Shot across the "anti-Hillary" bough

Via atrios, it looks like the anti-Hillary folks at sites like these might have to reexamine their assumptions. As per a recent Pew poll reported in the USA Today, 53% of voters would choose Hillary in '08:

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

*Clinton commands as much strong support -- but more strong opposition -- as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998. *

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee. . . .

. . . Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003. . .

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

*A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

*Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

*Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

*And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Hillary is much more popular than many on the left think, who spend too much time projecting what they think "middle American" voters do and don't like (while they themselves live in NYC and Boston).

Hillary has the right blend of moderate toughness and liberal instincts to make a very, very formidable candidacy. Lets not start the inaugaral party yet - not by any means - but if you forced me right now to state who I think will occupy the White House come '09, I think Hillary might be the best bet. (amongst an admittedly crowded field).

Hillary scores well with women, African Americans, and moderates. I think she is exactly the kind of person who will win back some of those married women who defected to Bush over the terror issue in '08

Tags: Democrats (all tags)



What has Hillary done?
I find it interesting how no one questions why these folks hate hillary? She is not her husband. You might say she should be the object of pity by the Wingnuts for she was the one he cheated on. So again I ask what has she done to receive their rath? Should we on the left Hate Mrs Bush with the same intensity we do her hubby bushbag? Is she being hated for the sins of her husband or what?
by eddieb 2005-05-27 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: What has Hillary done?
Politics is perception.
by Sam Loomis 2005-05-27 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What has Hillary done?
What has she done? A man named George W. Bush run & won the Presidency in 2000 with the SHORTEST RESUME of any U.S President in history. DID AMERICAN VOTERS ASK GEORGE W. BUSH what he had done prior to running? Did that Stop him from not only winning in 2000, but actually winning reelection in 2004.

Did John Kerry's 20+ years or Al Gore's 20+ years in politics get them to the White House?

As Sam correctly pointed out, sad but true- the average american voter out there who is not a political junkie looks at Presidential Candidates for the Charisma, likeability, and how they personally perceive them.

Bill Clinton & George W. are perfect examples of this. While John Kerry & Bob Dole are perfect examples of men with years of experience but POOR Perception in the eyes of your average Non Political voter who make up the deciding factor in this elections.

Partisans from the left & the right put way too much emphasis on experience & track record when your average "Joe" out there votes based on who he perceives as qualified,charismatic, strong, likeable  without regard for the candidates resume.Scary but true.

John McCain is one example of one who is enjoying a positive perception from majority of voters whether fair or unfair. Its all about perception.

by labanman 2005-05-27 06:13PM | 0 recs
Primary voters tend to be political junkies.
Why would they vote for Hillary?
by craverguy 2005-05-27 06:17PM | 0 recs
McCain's Straight Talk Express
Taking firm stands on a very few issues gave McCain a reputation he does not deserve. That's a sorry sign of how few principles a politician needs to be viewed by the media as a "straight talker."

It's also a good sign for any Democrat willing to take a few strong principled stands and talk straight to the American people. The number one issue for me is "Bush has already lost the Iraq war. It is time to pull out."

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:18PM | 0 recs
my wife says she could never vote for a woman because they are too strung out on PMS 1/4 of the time and that's dangerous ! LOL

But i also know given the choice between a GOoPer and HRC, she pulls the lever for HRC and then sends her some midol

by Pounder 2005-05-27 04:43PM | 0 recs
Does PMS continue after menopause?
I'm curious.
by Paul Goodman 2005-05-28 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Does PMS continue after menopause?
Are you playing us?

You're asking if pre-menstrual syndrome continues after a women stops menstruating?

by bellarose 2005-05-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
a couple of points
About all the PMS concerns, I don't by them, but in any case Hillary is probably past all the PMS stuff by now. And, those who hate Hillary don't need a good reason, much less any reason to hate her. They just do. I think it's mostly about white guys who are threatened by a strong smart woman.
by SF Bay 2005-05-27 04:48PM | 0 recs
let me ammend that
white right wing conservative guys (with a little penis) who are threatened by a strong smart woman.
by SF Bay 2005-05-27 04:50PM | 0 recs
PMS... you guys are kidding, right?
Did you really think you were going to put "PMS" rubbish in a post on a progressive blog and escape without getting the post down-rated?
by afs 2005-05-28 07:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary hater rubbish
Please don't try to be Joe Scarborough lite with the "Hillary hater" theme. That's rubbish.

