It needs to become the vocal majority. =)

Can't wait to read the entry, BTD.

Tim

yay for analysis and warrants!

I don't think this is true.  Yes, they will try to throw this "baggage" at her, but the american people have heard it all before.  I don't think there is any appitite for rehashing that stuff and I don't think it will stick.  I don't think Obama is the best standard bearer for the Party because he steers clear of defining the brand.  Instead, it's more about him as an individual and what he will do to shake up Washington.  I think that's a posture more than a platform, and it doesn't really appeal to me.  

I don't think she is a secret GOP operative. I wouldn't call her a progressive, though. Of the Democrats running for president, all would probably appoint capable pro-choice Supreme Court justices, but I think Hillary would pick corporate-friendly moderates in the Breyer mold rather than progressives.

I also think that Hillary's desire to get back into the White House is so strong that she overlooks the great harm she would do to our down-ticket candidates in half the country.

Even if she managed to eke out a presidential victory, she would cost our down-ticket candidates a few points in the deep-red and purple states. We are going to need a solid Democratic majority in Congress to get anything done. I honestly think Hillary should not have run for president, in light of her very high negatives.

I know many people who share my views, but haven't heard any of them suggest that Hillary is some kind of Republican mole consciously trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

you would

Richardson

Hillary ain't no Lyndon Johnson, that's for sure.

what state do you live in?

Do you really think that Hillary would be such an outstanding president, so much better than the Democratic alternatives, that it's worth giving up a few close House and Senate races next year and in 2010?

Whatever.

It' funny. THe only reason why I rank John Edwards #1 on the list at this point is only because of the package deal factor with Elizabeth.

Remember when Bill Clinton ran, it was a 2 for 1 deal(though in my opinion, Bill won it all by himself).

Well with the Edwards, it is a package deal for me.

My dream ticket would have been
Gore/Clark or Gore/Obama where Gore would teach Obama over the course of the next two terms the pitfalls of using old Dem consultants.

My feeling is that it would have been nicer if Obama was 4 years older and he ran in 2004 like Edwards to learn from his mistakes.

Whoa, the formatting on my list looks totally bizarre, sorry.

you mean, just under 90%?

in 2000, gore got 86% of the democrats who voted.  in 2004, kerry got 89%.  i'm not sure why you would think hillary would do better than kerry, given the unity that democrats had after nader in 2000 and the negatives that some democrats have towards the clinton dynasty.  

I am as Anti Hillary as anyone in that group over here, and even I would not vote for the republicans.

I might write in a third party vote like Ron Paul just to show what a crime on our generation the iraq war was. The only area where I really disagree with him is on the abortion issue. But quite frankly, he has little chance of becoming President to appoint a justice to do the issue any harm.

Quite frankly, whoever the Dem nominee is, it will be a failure if they win by a slight margin. If there ever was a time to win big, this is the year. Third party votes and hanging chads should not even a be a factor this year. You should be able to win even if the Repubs pull out all their dirty tricks.
The key will be turnout, not percentage of partisan supporters among the party or even third party votes. Harold Ford doesn't get the message when he continues to tell Kos on Meet the Press that BUsh is our MVP sending America the message that Democrats rely on the other party fucking up to win.  Nader would have been a non factor in FL if Dems did a better job increasing their base turnout. With Hillary, I can see Republicans making it a big event like people rush to movies to see a big villain even if the movie lacks a big hero.

For those who bash third party voters, why don't you demand a runoff election in areas affected by third party votes if a repeat of 2000 occurs? It's a rare enough thing that costs would be a major factor.

I think he was confusing it with Obama, who has indeed shown 30+ negatives with Democrats in several surveys.  

Yes, Kerry is my senator, but he wan't the best candidate.

...[Obama] needs to can Axelrod.

Yes, yes, yes.

This is one of the reasons I think Obama is allowing his handlers to control his campaign more than he should.  Axelrod did an excellent job running virtually the same campaign last year, the difference was Deval Patrick always controled his campaign.  How did Obama end up calling Hillary Bush-Cheney Lite?  This clearly isn't the way Obama operates, and it demonstrated a lack of control over the message.

I've never really bought this name recognition theory. We all know that Hillary Clinton has practically (if not actually) 100% name recognition.  That's a given.  But I don't believe that, as the argument goes, the national polls are essentially meaningless because of this.  it was certainly true in previous elections, and will be again, but I just accept it this cycle, and here's why.

Edwards was the VP nominee 4 years ago, and he's been running for pres. ever since. People know who he is all over the country.  Obama has gotten enormous amounts of free press over the last 3 years, ever since that terrific speech at the convention.  And when he got into the race, he got even more. People know who he is.  They may not know Dodd and Richardson and Biden, but they know the "big three", for lack of a better term. The polls for those 3 have nothing to do with name recognition, as far as I can see.

Feel free to pick apart tis theory and tell me why I'm wrong.  I'm really interested to see what other folks have to say about my little idea.

george isn't exactly an astute observer of campaigns.  he's a fierce partisan, he doesn't want to see another campaign do better...

You are not looking at it in terms of the electoral college , she wins all the states Kerry won , she wins NH , OH , FL or ARK  she is in the whitehouse , If the elections were held today She will be in the Whitehouse.

