Dukakis in a Dress

...HillaryBots of the world! Tell me how you're smarter than the average lemming marching over the cliff. Heh.

Again I'm not a Hillary-bot, and right now am more likely to end up supporting and working as a volunteer for Barack Obama but, since you are spoiling for a debate, I'll point out a few things that point to Hillary being a potentially strong candidate:

1. Hillary won't be running alone. Bill Clinton is going to be a shadow candidate. He's going to be there, on the campaign trail and in her shadow, making it clear to voters that when you vote for Hillary, you are not just getting her. You'll be getting him back as well. He will be VERY visible on the campaign trail at crunch time. Bill Clinton is still very popular among democrats and a lot of voters in both parties feel that the country has gone to hell since he left office. Bill and Hillary are a team, a vote for one is a vote for both. Also since no democrat has been elected president since, not a few democrats still see him as the leader of the party.

2. Hillary's campaign will be historic, as the first female with a real chance to win. A lot of casual citizens will be bored to tears if its edwards v. mccain, it will seem like more of the same. Two moderate white guys. But you nominate Hillary and women, the majority demographic in this country mind you, will ultimately come out in droves to vote for her. As will young people, anxious to vote for the first time simply to be part of a historic moment. Never underestimate the power of being able to make history. Even if they don't like her, the idea of electing a woman as President, finally, for once in their lifetimes, will be way too appealing. The gender gap will be huge if she's the nominee, as will the "first time voters" gap. Her election will mean something different, a bold historic change. Electing Obama might as well. Electing Edwards, Biden, Vilsack, Dodd et al will not.

3. Most importantly, the republicans don't have a winning candidate this cycle. They have no candidate who will hold the party's base and stand up well against a personally engaging democratic nominee. I watched John McCain on Meet the Press last week and he was terrible, looking stiff, tired, frankly old, and totally uninspiring. He also has the Howard Dean problem of being flippant and shooting off his mouth, the press will be likely to take him down and hog tie him with the wrong words. He is NOT a strong candidate. He's not charismatic and will look bad debating Hillary, and worse debating Obama. The republicans will never nominate Romney because he's a mormon, and never nominate Guiliani because he's pro choice and pro-gay rights. They won't nominate Hagel or Brownback because they are against the war in Iraq. Pataki's a non-starter. Face it, the Republicans have nobody this year. It is like 1996, when they nominated Bob Dole. Dole was a weak candidate. They were never going to win with Dole. George W. Bush, hate his politics and hate him if you will, was a strong campaigner, he could bring his own party together and speak plainly enough to connect with non-partisans. The GOP doesn't have a candidate this year who can do that. They don't have ANYONE who can beat Hillary or Obama, or even Edwards.

bouldin said: (This not least because she has never, to the best of my recollection, taken a controversial stance on anything.)

You must not have been alive in 1992-1994 when Hillary was being roasted alive by the opposition for taking the bold initiative of overhauling health care. You think that wasn't controversial? She was facing some hard truths about the health care crisis in this country well before many, particularly on the other side, were willing to admit it.

You asked about the "why" of her campaign, as in why is she running-- health care overhaul is a big reason. She couldn't get it done back then, the time wasn't right. But now the country may finally be ready to face the health care crisis head on-- the mass aging of our population due to the graying baby boomers isn't just some far off proposition anymore. The Bush administration has done nothing but ignore the health care crisis and nothing is being done to reign in the power of greedy HMO's who are more considered with profit than patient care. The Clinton health care plan was a lot more right than it was wrong, and I think a key to her running is that she'll be able to put it back on the table. It is time to revisit health care as an issue in a major way and few people would be know more about or be in a better position to champion that than her.

I expect her to run on health care, on the idea that we can't have a compassionate society if there are american citizens, any citizens, young or old, who don't have access to quality medical facilities and medicine. The other candidates can talk the talk on that issue, but she has walked the walk. They haven't stood up in congress and been ripped apart on health care, and then had time prove they were right all along.