I have a number of concerns about Hillary. My biggest concern is that she is a warmonger lite. I will oppose any nominee who tries to run as a more effective war monger than Fearless Leader. The Iraq War is immoral, and illegal and wrong. Any Democratic nominee wannabe that can't articulate an anti-war position is not qualified to be President and will not win the nomination.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 08:18AM | 0 recs
We are being set up for a Clinton - McCain contest
I don't trust these polls, but I do think Frist is self destructing and we are being set up for Hilary verses John.

These polls are way too far out from the event and too much interviening time to take them too seriously.

by leschwartz 2005-05-27 04:51PM | 0 recs
The support if very weak
The poll asked if you could vote for her if she were running, not whether you wanted her to run.  It is not that a majority want her, if you add the somewhat likely to the likely you get a majority.  Very very weak. AND a very hard 44% says never no matter what.

Everyone is overstating what this poll about. The republicans WANT us to nominate her.  Hillary has made many mistakes.  

She is definitely not my choice.  

by lindiana0 2005-05-27 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The support if very weak
Well 40% of people will never vote for a Democrat no matter what or Republican for that matter, so 44% saying they will definitly not vote for her isn't that bad.
by Painter2004 2005-05-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
Only 39% are a strong no vote. She's in a stronger position than Gore was in.
by eskimo 2005-05-28 07:38PM | 0 recs
Its all about the economy
Otherwise people have no incentive to vote for the Democrats.
by Paul Goodman 2005-05-28 10:59AM | 0 recs
Underestimate her at your own risk
She's incredibly smart.
And apparently incredibly patient.

She gets the nom and chooses to be flanked by The General.  That's my bet, and I'm stickin to it.

by Sam Loomis 2005-05-27 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Underestimate her at your own risk

That would make for one hell of a ticket!

by bellarose 2005-05-27 05:35PM | 0 recs
An opportunist and a former Republican on the same ticket. You'll excuse me if I don't jump for joy.
by craverguy 2005-05-27 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Yuck.
Leaving aside the late Paul Wellstone and Paul Tsongas,  I can't think of a Politician who isn't an opportunist.
by bellarose 2005-05-28 06:38AM | 0 recs
General Zinni or Clark?
Does Hillary plan to run as a more effective warmonger than Fearless Leader or a more effective peacemaker?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Underestimate her at your own risk
If that's true, Sam, and we're going to see a Clinton-Clark ticket in '08, then we'd damn well better carry Arkansas!
by betterdonkeys 2005-05-28 12:11PM | 0 recs
vote for bolton
if she votes for bolton she'll lose my vote in 08
by goplies 2005-05-27 05:36PM | 0 recs
It's just name recognition.
The three Democrats who always do the best in the polls are Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards.

Now, what do they all have that guys like Feingold and Warner do not?

by craverguy 2005-05-27 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's just name recognition.
you said it. it's name recognition.
by Hannula 2005-05-27 05:47PM | 0 recs
Name recognition
was enough to put Gee-Dub in the White House.

(That, and dirty tricks . . . but I think the Clintons have those, too.)

I don't really like Hillary very much, but I wouldn't be surprised to see her take the nom in '08. Whether she can take the White House depends largely on the Reep candidate, and how good a job the RWNM does of sliming her.

by catastrophile 2005-05-28 08:45PM | 0 recs
Why should progressives oppose Hillary? Here are a few reasons: she voted for the war in Iraq; she voted for the evil bankruptcy bill; she has begun to hedge on abortion: is it possible to imagine a more unprincipled candidate than this? Didn't we learn in 2004 that a democratic candidate with no principles is a loser? I am staggered to find people on a progressive site who would consider supporting this deeply cynical, unprincipled woman.  
by Jolly frog 2005-05-27 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary
seeing as you haven't written a diary and have only commented negatively on Dean and Hillary I feel you are an operative.
by goplies 2005-05-27 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary
Those are my three top concerns about Hillary as well.

