Hillary in 2008 is NOT inevitable.....

[election_2004]

...nor is it prudent, given the HUGE mess that a Dem president will need to clean up once Bunnypants leaves office.

Before you all groan, "Not another post about HILLARY!"....just please read what I have to say. If you agree with me on any of these points, I encourage you to share these thoughts with your local and state Democratic Party chairs and elected officials.

Disclaimer: I think the best-case scenario would be for Hillary to win reelection to the Senate in '06 and then choose to remain there as a power player. However, I'm not optimistic that she will simply settle for that. I also apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to make sure I address a lot of the rebuttals that people will have toward my position.

And to the Clark supporters: while I like Wesley Clark and I think he'd make a fine president, I believe he would be much more valuable as our next Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense in the next Democratic cabinet.

First, let me say that I disagree with those who insist that only a Republican woman could get elected president at this point in time. With over half of the U.S. population being female, and our country’s ideology being split fairly evenly between conservatives, moderates, and liberals, there’s no doubt that a qualified woman from either major party could appeal to the masses. She just has to be the right woman.

As “exciting” as some people think it would be to see Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice get into a Jell-O fight in 2008 (despite the fact that Rice has flatly denied any presidential aspirations), is that really what’s best for the country? There’s a reason why pundits and the media want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee for president: although Senator Clinton is not very qualified (she wouldn’t be where she is today if she hadn’t been a former First Lady), her candidacy would breed sensationalism and conflict.

Even if Hillary, as a presidential nominee, was elected president (which she very well could be), her administrative tenure would generate counterproductive baggage for the Democrats and the nation as a whole. Conservatives and the right-wing would fear the implementation of Hillary’s alleged “tyrannical leftist” agenda (which doesn’t actually exist), and refuse to work civilly with her. Centrists and moderates would become wary (and rightfully so) of her temperament and ability to oversee national security, and regret having given her their votes. And despite their appreciation for her U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many leftists and liberals would always, on some level, fear that Hillary might sell them out (which she probably would) by sacrificing progressive values for political opportunism.

My personal favorite choice as a qualified female president is still U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). Now let me openly admit that I’m clearly biased, given that I’m part of a multi-state grassroots movement to encourage Senator Lincoln to run for president in 2008. I encourage all of you to visit our website, and see why:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Lincoln’s passion for rural issues, agriculture, national security, military/veterans rights, education, geriatric care, and relieving food insecurity are components that will speak to the very audience that the Democratic Party is trying to appeal to: rural, working-class, populist voters in reddish-purple states. Electorally, if Lincoln was at the top of the ticket, she could flip several of the red states that went for Bush last time around.

On-edit: I also wrote an editorial earlier this year that focuses on Blanche Lincoln's own virtues and her issue positions/stances, which can be read here:

http://www.flipsidepress.com/issue/getpost.pl?messnumb=1107314205

although I realize that some people here are already committed to supporting Kerry, Clark, Richardson, Warner, Bayh, etc. Off-edit

Granted, Blanche may not be as liberal as Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, or Barbara Mikulski, but she has the charisma, honesty, and integrity that are essential for a president to lead. I don’t necessarily agree with all of Blanche’s stances or past votes on every issue. But no U.S. Senator is going to have a perfect voting record – the same way no governor is going to have a perfect executive record (especially considering the lack of successful Democratic governors who took office prior to 2003).

Furthermore, the differences between Blanche Lincoln and Hillary Clinton are much more pointed than how they each have voted on legislation. Clinton represents the extremely blue New York state. Lincoln, on the other hand, serves constituents in the purple-to-red Arkansas. Which of these women could more convincingly reach out to the “purple” voters whom Democrats say they’re trying to meet the needs of?

While Hillary could definitely win the White House by portraying Bill Frist, George Allen, or Garwin Sanford as a right-wing extremist, that victory would come at a severe price. Many Democratic incumbents will be up for senatorial reelection in 2008 – these red state senators include Mary Landrieu, Tim Johnson, and Mark Pryor (in Louisiana, South Dakota, and Arkansas, respectively). How would having Hillary at the top of the ticket help to reelect Democrats in those more conservative states?