Since I'm old enough to be Hillary's mother, I guess I have a right to say that there are any number of Baby Boomers I wouldn't vote for, if I could help it. And don't ask about not supporting women! It's a question I hate to hear. If a man were asked whether he would vote for another man, I'd hate to hear that also.
Let's diagram the Democratic Party's recent history. For a Southerner to win in late 20th Century he would have to be very personable. We got Bill and were the better for it. Hillary isn't a Southerner. She isn't an Easterner, except for her bank account. She's a suburban Chicagoan. And the Dems have a person who has Illinois credentials. But the main reason why I agree with the idea that Hillary will not be President is because she is re-warmed DLC. It was important 15 years ago to think of feeding the corporate world to revive the economy. That wasn't so stupid at the time, but now we have twin bubbles: dot.com & housing. We have an economy which makes most people nervous and we need someone who doesn't just want to "fix" our pain. The woman has a lot of good qualities, including intellect, determinaton, and organization skills. She has little vision of what happens in a world challenged by aging populations, illiteracy, and lurking pandemics.
If Hillary and Bill would just come sit in my little Senior apartment and talk a while, I think I could make them understand that they could become the First Couple on the international stage. They have the experience. Bill seems to continue having the vision. And Hillary has the stamina to carry through. And if Hillary wanted to talk about Mrs. Roosevelt, I'd remind her that Eleanor made up proud by chairing the committee to draft the UN Human Relations Commission Charter.

Margaret those are all good points. I disagree with any notion though that one must be a southerner to get elected president. The Deep South has become so red in the Bush era that it isn't going to turn blue again anytime soon. Edwards couldn't even carry his home state of NC in the 2004 general. So the Dems neednt' be worried IMO about having a southerner on the ticket. They can win without the south.

You also said, "Hillary and Bill would just come sit in my little Senior apartment and talk a while..." This is exactly what Hillary and Bill are going to do in Iowa and New Hampshire, go to voters there, sit down and double team them. Just as they did in '92. The last eight years have been such a major disaster for the country that most democrats are going to want to make sure, above all, that the party gets the white house back. The Clintons will ask them if they want to take a chance on candidates untested in the big league campaign (Obama) or who lost already on a national ticket (Edwards), unproven candidates who the press could eat alive, or do they want to go with those who have gotten them there, who have won. They will say, "Ten years ago you didn't know who Obama or Edwards were, or where they were. But you knew where we were. We know how to get back there because we've been there"

How many times have you written exactly these points, Wallner? Fifty? It's as if the post itself is incidental to your need to relieve yourself of your talking points.

First, the two-for-one argument: pretty much hogwash. Spouses have no constitutional role, and the American people (as Hillary herself learned) are averse to them having one. Considering that the dynastic meme will hurt candidate Hillary - is in fact already hurting her - there's no ground to be gained by talking up this extra-constitutional baggage. Frankly, with a view towards precedent, we shouldn't want that, either. This is a Republic, not a monarchy, and we do not give executive power to those whom are sleeping with the people we elect.

Second, the women thing. It's demeaning to assume that women will vote for a female candidate regardless. It's also, and more importantly, not true. Linda Hirschman discusses this. To quote:

But I have news for Messrs. Carville and Penn: All the gender gap talk notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that Clinton would receive enough votes from women to be elected. I've studied women and women's politics for 20 years, and if there's one thing I know, it's that, except for possibly once in 1996, female voters have not by themselves put anyone in the White House.

Lastly, the 'weak republican' claim. Again, nonsense. Not only did the Rs get George Bush 'elected', who's as weak as they come, but they have better people this time. It's always unwise to discount the opposition, in especially when it's highly motivated, as it would be in the cataclysmic event of Hillary being the nominee. A Giuliani-Brownback ticket, which is not unlikely (they cancel out each others weaknesses and turn them into pluses), even puts New York in play. Conversely, if the Rs are so weak, we should be looking at a real Progressive, not some obsessive republican-lite triangulator who sponsors flag-burning amendments and thinks torture is OK in some cases.