(1.) Will Hillary be compelled to keep us in Iraq to maintain a "tough foreign policy" image?

(2.) Hillary has been hedging on abortion. Does she support Howard Dean's position or is she an oatmeal mush, Kerry middle of the roader?

(3.) I despise any Democrat who voted for the bankruptcy bill. (I despise most Republicans whether they voted for bankruptcy or not.) There was absolutely no principled reason to vote for the bankruptcy bill. A vote for the bankruptcy bill indicates a willingness to sell out the voters for corrupt corporate interests.

I don't know the anwers to the first two questions and that is troubling. What does Hillary stand for? I'm not certain. A lot of voters vote for the image. I am not one of those people.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:05PM | 0 recs
Bankruptcy Bill
When did Hillary vote for the bankruptcy bill? She was not even present when the bill was voted on, so how can anyone say that she voted for it? This is her statement entered into the public record, opposing the bill. So to sum it all up, she didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill because she wasn't even there, and if she had been, she would've voted against it, at least according to her statement. So why is she being accused of doing something she didn't do?
by Gabriel 2005-05-27 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bankruptcy Bill
Thank-you for the correction. I try to check the facts before I jump to conclusion. Perhaps it would help if the Hillary on the issues page was updated.

Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

The fact that a YES vote on restricting bankruptcy was still up on her website is somewhat misleading I guess.

 I'm in a very suspicious frame of mind ever since Kerry decided to co-sponsor legislation with Rick Santorum. The Al From/Dick Morris idea that a Democrat candidate has to pander to the right wingnuts to be "electable" is still percolating among the Democratic punditocracy. I'm keeping a perhaps too criticial eye on the "centrist" candidates who are prone to pandering. Until Hillary clarifies a few points, I'm going to continue to be critical of her.

I was genuinely shocked when Kerry decided to co-sponsor legislation with Santorum and was even more shocked that nobody in the Democratic party condemned him for it. It seems like a natural topic for Hillary to issue a stern lecture on women's rights to a deluded bonehead who doesn't have a prayer of getting the Dem nomination again.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Bankruptcy Bill
Thanks for this.
by bellarose 2005-05-28 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bankruptcy Bill
The Bankruptcy Bill reminder, that is.  
by bellarose 2005-05-28 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary
There is nothing to indicate she's changed her position on abortion.

I agree about the bankruptcy bill; that's inexcusable.   But being realistic, unlike with Kerry, HRC's support for the Iraq war will probably help her in the general election.   I think our first woman President will have to at least appear hawkish in order to combat a "weak woman" stereotype.

Years ago, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe predicted our first woman president would have to be a Margaret Thatcher type.  She assumed the woman would most likely be a Republican.

I hope she's proved wrong about that second part.

by bellarose 2005-05-28 06:32AM | 0 recs
That's the problem
Unless Hillary can win as an anti-Iraq War candidate, she is not going to win. Kerry, Biden and Hillary are deluded if they think a pro-war nominee can win in a Democratic primary. Iraq is going down the tubes in a hurry. The sooner they realize it the better.

We don't need two warmonger parties in America. We've already got one too many.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 08:13AM | 0 recs
Hillary might be able to get UN force into Iraq
Hill and Bill have enough international standing to get an internationalized UN force into Iraq. I don't know if any other Dems have enough political capital in the world to pull that off.

The only possible way a democracy can survive in Iraq is if it's a UN force defending it for at least the next 10 years. Even then, it's a crap shoot. Otherwise, you're looking at an ongoing insurgency against US troops if we stay, or a decent into chaos and fragmentation if we leave.

