Let the Games Begin
Larry Sabato has four questions about what the Democrats will do between now and Campaign Naught-Eight:
…help themselves by nominating the candidate most likely to win, or will they insist on ideological purity?
…choose a person with broad popular appeal, or pick a controversial standard-bearer? …broaden their base, or merely attempt to produce the highest turnout possible among liberal constituency groups, a tactic that failed in 2004?
…find a nominee fully able to compete with a Republican on national security, or simply hope to skate by on this greatest of all issue-clusters in the current age of terrorism?
…make any compromises on the hot-button social and cultural issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control, the death penalty), thereby allowing themselves to compete in some red Republican territory, or will they once again just set out to thrill the bluest of their blue state supporters?
Good questions, and as always, fun to watch play out. Of course, there’s also this:
Believe it or not, we are nearly four months into the 48 month 2008 campaign–and a mere 35 months away from the start of the primary nomination season.
I need a drink.
2008: A Sneak Preview
Political guru Larry Sabato writes that Hillary’s chances are overrated: she carries heap big baggage from her first tour of the White House with Bill. Meanwhile, a possible opponent is looking mighty stylish in the Washington Post (and no, I…
Wonder if Larry learned his lesson from 2004.
I remember when he backed off his Cabana Boy call.
Well, maybe if you would stop asking yourself what Democrats will do, and go read about what they are actually starting to do, you both might be a little less confused about it.
They will nominate Clinton. She is allready following Bill and taking middle or right positions. She is backing the troops – relly not in a disingenous way like Reid or Peolsi -, says War on Terror is going well, Says Christianity is not all bad, does not want to raise taxes as almost ever other Dem does. She will be a formidable candidate in 08. Probably beat any one but Rudy or Condi since Arnold cant run – not American born.
They will nominate Clinton. She is allready following Bill and taking middle or right positions. She is backing the troops – relly not in a disingenous way like Reid or Peolsi -, says War on Terror is going well, Says Christianity is not all bad, does not want to raise taxes as almost ever other Dem does. She will be a formidable candidate in 08. Probably beat any one but Rudy or Condi since Arnold cant run – not American born.
They will nominate Clinton. She is allready following Bill and taking middle or right positions. She is backing the troops – relly not in a disingenous way like Reid or Peolsi -, says War on Terror is going well, Says Christianity is not all bad, does not want to raise taxes as almost ever other Dem does. She will be a formidable candidate in 08. Probably beat any one but Rudy or Condi since Arnold cant run – not American born.
Did the dems learn anything from loosing the 2000, 2002 or 2004 elections?
Let’s see, MoveOn said that they bought the party and it’s theirs. Howard Dean was made the party chairman. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and all of the usual suspects have been going above and beyond, in their usual bloviating.
2008 is way off, but if this is any indication, my money is on posturing, ideological purity and preaching bluer than blue. But you never know, things could change between now and 2008 or even 2006, but I’d be surprised if it did.
Sorry for that I thought it did not go. I am truly sorry:(
I disagree about Hillary.
I agree that at this point in time, Hillary’s their best bet, but last week, Geffen blasted her in a speech to dem big wigs as unelectable, too polarizing, etc.
She has lots of extreme leftist deological baggage that is very well documented. Not to mention her nomination would dredge up all of the Clinton excesses, many of which she was a part of.
None the less, it will be interseting to see if they eventually nominate her.
What’s funny about Hillary is Democrats and Republicans seem equally scared of her. I think most Dems see her weaknesses while Republicans are still suffering post-Clinton traumatic stress.
As for the Dems, they still haven’t answered Dick Cheney’s immortal question from the Veep debate:
“[I]f they couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al Qaeda?”
There’s one thing that rarely seems to come up when the discussion is about Hillary ’08.
She’s an awful campaigner. She comes across as stiff and arrogant. How could that be?
Don’t forget that in 2000 she ran considerably behind Gore’s vote totals in New York.
They will nominate hillary which will send Republicans into a panic for no reason since hillary will fail. Americans have a long memory and will not want bill in the oval office again.
BTW…the words “democrat” and “ideological purity” should not appear in the same sentence.
I’m kind of dubious about Hillary. Frankly, I see her as the next Ted Kennedy … someone the Dems trot out every four years just to scare the Republicans pundits, but who knows better than to ever run seriously.
Hillary is at least as vulnerable on the flipflopping charge as Kerry ever was.
She talks tough on the war? Put one of the troops she made stand in line while she ate breakfast in a commercial. Interview one of the military staff who had to wear civilian clothes to the White House because “the President and First Lady really hate the military.”
Tough on Terror? Ask her what she advised Bill to do about implementing the Iraq regime change resolution Congress passed in ’98.
Hillary is definitely a vulnerable candidate.
If you’re reading a political weblog — on either the left or right — you’re not the type of person Hillary is targeting with her son-of-new-Nixoc makeover. What she’s trying to do is peel off about 500,000 or so voters in key battleground states like Ohio who would still be willing to vote for a Democrat, if only one would run who they don’t have to fear would let their hometown get nuked by terrorists after 3-4 years in office. She can vote with Bush on those things and it’s not a deal-breaker in 2008 for all but the furthest left of the Democratic Party.
