is a lousy candidate.

But is she nevertheless the best hope for the Dems? I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't mind her as prez, though she'd hardly be my first choice (that'd be Feingold). But from a purely strategic point of view, the Dems would be much better off with a vaguely charismatic cypher untainted by Iraq -- e.g., Mark Warner -- than they would be with a candidate who animates her opposition, alienates parts of her own base, and can't connect with everyone in between those two poles.

I even think they'd be better off with Gore. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if everybody who voted for Gore in 2000 votes for him in 2008, and if they are joined by everyone who tried to vote for him but couldn't, and everyone who wishes in retrospect that they had not voted for Bush, Gore wins in a landslide.

[DanS]

Gore? Come on. He turned a positive political landscape into a loser. You must love losing. Come up with another Gore and the GOP will wax them every time. If Clinton's uninspiring, Gore is a picture of rigamortis.

Really, if not Clinton, then who?

You've said this three times now in a single thread, and I'm still waiting for you to back it up.

She has a good sense of the mood of the country, especially with regard to security and social issues. She is disciplined about her message and makes few mistakes. She has good speaking abilities, and can be a right mother****er without it appearing in any way untoward. What she lacks in warmth, she has fighting spirit in spades. She has political heft and fills political space better than any other Senate Dem.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS
Gore? Come on. He turned a positive political landscape into a loser. You must love losing. Come up with another Gore and the GOP will wax them every time.

Um, Gore won last time...remember?

She has a good sense of the mood of the country, especially with regard to security and social issues. She is disciplined about her message and makes few mistakes. She has good speaking abilities, and can be a right mother****er without it appearing in any way untoward. She has political heft.

I'll certainly grant you message discipline. But shifting your own politics with every new poll is not "sensing the mood of the country," as John Kerry learned. And while she's a fine speaker an Sunday morning talking-heads shows, she comes off terribly on television generally and even worse improvising in public (again, the whole lack-of-warmth thing). As for "be[ing] a right mother****er without it appearing in any way untoward," that's exactly what she can't do. Her whole problem is that she seems like she's being "a right mother****er" even when she's not, and it's a turn off.

It's telling that the successful Western politicians she most resembles are Nixon and Thatcher. Her kind succeeds only in times of profound social crisis...and we ain't there yet.

On the other hand, Hilary has the qualities of a truly great Senator -- a Bob Dole, say, or an LBJ. The same qualities in her that turn off the general public work wonders on fellow politicians.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Um, Gore won last time...remember?

In RTF's dreams.

It's telling that the successful Western politicians she most resembles are Nixon and Thatcher.

Americans like fighters as presidents. I think it's high praise to describe Clinton in these terms.

[korn469]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

But to be all of those things makes her a real longshot in a general election if she runs against anybody but a buffoon (which is why I'm pulling for George Allen).

I thought it was a macaca not a buffoon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G7gq7GQ71c

[Admiral]

Originally posted by DanS
Gore? Come on. He turned a positive political landscape into a loser. You must love losing. Come up with another Gore and the GOP will wax them every time. If Clinton's uninspiring, Gore is a picture of rigamortis.

Interesting thing about Gore is that since 2000 he has turned into a much more charismatic figure. In other words, Gore is not another Gore. Furthermore, the only way that Gore would run would be if he directed the campaign. This would mean none of the focus group/poll driven campaigning that turned Kerry from an uninspiring candidate into an uninspiring campaign. Not that Gore would be my top choice as candidate.

When you boil politics down to its most basic, you either run a campaign based on "more of the same," or "toss the bums out." Right now, the country is in the strongest anti-incumbent mood since '94, and maybe even further back. Now, people generally apply this to the 2006 elections, and various pundits are becoming more and more convinced that the Dems could retake the House. But the thing is, this also impinges on the presidential election. Of all the possible Democratic candidates, HRC is second only to Gore in being "inside the beltway." Obviously, whoever runs will end up running against the Bush agenda, but the best way to do that is to run as an outside. Hence, I'd say any of the governors in the race would be a better candidate than HRC (and a shout out to my boy Mark Warner).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS

Americans like fighters as presidents. I think it's high praise to describe Clinton in these terms.

No we don't. We like genial dopes who tell us everything is going to be just fine. In the whole 20th century, the two Roosevelts and Harry Truman were the only presidents who didn't fit that mold. Even Nixon, who really was a fighter, only got elected by doing everything he could to conceal that aspect of his personality.

[Sikander]

I agree that Hilary is a weak presidential candidate, and much better as a senator.

Gore was a weak presidential candidate (he lost the debates to Bush!), has had his chance and won't be renominated.

There are some decent prospective candidates in both major parties, but it remains to be seen whether either party will be able to overcome itself and select one of them. Right now it looks more likely that the repugs will do so.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS


Because she would be a very strong candidate in the general election. She's the only prizefighter the Dems have.

but she still wouldnt win. of course youre fine with that. youre the kinda loon that votes for the most ridiculous candidate in the other party just to mess with the other party.

[DRoseDARs]

The only reason we're hearing about Hillary is because she is the GOP's ideal candidate. They think they can easily defeat her (probably correct) and with the added bonus of scaring the more dimwitted of their base voters, which of course helps defeat her AND get more conservative voters out to vote against their interests (as usual) in other elections as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Strong for who, is the question? At least you wouldn't have ads by Trailer Park Veterans for Truth attacking her Vietnam service, but I'm sure Rove & Co. could come up with something. Whitewater MCMLXXXVIII, or Cookiegate or something about Bill and Lewinski or something?

Thats why shes STRONG. A Dem needs to run to the center, without losing votes from the base. A centrist like Bayh or Biden is hated by the Kos crowd, and wont keep the base. Someone who appeals to the base will lose the center.

Hillary will run to the center, then the GOP will go all nasty on her, they cant resist, cause she just presses all their buttons, and that gets the Dem base to rally around here, even if Zuniga is running around screaming about her votes on Iraq.

The GOP nastiness probably hurts her with some centrist voters, but she can get just enough votes to win.

Are there really any people who voted for Kerry who WOULDNT vote for Hilary cause of Rush Limbaugh attacks? OTOH there are not a few people who wouldnt vote for Kerry, but would vote for Hillary, IMO.

Now maybe Warner can thread the needle between the base and the DLCers. Not being a Senator, he didnt have to vote on Iraq, and to this day hes avoided broad charecterizations of the war, IIUC. And Gore looks strong, cause hes NOT running, and is talking about one issue, an issues thats virtually motherhood and apple pie for most Dems.

Im open to persuasion though - clearly every bad day in Baghdad makes it harder for her to win the Dem primaries. It may be she cant win in 2008.

Is she the GOP favorite? I dont think so. Ive heard that she may be McCains favorite though - the GOP really doesnt like McCain, but are scared of Hilary, and might move to McCain if it looks like Hillary is the Dem.

Spiff - nothings assured. Early frontrunners generally are so based on name recognition, and often lose.