Bush made a real mess.  Any result there is going to be ugly for a long time before any resolution.

by afs 2005-05-28 08:26AM | 0 recs
Hillary Excitement
Some of the people in the blogoshere have no idea whats going on with the rest of the country. I've talked to a number of Bush Voters who would vote for Her.  They are primarily security moms and moderate men.  She'd generate a media frenzy as the first woman to get the nomination.  Imagine the Headlines, "Clinton Wins Nomination; Makes History".  Hillary would crush anyone, save McCain and Guilliani (who I doubt would get the GOP nod, McCain is hated by the base/ Guilliani is pro-choice, pro gay rights)  She's had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at her and is still standing. She knows how to handle the attacks.  Anyone who is nominated will face instant demonization by the GOP Smear Machine, best we nominate someone who knows how to handle it. Face it, those who hate her, hate her. But more people view her favorably.  Go Hillary Go!  
by NJDEM1 2005-05-27 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Excitement
I will definitely give Hillary credit for the ability and willingness to stand up to the right wing slime machine. That's a very big plus.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:06PM | 0 recs
i`m not a hillary lover but by 2008 people may be so fed up with bush and his wars and secrets they may be ready for a woman.if the dems can get 60% of
the woman to vote for them it`s a slam dunk to we all know bill will help run the country, it would be like a 3rd term for him.
mccain will have a hell of a tough time winning the republican nomination,he is perceived as a rino by the rightwing but when america    takes a good look at him he won`t look so appealing,he is basically a war loving conservative anti abortion
right winger who occasionally strays to the middle.
by JOEL1954 2005-05-27 06:45PM | 0 recs
If it's going to be a woman from a blue state, I'm afraid I shall have to insist on Barbara Boxer.
by craverguy 2005-05-27 06:51PM | 0 recs
Boxer isn't running.

And the chances of a California Democrat winning nationally aren't good.

by v2aggie2 2005-05-27 07:54PM | 0 recs
She could run. It's still too early to make sweeping declarations like that.

And I think she could win, with the right campaign. (Then again, you're talking to a guy who really thought Wellstone could beat Gore in the 2000 primaries.)

by craverguy 2005-05-27 08:56PM | 0 recs
Boxer has made the sweeping declarations
Boxer has made it incredibly clear that she refuses to run for President. Public statements over and over by her stating in unqualified terms that she is not going to run for President in 08.

There's not bigger fan of Boxer on this site than me. There's nobody more disappointed than me that she's not going to run.

A Boxer Presidential campaign is not happening in '08.

by afs 2005-05-28 07:44AM | 0 recs
Clinton said the same in 1990.
He swore up and down that he would serve his full four-year term as governor and not run for president. Guess that one really stuck, huh?
by craverguy 2005-05-28 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton said the same in 1990.
Yes, but Boxer also said that she  considered not running for re-election for the US Senate before she saw the abuses and partisanship being perpetrated by the Republicans post 9/11.

I don't see a Boxer run.
We already have too many Senators in the mix as it is.
It is one thing to do well in California, as she has.
But will it translate in swing states?
I have serious doubts

What about our governors at some point?  They actually create policy and agendas.  Isn't this what the President does?

by v2aggie2 2005-05-28 11:20PM | 0 recs
Find me a liberal governor...
...and we can talk. But I don't see any right now. The last one was Jerry Brown, and he left office in 1982.
by craverguy 2005-05-29 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Find me a liberal governor...
Well, there are good governor candidates, but I don't think that you will like any of them.

It's tough for Senators to shift campaigning gears.  It can be done, but it is a major hurdle to climb

by v2aggie2 2005-05-29 06:30AM | 0 recs
I like Paul Wellstone, but there's no way he was going to beat Al Gore in 2000.
by v2aggie2 2005-05-28 11:10PM | 0 recs
Not with the medical problems Wellstone had
A healthy Paul Wellstone just might have had a different enough take on Presidential campaign that he might have caught fire in the snorefest that was the Gore/Bradley primary race. However, that type of campaigning requires a whole lot of personal energy that Wellstone didn't have because of his medical problems.

One of those "what could have been" things...

by afs 2005-05-29 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Not with the medical problems Wellstone had
Beating a sitting Vice-President is not easy.
I don't really believe Bill Bradley, if you gave him truth serum, thought he had a great chance to win.

And I doubt that Wellstone would have run in 2000, healthy or not.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-01 08:05PM | 0 recs
what's the point of winning?
The "Global War on Terrorism" is a fundamentally misguided approach.

Putting a Democratic face on it doesn't change this.