Hillary still goes to small Democratic gatherings and makes some blistering comments about Bush to comfort her base, but when the media spotlight is on she’s taking the smarter role of supporting the war on terror. And as of right now that’s been an easy road to take because none of the key votes on the WOT, the Iraq war or additional military funding have been any 51-49 nail-biters, where how each seantor casts their ballot is remembered way down the line by the party faithful.
I really doubt there are going to be any votes on military actions in the next three years that are going to be close enough to force Hillary to go one way or there other in backing Bush or her party hard-liners. But there are a few other issues and the looming judicial nominations where if Bush and the Senate Republicans play their cards right, they can smoke out whether or not her recent votes and statements on things like the WOT, religion and abortion represent an actual conversion, or if its just a new version of Dick Morris’ triangulation theory in play designed to sucker a half-million people or so just to get across the November ’08 finish line.
Write this down. HRC will never be POTUS, for two compelling reasons. In order of priority:
1. Americans will not elect a woman in her lifetime, except given that both parties nominate a woman. If so, Condi Rice will be the next POTUS.
2. HRC can’t escape HillaryCare and the remaining baggage of the Bubba years. Monica, albatross like, is a stain on her blue state dress.
She hasn’t announced her candidacy yet, so talk of her electibility is a little premature.
Nevertheless,
Pros:
No one doubts that she’d hesitate to bomb the shit out of whatever country she thinks is a threat.
Blowjobgate didn’t make anyone look good (I’d say it made Clinton attackers look worse, but ymmv) but as the ‘injured party’, it hurts her least and may even garner her some sympathy among the non-Clinton-haters.
After 4 years of W-conomics, those Clinton years aren’t looking so bad.
She knows how the game is played and learns from her mistakes and can hardball (so to speak) with anyone.
Cons:
There’s a substantial portion of republicans that hate her worse than Saddam, Osama, the Kims and the Ayatollahs put together.
She’s charisma challenged. To the extent that she’s popular it’s in spite of her personality, not because of it.
She doesn’t think on her feet (get your minds out of the gutter, I mean she’s no improviser, she takes data in, stews over it and then decides what to do).
She doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Any real candidate for president has an explosive temprement (part of the personality profile). Those who are realistic candidates learn to control/conceal it when necessary.
For my part, I wouldn’t rule out voting for her. If nothing else, the idea of the indigestion her election would cause in redstate america is vastly entertaining.
who cares…
also, did y’all see that picture of condi in the black trench, cblack skirt, and black leather boots?
darth vader has a pretty smiling face, but (s)he’s coming to kick ASS!!
of course once she opens her mouth, who knows. i always thought colin was awesome from desert storm, but he sucked in politics, and that his son was great, until the whole decency thing came around. same with mccain… seems great, but wtf?
I hope she’s a death dealing libertarian imperialist who will provide all of my heart’s desired policies. I’m (slightly) likely to be disappointed.
I can answer this one. They will pander to their base just like the Republicans do. The difference, as always, will be that the views of their liberal base are further from the center than their conservative counterparts.
I will crawl across broken glass to vote against that viper.
She set the women’s movement back 50 years.
And I thought that long before our host put down his thoughts.
We will always know how far Hillary Rodham Clinton got, we’ll never know how far the smartest woman in America, Hillary Rodham got.
I think John pretty much nailed HC’s strategy. While she carries a lot of baggage, she probably doesn’t need to win over any significant number Republicans to win in 2008, as long as she can reverse the losses the Democrats suffered in 2004 with two key constituencies (hispanics and center-left hawks). At this point, it really is an open question as to whether the strategy will work.
I think the reason Republicans are worried about Hillary is that, of all of the high profile Democrats angling for nomination at this time, she is clearly the strongest candidate. On the other hand, that probably says more about Kerry, Edwards and Boxer than it does about Hillary.
“She set the women’s movement back 50 years?”
That’s an interesting idea. How?
OT: via Econopundit:
Global warming cleared on ice shelf collapse rap
The high-profile collapse of some Antarctica’s ice shelves is likely the result of natural current fluctuations, not global warming, says a leading British expert on polar climates.
This surprising finding is supported by analysis of data from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 satellite, according to Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London. The data, measuring changes in ice thickness across the Antarctic ice sheet using the polar orbiting satellite, show areas of growth from snowfall are as common as areas of decline….
When H Clinton says raising taxes is bad for the economy it is a good clue what she wants in 08. She is the only Democrat with a chance. Unless Bush repeats his father and raises the SS tax as he suggested last week. In which case it may be 92 all over again.
I think she’ll be the candidate in the end. the rest of them will probably split the vote, and Hellary has the hard left that will stay with her. But, being such a polarizing candidate, all the dirt from those years will pile out, and red state America will reject her. Demographics will rule here. But…, it will be pretty close, depends of course on who Repubs pick
Just because Hillary won an oscar doesnt mean she should be President.