First, be aware that I tend to think of politics in terms of economics. Voters often don't use the terminology, but many are more interested in better living conditions than they are in single-interest issues dealing with religion and other cultural matters. I consider Iowa (where I lived from 40-45) as being different now from those days. Agribusiness can be helped by energy legislation. The small farmer is probably working for Home Depot. Iowans are gaining invaluable dollars from all the hoopla of an early primary, and then they will vote their pocketbooks.
I can't say what might happen in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, who are hurting for national support, but in general I believe that people of the South are open to better wages, health insurance coverage, and good schools and roads in the same way others are. After living in Tennessee for 30 years, I have come to believe that people here are just as disgusted with sending their men to war and the high price of gasoline as others are.
So I come back to what brings people to the polls. It would seem to me that if Hillary comes to Iowa with Bill at her side, she will be roundly defeated. What do you call the reverse of "hiding behind a woman's skirts?"
A lot of what hurt Democratic candidates was a Rovian scheme which zeroed in on a few "swing" states. I felt betrayed in 2004 when I campaigned for Kerry. I wrote many rapid responses for them, knowing he didn't even care about us.
Is it possible that national candidates will have to consider local political organizations as partners? How will that influence people like Hillary, Barack, and Edwards, et al?

I get daily newsletters from Congressional Quarterly, OpEdNews, and Political Wire. Not to mention weekly politicalcortex and that really great one from mole's blog. I hardly have time to read more than three online newspapers. But of course that doesn't count salon.com. And I still find out what Bob Parry has to say. I have a friend in Atlanta who tries to find articles I might miss in Der Speigel and other foreign sources.
But one thing I don't have time for is deciding who will make a good presidant. If I keep on reading, maybe I'll know who is going to make it to the top.
Will Charlie Rangel accomplish what he wants on his committee? How about the impeachment crowd? They were pretty excited about last weekend. If Hagel, Warner or Feinstein mutter something on C-Span2, I listen. Info overload puts it mildly.
One thing I don't do is second guess how the Democrats will stick together. So far, they seem to be basking in the glory of slim majorities. The House is going to be interesting with caucuses. Black. Isn't there a Latino? Progressive. Blue Dog.
My final thought for the day. We elected them. See that they work. Write them if they don't. And in time we have a working consensus.

I learned something about Bill Clinton through his book. He hated being a fat boy. I'm glad he told us. I'm glad he told us about the better life they had after his mother married Clinton. Hot Springs would be a nice place to grow up. And he said he went down to the courthouse and made the name change himself. And also I found it interesting how he and Hillary could work together when he was governor. He was probably less amazed that the Republicans finally torpedoed him than people thought. He was good at figuring out what the people needed, but he never believed that some would take his interest in the populace as anything but a ploy. If he had been as Rambo as many politicans, he could have easily become Emperor.
From Hillary's "It takes a nation" book, it's apparent that her mother's childhood influenced Hillary to be a child's advocate. I haven't read her other book. But she cannot seem to talk with, rather than to, folks. "My husband" makes me wonder why she just can't say "Bill." She has a shell around her. I wonder whether she really wants to be president or whether she thinks womankind will be mad if she doesn't. If I had a chance to tell her about women's rights I'd like to tell her that women in Wyoming could vote before they could in the rest of the country. Reason was simple. There weren't enough men in the state to qualify for statehood. Nellie Tayloe Ross became governor when her husband died in office (1925). It's hard for me to do other than approve of her struggle. However, I'm not sure she learned conscience raising the way most of us did during the early days of NOW. It's a temptation for all of us college-educated women to believe that we have something extra to prove. But also we learned that there is no room for a Queen Bee. She has those tendencies. If we get tired of psychoanalyzing GW Bush, just think how the public will get tired of trying to find out what makes her tick.

doesn't strike me as "change." No matter how she is packaged. And that's pretty much what I see when I look at her -- the packaging.