By contrast, Lincoln would not only have a good shot at winning back the White House for the Democrats, but her phenomenal campaign skills could also help to swing the U.S. Senate back to a Democratic majority. As a presidential nominee, Lincoln would be an asset to Landrieu, Johnson, and Pryor – but she could also provide momentum for potential Democratic challengers in some winnable Senate races, such as Becky Lourey, Darlene Hooley, and Drew Edmondson (in Minnesota, Oregon, and Oklahoma, respectively).

Hillary could very possibly cause a GOP net gain in the U.S. Senate further down the ticket, whereas Blanche could actually flip a handful of Senate seats into the Democratic column.

Of course, if Lincoln decides to run in 2008, the media will sneer at her lack of name recognition and dismiss her as a “long shot,” despite her potential to reinvigorate the Democratic Party. There is a reason for this. Although conservatives will diametrically disagree with Lincoln on a bulk of political issues, most of them would, on some level, have respect for Lincoln’s pragmatism and levelheaded approach (although they won't admit it verbally; but actions speak louder than words).

Senator Clinton, by contrast, despite her best efforts to appear centrist, will always be perceived as further to the left than politicians such as Lincoln, which would hinder her ability to negotiate with lawmakers – especially with the likelihood of a GOP increase in Congress that could accompany Hillary’s election as president.

The mainstream media knows this, which is why it will continue touting Hillary as the one to beat. It will rehash how Hillary is shrewd, calculating, ambitious, high-profile, and a robust fundraiser. The Talking Heads realize that Hillary Clinton will eternally be a polarizing figure, loathed by the right-wing – giving them more “excitement” to sensationalize and report on. Their insinuation will be that all of the other female politicians – aside from Hillary, of course – are apparently either “too feminine,” “too soft,” “too nice,” “too weak,” “too obscure,” or “too polite” to be elected by the American people. Right?

How long are we going to allow the corporate media to insult our intelligence?

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be denied a spot on the Democrats’ national ticket based on her being an extreme liberal (because she isn’t one). Rather, the country would suffer, one way or the other, by having Hillary as president or vice-president because she is power-hungry and manipulative. As a U.S. Senator, she may swerve toward the left when she votes on many issues, and she may talk like a centrist right now – but Senator Clinton will throw anyone (no matter what their ideology) to the wolves if it benefits her political legacy.

Perhaps I’m just naïve or idealistic, but I would rather have someone who is fair-minded and principled as president – even if I don’t agree with her or him 100% of the time. I guess the mainstream media and many partisan individuals don’t share my opinion.

Yet, I reject the conventional wisdom that a Hillary Clinton presidential nomination is inevitable. If Blanche Lincoln can gain the same kind of pre-primary buzz that Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich took advantage of – riding from obscurity to become household names – Lincoln could defy popular assumption and do what Dean, Edwards, and Kucinich failed to do by capturing her party’s nomination, becoming our first female president and very possibly excelling at the job.

Even if Blanche Lincoln doesn’t run for president in 2008, there is no reason why Hillary Clinton must be on the ticket. Some suggest that a hypothetical Democratic nominee such as Wesley Clark or Evan Bayh should select Hillary as his running mate for the V.P. slot. However, Clark or Bayh would earn many more palatable points with Middle America by picking a moderate woman such as U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) or Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D-LA) as his vice-presidential running mate – rather than tarnishing the V.P. slot with Senator Clinton, who will eternally be portrayed as a liberal Dragon Lady.

Yes, the 2008 election will be divisive no matter who the candidates are. But a Democratic nomination of Hillary Clinton will make it even more divisive than it needs to be, exacerbating the increase of that rift.

The next president may very well be a woman – but that doesn’t mean it has to be Hillary Clinton.

