The sky is blue, the grass is green, and Hillary Clinton can't win a presidential election?

[wyldwolf]

(This) is so embedded in the current conventional wisdom that even Clinton devotees consider her potential candidacy to be foredoomed. Which is why so many Democrats are latching onto Barack Obama, despite the fact that he has never been exposed to the withering crossfire of national combat; why others are yearning for Al Gore to lose his paunch and fight anew; and why still others are talking up John Edwards' cute-guy charisma, Bill Richardson's Clinton-era credentials, Evan Bayh's Hoosier centrism, John Kerry's comic timing... OK, everyone except that last guy.

But the problem with conventional wisdom is that it's often dead wrong.

In 1979, it was widely assumed that a movement conservative, a former B-movie actor who had co-starred with a chimpanzee, could never get elected to the White House; one year later, it happened. As recently as the summer of 2003, it was widely assumed that Netroots darling Howard Dean had a lock on the Democratic nomination; six months later, he flamed out. But my favorite verdict was rendered back in 1932, when the esteemed Washington pundit Walter Lippmann gave his thumbs-down to a Democratic aspirant whom he dismissed as "a pleasant man... without any important qualifications for the office." He was referring to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Therefore, in the spirit of contrarianism, here are four reasons why Hillary Clinton actually might be well-positioned for an '08 victory: ... more

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16096910.htm

[DemBones DemBones]

1. Better question -- do we want Hillary to win?

I don't. She supports the war, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Same here

I would have a very hard time supporting her candidacy.

[usregimechange]

4. Same here

[John Gauger]

24. Let's no forget that she was on the executive board

of Wal-Mart. I can't trust anyone who worked at Wal-Mart.

[jbonkowski]

26. It was a different company then

They had a philosophy of "Buy American", and didn't support all of this overseas manufacturing that it has now. It was a regional company, and was run by Sam Walton. It has changed much since he gave up control.

You can hold much against HRC, but realistically I don't think this should be one of them.


jim

[John Gauger]

40. From what I've read,

Sam Walton pioneered every one of Wal-Mart's morally questionable tactics. I'm told that Wal-Mart has always been the same company.

[paulk]

36. she voted against CAFTA

One more time, since this pops up continually -

HRC voted AGAINST CAFTA.

She was not in the Senate when NAFTA passed.


And she doesn't "support" the war.


---------------------------

[ima_sinnic]

51. "doesn't support the war"? WRONG!

she has yet to take a firm stand against it.
she has never "just said NO" to funding it.
she is therefore SUPPORTING IT.

[benny05]

75. That's true

But....she's never said anything that refuted Al Gore's or her husband's desire to get NAFTA through, nor any regrets.

[AJH032]

50. wrong

She voted against CAFTA. Don't lie.

[SaveElmer]

52. Well...

You might want to take a look at her actual record before using DU CW as evidence of her positions...

Her position on Iraq is not what the simplistic "warmonger" accusations many here would portray it as...

and she voted AGAINST CAFTA...

[DemDogs]

59. And the Clinton-DLC agenda. No principles. No thanks. (N/T)

[lapfog_1]

2. I simply don't like and don't trust her.

so I'm not going to get all excited about her run... but I would vote for her rather than any third party or any repuke. But I'm hoping someone else wins the primary. I like Mr. Gore and think he should be re-elected. I think if he fires his "handlers" and is more himself and enters this like he has nothing to lose, he could easily win.

[wilt the stilt]

5. The don'tike is the issue.

I have been in sales for twenty years and in sales there is a like and trust factor that is always there during a sale. Unfortunately, that is the way it is and people do vote on who they like and trust and people don't like and trust her enough.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. We all got burned by liking and trusting her husband, who is one

hell of a salesman. She's not as convincing a liar as he is.

[Glorfindel]

7. "we all"? Speak for yourself, please

I don't feel in the least "burned" by President Clinton. I do get a trifle weary, however, of "Democrats" who constantly attack other Democrats when there are PLENTY of Repuke targets around. What's the point? And as for Clinton's expertise at lying: If it takes skillful lying to get us back to peace and prosperity, I say bring it on. I'll take that over B*shit's "truthiness" and religious hypocrisy any day.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. NAFTA? His Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying the deaths of

thousands of Iraqi children due to our blockade were "worth it"? Clinton's "welfare reform"? I've been a registered Democrat since 1968 and I will attack Democrats who act like Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that supports Democratic principles.

[BikeWriter]

23. GMTA, Brother! Welcome home!

:patriot:

[sendero]

35. Guess what..

... We have to select a nominee. If you think that is going to happen without some "attacks", do us a favor and go back to the utopian dreamworld whose attitudes spelled the death knell for liberalism.

[paulk]

44. when the "attack "could have just as easily been from

a site like FreeRepublic.... well, there does come a point when it's acceptable to question someone's motives.

[BikeWriter]

22. "We all?" You don't speak for me, either!

[AZBlue]

60. Don't use "we" so freely.

You're not speaking for me.

[geek tragedy]

67. You prefer losers like Dukakis and Kerry? eom

[Toots]

13. Hmmm she won her last election with 67% of the vote

It would seem even Republicans like her and appreciate how she works for her constituents.. People here on DU seem to think most Americans think like them. It just ain't so. People do like her and IMO she would win handily if she chose to run..

[Bjorn Against]

14. That was with only minimal opposition however...

The Republicans hardly put any money into that race, and in a year that favored the Democrats to such a large extent it was pretty easy for Democrats with the kind of fundraising advantage Hillary had to pull off a landslide victory.

The Presidential elections will be different. You can expect huge amounts of money to be poured into this race on both sides, and it will be a much tougher battle for Hillary to win.

I don't think she will even be able to make it through the primaries, there are too many of us who just don't like her.

[Clark2008]

31. NEW YORK Republicans - Republicans elsewhere think she stinks.

[geek tragedy]

69. Upstate NY Republicans aren't that different

from Western or Southern Republicans.

[nodular]

45. I think Hillary will probably win the nomination hands down.

Some people seem unaware of how she has been slowly and carefully building up her support within the party---the favors she has given out to so many legislators: money, help with campaigns, etc.

Hillary has the inside track in the party and that is tough to beat in the primaries.

As far as her not being "Left" enough for some people, be realistic. She is playing a role to increase her popularity on a national level. Her husband has always been something of a centrist. She never was until she started to run for President.

[datavg]

15. Hillary Clinton...

...will never be President of the United States. Bill was successful because he was a native southerner and was able to split the mid-South from the Deep South winning at least five southern states each time.

Hillary will NEVER be able to do that and I think she's smart enough to know it.

Look at the Electoral map. It's all there.

A Hillary candidacy would be a disaster, handing the office to McCain on a silver platter.

That's not all. If McCain gains Ahhnold's support and wins California as a result, the game is over no matter what else happens.

Frankly, I think we're going to see a secessionist movement in some of the northern states. Those people have been economically raped and pillaged by the Sunbelt for so many years that they're just sick of it. I don't blame them.

[qazplm]

16. but according to some in this thread

apparently if the choice is McCain or Hillarly, they prefer McCain.

[datavg]

19. Hillary's...

...negatives are way too high. That's a given. I don't think she can beat McCain and most available polling data supports that statement.

I once met an older couple (retired schoolteacher and school counselor who was nearing retirement) at a ski lodge and bar about two hours from LA. As we were getting to know each other and busily dipping our bill (which I soon found out isn't a good idea at 6000 feet), we came to discuss McCain and politics in general. They made no attempts to hide the fact that if McCain runs, they WILL vote for him over Hillary because they didn't trust Bill and they don't trust her.

That's a PROBLEM and if the DNC lets this happen, they are nuts.

[ElizabethDC]

32. Her negatives may be high, but

Bush had very high negatives in 2004, and he still managed to get elected. Besides, I don't think most Americans know the real Hillary, they only know the caricature. If she gets out there shows us who she really is, she could change some minds. (I would also like to say that, like most people, I can't claim to know what the "real" Hillary is like, since everything we know about her has been filtered through the msm, but I want to see what she brings to the table.)

[rman]

8. Not if people don't want her to

Clinton devotees are merely being realistic if they think she can't win.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

10. She is too well financed not to have sold-out to special interests.

Members of the ruling class can access money even when they don't need it as she did in her over-financed senate campaign cakewalk. She voted us into Iraq and is a sell-out who will take the Democratic Party down to defeat in 2008 while dragging down the congressional races, it will be a debacle. She has too much money and corporate whore media support for there to be a legitimate primary test that would expose her lack of core Democratic Party values and her obvious lack of ability to win in the general election.

[Bjorn Against]

11. FDR and Reagan were much different cases

Neither had the level of NEGATIVE association with their name that Hillary Clinton does. Sure I don't particularly like Reagan, but many people did find him a likable person whether they thought he had a chance at the Presidency or not.

If you want to know why Hillary can't win just read the responses to this thread. Many people in HER OWN PARTY do not like her. You don't necessarily have to be liked by the opposition to win, but you do have to have a good standing among the base of your own party and Hillary does not have that.

[datavg]

18. Ronald Reagan...

...is one of the people responsible for the economic and demographic mess the Rust Belt is today.

That's a fact. I grew up there, went to high school and college there - I know.

Cleveland and Detroit never recovered from the Volcker induced recession of 1980-1982. Things were never the same after that.

I lived in Texas from 1995-2003 and there are massive housing tracts in Plano and North Dallas that all date to the same period (1982-1983), while thousands of people in the Rust Belt were out of work for months if not years.

This was PLANNED. There's even a clip in Roger and Me where Reagan discusses this in a moment of unscripted weakness.

[Bjorn Against]

53. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Reagan any more than you do...

I was merely saying that he was fairly well liked as a person among the public at large. It is unfortunate that many people did not know who he truly was, because if they did he would have been very unpopular.

[datavg]

65. Oh No...

...I don't mean it that way. Not at all.

Reagan WAS a good president for a very narrowly focused group of people. I was not one of those people. Today, I might be but I doubt it.

He'll always get credit for ending the Cold War and making conservatism respectable. I say that with some degree of confidence because Pelosi and company are shooting low in terms of what they're setting as an agenda in comparison to some of the things we saw even during the Nixon years. We simply don't have the money we used to have and the looming Medicare and Social Security crises pretty well tie our hands for now.

Ronnie and his people and their allies in the corporate world basically ruined the country for anyone who isn't upwardly mobile. If you didn't go to college and only wanted a job and a decent living, his policies left you naked and vulnerable. That continued with Clinton's abandoning of health care reform, approval of welfare reform and signing of NAFTA.

Bottom line? Nothing's going to change no matter who is in power. Americans are so addicted to cheap money and cheap gas and the low taxes and spending their weekends at the mall that it's simply part of our psyche and it isn't going away.

[skipos]

12. Reagan and FDR didn't have 45%+ of Americans commited to voting against them

before they even ran. Hillary does.

[geek tragedy]

68. So did aWol. eom

[KingFlorez]

17. We don't know

She might not even run, but this article gives pretty good reasoning for why she's a viable candidate. I think it's important to remember that the right-wing really doesn't want her to run, so I think she's viable.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. There are many scenarios in which she can win

I just don't see any of them very likely. First off, she's got to get out of the primary season, and the left is muy pissed at her right now. Yes, she's a fighter and hasn't gone to the right so much that she's irredeemable to the left, but if there are only one or two truly progressive candidates, she could be in real trouble here.

Let's leave it at that; if she gets the nomination, the lefties will mostly fall in line. The problem will then, ironically, come from the swing middle she's tried so studiously to court. Anyone who thinks this middle doesn't exist--as many have claimed--wasn't watching the mid-term election. After having swung to the left to secure the nomination, fresh ammunition will be available in heaps and this will also add into the inherent problem she has of having been on both sides of too many issues.

The problem is that so many factions of the loose confederacy we know as the right have troubles with her. (The right is far from unified: we've got fiscal monarchists, social conservatives, out-and-out fundie nutjobs, gummint-hating libertarians, world-domination freaks, image-conscious sheep who hope to be invited into the ruling class if they support them, racists, assorted bigots, terrified weaklings who're scared of change, fools, bumpkins and assorted oddballs.) Many simply won't vote for a woman, especially a strong one. Many have been brainwashed with Clinton hatred to such a degree that voting for her would be impossible. Virtually every faction I've listed will rise up with righteous dudgeon to vote for her opponent.

The only scenarios I see for her winning a general election are these: 1) the unswervatives nominate a true religious nut like Brownback, thus peeling off the secular right and center, 2) they nominate Romney and feel the wrath of the religious right and center, 3) the war, economy and world have blown up so severely that it reflects so badly on the GOP and the Dems who now control congress haven't been left holding the bag or 4) some last-minute revelation about their chosen candidate pulls the rug out from under them.

Putting personal issues aside, I just don't see her as electable.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. There are three potential 08 candidates

Who are already defined in the minds of a VERY large segment of the American electorate. Those three, in no particular order, are Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

It will be extremely difficult for any of these three to change minds that are already made up. Maybe not impossible, but pretty close to. Human psychology just doesn't work that way.

[hyperium]

25. I actually think she could win

but not without another 51% election. I'd rather see a different scenario in 2008, honestly.

[Solon]

27. To the Midwestern and Southern states, she is way too liberal...

this is the perception at least. Not to mention she is simply a polarizing figure, period. Men will vote against her cause she's a "feminazi", women will vote against her because she took Bill back, etc.

[wyldwolf]

28. So of all the suspected candidates so far...

... only Bayh, Biden, Richardson fit the bill?

[Solon]

33. I won't endorse anyone at this point, however, certain folks are fine where they are at right now.

Hillary Clinton is fine where she is at, a Senator of New York. The thing is that she MAY have just enough popularity WITHIN the Democratic party to win the Primaries, however, there is simply no way she will win the General, especially if McCain is the Repuke she faces.

Look, in many red states, and purple ones too, she is about one notch above a Communist, and these people still believe in the so called "Red Scare". It doesn't matter that its not true, that's the thing about politics, perception is everything, Dean, as an example, is a "classic" moderate who was painted with a "leftist" brush, same will happen to Hillary.

I know people always have their favorites, and while Hillary isn't perfect, she would probably be better than husband at being President, and light-years ahead of little Bush. Then again, a LOT can change in the 2 years we have, if Bush literally DESTROYS his party due to being, well, himself, then a ham sandwich with a (D) next to its name could win the Presidency. In that case, Hillary Clinton may have a chance.

[wyldwolf]

41. hmm... ok. So that means no one to the left of her has a snowball's chance in hell, right?

[Solon]

49. If they are percieved to be left of "communist" yes...

Look, we aren't talking about reality here, we are talking about PERCEPTION, the reality created by the Media. Look, during the primaries, most people who participate are in some way aware of what differs between candidates, and what factions of the party they belong to. But in the General, where those who AREN'T members of the party vote for the candidate, to be honest, it has to do with the person, rather than their positions. Other things that matter includes whether the person in question is liked by the media at all, etc.

Seriously, ask a Non-Democrat(a true independent), just who they think the DLC are and they will, more often than not, give you a blank stare. Same for if you asked them who the PDA or any other obscure Democratic party organization is. They don't really care, to be honest, and would probably elect a bona fide socialist if the candidate were personable enough and "talked sense" that isn't misconstrued by the media.

The Democratic party has never had a real problem with its positions, or candidates that have those positions, the problem is with the PERCEPTION of the party from the outside. This has been aggravated with the blatant redefining of political positions that occurs in the media. When they do delve into positions, usually the position that is further to the right is considered the "moderate" position regardless of how reasonable other positions are.

Do you honestly think that some random voter from Missouri knows all the positions of Hillary Clinton on everything, where she's liberal at or where she's further to the right? No, all they know is she tried to push a failed health care initiative a little over a decade ago, and is now a Northeastern Liberal Elitist. This is typical, its partly based in reality, partly based in fantasy, the fantasy happens to be reinforced by the media.

[gulliver]

29. Clinton to Obama; Dean to Kerry; Frying pan to fire.

I wish we behaved more like a mob of lemmings than of a mob of "lemmings." Surges of power based on the same knee-jerk reactions that sell Madonna records are getting really old. At this point in time, the smart money is on "undecided."

[mentalsolstice]

30. I'm all for sending Big AL a case of SlimFast. How 'bout it?

Actually before I get flamed, he looks just fine to me, all I really care about is his intellectual depth. However, it's a known fact that most pols get buff before a big race.

[MODemocrat]

34. That's a bunch of hog wash

The democrats are just eating up the republican talking points. That's exactly how the republicans win.
I happen to have an opinion of my own. Hillary CAN win. :thumbsup:

[wyldwolf]

37. You must not have read the piece. Not a single Republican talking point in it.

[MODemocrat]

74. Not referring to this piece in particular as republican talking points

But, I know for a fact that the republicans talking non-stop about Hillary, has in fact turned SOME of
the democrats against her. They repeat, repeat, repeat the lies, and some are going to believe them.

[flpoljunkie]

38. Why is it that R's cater to their base, while the Dems take their base for granted?

"Regarding the war in Iraq, swing voters are generally focused on the Bush administration's currently incompetent execution, not on the war-authorization votes in 2002; Clinton today is focused on the poor execution, not on explaining or apologizing for her affirmative war-authorization vote in 2002. The latter may be important to the liberal blogosphere (which would ultimately back her against a Republican opponent anyway), but centrist voters couldn't care less."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16096910.htm

Perhaps it is time the Democratic establishment learned otherwise.

[geek tragedy]

70. Because their base is bigger than ours.

We got our base out in 2004, and they did too. We lost.

We got our base out and captured swing voters, and they got their base out in 2006. We kicked their ass.

It's simple math.

[AtomicKitten]

39. That slogan is usually uttered

by those that don't want her to win, not by anyone with actual information that she cannot win. Guessing doesn't count.

[fuzzyball]

42. I guarantee 100% Hillary can't win...

on DU that is...
But with all the other democrats out there,
she will be nominated by a huge margin.

Obama has no chance...no executive exoperience, only 3 years in senate
by the time nomination process in full gear. His last name could also
be a probelm in GE.

Kerry has been tagged loser in 2004, Americans don't like losers.
Gore has the same problem although his loss was dubious and he actua;lly
got more votes than Bush so he has a better chance than Kerry.

Edwards has the best chance of beating Hillary but that won't be easy
with the Clinton war machine in full gear backed by the big dog himself.

Clark is a dark horse at best having never been elected to anything.

Sen Bayh is actually the best candidate in GE to beat whoever is the
repub nominee. But he won't get the votes from democratic voters in the
primaries.

HILLARY WINS EASILY the nomination and wins a close one in GE.

[robcon]

43. Hillary will be the next president.

She's got it all: awareness, money and a great campaigning style.

[fuzzyball]

61. and don't forget...big dog is 100% behind her along with the Clinton

war room.

[Bake]

77. Hmm ... you didn't mention SUBSTANCE

Maybe that's what's missing.

Big Al's got substance -- i.e. GRAVITAS (although I loathe that word) by the truckload. SlimFast or not!

Run, Al, RUN!!

Bake

[thatsrightimirish]

46. I really don't think she could win in Iowa

I just don't see her winning the Iowa caucus. Or the Nevada one for that matter. Does anyone else feel that way?

[fujiyama]

47. Maybe Hillary could win...

against an EXTREMELY weak republican candidate.

She won't beat McCain though. There's simply no way the electoral map shows it happening.

Hillary is the worst of both worlds. She's viewed as an ultra LW loony by millions, while in reality she's likely more conservative than her husband.

I have the impression she stands for absolutely nothing and panders to whatever group she needs to get ahead at the moment. She's a cynical politician, and has poor charisma at that. Her victory speech on election night was grating. It was so irritating, I had to change the channel. It's the tone of her speaking. She has neither the wit or charm her husband has either.

Her being pushed as the establishment candidate, is one of the most brain dead propositions they've had in years.

And her poor performance would likely reverse gains we made this year. I'll vote for her, but that's about it.

[oasis]

48. McCain vs. Hillary: Bring it on.

Any Jellyfish Democrat who has no stomach for a knock down dragout presidential campaign, can get the hell out of the way.

Those who complain about"Hillary's baggage" are themselves, baggage.:cry: :nopity:

[LittleClarkie]

54. It's not the presidential election I question. It's the primaries

Because the more liberal base folks tend to GOTV in the primaries. I think she's a frontrunner in the same way Dean was, that is to say only until the votes start to be cast in the primaries. I think someone unexpected will trump her. I don't think she'll make it out of the primary process.

[geek tragedy]

73. It's a question of money and ground game.

Her campaign knows how to GOTV and organize.

[geiger]

55. she cant win simply because she supported the invasion of Iraq

[fuzzyball]

62. So did Kerry, Edwards and dozens of other senators?

SO were you against the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004?

[jen4clark]

56. HC is brilliant.

I believe she is so smart, she knows she would not win, and so will not run. This I believe. ;)

[SaveElmer]

57. Of course most here will poo poo this...

Will explain away Hillary's poll numbers as "name recognition." Explain away her popularity in New York simply as the result of the implosion of New York Republicans. Spout left wing convention regarding her positions which are generally incorrect...and in the end simply bury their heads in the sand and refuse to believe her strength within the Party...

Hillary hating has become such a dogma with the left, that any suggestion she is actually a very progressive Democrat drives them into apoplexy. Any suggestion that she voted for the IWR other than for her own personal political gain ignites an orgy of teeth gnashing and hair pulling.

Post after post is required correcting the "fact" that she supports a flag-burning amendment, didn't oppose Bush RW SCOTUS choices, voted for CAFTA, and has somehow changed her position on women's reproductive rights. These "facts" on her record are so ingrained on the left that few bother to check the reality. (She of course is opposed to a flag burning amendment, opposed both Alito and Roberts, voted against CAFTA, and has in no way weakened her position on women's choice) And if that reality is acknowledged, it is ALWAYS because she is doing it for political reasons.

The plain fact is Hillary is popular with rank and file Democrats, will be a formidable candidate in 2008 (should she choose to run), and has an excellent chance of being in the White House on January 20, 2009 as the first woman President in American History..

And all the apoplectic hair pulling and teeth gnashing on the left will not change that fact...and they ignore it to their peril!

[ElizabethDC]

58. Thank you for saying this . . .

I think it's a big mistake for liberals to rule out Hillary before she gets her chance to make her case as a presidential candidate. I also think a lot of liberals who hate her so vehemently are being just as close-minded as the Republicans who don't like her. I don't necessarily think that Hillary would be the best candidate - I haven't yet made my mind up on who I will support in the primaries, but I think it's important to wait and see what each candidate brings to the table. I think that Hillary especially should not be underestimated.

[fuzzyball]

63. Very good post on "facts" about Hillary, she is and always will be

a liberal leaning person.

[AJH032]

64. very nice post

n/t

[Bandit]

66. I think most of those that hate Hillary are also those that quote Rush

and O'Really and Hannity and all the right wing blowhards. She is actually quite popular among common everyday Democrats, especially women...How some here hate so much is a mystery to me...

[geek tragedy]

71. A-men. She's not my personal favorite, but anyone

who refuses to vote for her over someone like Gingrich is either a Repuke or a dumbass.

[Bake]

78. If she's our nominee, she gets my vote. PERIOD.

Because I am neither a Repuke nor a dumbass.

Bake

[wyldwolf]

72. "orgy of teeth gnashing and hair pulling"

..or, the cult of perpetual outrage.

[SaveElmer]

76. Exactly...

Some are just not happy unless they have other Democrats to attack (Hello Mr. Sirota!)