Boring! Same-old same-old politics. Hairdos and her husband getting a blow job. Who cares.

I'd like to learn more about Edwards. He did well in Iowa recently, didn't he? What are the skeletons in his closet?

I hope this doesn't just come down to voting for a Dem because the alternative is so horrible. Which is pretty much how I remember feeling when I voted for Kerry.

Nance

I think Hillary's focus on universal healthcare is a clear indication that she is a populist. Bill Clinton ran as a populist, and I think it is grossly unfair to her to suggest that since her background is different than his, or maybe because she's a woman, that their goals must somehow be different.

As for Hank Sheinkopf's 500,000 white male catholics in key states, they are the same type you find living in upstate new york. Sheinkopf personally advised Hillary on her Senate campaigns and she got re-elected in a landslide, obviously getting a fair number of those upstate voters. Its a fair conclusion that if she can get 67% or more of the vote in New York State, she can appeal to similar catholic male voters throughout the east and midwest. Clearly the folks in upstate who have faced economic hard times, bought her as a populist. She went upstate and went door to door, with a cross around her neck, talking about the need for economic re-vitalization and overhauling health care and all the things those people in Syracuse, Binghamton, Buffalo, and other places wanted to hear. The vote she got upstate clearly indicates they heard her message and bought her as a populist.

Like her personally or not, Hillary has shown that she has learned the craft of populist campaigning well from her husband. Politicking is a skill, and what you want in a nominee is someone who can play the game. The jury is still out on Obama, he's never had a competitive re-election and never been on a national stage. Edwards only ran for election once and might not have been re-elected to the Senate in Minnesota, and MANY democrats were dissatisified with his performance as a VP candidate, although he blames that on the Kerry people. The jury is still out on how skilled he is as well.

But with Hillary, even if you don't like her, you know what you are going to get, which is a tough, skilled politician who is going to play the game well.

Margaret said: ( It would seem to me that if Hillary comes to Iowa with Bill at her side, she will be roundly defeated. What do you call the reverse of "hiding behind a woman's skirts?")

See I think that is a double standard. Male candidates are expected to bring their wives on the campaign trail and show them off. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire EXPECT to meet their wives. In fact it hurt Howard Dean immeasurably IMO that up until days before the Iowa Caucus, he had not brought his wife out there. Iowa voters said, "if we don't know his wife, do we really know him"?

Yet when there's a female candidate, Hillary, and the talk is of her bringing her spouse on the campaign trail, something is wrong with it and she'll lose because of it? Sorry but that is a clear double standard. Voters are not going, or should not, expect for Bill to be any less visible in Hillary's campaign than she was in his, and they deserve to be called sexist if they say she can't have a spouse as visibly campaigning for her as a man can with his wife.

I follow his efforts. First, because I understand where the man is coming from, which is just across the mountain from where I am. But second because he has spent almost total time since November 04 on building a track record. It's not just the Poverty Center he promoted, but also his forays into international events. I rather like his approach to the Ipod crowd, although I get bored with the idolaters on his blog. In general, I believe he has a solid understanding of what the Constitution said, and says.
Frankly I doubt if his hairdo will hold up to some of his contenders. His intellect probably would pass muster. But I question whether the Eastern Establishment can understand what his motives are. It's easy to stereotype those of us below the Mason Dixon Line as rednecks.
At this writing, I have no desire to jump on his bandwagon. For one thing, he has come out with some broad outlines on such issues as healthcare and affordable housing where he may have a hard time getting specific. For another, he needs to attack American militarism headon. Republicans have such a toehold in local elections because they have strategically placed bases and defense suppliers in areas to make the voters think twice about electing a Democrat. If he succeeds with a domestic agenda, he will have to take a very hard look at war profiteering.