[jaxx]

1. I like Hillary

however the ideas given by you are real. She carried a lot of baggage that will haunt her forever politically. Next thing we know, it'll be her fault about Moncia and Saddam. Too bad, because I think she's smart and could do the job. Blanche Lincoln isn't familiar to me, but I'll read up on her. Moderate is ok......right is nowhere I intend to go. We don't need another Lieberman type to run for the dems.

[election_2004]

4. Well, the difference between Lincoln and Lieberman....

Lieberman is from a solidly blue state, yet he unapologetically embraces cultural conservatism. By Connecticut standards, Lieberman is a very conservative Democrat (even though he votes the right way on many issues).

Lincoln is from a Southern state that straddles the red/purple color threshold, so although there are occasions where she votes with the Republicans, by Arkansas standards she is fairly moderate-to-liberal.

Ideologically, when looking at the spectrum as a whole, I would place Blanche Lincoln to the left of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman...but obviously she's to the right of Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, John Edwards. Overall, Lincoln is very much in the center, but her authenticity makes her stand out from other DLC-affiliated politicians.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I wouldn't place her to the left of Al Gore currently

Gore's really taken quite a few steps to the left since the 2000 election.

[election_2004]

10. Still.....

It's hard to reconcile the pre-2000 Gore with the post-2000 Gore (especially since the post-2000 Gore had no official constituents to answer to).

Voters need consistency. Anyone can travel the country making speeches that *SOUND* good, but presidential candidates also need a timely record to run on (which is why most are Governors or members of Congress).

I think Gore would do best as the new EPA Administrator or Secretary of the Interior in a Lincoln presidential cabinet...assuming that he even wants to leave his day job heading the new progressive cable news network.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Senator Gore was QUITE conservative

Even on abortion (although I don't believe he was a pro-life flip-flopper as Republicans claimed).

Check out his Senate record - representing Tennessee, he was FAR to the right of where he is today.

I don't know whether it's because he's now free of electoral considerations or whether years at the centre made him more liberal or he's genuinely been changed. But ideologically, he's quite different.

His record was probably quite comparable to Blanche Lincoln.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Gore is clearly to the left of where he was.

I share your questions as to why.

[election_2004]

22. It could be...

Due to his passion for establishing a strong progressive news network alternative to the likes of Faux News and other MSM whores.

[Samantha]

30. I might be able to answer that

In his early years, Gore voted the views of his constituency. He agonized over this because the conservative views of mainstream Tennesseans did not comport with his own personal views. Read Prince of Tennessee by David Mariness for more detail.

He was legitimately considered to be more hawkish on defense, probably as a result of his being one of the few Dems who voted yes to the first Gulf War. He called a press conference to explain his vote.

Gore is liberal on many social issues, and is defined as liberal on the environment. I don't consider him a liberal, truly a relative term, I consider him simply rationale on these issues!

Later in his life, Gore started speaking out simply not as a politician but truly on his gut feelings. Sometimes that freedom only comes when a person emerges into that statesman-type category and feels no bonds to speak to win elections.

I think Al Gore is best qualified person the Dems have to run, and if the Repubs pull Cheney out as a darkhorse, Hillary will not cut it. We will definitely need a heavyweight, not a mirage thereof.

[Carolab]

40. Gore certainly deserves another, and fair, chance. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

2. if i were endorsing a candidate ...

i would not spend my entire post on where they stood, or would be perceived to stand, on the political spectrum ... i would not put all my emphasis on the speculative impact of House and Senate races my candidate might have ...

what i would do is talk about my candidate's vision and her thoughts on the great issues of the day ... if you're looking to convince people to vote for Lincoln, make the case for her based on where she would take the country ... you didn't say one word on this subject ...

i won't be voting for any candidate based on some kind of centrist political calculation ... my vote will be based primarily on the issues ...

