The new narrative: Anybody but Hillary
It seems we've been here before. Much as the narrative of 2004 was 'Anybody but Bush', the emerging storyline for 2008, on the Democratic side, seems to be 'Anybody but Hillary'. With The New York Times reporting on the junior Senator's efforts at shoring up her New York base for a Presidential run – side note: the rumor is that an announcement is expected on or about January 15th – maybe it's time to look at the opposition and its motivations.
The strength of this sentiment can be determined, interestingly, by the sudden interest in a Presidential run by Barack Obama. On the face of it, the idea that a freshman Senator with two years of experience would run for office is ludicrous. However, with the central dynamic of the 2008 primary, helped along by the lamestream media and their offshoots in blogdom, being the inevitability of Hillary, Democrats seem to be casting about for some, any, alternative. As National Journal said,
Too many of us have awarded Clinton the '08 nod too soon and too easily. The conventional-wisdom crowd is easily impressed by two things about her candidacy: money and her last name. There's also a dirty little secret that those of us in the media are leery to admit: She's good for business (particularly expense reports).
Since the primary contest at this moment in time largely reflects name recognition, Obama is the Not-Hillary of choice; but the question whether he can withstand the scrutiny of a national run is very much open. Likely, any candidate seen as viable is in a position to garner the same support.
The arguments of the ABH caucus fall into three distinct categories:
A Time Magazine poll from August 2006 paints a nuanced, if grim, picture worth considering.
Most Americans agree that Hillary Clinton is intelligent (81%) and that she's politically moderate (67%). She's the Democratic nominee they'd support the most if she runs for President (leading the field with 46%, just ahead of Al Gore's 41). And a majority (53%) agree that she makes a generally favorable impression. [...]
Hillary Clinton may be the most polarizing figure on the current political landscape. TIME asked respondents about 11 phrases one could use to describe her, from "likable" to "would protect America against terrorism." Democrats and Republicans disagreed by a margin of over 40 points on the applicability of eight of them, and by 50 points on three, including "strong leader" (Republicans 25%, Democrats 77% ), "would protect America against terrorism" (Republicans 17% , Democrats 67% ), and "has strong moral values" (Republicans 16% , Democrats 69% ). Democrats and Republicans come closest in agreement on her intelligence (Republicans 73% , Democrats 91% ) and the likelihood that she "would stand up for issues important to women" (Republicans 60% , Democrats 81% ) — perhaps a sign that, whatever her other problems as a candidate, she is not being held back by gender stereotypes. Or it could mean that Republicans hate her so much they don't care if she's smart.
Hillary's burden is spelled out in the 3% undecideds the poll reveals. Simply put, people know her, or think they do, and there's nowhere for those numbers to go but down. While her election appears unlikely, if it were to come to pass, we could look ahead to more of the vicious partisanship we've all come to enjoy so much since 1992.
Her youthful work on behalf of migrant workers was replaced by a 2003 radio assertion that she is "adamantly against illegal immigrants." Where she once fell on the sword of universal healthcare, she now partnered on a healthcare compromise with Newt Gingrich -- Gingrich who led the revolution against her husband in the name of that accursed health plan! Where she once advocated passionately on behalf of children's rights, she now pressed the Family Entertainment Protection Act, protecting hapless kids from the dangerous effects of video games.
She bid adieu to her longtime awkward support for Palestine with a final wanton embrace of Suha Arafat in 1999. In its place was an unctuous love of Israel, embodied by the introduction of one of those wily lost Jewish relatives who often appear on Methodist family trees when it is convenient to do so. Gone was her wonky devotion to her hometown Chicago Cubs. That particular loyalty was doffed in favor of a Yankees cap. The Yankees! What perfidy. No clumsy losers for the new Hillary Clinton, only slick, moneyed winners.
As senator, Clinton proposed flag-burning legislation -- flag-burning legislation -- to appease conservatives. After the 2004 election, the woman who wouldn't change her name and who was the keynote speaker at NARAL's 30th anniversary celebration joined the herd of Democrats distancing themselves from the pro-choice plank in the Democratic platform. Calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice" for some, Clinton told an Albany audience of women's rights activists in January 2005, "I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."
It's telling that, while other contenders for the throne are strongly associated with a given issue – Edwards on poverty, Gore on the environment, Clark on defense, McCain on veterans – Hillary does not in any meaningful sense 'own' any issue, with the possible exception of children, for whom she has been an advocate for a very long time.
The question of political dynasties is a thorny one. It was famously said of the Bourbon restoration, after the French Revolution, that 'they had forgotten nothing, and learned nothing'. The same could be said, and has been said, of the 2000 Bush restoration. On the other hand, the two Roosevelts are testament to the fact that family ties do not preclude effective, inspiring governance.