I would rather have the GOP implement the GWOT with the Dems fumbling around in their dissent than to have the Dems implement the GWOT and have the dissent come from the fascist wannabes.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-05-27 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: what's the point of winning?
That's my primary concern. Iraq is an unwinnable war. I am not sure I can support any Democrat who does not strongly favor pulling out of Iraq or at least having a very solid exit strategy.

A Dem President who did not pull the U.S. out of Iraq would own it the same way Nixon ended up owning the Vietnam war. The worst part is that the failure of the Iraq war would be blamed on Democratic weakness. That would be a double failure.

Better to let John McCain continue to lose the Iraq War and the WOT than have both nefarious ventures branded as failures of Democratic weakness.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Nominating HRC is a trap
I don't believe that swing voters will actually vote for HRC.

I think they say they have open minds, but these are the same people that fell for the lies about Kerry.

Once the smear machine gears up these people will find some excuse not to vote for HRC.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-05-27 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Nominating HRC is a trap
The thing is, the smear machine is there for any Democratic nominee, so we will have to deal with it regardless.

Hillary is used to it, so maybe it is an advantage for her.

by v2aggie2 2005-05-29 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Nominating HRC is a trap
by bellarose 2005-05-29 05:11PM | 0 recs
need a vision
Is anybody else sick of losing with candidates that don't articulate a vision for the Dem Party?

What's the point of losing with Al Gore, John Kerry or HRC?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-05-27 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: need a vision
You're reading my mind Carl. We need a Brand Democrat who stands for something. Among the somethings they must stand for are leaving Iraq, women's rights and higher corporate taxes with more stringent corporate oversight.

If Hillary is going to another warmed over Kerry, count me out.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:14PM | 0 recs
The question isn't will she be a good candidate..
It's whether she will be a good president. A lot of people see things in her that they would not want to see in a president.
by who threw da cat 2005-05-27 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The question isn't will she be a good candida
by bellarose 2005-05-28 06:41AM | 0 recs
This is an apples and oranges poll
Do pollsters ask, "Could you vote for Wes Clark?"

Ask the same question on multiple Dem candidates.

I expect HRC will have among the lowest "could vote for the candidate" numbers and among the highest "would never vote for the candidate" numbers.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-05-27 07:11PM | 0 recs
Stop Me If You've Heard This Before
Hillary has the right blend of moderate toughness and liberal instincts to make a very, very formidable candidacy.

Exactly what people were saying about John Kerry this time last year.

by tgeraghty 2005-05-27 07:13PM | 0 recs
Insanity . . .
. . . is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
by tgeraghty 2005-05-27 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Me If You've Heard This Before
Hilary seems to me to be the latest incarnation of the DLC/Shrum approach to politics that has served us so well(NOT!).

Personally I'd like to see a genuine economic populist get the nod in 2008.

Of course we have no idea who will and won't run in 2008 including HRC. All this Hillary talk might be a distraction and she might not actually want the job. On the other hand someone like Gore or Dean might decide to run in 2008 dispite repeatedly saying they wouldn't.

by ces 2005-05-31 07:35AM | 0 recs
How about Hillary for VP?
I think Hillary would be a better VP candidate. Realistically, regardless of what the "middle Independent voters" say, there are voters who may tell a pollster they would vote for Hillary, but not actually be willing to pull the lever for a woman when push came to shove in the voting booth.

I think we need a woman Vice-President to break the political glass ceiling before Americans are genuinely adapted to the idea of a woman President. Hillary would make a terrific right wing lightening rod and counter-attack dog VP. That way the Presidential nominee could remain Presidential and above the fray.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-27 07:25PM | 0 recs
she isn't qualified
I've got no problem with a woman President. I've got a problem with HRC.

The Beltway Dems got two pro-Iraq War guys on the ticket in 2004. It didn't win over "security" voters.

Let's go in a different direction.

If a Democrat was too foolish to realize the Iraq War was a bad idea by the 2004 elections s/he isn't competent on security issues. By this standard HRC is not qualified to be CinC.

Sorry, but that's reality.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-05-27 07:30PM | 0 recs
What qualifications does a VP need?
Maybe we have a different view of the VP role. I thought one of John Edwards faults was that he was not rude enough as a VP candidate. Of course it is entirely possible the Kerry camp kept him under wraps. I'm look for a VP that is not Joe Lieberman or John Edwards.