[election_2004]

5. You raise a very good point....

And I indeed wrote an article that serves that very purpose:

http://www.flipsidepress.com/issue/getpost.pl?messnumb=1107314205

Unfortunately, the reality is that we have to take into account the political effects that a presidential candidacy will have further down the ticket.

Is electing Hillary Clinton - - just to spite the RW - - really worth the potential cost of an increased Republican majority in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House?

Whoever is elected president will need a Congress that's willing to work with them, and we can't ignore that reality.

[erpowers]

3. Boxer or Feingold

If we want a women to run for president it should be Barbara Boxer. She has taken some strong stands in the last few years. If we want a guy to run it should be Russ Feingold. Just like Boxer he has taken some strong stands in the last few years. He has also provided a clear alturnative to the Republicans. I would not mind seeing a Boxer/Feingold or a Feingold/Boxer ticket in 2008. I think that would be a great ticket.

[politicasista]

6. I think it's too early

"...nor is it prudent, given the HUGE mess that a Dem president will need to clean up once Bunnypants leaves office."

I have been saying the same thing all everytime I hear about 2008.

[Chicago Democrat]

7. Anyone but Hillary! As soon as Newt endorses a Democrat

That Democrat is not a good choice.

Reason Newt loves Hillary, THE SOUTH HATES HER!

[Clark2008]

11. So does the mid-West.

Let me tell you, though, it's not the red state-blue state issue that will sink her.
It's that moderate Americans are still, by and large, patriarchal, and will NOT vote for a woman while we're at war. They just won't.
I wish they would, but they won't.
Let's be realistic.

[election_2004]

12. Not true....

I don't think those who identify as moderate voters care very much about the gender of the president, as long as the person can do the job.

Moderate voters generally look for some special "X-factor" that makes a candidate stand out, while speaking to the types of issues that they care about.

9 times out of 10, the voters who wouldn't even consider voting for a woman (ANY woman!) who happens to be a Democrat are the very same voters who are most likely going to vote for the Republican candidate anyway.

[Clark2008]

13. Where do you get this info?

Because that's certainly not true in the South.
There were many disgruntled Republicans I knew who are fed up with the extremist Bushies, but would never vote for Hillary. There are moderates I know who say exactly what I said above - they won't vote for a woman while we're at war for whatever assinine reason.
Maybe moderates are different in various parts of the country, but in the reddish/purple states - where we need a shift - they won't be voting for a woman while we're at war. It's that simple.

[election_2004]

15. Is it Hillary, or is it "any woman"....

Of course there are moderates in the South and Midwest who are going to say they would never vote for Hillary, because that's how polarizing of a figure Hillary has become to them.

But what evidence do you have that they would necessarily apply that same equation to someone like Blanche Lincoln, Debbie Stabenow, Kathleen Sebelius, or Mary Landrieu?

Since Clark is somewhat more liberal than Lincoln, I doubt that a significant number of the people who would gravitate toward Bill Frist or George Allen would suddenly support Clark because he's male.

[Clark2008]

27. With Hillary it's because it's Hillary for some.

But, since we're at war, it's "any woman."

And, what does this have to do with Clark?

But, yes, people prone to gravitate toward Frist or Allen wouldn't go for Clark, but people prone to not HAVE a preference, who have always voted a split ticket, but who are still against a woman leading the country during a war, "could" go Clark or any other man.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, since I didn't bring Clark into it.

[election_2004]

32. Re: Clark

Well, based on your screen name, I was assuming that Clark is your preference for the Democratic nomination.

But, yes, people prone to gravitate toward Frist or Allen wouldn't go for Clark, but people prone to not HAVE a preference, who have always voted a split ticket, but who are still against a woman leading the country during a war, "could" go Clark or any other man.

I guess the question then becomes...how many of those voters are actually going to make the difference, and how many of those voters would seriously favor Frist over Lincoln?

