Comment of the Week

There was some discussion in the comments on my post about Maureen Dowd's misogynistic snipe at Hillary Clinton about whether I actually meant to suggest that Senator Clinton has a realistic change to be elected President - "the first [woman] in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency," as I put it. In other words, is Clinton electable?

My answer: yeah, she is.

To be sure, handicapping Presidential races twoyears out is an inexact science. Things have to break right for her - in the opponent sweepstakes, especially - and she may have to weather some Democratic primary losses (John Edwards is the next-strongest candidate, barring a Frankensteinian Al Gore rebirth). It'll be a fight. But I can see her whipping anybody not named McCain on the GOP side. She was wrong about the war and there's certainly a whiff of dynasty about her career, but she may well be the toughest, most disciplined major elected politician in America.

Now, this puts me at odds with most of the readers' comments - even those who blasted Dowd for her blatantly anti-feminist language mostly thought Clinton is already toast, the victim of a. her ambition, b. her gender, c. demonization by the right, or d. all of the above. Chuck's comment is typical:

HRC is where she is at because she married a fast track guy. Nepotism is not merit and the vast dumb-voter conspiracy will never cast their votes her way. She will lose... she is now a "brand" created by the GOP with years of demonization and hatred. Hillary is hated like no other. NO one I know would ever talk about her with ANYTHING other than disdain in public.

Respectfully, I disagree - and point to this comment by Sally, who sums up my current POV on the efficacy of a Clinton candidacy and earns comment of the week:

Too many Dowdisms are about Hillary's gender although that is vehemently denied time and again. As terrible a person and president Bush is, I doubt anyone has written as many negatives about him (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) in one column as the anti-Hillarys do. Get over the fantasy Republicans want her to run. Just like they are anxious for Bill to be her campaign manager. I think not, ladies and gentlemen.

Comments

[chervokas]

Hillary Clinton is the putative front runner for the Dem nod because she has all the technical advantages--super high profile, ability to raise money, and the Bill X-factor.

But I think Hillary believers don't comprehend, or at least don't take seriously, the deeply felt, widely held dislike for Hillary, not among Republicans but among rank and file Democrats--precisely the kind of Dems that vote in primaries.

I know one county committeewoman in Hillary's home county who has already angrily written to the Senator's staff excoriating Clinton for her position on the war, flag burning and abortion, for her unwillingness to lead if it means taking positions that threaten to alienate her potential Republican crossover vote, and for losing touch with the home base of the Dems in her district.

Those criticisms ought to sound familiar, they represent the same mix that brought down Lieberman in CT. Ned Lamont's victory ought to be a wake up call for Clinton. But calling for Rumsfeld's resignation two years after Abu Ghraib just looks like another weather vane twist for a politician trying desperately to cleave to the fence.

Fully half of the rank and file Dems in Hillary's home state would vote for a viable, opponent for senate if they could, never mind president.

Combine the deep dislike of many Democrats with the even deeper dislike by most Republicans and you have a recipe for Michael Dukakis-like disaster. Only a weak field of opponents gives Hillary a shot right now.

It's still years away but I don't think a pro war candidate has a shot of winning the Dem nod for pres, even given Hillary's superstar status and potential for fund-raising. And I suspect that waffling her way to the left over the next two years is going to do more harm than good.

It will be a titantic struggle for her to win her party's nod, and a quixotic quest for her to win a general presidential election.

My personal opposition to Hillary for prez isn't about electability. I think we outsmart ourselves thinking too much about that. My problem w/ her has to do with policy. Hillary doesn't share my core beliefs about the war (which is a proxy for the entirety of foreign policy), nor about freedom of speech. If its Hillary vs. Bill Frist or Lindsey Graham, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. But that's about the only scenario in which this Democrat can see himself pulling a lever for her now. And I'm pretty typical of 50% of the rank and file.

[Tom K]

Al Gore is the likely Dem. nominee. Maybe Hillary can be his running mate.

On a side note, Hillary is both extremely able, *and* is where she is because of who she married. At least, we'll never know where she would have ended up if she had not followed her "fast track guy" to Ark. That's not a criticism (though I have plenty for her), but it is a fact. There are many able and ambitious women we've never heard of.