...and the people she'll be running against are not as awful as John Spencer or Jonathan Tasini. Or as whippersnapperish as Rick Lazio. Besides, Eliot beat her by several points.

And Hillary is NOT a populist; she's a DLC Dem. But even that is probably just for show, because she'll be whatever people want to hear. Which in turn is what turns people off, see above.

As to her healthcare fiasco, here's an evaluation from someone who worked on it.

"My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have this-and-that objection, she told them they were disloyal. When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such-and-such, she told them (wrongly) that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that. When long-time senior hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with rather than reaching out to John Breaux and Jim Cooper, she told them that they did not understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate. And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health-care system...

Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch--the equivalent of an Undersecretary. Perhaps she will make a good senator. But there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president."

QED.

about the difference between what it takes to get elected, and what it takes to do the job well --

Bouldin quotes a three year old blog entry from some economist in california who obviously has a grudge against hillary. Big deal. As Bill Clinton once said, 'if a politician in office after a few years doesn't have as many enemies as he as friends, he isn't doing his job" The level of hate for Hillary among some, the way years old blog entries get handed around, shows her enemies fear her. Bouldin sounds like a right winger the way he hates hillary just as they do.

I would suggest that Bouldin go on hating Hillary and for the next year post as many negative old blog entries and articles as he can find. Use all the ammunition you can. Because the more the level of hate in the opposition rises, the more others will think that something positive is inversely there. Bouldin you will help make Hillary president, because enough voters on the left are going to think that if the right hates something that bad, it must be good. Hillary's campaign people want your hate, they want your venom. They want your fear. Because they can make it work for her.

...when confronted with what are known as "facts", than the personal attack inherent in 'you're just a hater'.

And as noted, my input isn't required to sink this candidacy. The candidate herself will see to that. The question is when.

How about the Edwards? I guess my post was not in the main conversation. What I was driving at is that his style and that of Hillary are so different. As yet we have no clue as to Obama"s take on domestic issues. And these are the three in the lead in Iowa one year before showdown.
It"s good to have a conversation about Hillary--one of many, for sure. Kate Michelman has signed on as an advisor for Edwards. Will that bring out the bedroom issues?
Sorry. I'm going shopping. The sun is shining. Snow is predicted for tomorrow. In our neck of the woods, everyone hits the groceries and malls the day before. Just one of our quaint ways!

Is one of the nicest, coolest people I've ever met. Seriously. She rocks.

I should make the disclaimer, which I think I have before, that I worked for Bill Clinton's primary campaign in 1992 in New Hampshire and Maine as a volunteer, and later in the national field office down in D.C. during that year. I have met and knew both Clintons before either was elected, and admire both, so I have a bias. I admit it. I saw them holding up under some of the fiercest and most hostile negative campaigning any candidate ever had to endure. They are strong candidates and good quality people, both of them.

That said, I am leaning towards supporting Barack Obama because 1) I am more liberal than the Clintons, and 2) I sense something quite special about Barack and I think his campaign can be special. He could be a new Kennedy. I know Hillary can lead and well, but Barack may have a greater capacity to inspire.

Swing states and those 500,000 male catholic voters Sheinkopf stipulates were brought up, and whether Hillary could win there. Here's the latest Quinnipiac poll of Ohio voters:

[Ed. note: the following numbers reflect what is known as a post-announcement bounce, which has historically been transitory. This commenter also leaves out the numbers that show Edwards outperforming his chosen one in the general election match-up. So there's a measure of, shall we say, wilfulness to this.]

From from:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu:

[b]"Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a three-to-one lead over any Democrat and has a razor-thin lead over leading Republican presidential candidates in the key state of Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

In general election matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds:
Sen. Clinton squeaks by Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 - 42 percent;
Clinton inches by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 46 - 43 percent;
Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 52 - 31 percent;
McCain edges Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 41 - 38 percent;
Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards edges McCain 44 - 41 percent.

Giuliani leads McCain 30 - 22 percent among Ohio Republicans. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gets 11 percent and Romney gets 4 percent.