[Clark2008]

37. You're forgetting that there are many (too many) who don't pay one

lick of attention to the election cycle until about a week before the election.
These people probably wouldn't know a Blanche Lincoln from a Bill Frist and would make their decisions based on primal instinct. Thus, "We're at war, I'm not sure I should vote for a woman..." thinking.
The corporate media will make sure that many people are too busy drowning in celebrity news to pay too much attention to the election.

[slor]

8. Good...

she is too "right" in my book. That being said, if she IS our candidate in '08, well, let me put it this way, "GO HILLARY!!".

[autorank]

14. You're really "thinking outside of the box."

I like that and its all part of what I say we need...

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[Rowdyboy]

17. I would have no problem with Lincoln, but she's not my first choice....

I would prefer her to Hillary. However, I think its quite likely that Hillary will not run in 2008; the press will hound her to pledge to serve a full term if re-elected and I think she'll make that pledge. Unlike Bill, who broke just such a promise in 1992, Hillary will keep hers.

I think bad polling and difficulty in raising money will derail another Kerry campaign, ending it before it begins. If he runs, he'll get blown out of the race early, probably after losing New Hampshire.

Clark, Edwards, Warner, Bayh, Feingold or Schweitzer would all make excellent choices in 2008.

As to the Republicans, George Allen of Virginia will pick Haley Barbour of Mississippi to form the most fascist ticket in American history, and go down in flames...(a guy can dream, can't he?)

[tedoll78]

18. Hmm..

I think Hillary will run. And, barring some unforeseen tragic-for-her event, I think she'll get the nomination. Most polling shows her getting the nomination in a walk.

The only way I think we can stop her is if it's a Hillary versus anti-Hillary primary fight. If there's only one other candidate in the primary race.. a good, strong candidate, around whom all anti-Hillary Democrats can coalesce.. then we might stand a chance of nominating someone other than Hillary.

But I just don't see that happening. Quite the opposite: I see a gazillion names listed as weighing a run for the Democratic nomination, which would, in effect, make her primary task easier.

The good thing for us is that the GOP base won't be smart enough to run Giuliani or McCain in 2008. They'll go for Frist, most probably. Especially when the "you're too liberal" mudslinging in their primaries begins. And when I look at Frist, I don't see a winner.

Then there's the media. One's theory on their role is directly linked to how one sees media motives: are they right-wing shills.. or simply profit-driven? If they're the former, our chances plummet unless we can somehow effectively neutralize this factor. If they're the latter, we might actually have a winner with Hillary, just due to the fact that she sells to both people who love her and people who hate her. That'd be four years of great political stories to them. Cha-ching?

And then there's the actual landscape: how things are going in America. There seems to be no shortage of things that are going wrong in our country today, and the list seems to be getting longer all the time, but the media seems reluctant to give any substantive coverage to this long list of issues (this fits with either media motive). If things continue to go awry, enough people will be affected such that media coverage or none, people will know that something big is wrong. So the issue landscape could tilt in our favor in 2008.. especially if the terror-at-home issue continues to fade in the minds of Joe & Jane Sixpack.

So that's how I see 2008 playing-out. If another 9-11 occurs, all bets are off.

{BTW.. thanks for the heads-up on Lincoln. I'll check her out!}

[election_2004]

25. You're welcome

But unfortunately, your prognosticating is playing right into the hands of the MSM.

I think Hillary will run. And, barring some unforeseen tragic-for-her event, I think she'll get the nomination. Most polling shows her getting the nomination in a walk.

The only way I think we can stop her is if it's a Hillary versus anti-Hillary primary fight. If there's only one other candidate in the primary race.. a good, strong candidate, around whom all anti-Hillary Democrats can coalesce.. then we might stand a chance of nominating someone other than Hillary.

But I just don't see that happening. Quite the opposite: I see a gazillion names listed as weighing a run for the Democratic nomination, which would, in effect, make her primary task easier.

The media whores are banking on this common perception to overwhelm party leaders and voters leading up to the Democratic primaries, so that they can anoint Hillary as president and bask in the pandemonium of controversy that would inevitably ensue.