The dynastic trope could prove more powerful than many think. This because the idea of voting for known names – which is what underlies it – has been thoroughly discredited by the Bush family. It may be a part of Bush's legacy to undermine the very idea of the political dynasty. Many Americans may recoil from the idea of having our elections reduced to a squabble between feuding dynasties.
The last complicating factor for a Hillary candidacy is too often overlooked, but deserves mention. Simply put, the Democratic Party that she and her husband left behind when they left the White House is gone. It has been replaced by something new, an organization that is actively fighting to win elections across the country, and with a new and decentralized power structure, fueled by blogs and independent activist organizations. The Clintons presided over the death of the old Democratic Party, which lost power in 1994 in large part because of their scandalous ineptitude, and never regained it mainly because Clintonian/DLC triangulation ate out the soul of the smoldering remains. It also didn't help party-building efforts that the Clintons required quite so much defending and spent so little time on rolling back the Gingrich tide.
A nominee Hillary, however, would empower the old Clintonian party, probably – if James Carville is any indication – would reverse the Fifty State strategy, and disempower the netroots. In part, the lack of figures with national stature that characterizes the current Democratic slate is a direct result of the 1994 collapse; the Clintons may again be able to reap the benefits of what they sowed.
Most basically, the question before Democrats is this: do we want to look forward, or back? Do we want the new national party we're building, or do we want the slick, Beltway machine that Clinton loyalist Carville epitomizes? Do we want triangulation – flag-burning amendment, anyone? – or principled leadership? Above all, do we want to win, or do we want to lose?
This will be a very interesting primary; at stake isn't just power or the future direction of the country, not to mention the Supreme Court; it will also be a very real contest for the soul of the Democratic Party. The good news is, to again point to National Journal, that significant obstacles to a dynastic coronation remain.
Edwards or Clark, then
You've heard plenty about my (mainly negative) feelings on Obama already, and I believe Al Gore's protestations that he isn't running. I think that pretty much narrows the not-Hillary crowd to two: Edwards and Clark. Richardson is by far the most qualified member of the field and should get more recognition, but he doesn't. I'm not in love with either Edwards or Clark, but would prefer Edwards. Clark still doesn't seem to have developed a meaningful point of view on the role of government in domestic affairs.
Edwards/Clark
Edwards has a Progressive Agenda on his heart, and he's no stranger to the game.
Young and relatively inexperienced, he can grow into the job, gracefully, especially with a seasoned soldier like Clark on the ticket to play Cheney in handling the pricklier Pentagon and policy matters in the back room.
At this point, a good President is a guy with a lot of energy, an upbeat personality and a nice vision of the future, who can make a good speech and work the crowd.
If he picks a good cabinet and works well on the inside, while bringing more Americans in to the mainstream political process, he doesn't need to be a policy wonk himself.
Edwards is that kind of leader--a figurehead, perhaps, but inspirational and progressive.
With--at best--50% of adults voting in the biggest elections, we need to bring in the people for a change.
If we don't, our democracy is on a death march.
Hillary won't do it. Edwards will.
Edwards-Clark '08.
2008
Edwards was a weak VP candidate, and his entire political life amounts to one relatively undistinguished term in the Senate. I don't see where his qualifications should go unchallenged. Barack Obama has been in public life longer(nine years in the Illinois state senate in addition to his current term) than Edwards. Is there a racial issue here, in that the white moderate Edwards gets a pass on qualifications while Obama gets grilled over it? Noone ever gave Edwards the grief for running during his first Senate term that Obama is getting.
As for Hillary's negatives, yes they are higher than for other candidates, but that is to be expected for one who has been as high profile as she has. Everyone who could possibly hate her guts already does, so her negatives can't go up any further. But what about the other candidates? Their negatives can only go up as more of the public is exposed to them. This happened in '04 with Howard Dean, nobody knew him at first so his negatives were low, which was great. But the flipside was that his negatives only had one way to go as the campaign wore on...up! To put it simply, every other candidate BUT Hillary (unless Gore runs) has a LOT further to fall than she does. There is no mud the GOP can sling at Hillary that she hasn't already been hit with. They can't make her more hated than she already is, its not possible. So logically her negatives can only go in one direction, if she campaigns hard, and that is down. Which is what happened in the New York Senate race, her negatives started high and she worked them down.
Finally, as I've pointed out before, Hillary won't be running by herself. Bill Clinton will be campaigning just as hard for her as he ever did for himself, and he's a lot more popular than she is. He'll say, "the name on the ballot is 'Clinton', a vote for her is a vote for me. If you believed in me once, show me that faith again" Do not underestimate the power of Bill Clinton to sway democratic party primary voters. He knows how to do that better than anyone.