Hillary climbed the greasy pole through Bill. She made partner at the Rose Law firm while he was governor and the firm was doing the state's bond work. Now, she strikes me as someone who could have made partner at any number of firms on her ability, but we'll never know; many able women don't. She got elected to the Senate, surely, on Bill's coat-tails. Where she goes from here is largely on her, but there is no reliable way to say that she would be "here" without Bill.

[Tony Alva]

I've said it before on Tom's earlier post on this matter, Hillary is definitely elect able and could win. I'd also agree with your "...against anybody not named McCain" sentiment.

I also think that if the Dems turn the race into a Pro/anti-war thing, they will lose despite the Conn. thing. If they stay away from it and pound the GOP/Bush for the myriad of other reasons they should be usurped then they stand a chance of taking it home.

[Slappy]

Chervokas is dead on correct.

The war will be 90% of the campaign. By '08 even Cheney will admit its a failure and will blame the Dems which no one will buy. Clinton will not be able to use this issue to her advantage and therefore should not be nominated and would stand a much smaller chance of winning.

And where would Bush Jr. be if he wasn't Daddy's son? Sucking Schlitz in some trailer rooting for the Cowboys. Bush Jr didn't choose his scumbag parents. Clinton chose her husband.

Bill has a greasy pole running through him?

[Tom K]

Slappy:

As to getting where you are by means other than personal merit, the subject at hand was HRC. HRC used her connections and succeeded. GWB used his and failed until, for reasons I will never understand, the powers that be in the Rep. party decided that he should be Pres. (I mean, to me, as a conservative, the "Bush" name was no plus, and the fellow's biography didn't do anything to overcome that so as I could see).

But, hey, I supported McCain in '00: from the pro/anti war point of view, which seems to be the dominant concern in this space, I don't see any real difference between them (apart from the fact that McCain would have a tad more credibility when sending folks to combat).

[Slappy]

I was just pointing out that being down on Hillary for only making it due to her husband is silly. So what. You can say the same for Bush and go even further and it means nothing. Im no big fans of the Clintons but to use that as a negative seems silly to me. It wouldn't hurt her in the slightest. America loves dynasties. Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Daley, any Hollywood family you can think of, Hilton, Ripken, Yankees, Star Wars, Friends spin offs, etc...

Others came down on Hillary Clinton for this reason in the previous post. I probably should have posted my statement there.

I predict Edwards' anti-war and populist campaign to win the nomination. I think Gore wants it himself but wont get in unless there is some kind of massive grassroots campaign to pull him in. Then he can walk in as the reluctant candidate bowing to the will of the people in order to fix the mess we are in. Not a bad story line I think. If that happens it will be a good fight. Hillary's chances were destroyed with Lieberman. A pro war candidate can not win the nomination. The Republican candidate is forced to be pro war and if he/she can't convince the American people that the war is not a mess and wasn't a mistake they haven't a chance. McCain? I hope so. Would be fun watching the "Keep Schiavo Alive" branch of the Republican party go bonkers and put up their own candidate.

[Ralph]

As for...

"She got elected to the Senate, surely, on Bill's coat-tails. Where she goes from here is largely on her, but there is no reliable way to say that she would be 'here' without Bill."

Ture.. and the same thing can be said about HW Bush...and how about W? Only got into Yale because of legacy, never would have been elected dog catcher without the Bush name. Can't say the same about the Clintons: self made and smart.

[Tom K]

The two Bush's got opportunities because they were born to them: the traditional way, used by traditionalists.

By marrying into her opportunities, HRC also employed a traditional route for ambitious women (though she adapted it to modern times). Does that matter? Not to me, but then I'm not a feminist. If I were looking for an example of a woman who broke the traditional mold to succeed on her own, Hillary wouldn't seem all that credible a choice. If I were looking for an example of a woman who maximized whatever means were available to her to accomplish her goals, Hillary fits just fine.

[Mary]

Well, I'd like to say that your site is very interesting.
Hi,My name is Mary Morgan,my blog is here