Not to mention it would result in more *gridlock* in Congress for them to cover and sensationalize.

And four years ago at this time, no one thought Howard Dean had a snowball's chance in hell of even REGISTERING on the national radar.

Everyone who perpetuates the conventional wisdom that the nomination is Hillary's for the taking is simply doing the MSM's work for it. In the process, you'll be hurting the people of America by buckling under the aura of "conventional wisdom."

[tedoll78]

28. Try something different..

Instead of attacking me by portraying me as a tool of the MSM, why not go after the logic and assumptions behind my predictions? Aside from perhaps the Dean comment, you've done nothing to assail the actual substance of my predictions.

Paint me a realistic picture in which Hillary runs and fails to win nomination. I, in good faith, gave you what I think is the most likely scenario as far as the 2008 election goes. Don't ad hominem attack me as "hurting the people of America" just because you don't like my predictions.

Cheers.

[election_2004]

36. What I'm saying is.....

....unless those of us who are supporting other various candidates actually articulate the demerits of running Hillary at the top of the ticket, the scenario of Hillary walking to the nomination will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In essence, we'll be letting the MSM get its dream scenario. We will have enabled a potentially-devastating situation resulting in a RW/MSM circle jerk.

That is hardly the way to promote "free and fair elections."

Back in 2003, when the MSM began predicting that Dean would be the likely Democratic nominee, supporters of the other candidates (Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt) began the circular firing squad to bring down Dean. Months of this resulted in Dean losing the nomination, and it benefitted Kerry (in terms of the primaries) because the party establishment coalesced around him as the common alternative to Dean (even despite the buzz and support that Edwards and Clark each continued to garner).

I don't agree with what they did to Dean, because I happened to like Dean very much and I ended up voting for him in my state's primary - - but it happened nonetheless.

So again, I don't see how it's productive nor beneficial for any of us to be throwing up our hands and sighing, "Hillary is going to be the Democratic nominee and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent that outcome."

[Clarkie1]

20. Thanks for sharing your interesting and provocative post.

I will have to learn more about this Lincoln lady; perhaps she would make a fine first Democratic female president. How old is she?

I ask about her age because it also occurs to me that Clark/Lincoln could possibly be a very powerful ticket to reinvigorate the Democratic South, and leave Linclon in a postition to become president in 2016. What are your thoughts on that hypothetical, as long as we are indulging ourselves in hypotheticals?

[election_2004]

23. She's 44 years old right now

Blanche will be 48 as of Election Day 2008.

Clark/Lincoln cannot be a ticket in 2008, because they are both from Arkansas, so it is constitutionally impermissible. I prefer Clark in the president's cabinet, anyway.

If Wes Clark is the Democratic presidential nominee, I would prefer seeing either Debbie Stabenow, Kathleen Sebelius, or Kathleen Babineaux Blanco as Clark's V.P. running mate.

If we're talking about Lincoln as a potential V.P., I could see her running with Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, or even John Edwards (although I really don't think Edwards has the standing to run for president in '08, and he should hold out for Attorney General instead).

Of course, Kerry would be helped by Lincoln as a running mate too - - but then, I still believe that both Kerry and Gore are reduxes that would hinder the ticket's ability to present new ideas in a credible manner.

Even though Blanche Lincoln is my preference for the presidential nomination, I am not closed off to other possibilities in the long-run. I think Clark and Warner would be very strong nationally, as would Schweitzer (although it's way too early for him to run for president).

[Clarkie1]

31. It is not constitutionally impermissible.

I did just learn something new today, though! After a couple minutes of googling...