Snarl
Wallner, I am not in the mood today for your HillaryBottery. Everything you claim here is refuted in the body of the post. So please don't waste my time with your goddamn wankery.
Actually
Actually little of what I responded with was refuted in your original post. You mentioned nothing about Bill Clinton and the attachment many democratic primary voters still have to him. You mention Hillary's negatives being high, but mention nothing about how they probably can't go higher (I mean the GOP already thinks she's the devil, how much more hated can she possibly get?)
[Ed. Note]: One might add that Bill ain't running, and that there is no reason to expect, based on experience, that her significant negatives, which already put a possible election in peril, can't be pushed higher. They can be. Two words: John Kerry.
She's showed she's a strong campaigner. [Ed. Note]: Let's keep away from the personal attacks, shall we?
negatives
yes but hillary's negatives are so high that logically they are more likely to go down once she starts campaigning hard and people re-think their opinions of her, not up. She had high negatives in New York State when she ran for the Senate-- negatives as high as any candidate who has ever run statewide in new york-- and over time she worked hard and got her favorable numbers up. She's a skilled campaigner, she can sway some people. Just admit that. Also in spite of your spin to the contrary, most experts think she can win the general.
Again, no
New York is not the whole of America, and that aside, what is it that you base your claim that 'her negative numbers can't go any higher' on? Seriously? Is there a precedent? Or wishful thinking? Because we know that negatives for candidates in the general usually do go up - Kerry, Gore, Dole provide examples.
As to those experts, cite them. I'm more than weilling to be swayed, because my main beef with her is that she's unlikely to win. Well, that and the flag-burning sellout, amongst others.
Hillary's negatives
The basis is that a candidate's negatives can only go so high. Unless Hillary commits murder or grand larceny, she isn't going to get those who hate her to hate her even more. It just isn't possible. Candidates like Obama have a LOT farther to fall than she does. There is nothing the opposition can do or say about Hillary that hasn't already been done and said. Also the ones who hate her are republicans, not the loyal democratic party regulars who vote in primaries. The question is whether she can win the general, but everyone knows she can win the nomination.
My feeling is that in a general, the gop is not going to have a strong candidate this time. They just don't have one. And democrats will fall in line in the end, even with Hillary as nominee, because they aren't going to hate Hillary so much that they'd be willing to sign off on four more years of a GOP executive branch. Maybe Hillary can't win a landslide. But she can win 50% plus one in a general and thats all thats needed.
Once again
Provide evidence or precedent for your assertion that her negatives can't go higher. I say they can, because they're remarkably high despite the fact that she's been out of the WH for six years and has bent over backwards to appease her enemies - cf. flagburning. So there's material to work with. Explain yourself or drop the specious unsubstantiated claim.
Next, there's a good case to be made that lots of Dems will not 'come home' for her. It's not that people 'hate' her, it's that they don't trust her. So better four years of a weak republican, and another try in 2012, goes the reasoning I'm seeing, and hearing.
Bouldin will vote republican if Hillary's the nominee?
[Ed. note]: See interspersed comments.
Bouldin are you implying that if Hillary is the democratic nominee, and the republican nominee is say McCain, Guiliani or someone not entirely objectionable, that you would vote GOP?
No, but I have heard several people say that.
That you dislike Hillary so much that you'd rather have four more years of republican presidency?!?!
No, it's precisely because I want the next President to be a Democrat that I'm talking about electability. Seems a point worth making.
Leaving aside questions of electability,
Bad idea.
Hillary would be one of the most competent and highest stature people to run for president.
Based on what?
She listens to all sides and works very hard, I have no doubt she'd be a damn good president.
Flag-burning amendment.
My argument thus is that if you think someone would be a good president, must you disqualify that person based on issues that have nothing to do with governing?
If the disqualification is based on the inability of that person to get elected, for which there is a good deal of evidence, yes. And as far as governance is concerned, again, there's cause to be wary.
Personal attacks aside
Just answer the question on the negatives. You're making claims, and then slither out of backing them up. Since you've now been asked several times to explain how it is that her negative numbers have a magical ceiling to them, and can't do so, the conclusion is that you don't have an answer, probably because there is none. Also, note that you're the odd man out, the only one who drools over the idea of a Hillary candidacy.
And yeah, I've heard yellow dog Dems say they'd vote for the R over Hillary. That's not necessarily my view, not least because every Dem is better in my mind than any R, but just as Bill and Hill didn't break their backs in 2004, I'd say there's a good chance that people will sit this one out. The precedent for that is, for example, the widespread mood in 2000 that we could just let Gore go down, because then we'd take back the Congress in 2002 fersure. Stupid, and wrong, but there you have it.