President Hillary

[Zahir]

One - Despite assumptions to the contrary, I don't think Hilary Clinton wants to run for president. Certainly she has never sought executive authority before, always prefering to work as a member of a team. I remember vividly the confident assumptions that Powell and others would run, and they didn't. I do believe Hilary intends to be a mover and shaker, something of a kingmaker in 2008. She might well end up White House Chief of Staff in that case.

Two - The Clinton name is anything but a disadvantage in national American politics. If he could have run for a third term, Bill Clinton would have won easily. I'll go further. Had she been the Democratic nominee in 2004, Hilary'd be president right now. Lets face it, Kerry came fairly close to winning. Kerry for god's sake! He got more votes than Ronald Reagan ever did! What if the nominee had been someone people had been passionate for instead of being passionately against Bush? Those who would automatically vote against her weren't going to vote for Kerry anyway, so where's the loss?

Three - It all depends, IMO, on two factors:

(a) Who is the Republican nominee? Odds are it'll be either some kind of moderate (like McCain) or a neocon firebrand (like Delay), or one of each on the ticket. Frankly, I don't think either one would do very well. A moderate would alienate the core constituency of the Far Right--which currently has a dispurportionate influence on the Republican Party. But a firebrand would alienate the rest of the country unless the Democratic nominee can be portrayed as seriously, extremely Left Wing.

(b) Can an electable candidate survive the early primary system as it currently exists in the Democratic Party--a system that nearly always gives the initial big advantage to boring, lacklustre candidates like Mondale, Dukkakis, Gore and Kerry? The current leadership seems to see that problem and is trying to find a feasible way of 'fixing' it.

Thus, at the end, you are left with who the nominees are, the campaigns run, and events during election season (the Rodney King riots in 1992--and even more importantly how Clinton and Bush responded to same--had a strong impact, IMO).

I do believe Hilary Clinton is electable. Condaleeza Rice is not, unless facing a truly extreme candidate on the other side (we're talking Al Sharpton here). She is tainted with years of increasingly unpopular foriegn policies. Colin Powel I believe was electable, but he hasn't built the kind of network one needs to make a viable bid. Cheney is likewise only electable if the Democrats nominate someone like Barney Frank or Jerry Brown.

[safetyjedi]

Besides, Hillary's already been president

[Edge]

Besides, Hillary's already been president

Heh, someone had to say it!

Bravo, SJ.

[Cail]

On one hand, I think Zahir's right; I don't see her running. On the other hand, I don't think he realizes what a liability her last name actually is, not to mention her reputation as First Lady.

[sindatur]

Tough call. She started moving to the center, the day after the election.

I think it would be good for the race, for her to enter the primaries, because with her centrist image, the rest of the pack will be scrambling for the center.

I'm unsure what effect her "name" would have. Alot of people still have a favorable view of Clinton's presidency, and she is a very popular Senator.

I do agree, today, I don't think the American public would elect a woman, but, Nov 2008 is along way off, she is a very passionate speaker and could light some fires, so she would be a very attractive alternative to who people want to vote against, if the Republican is a vote against candidate.

I'm not sure Condoleeza Rice would have Foreign Policy working against her, the voting masses have no memory, and most of them wouldn't even notice she was Nat Security adviser and now Sec of State. They'd just know they recognize her, so she must be a good candidate. The Black and woman thing would work against her, though.

People who don't sit on the internet daily debating these things are surprisingly uninformed (In general, but not all). I am truly amazed at the things people I know say or their lack of competence in making decisions like who to vote for. It's mostly all about those commercials that come on in the couple months before the election, the 10-20% of us know enough to at least form our own opinions (wether we all agree with each other not, at least we know enough to decide for ourselves)

[safetyjedi]

There is a conspiracy theory that says that Bill will die of a heart attack in the coming months and then she will run to "honor his legacy."

[sgt.null]

all depends on who the Right runs. but they won't be running a firebrand. are there any more idiots like Bush toiling away in the ranks?

[Avatar]

I'd be surprised if there weren't.

--A

[sindatur]

all depends on who the Right runs. but they won't be running a firebrand. are there any more idiots like Bush toiling away in the ranks?