The Vice President must have the same constitutional qualifications as the
President and cannot come from the same state. (In fact, this second
requirement is not a constitutional requirement. What the Constitution
provides is that if the candidates for President and Vice President come
from the same state, the electors from that state could not vote for both.
This might result in the Vice Presidential candidate receiving
insufficiently many electoral votes for election even if the Presidential
candidate is elected.) In practice the second requirement is easily
circumvented by having the Vice President change the state of residency as
was done by Dick Cheney who changed his legal residency from Texas to
Wyoming in order to serve as Vice President for George W. Bush.

http://www.public-domain-content.com/President_of_the_United_States/Vice_President_of_the_US.shtml

[election_2004]

34. Hmmm, I didn't know about that....

Still, I don't think it would look very good for either Clark or Lincoln to change their official state of residence just so they could run together.

Even if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are from the same region (i.e. the South), they probably should be from different states from a strategic standpoint, if only to create better electoral odds.

[Clarkie1]

35. You are probably right about that.

At least, the V.P. being from a different region is the "conventional wisdom."

Didn't seem to help much in 04', though.

[Thrasybulus]

21. Not Going To Happen.

She's my Senator and I wish her all the luck but can you name one instance where she has stood up to the Republicans?

She's a conciliator and her talents are probably best suited for staying in the Senate.

I think she was the only Democratic Senator elected in the old South in 2004. She won 56-44 after outfundraising a know-nothing state senator 63-to-1. National republicans didn't give him a dime. Her opponent's only issue was gay marriage.

The day after Blanche's primary win in May 2004 she distanced herself from Kerry by stating she was too busy with her own campaign to campaign with him. Perhaps a necessary political move in todays South.

In fairness she donated a big chunk of campaign money for an African-American get out the vote drive that couldn't have done anything but help Kerry.

I would prefer Hillary (no Hillary fan here) over Blanche at this point in time, though I remain open to a Blanche makeover.

[election_2004]

24. Some examples

She's my Senator and I wish her all the luck but can you name one instance where she has stood up to the Republicans?

Protecting Social Security and opposing the privatization scheme, for starters - - she's been very vocal about that.

Blanche has also been a harsh critic of Bush's cuts to agricultural funding and veterans' benefits.

And I still don't see why you would prefer Hillary when she could be a detriment to Democrats further down the ticket. I don't see how Hillary would appeal to rural voters - - and although Hillary wouldn't need many rural/red states for an electoral victory, it's still important to make inroads in the rural South and rural Midwest if the Democratic Party wants to help its candidates further down the ticket.

Blanche can appeal to many of those rural voters; Hillary can't.

[Thrasybulus]

26. Imagine That?

A Democrat that opposes Bush's Social Security privatization plan! Not exactly cutting edge leadership.

I would only prefer Hillary over Blanche because she is tougher. Blanche has plenty of time to change my opinion. Hillary is far down my preferred list of Democratic contenders.

I agree with the above post that if voting for a woman, I would vote Boxer. I like Pelosi too, though they are both probably too liberal for the general public.

[election_2004]

33. Boxer and Pelosi

That's my concern about them too (as much as I agree with Boxer and Pelosi on social issues, I don't think they would stand a chance nationally).

I guess I still don't see how Hillary would end up appealing to the disaffected voters whom Democrats keep saying they need to appeal to, which one would think would be a logical goal as part of the Democrats' strategy for 2008.

I'm just curious who's your first-choice candidate for the Democratic primaries? I'm not saying this with the intent to bash whoever your top-preferred candidate is...just curious.

[Thrasybulus]

41. Whom do I believe would make the best President?

I believe Al gore is the most experienced and qualified.

Will he run? I don't know.

I supported Kerry whole-heartedly once he got the nomination. He would have made a fine President.

I will support the Democratic nominee whomever he/she is because I believe that if we Democrats cannot form a solid opposition to the reactionaries then no united opposition will be formed.

[election_2004]

43. The big problem there

Is that Al Gore hasn't *DONE* anything (because he hasn't been able to) to counter the Bush Administration. This is through no fault of his own (since he no longer had an elected office to get productive measures passed), but it's still a bleak reality.

[Clark2008]

29. For about the millioneth time.

Clark cannot be Secretary of Defense until 2010.