I'm looking for an anti-Iraq war candidate with a bull dog VP who isn't afraid to get their hands dirty fighting back against the slime machine and hitting them hard.

I agree with you that Hillary is not qualified to be CinC. Coming back to the politics is perception problem, I think the American people will have a lot of resistance to any woman as CinC. Especially during a time of undeclared war, I don't see the American voters putting a woman in the WH.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 03:40AM | 0 recs
Someone elected to Senate in NY isn't qualified?
Hillary Clinton ran for the US Senate in New York state and won when her negatives were even worse than they are now. She's also going to cruise to re-election.

I can't believe someone on our side is going to claim someone that will have been elected and re-elected to the US Senate isn't qualified to be President.

by afs 2005-05-28 07:53AM | 0 recs
A woman Commander in Chief?
The American people will never accept a woman as CinC.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-28 08:25AM | 0 recs
Clearly, 53% of Americans HAVE.
53% of Americans HAVE accepted a woman as Commander-in-Chief. If they hadn't, Hillary would not be the choice of 53% of Americans for President right now.

What... did you think the pollsters told the people polled they would be selecting the first President that wouldn't be CinC? Did you think they told the people polled that Hillary was a man? People can be dumb, but they know that the President is the CinC and wouldn't be their choice for President if they had not accepted Hillary as Commander-in-Chief.

I think Maggie Thatcher broke that barrier for the most part here already, and whatever wasn't broken by Thatcher was moshed on by the Janet Reno Dance Party.

by afs 2005-05-28 08:37AM | 0 recs
Please, No More Gimmick Strategies
I think she is exactly the kind of person who will win back some of those married women who defected to Bush over the terror issue in '08

This is exactly the kind of thing Chris Bowers warned us against months ago:

. . . look[ing] at candidates only in their supposed ability to pick off one or two states, improve our standing in one or two demographic groups, or who have some sort of biography that would result in less mud being slung at them by the GOP. . . . such strategies are beyond worthless since they serve as little more than temporary bandages and smokescreens while ignoring long-term problems. They are also naïve to assume that we will ever put up a candidate who will not be mercilessly attacked by the Right Wing Noise Machine.

The way to win the terrorism argument is to relentlessly press the points, day after day, week after week, month after month, that (1) Bush was asleep at the switch on and before 9/11; (2) Bush responded by starting a war against people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to us; (3) Bush's conduct of this war and the GWOT in general has made the world a more dangerous place, not less; and has made Americans less safe, not more; (4) Bush has consistently failed to take the steps, both domestically and internationally, that could really make Americans safer; and (5) Democrats will remedy this.

This effort should have started two or more years ago; the fact that it is still not underway just further underscores the essential lack of leadership and discipline that has plagued the Democratic Party for decades now. Nominating Hillary is not going to solve this problem.

by tgeraghty 2005-05-27 07:47PM | 0 recs
forget percentages how does she win the electoral college?  

is she going to rely on bubba to win some southern states for her?  or can she win colorado, new mexico, etc?  

by JoelK in AZ 2005-05-27 08:02PM | 0 recs
Same way Bill did
Consider a fractured Republican Party and a disaffected third party candidate from the Republican RR or Corporate "moderate" (depending on who is more disaffected)...
by ROGNM 2005-05-28 07:25AM | 0 recs
I'd vote for Hillary... if:
I could honestly see myself voting for Hillary, but only if she is the Democratic nominee in 08 and is running against Chimpy, who after having his senate puppets eliminate the filibuster has them vote in a bill allowing a president to serve unlimited terms. Of course, under those conditions I'd also support Al Sharpton, Marion Barry, Andy Dick, were he still alive, Mr. Rogers.
by Slapmaxwell 2005-05-27 08:26PM | 0 recs
President Hillary
After thinking it over, I would vote for Hillary whomever she was opposing, as it would assure Rush of having a major diabilitating combination heart attack stroke.  
by Slapmaxwell 2005-05-27 08:35PM | 0 recs
Has Everyone Gone Mad?
The American people have been led by the nose by the current Administration and media to believe that we are engaged in an endless war on terror.