Among Ohio Democrats, 38 percent pick Clinton, followed by 13 percent for Obama, 11 percent for Edwards and 6 percent for former Vice President Al Gore.

"Those who say Sen. Hillary Clinton can't win the White House because she can't win a key swing state like Ohio might rethink their assumption," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "While it's a long way - 21 months - to Election Day, these numbers indicate that at this point she is very competitive in Ohio." [/b]

Conclusion-- Hillary can in fact win a general election because she can win a state like Ohio, and most rank and file democrats don't loathe her the way some of the netroots do.

[Ed. note: see above. This conclusion is not supported by the data presented.]

So you disagree with Peter Brown, the asst. director of Quinnipiac? Fine, but don't state that as a fact, state it as your personal opinion.

"Sen. Clinton squeaks by Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 - 42 percent;

Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards edges McCain 44 - 41 percent. "

How does that translate into Edwards outperforms Hillary in a general election matchup?

This is not erally a post-announcement bounce because everyone has known for years that Hillary was running. Her announcement was not news. Also Edwards just announced so is this isn't HIS post-election bounce and he's doing worse than Hillary?

(Note: respond in your own post, using your own name, its not proper blogging etiquette for a moderator to insert his comments into other bloggers posts)

Mole, I was not wrong. Had you read that post closely enough, you would have seen I specifically said candidates who have lost in a "general" election. Reagan had not previously been the nominee of the party, as either president or vp, before he won. He had never been on the national ticket. Nixon doesn't count because he was elected nationally before lost nationally, he was elected vice president. Edwards has never been elected nationally before. I am talking about candidates who presented themselves for national election and were rejected the first time. Nixon was not rejected the first time, he was elected.

`

Getting back to topic, Edwards also has no base that I can see. A strong national general election candidate should ideally come from a key state where he/she is overwhelmingly popular and they can deliver. Edwards could not deliver North Carolina. That state went red in '00 and even redder in '08. He might not even have gotten re-elected to the Senate there, as he was only elected the first time by a razor-thin margin.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both represent two of the largest states in the country, and both were elected (or reelected in Hillary's case) overwhelmingly. Each can potentially deliver their state in the general and probably can have coattails that deliver neighboring states. The question I ask is where is Edwards base?

I personally like Edwards and I like some of his ideas. But I just question any claim that he's necessarily the most electible candidate out there. Of course its perfectly okay for Bouldin to question Hillary's electability again and again, but if I do it for Edwards I get blasted right?

I see your points. I would only point out that Tennessee went for Gore when he was vice president on the ticket, in fact it went blue twice. By contrast, when Edwards was on the ticket also as vp, his state did not go blue.

Also I think Hillary ran in New York, and not in Arkansas, because there was an open senate seat here in 2000. Arkansas not only had no open seat in 2000, but both senate seats were held by democrats who had been supporters of the Clintons. There was no opening for her to run there. I think she has a better base, more supporters, more money, running for President as a Senator from New York than she would if she had gone back to Arkansas and waited around years to run there.

(and not by choosing Gore as vp imo) carried Tennessee twice at the top of the ticket.

As for Hillary and Arkansas, the supporters who held power there were supporters of BILL, not Hillary. She never belonged there, didn't want to be there and never thought of it as her people or base. You're not seriously suggesting that she would've loved to return to her "home" in Arkansas as first choice for her Senate seat, but darn it, there were no openings and so she forced herself to move out of her beloved South?

She strikes me as a ruthless, elitist human political calculator, to whom every person, place and thing is either stepping stone or rock in her sack. Arkansas may have the dubious distinction of having been both at the same time -- but it was never home or family. She never came across as understanding or valuing us'ns down here . . .

So the only hope she would have to carry southern states is leaning very heavily on her husband's accent, instincts and charm. Attributes that John Edwards possesses in his own right (and shares with a very impressive spouse of his own.)