Dennis, you can't be serious, the Administration is populated with the voices in GW's ear. His Administration would be much different if there were different people around him. As far as folks like GW who would bow to the religious right, as GW does, you need look no further than Florida's Governors mansion. And with the way McCain has been toeing the party line, I'm not sure the liberals would get who they thought they were getting if McCain won, certainly not if he surrounded himself with the same sort Bush has surrounded himself with. You're right, I imagine that there won't be a Santorum running on the right, but, I can easily see another generic Conservative, like Bush with the Firebrands surrounding him and being the voices in his ear.

[Zahir]

Cail--Clinton was overall a very popular president and frankly the Democrats would be frelling thrilled if they could somehow nominate him in 2008. Yeah, there a core of extreme Anti-Clintonistas who foam at the mouth at the mention of his name but they are very much a minority, even if they are very loud. The vast majority in the country liked him and still do. In this respect, he is very much like two other extremely-despised Presidents: Lincoln and FDR (for that matter, his namesake Thomas Jefferson was similarly viewed by certain factions in his day). His name and presence would only add a lustre to any candidacy by Hilary.

Her reputation as First Lady, that is something else. She would definitely have to overcome the image of a radically left wing voice in her husband's administration (not actually a fair judgement, but a common one). But that perception is steadily changing. Whether it will have changed enough is another question, one for which there is no answer until and unless she runs.

Condaleeza Rice would, IMO, be a very poor candidate. Frankly, she has the double disadvantage of being both a woman and black. She has zero experience at political campaigns and her primary claim to fame is involvement in an administration that exists solely because the Democrats nominated a dull political weathervane who made Bush look good by comparison. This White House is increasingly unpopular, and the whole Iraqi situation continues to leave an increasingly foul taste the voters' mouths. No, I think anyone closely associated with the Bush administration would be almost un-electable by 2008, depending on who the Democratic nominee ends up being.

Other than McCain, several governors as well as Frist and Delay certainly seem to be jockeying for position. We'll see.

[Zarathustra]

Hillary claims businesses and corporations don't create jobs.

So what's the alternative here? Government creates all the jobs we have? She can't be that stupid (I suppose she just assumes the people who vote for her are).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This is a leftist talking point, that "demand creates jobs" or some such nonsense. I've been dealing with it elsewhere.

[Zarathustra]

All the demand in the world is useless without someone willing to invest and take the risk of employing people.

[Cail]

It once again highlights how out of touch she is (like the "we left the White House broke" comment). Doubt it'll make a difference to the base though.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

All the demand in the world is useless without someone willing to invest and take the risk of employing people.

Correct. It's like saying hunger causes food production. That would be surprising news to the farmer at 4 am. And to the hundreds of millions that have starved to death throughout history.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It is pointless to name things which don't create jobs--that list is nearly endless. Sunspots don't create jobs. Kittens don't create jobs. My coffee cup doesn't create jobs. If you want to talk about jobs then you start with what creates them. Although it is technically true that government can create jobs--examine old-school agencies like the WPA and CCC, or more modern cases such as the TSA--in the vast majority of cases it is private business which creates jobs, whether the business in question is small, mid-sized, or gigantic.

I think she just wanted to get in a good liberal sound byte before next Tuesday's elections.

[Zarathustra]

No, she can't actually believe it. In fact, the link I provided gave quotes from her recent book that directly contradict such an idea, acknowledging the power of trade and the market to create jobs and opportunity.

What's going on is that she's competing for the Dem nomination (unofficially) against people like Elizabeth Warren who echoes Obama's, "you didn't create that" sentiments. And many Dems agree with that collectivist BS, because achievement can't be celebrated, it must be either denigrated, denied, or "shared." Just as the poor aren't responsible for their own poverty, the rich apparently aren't responsible for their own wealth. All this stuff just "happens," the causal mechanism being whatever you need it to be to deny people either culpability (when you want their votes) or credit (when you want to demonize them).

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's just a rationale for the wolves to justify carving up the sheep.

[SoulBiter]

Hillary claims businesses and corporations don't create jobs.

So what's the alternative here? Government creates all the jobs we have? She can't be that stupid (I suppose she just assumes the people who vote for her are).

Funny enough she attacks business shipping jobs over seas when it was her husband that signed NAFTA that started the stream of jobs going out of country and was a heavy proponent of that free trade agreement.

Depending on who you talk to, NAFTA either had no real impact, or had a net impact of losing manufacturing but replacing those with service jobs, OR it established the principle that U.S. corporations could relocate production elsewhere and sell back into the United States, undercutting the bargaining power of American workers.

[dlbpharmd]

I don't see a Republican out there who can beat her in 2016.