But looking for ACTUAL atuhenticity from pols is a fool's errand imo.

I doubt it.  I love Al Gore, but his endorsement didn't do anything for Howard Dean.  Gore's stature has continued to rise since then, but I don't think it would be enough for anyone to close the gap (on the strength of the endorsement alone), with the possible exception of Obama. At best, it might be worth 5-10 points, and I think that's being generous.  This is all supposition, of course.  Your mileage may vary.

A lot of her unfavorables come from the left, from people who are, for whatever reason, under the impression that Clinton's Policies aren't Progressive enough.

I think that tends to get grouped in with the Unfavorable Rating in and of itself allowing one to over-estimate the impact of the other stuff.

When you look at the number, 48% say they have already decided not to vote for her in the General Election, the Conventional Wisdom is to think that number is only comprised of Conservatives and Moderate Independents.

But when you take into account that 28% of the folks Blogging over at DailyKos.com have also made a commitment not to vote for Clinton in the General Election, then it becomes apparenty that a large chunk of that 48% comes from Policy Oriented Leftist Independents.

So I always feel it would be great if Polling Agencies could ask Secondary Questions on the Issue.

We really don't know how a Hillary Clinton candidacy will play out. It depends on who she's running against, and an essentially infinite number of other things. The only thing we can say is that the Republicans will turn out against her in full force, and yeah probably Democrats and women will turn out for her too. But it all depends on which effect is bigger.  

i think you are confused by the fact that she's well known and liked among democrats.  here's another breakdown that will give you better insight into how voters actually feel about her:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). June 8-11, 2007. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ±  4.4

Date    Ver Pos    Som Pos    Neut    Som Neg    Ver Neg    DK/Not
6/8-11/07 18     24     15     16     26     1

obviously, this isn't just democrats, but it measures intensity.  i think you are confusing 80% approval to that percentage going over the plank for her...

Who wants bashing? I said in my post that drawing symbolic differences between the candidates, like attacking Clinton for taking money from lobbyists or being a "Washington Insider," is not something I consider very productive. I consider that a political game. But I do think there are, or at least there should be, real substantive differences between the candidates. It's no surprise that Clinton, as the frontrunner, is trying to blur those differences and turn our attention to the Republicans instead. I wouldn't expect anything less from a smart politician. But I don't have to respect that strategy.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "play nice" (which was more directed towards the voters as opposed to the candidates). When Obama and Edwards get into a competition about the merits of their health care plans, and what the best strategy for passing universal health care is, that's not bashing. That's debate, and something we could use more of in the campaign. As for us democrats, it's incumbent upon us to hold our politician's feet to the fire a little bit, hopefully in an intelligent and substantive manner. We have a responsibility to appropriately critique all the candidates. Partisans who only boost their side, and tear down the other side, are both dishonest and uninteresting. It's the difference between, say, you and areyouready.

What's Hillary's policy chops?

Last time I checked, anyone over the age of 35 who was a U.S. born citizen can run for President.

So, he should lumber around in the Senate like Kerry and watch other up and coming Democrats run against him? Sorry, but last I checked, this is a free country and if he wants to run for President now, let him. Why should he be told by others to sit down and shut up until 2016? The nerve of some of you.

lovingj is David Axelrod?

Based on what I've read, I have a fairly favorable impression of Axelrod. Now I don't think he is some amazingly brilliant strategist or whatever, but he has a good record, and it's not clear to me how exactly he's screwing up the Obama campaign. More the point, I think the Obama campaign is being run pretty much the way Barack Obama wants it to be run, and the departure of Axelrod's people isn't going to magically make him jump 10% in the polls.

I guess what you want is for Obama to be more partisan? More like Dodd? I confess I don't actually know that much about Dodd besides his appearances in the debates, so I look forward to your post on him later. Anyways, I personally like Obama's inclusive yet progressive rhetoric, but I grant that he could more be partisan in the general election. But why on heaven's earth should he be trying to build the democratic brand in the democratic primary? What he needs to do to win is take down Hillary Clinton, not the Republicans. Now maybe Axelrod isn't the right strategist to beat Clinton, but if so what do you think the right strategist/strategy is?

This is sort of a tangent from the main post, so I don't want to get that involved. But I've just been curious about the negative feeling towards Axelrod that has been expressed on some quarters of the blog here. It doesn't seem very justified to me--as you said, it all comes down the candidate, and Obama hired and is close friends with Axelrod.

Why do you think the pharmaceutical and insurance industries are donating so much to Hillary?

not to rehash, but look, you aren't dealing with a naive or believe everything we hear public here. give us more credit by not throwing out the standard spin. here's the reason why no one believes what you are saying who isn't already a clinton supporter. yes, part of it is the lobbying money. i could forgive that although i think it stinks.  but frankly the true point at which I personally don't believe her is where she tells us she will try to implement this in her second term. Now either she has an over inflated view of herself or she  thinks her audience is too dumb to realize she's basically giving us the middle finger, but there is no way I believe she thinks she will really implement a major industry changing thing like healthcare reform in her lame duck years. she walks on the earth like the rest of us. no amount of political ability is going to make her walk on this water.