A Def. Sec. candidate must have been out of active-duty military for at least 10 years.

That said, I'm still rooting for Clark to run. I simply don't see a female of any stripe winning in 2008 because we'll still be at war. This country is going backwards and, until we get more Dems into power, will continue to do so.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it from my little blue corner in a solidly-red state.

[election_2004]

38. the points you've made

Out of curiosity, do you know if Clark would be eligible for an appointment as Secretary of State in another Democrat's cabinet?

Anyway...Clark2008, I respect your opinion/analysis (regarding the idea of a woman running), even though I don't fully agree with it. I also want to let you know that I would be totally comfortable with the idea of a President Wes Clark, and if he is the Democratic nominee then I will whole-heartedly support him (and I think he would win).

Your analysis of some of the anti-woman voters whom you mention is definitely worth further examination, as 2008 draws closer.

But I'm curious: what is your reaction to the Democrats who say that Hillary Clinton would be electable because she's tough, she's talking like a centrist, she's taking more hawkish positions on defense, and she'd raise tons of money and have instant name recognition. Do you think that none of those factors would matter, just because she's a woman?

[Clark2008]

39. I think a lot of what I believe about this comes from living where I live.

I live in a blue neighborhood - solid, working-class, union stock.
But, the whole county is red, as is the state.

And none of my neighbors - Dem or Independent - like Hillary. I mean, they like her as senator of New York, but they simply want someone they can promote to swing voters and/or independents across the state. Tennessee did vote for Hillary's husband both times, so turning the state back to blue with some hard work is doable.

However, with the corporate media, the right-wing monopolies on our radio stations here and the fact that the Republican agenda has included pushing the South backwards for nearly 10 years (and there are some very specific examples to which I could point that this has worked), many people around here want a liberal candidate who's seen as a moderate just to get the South back on track. Like a Clark or a Warner.

I think it wouldn't matter that Hillary is "tough" or "talking like a centrist." The fact is that the South has been going backwards and many red-state moderates will NOT vote for a woman during wartime, no matter who she is and Hillary simply is seen as a "flaming" liberal - as opposed to a progressive - no matter how centrist she tries to make herself sound.

I don't think a lot of DUers realize that there are many, many Dems in the red states that are working very hard to get info out to the masses - to prove that they are voting against their best interests when they vote Republican - but that we really feel that the party doesn't even recognize our needs and what would best help us to help ourselves. We don't have to swing right, we just have to get through the corporate media personification of "flaming liberal" tacked onto every Democrat so that these swing voters will HEAR us and HEAR what we're saying and how it's so much better for them.

I'm glad Dean is rolling up his sleeves and getting down here to talk with us and learn about us, but Clark, Warner and a handful of others already know this stuff. Dean, of course, can be most helpful with the purse strings (and he's doing that).

[election_2004]

42. Any thoughts on Clark vs. Warner?

I'm guessing that you personally prefer Clark - - but given that Wes Clark and Mark Warner might have to go up against each other in the primaries...any ideas on how Southern primary voters might split when choosing between either of them?

[Clark2008]

44. No idea at all.

More people in certain parts of the South know more about Clark and others about Warner. Tennessee might actually split down the middle as a border state to both Arkansas and Virginia, respectively.

[ChiciB1]

45. We Need To Cut This Hillary Thing Off At The Knees!

I DON'T want her to be our nominee! That's ALL MSM is talking about, I guess hoping that we will be stupid enough to follow their lead.

Hillary SHOULD NOT be our nominee. She has several strikes against her already and being the FIRST woman with that many strikes going in will be a HARD HARD SELL!

I want to win the next time out.... we need to see what happens in 2006 and then we can MOVE ON to 2008! Sure it's good to think ahead, but for me, right now, Hillary won't fly!

Right now, I still think Edwards could be the best "all-around" candidate. He has charisma, he has Elizabeth, he has a great message, AND he has LOCATION!