I'd love to see a woman as president.

However, I do not believe that a majority of Americans would vote a woman into office to act as Commander-In-Chief during a time of war.

Even if we've created the reality.

If the Democrats run a woman for president, they're going to lose again.

by Patricia Taylor 2005-05-27 10:44PM | 0 recs
Hillary is an unpricipled weasel
Really, what does she stand for other than the idea that she should have power? But OK, fine. If she can win

However, that poll is undoubtedly skewed by right-wingers who are boosting Hillary's poll numbers because they think she'd be easy to beat.

by expatjourno 2005-05-28 03:52AM | 0 recs
Ms. DLCer
Yes, let's go back to the wonderful days of triangulation, or NAFTA, of reappointing Alan Greenspan twice, of balanced budges uber alles, of fund raising scandals, of legislation designed to appease Wall Street and big business (not as bad as Bush, admittedly), of talk of social security "reform."  No, let's not.
by Paleo 2005-05-28 04:12AM | 0 recs
Its a shot across the bow, as in the front of ship, not shot across the bough, as in boughs of holly.
by cluv 2005-05-28 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: GrammarBot
Fa la la la la, la la la la!
by bellarose 2005-05-28 08:04AM | 0 recs
The smears haven't started yet
The left-over smears against her husband are fading- but the active smears against Hillary herself haven't started yet.  Swift boat vetrans, anyone?

Of course, this goes for anyone who runs.  If anything should be learned from the 2004 election, it's that there is no strength a canidate can have that is so strong, so obvious, it cannot be attacked and turned into a negative.  And Kerry's effin heroism is example #1 of this.  But he didn't defend it, and look at what happened.

And that's a strength.  Now let's start taking a look at her weaknesses.  First of all, she's a Clinton.  Every smear against her or her husband over the last 20 years will come back and get prime time coverage.  We'll be hearing about HillaryCare, and Monicagate, and Travelgate, and Whitewater, what the definition of is is, and so on, ad nauseum.

Second, she's female.  Gerraldine Ferraro, anyone?  She'll be asked for her cupcake recipie- and if she doesn't have one, her credentials as a female will be questioned (what sort of mom doesn't know how to bake cupcakes for her kid?), and if she does, we'll be asked if we want someone more concerned with cupcakes than foreign policy in the Whitehouse.  Hell yeah, it's a trick question.  That's why it'll be asked.  No, it's not fair.  And if she has some sort of trick answer to get out of the cupcakes question, they'll simply come up with another trick question.  If you don't think the press is effectively overtly hostile to a Democratic President (of any sex), please explain to me why a lie by a Democratic President about sex is still considered a worse sin than repeated lies by a Republican President about why we went to war.

Both of these, and no doubt other, problems can be solved- but only in one way.  All out attack.  Whoever is the Democratic nominee in '08 can not let an attack be.  Can not assume that the media will come to it's senses and apply common sense.  The SBVT ads came out in early August.  In the three weeks it took Kerry to respond he dropped in the polls from being a clear leader with low negatives, to being in a dead heat with high negatives, and never recovered.  We lost the election in those three weeks, and can't afford them ever again.  Kerry forgot the lesson he learned in Viet Nam- you've got to turn into the fire and attack.  Yes, Bill lied- and hurt Hillary and Chelsea and that's about it.  Bush lied and people died, and the media should be spending more time on that, and less time trying to break up the Clinton marriage.  Yeah, Hillary knows how to bake muffins- and will spend less time doing that than the current President spends clearing brush or playing golf.  Don't defend, attack.

But therein lies my biggest problem with Hillary.  Will she go for the juggular, is she willing to see political blood on the ground- or will she take the advice of the DLC "moderates", who will give her the same winning advice they've given our last two Presidential candidates, and wimp out?  Bluntly, my prediction is that she'll try to run as a moderate if she's out candidate, and we'll see yet another bravely fought, narrowly lost election.

by bhurtaw 2005-05-31 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The smears haven't started yet
I think that Hillary can attack back.
She went after Republicans during and after Monica -- knowing that Bill cheated on her.

She is many things, but a wimp is not one of them.

by v2aggie2 2005-06-01 08:10PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads