Hillary in `08

[mkilly]

THAT'S LIFE
Stop Loss
by Michelle Cottle
The New Republic Online
Post date: 11.19.04

Iran is going nuclear. Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Egypt is suffering an actual, literal plague of locusts. The Red Sox won the World Series. Karl Rove is front-runner for Man of the Year. Clearly the Apocalypse is at hand. With the Four Horsemen descending, Democrats have precious little time to get their act together, and someone needs to sit them down for what a friend of mine calls a "get right with Jesus talk."

For the past few weeks Dems have spent their days (and, knowing the geekiness of Beltway types, probably their nights) wringing their hands about the unpleasantness of November 2 and what it all means. They have agonized about the party's failure to connect with religious voters, married women, old folks. They have bemoaned its lack of vision, lack of narrative, lack of a core message. Unhinged by defeat, they have vowed to reevaluate every policy the party has backed (or blocked) since the glory days of FDR in an effort to figure out how they let some smirking, swaggering, verbally challenged, pathologically incurious cowboy whip their butts. So intense is their identity crisis that, at this rate, I half expect the 2008 nominee to run on a platform of mandatory school prayer, abolition of the IRS, and free TEC-9s for all new voters. And if that doesn't work--a constitutional amendment banning gay people.

Now, let us set aside for a minute the fact that, if the success of George W. Bush has taught us anything, it is that self-reflection is for losers. I recognize that the Democratic Party is the party of pointy-heads who overanalyze the frappuccino menu at Starbucks. Liberals deconstruct. It's what we do. But in the midst of all this rampant self-analysis, what perplexes me is that just about everyone seems to be scrupulously avoiding discussion of the unavoidable reality that the Democratic Party lost because it once again ran a certifiably piss-poor candidate for president.

I'm sorry, I know Kerry came close. I know he gave a helluva debate performance. I know he tried really hard to convince Middle America that he would recognize Dale Earnhardt Jr. if the bad boy of NASCAR spent an afternoon doing doughnuts on his front lawn. But the fact remains that JFK2 was a terrible choice for Democrats, especially now, especially against this president.

Having written ad nauseum about why this is so, I won't bore everyone with a detailed recap. Suffice it to say that the senator brought nothing--zero, zilch, nada--to the table that would actively appeal to any voter beyond the safe bicoastal blue zones. (Even poor Dick Gephardt, eternally handicapped by his lack of eyebrows, might have made inroads into the Midwest.) Hey, there's no need to take my word on the matter: Über-handicapper Charlie Cook was offering this same assessment less than a week before Election Day.

Thus far, however, most people seem to be holding their tongues about this core truth. Maybe it's too soon, and Dems are allowing Kerry a little time to heal. Maybe Republicans are hoping Dems screw up and run him again in 2008. But my suspicion is that everyone is still so awed by Kerry's coming so close, by his outperforming all expectations, that they have completely forgotten why expectations were so low to begin with: because he was a lousy candidate.

Ordinarily I'm not the kind of gal to kick a guy when he's down--at least not unless I'm pretty sure he's so far down he ain't getting back up. But I make an exception in Kerry's case because, while Democrats are busy reflecting, they need to carefully consider the costs of disregarding a candidate's basic likeability. (Not to be confused with his IQ or experience or fundraising clout or height.) Dems can rework their policies and narrative and meta-message all they want, but if they don't learn to pick a contender with a common touch and a broad appeal--meaning someone who can relate to the masses outside the Delta Shuttle corridor--they are going to wind up wandering in the wilderness far longer than Moses.

Most importantly, the party would do well to come to grips with this electoral reality now, before it finds itself staring down the barrel of an even grander presidential disaster. I speak, of course, of Hillary '08.

Since Election Day, I have suffered through multiple discussions with giddy conservatives all but drooling over a Hillary run. They--like most liberals I know--all assume Senator Clinton is the horse to beat in 2008. But unlike discussions with liberals, my Hillary chats with conservatives typically begin with a variation on, Have your people gone completely insane? I'd like to take offense, but I can't, because nominating Hillary would be insanity. It's not that she's a bad gal. And she's surprised most of the Beltway crowd by turning out to be a relatively moderate, low-key, collegial, workhorse senator. Factoring in her high name recognition, her mythic status with the base, her ability to energize female voters, and, of course, her easy access to the greatest natural politician of our time, it's easy to see Hillary's appeal. Looked at rationally, she'd make a crackerjack presidential candidate.

But the American public is not rational about anyone with the last name Clinton. If you thought the Republican base was energized this year, just give them the chance to vote against that uppity Clinton girl. The GOP possibilities for fund-raising, not to mention creative attack ads, are mind-boggling.

At minimum, Hillary starts with some 40 percent of the country dead-set against her. Granted, an equal number would start out in her corner. But it's hard to see how she unloads all of her baggage in order to reach enough mushy-middle voters to win. The political class may now think of Hillary as a moderate legislator. But the bulk of the electorate, all those folks who won't tune into the race until after Labor Day '08, will be voting on Hillary the icon. Think headbands and cookie-baking. Think Vince Foster and the Rose law firm billing records and the health care debacle. Washington understands that Hillary has grown, but it will be much tougher to convince Middle America. (And let's face it: Her status as a senator from the ultra-uppity, Yankee state of New York is unlikely to help.)

Bush was unquestionably a polarizing figure this election. But it bears recalling that he initially came to power not by energizing his base, but by projecting an aggressively non-polarizing image that drew swing voters to his corner. (He also got a little help from stupid Floridians and the U.S. Supreme Court, but it's considered bad form to mention all that now.)

If Dems have any hope of performing better in 2008, they need to rally around a candidate who won't freak out the GOP base, even as he or she reassures wary swing voters that Democrats aren't the godless, convictionless, condescending, out-of-touch cultural aliens that Karl Rove claims. It's still too early for anyone to know who that candidate is yet. But I damn sure know who it ain't.

---

Personally I agree; I don't think Hillary is electable. I don't think she'll run in `08, or at least she won't do well in the primaries if she does.

[Hoblit]

Notice that it is completely an opinion piece. No factual data was presented in that article. It simply states that HE THINKS it's a bad idea based on what he thinks the CHANCES ARE. It's an intelligent article though, and I do see his points. Just note, he hasn't talked to everyone of us voters on what we would do if she were running.

I'd certainly consider voting for Mrs. Clinton. In fact, right now, I would have to say she'd get my vote. I don't think I plan on voting for a republican any time soon considering the NOW. Thats not to say, as JB said earlier somewhere else, that I'm so partison that I wouldnt' vote republican if I thought that the candidate was actually a better choice.

This country has seen neither a black president nor a woman president. How long do you think we will go before one of these two happens? Which one do you think will happen first? So far, and I'm probably the least racist person on the planet, I havn't liked ANY of the black presidential candidates in the past. (although this UBAMA guy seems to be a notch higher than most) Hillary seems to be popular, she already has experience, and would most certainly have dual support with most of the dems already in the government up on capital hill. (Remember, she's married to Mr. Clinton)

Sorry about writing a book. I feel that this article was almost posted for me by mkilly. *SMILEY* so I had to take the bait.

[Justincombustion]

Have her VP for McCain and I'd vote for them.

[mkilly]

Have her VP for McCain and I'd vote for them.

Not likely. Seems that Kerry tried and tried and tried this year to get McCain. If McCain runs in `08 it'll be with Giuliani or somebody else that's popular. I don't think Bush or DeLay or Hastert would be happy with McCain running at all, though.

[the Jazz]

Have her VP for McCain and I'd vote for them.

Not that this would ever happen in a million years (it would be suicide for McCain), but me too. Then again, I would probably vote McCain with just about any VP candidate.

[Eric Y.]

I havn't liked ANY of the black presidential candidates in the past.

that's because colin powell refuses to run. i think he'd have an excellent chance of making it if he tried.

anyway, as far as wondering which will happen first: (yay, it's another history lesson from my faulty memory which i'm too lazy to look up facts to confirm!) not long after lincoln abolished slavery, the right to vote was extended to include ALL males regardless of race, colour, land-ownershipness, etc. and it wasn't until like sixty years later that women were allowed to vote. i think this will be the case with presidency as well, though not such a long gap in between. but that's just my prediction based on vague historical precedent.

[Jim of Seattle]

One of the reasons Powell won't run is that he (probably justifiably) would fear for his life. It's sad, but true. I don't think we're ready yet as a nation. Baruch Obama in 2012!!!

Hillary has already announced she's running for senate re-election in 2006, so an '08 presidential run seems unlikely. And she would be about the WORST candidate that could be nominated, because she'd get totally creamed. The Reps already have enough dirt to use against her that they could beat her with both hands tied behind their back.

As for McCain, he'd be a Rep candidate I might endorse, but not likely; one has to vote for the potential cabinet as well as the candidate. McCain would likely put people in his cabinet that don't have quite the same clean record as he does.

[fodroy]

Baruch Obama in 2012!!!

yeah!!! obama rules!

[Justincombustion]

Baruch Obama in 2012!!!

yeah!!! obama rules!

Is his kid named Al?

[mkilly]

Barack Obama.

[Caravan Ray]

that's because colin powell refuses to run. i think he'd have an excellent chance of making it if he tried.

I don't follow your politics particularly closely, but I've always had the impression that Powell stood out amongst his collegues in Bush's government as being the only one with any sort of intelligence. Now that he has resigned as secretary of state, that appears to reinforce that view.

Is this how non-Rebublican supporters also see him - or have I misread things?

Or were you suggesting above that he could possibly run as a Democrat?

[Sober]

Powell always seemed to be the least crooked out of all of them.

McCain is probably the most likeable politician I have ever seen in any TV appearance. From what I know of his voting record, he's a good guy, too. I'd vote for him in a second.

And Hoblit: No dizzle it's an opinion peice. Also, the author is female, sillybuns.

[mkilly]

McCain is probably the most likeable politician I have ever seen in any TV appearance. From what I know of his voting record, he's a good guy, too. I'd vote for him in a second.

He's pro-life and supported the prez this year in his re-election bid. So I mean, his principles go as far as supporting a douchebag, even if McCain seems to solidly be a not-douchebag (he didn't badmouth Kerry much this year). I'd of course prefer Pres. McCain to Pres. Bush, but I'd prefer Pres. Kerry or Pres. Gore to both.

[Caravan Ray]

Another thing thats always puzzled me - is there some law that says that the US Secretary of State can only be a person with a really silly name. eg, Condolezza, Caspar, Lawrence Eagleburger (that one still cracks me up). Even Colin Powell, who's name isn't silly at all, made it sound silly by pronouncing his christian name in a way that made it sound like he was describing part of his lower digestive tract.

[Hoblit]

1. Powell always seemed to be the least crooked out of all of them.

2. And Hoblit: No dizzle it's an opinion peice. Also, the author is female, sillybuns.

1. Yeah, he has been outspoken at times but is very moderate. Seems to have his head securely on his shoulders. It's even been rumored that he protested a presentation his administration forced on him. Not sure of the details, and he did go ahead and do the presentation for some summit.

2. When did the start lettin' wimmin state their opinions out loud wheres peoples can hear dem'?