Just two days after we announce the upcoming competition for next year’s Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, Captain Ed titles his post on Hillary’s falling fortunes, The Decline Of The Democrats’ Diva. Perhaps it’s diva week her on GayPatriot. Just four days ago, I noted that columnist Robert Novak described California Congresswoman Jane Harman and House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi’s “rival diva.”
In his post, Captain Ed disputes the notion of Hillary’s inevitably by referencing a New York Times piece showing that she has “dissipated” most of the “massive war chest” she accumulated for his recent Senate campaign in the Empire State. Not only that. The Captain notes that while spending twice what her colleague Charles Schumer did two years previously, she did not equal her fellow Democrat’s margin of victory.
While I wouldn’t yet count Hillary out of the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, I agree that she is going to have a much tougher path that many assume. While she has been heralded as the frontrunner for as long as people have talked about that race, she has never in a poll (of a multi-candidate Democratic field) climbed over 50%, indeed never getting over 40%. Indeed, a recent poll showed her only at 33%. I had thought this showed a steady drift downward from her previous position, but a review of the polls at PollingReport.com shows that over the past four years, in a multi-candidate field, she has polled between 25 and 40%.
While she always leads the field, given her high name ID, her largely favorable press and the popularity of her husband in Democratic circles, these numbers surely indicate that Democrats are not yet sold on the notion of Hillary as their 2008 nominee.
A few years back, a Democratic friend of mine dismissed the notion that Hillary would ever be his party’s nominee, suggestion her nomination would be a “Republican Wet Dream.” Mrs. Clinton continues to have high negatives, with one January poll showing that “51 percent of Americans said they would definitely vote against her if she ran for president. The same poll showed that only “16 percent of Americans pledged to definitely support a Clinton presidential run, while another 32 percent said they would consider it.”
I think that Hillary’s greatest problem is that she is an incredibly polarizing figure and that after sixteen years of polarizing presidents, the American people might look to a candidate better able to bring the nation together.
In subsequent posts, I expect to address her shortcomings (as well as her strengths) at greater length, but for now (below the “jump”), let me summarize the problems I think she faces in a presidential contest.
• Absence of warmth/Stature: Unlike her husband, she doesn’t come across as a leader nor radiate his charisma. Peggy Noonan noted that when “she speaks to a sympathetic audience eager for red meat her voice becomes high, harsh, grating–the first wife that your nice husband fled.”
• Her charismatic husband overshadows her: If you ever see the two of them on stage together, you’ll notice that his is the more commanding presence. Your focus on him rather than her. Contrast Hillary and her husband to one of the most successful female politicians of the last century, Margaret Thatcher, and hers. When Margaret stood with Denis, you find yourself focusing on her not him.
• Despite her husband’s charisma and political savvy, he never mustered more than 50% of the vote: In 1996 with a strong economy, a brilliant campaign and opponent with a mediocre campaign, he only mustered 49% of the popular vote. This suggests that despite his popularity in Democratic circles, Bill Clinton never completely won over the American people. If he couldn’t get a majority, what does that say about his less charismatic wife’s potential?
• Bush/Clinton fatigue: After twenty years of a president named Bush or Clinton, people want a change. While Jeb Bush has compiled one of the best records of any Republican governor, he’s not running, probably because he realizes that his last name will hurt him more than his record would help him.
• Clinton scandals: Whether or not old media reminds voters of these when she announces, the new media will. This will only serve to increase the Clinton portion of the fatigue mentioned above.
• Absence of Executive Experience Commenting on the way she ran health care reform in 1993-94, liberal economist Brad Long wrote that Mrs. Clinton “has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch. . . . there is no reason to think that she would be anything but an abysmal president” (Via Best of the Web).
You will note that many of Mrs. Clinton’s disadvantages relate to her relationship with her husband and his weaknesses. Perhaps, you will say that is unfair. And perhaps it is. But, ask yourselves this, given his political gifts as her own public persona, had she not been married to him would she have been elected Senator from the Empire State and would she be leading the field for her party’s 2008 presidential nomination?
by the new post GOP standards she’s basically a right wing conservative
Hillary is the only Dem contender thus far who will guarantee that I vote Republican in 08. I won’t even hesitate.
One of Hillary Rodmans early problems to overcome is her intense “unlikeability”. People want to vote for someone they are comfortable with. Have a beer with, chat with, chum around with. Can you seriously see yourself with Hill? I think Kerry and Gore suffered from the same thing. Edwards, Obama, maybe.
BTW the “Rodman” comes from Jessie Jackson. I got a chuckle out of it.
Of course, all this is speculation, considering Senator Clinton has never said she is planning or even intends to run for president. If you remember back in the last election cycle, most people figured Al Gore would run for president, but then he didn’t.
Also, if Senator Obama runs for president, he will really steal Hillary’s mojo. Should he run, I expect he will win the nomination. He’s already in second place and polling shows over a third of voters still don’t know who he is. He has the “it” factor.
Chase at #5… my response to your prediction is “I only hope that all comes true”.
Of course, Sen Clinton is a notorious liar so how can anyone with an ounce of prudence take anything she says beyond “I need to exercise power” as truthful? Distrust is a bigger issue for Hillary than dislike.
Conversly, while it is basically a crap shoot at this point trying to choose the likely nominee for either party, I think it’s a much safer bet that the VP choice for the prospective Democratic nominee will be a Governor from a western state. Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas would be an attractive choice, presuming the nominee is not Hillary Clinton. Other possibilities include Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, Janet Napalitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana or, less likely, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Bill Ritter of Colorado and Ted Kulongoski of Oregon. (soon to be) Former Governor Vilsack of Iowa will of course be in the mix too, assuming he doesn’t ascend to the top of the ticket. The Democrats have a pretty deep farm team out west.
With the DNC likely to be hosted in Denver, I see that as a high probability scenario. With the Democrats consolidating in the Northeast and the Republican fortress set in the South, the Democratic strategy will be to take the West.
With the Democrats consolidating in the Northeast and the Republican fortress set in the South, the Democratic strategy will be to take the West.
That should be entertaining to watch, given the Democrats’ support for things that reflect so nicely Western values.
More and more I begin to think that this Dem takeover is a great idea. There’s no better way of making obvious the disconnect between what Democrats believe, as I’ve shown above, and what their syncophants like Chase say.
democrats are in charge. whoever we decide will be the POTUS. no more of this voting crap
#3
Edwards, Obama, maybe.
The thing about Hillary, Edwards and Obama is that none of them have done a damn thing. In 2 out of the three, it’s all about appearances.
#5
If you remember back in the last election cycle, most people figured Al Gore would run for president, but then he didn’t.
More than that, we remember a few cycles ago when Hillary swore she wouldn’t run for the Senate either.
#8
no more of this voting crap
You’re absolutely right. Why have elections? Power belongs to the liberals by birthright anyway. They’re entitled to it. To hell with those ignorant Red State bastards! Let those who are too stupid to use a butterfly ballot prevail. To hell with the military vote too. They’re the stupidest of all.
At this point, I think the Democrats could put up Krusty The Clown and still win. As long as the horror that’s been unleashed in Iraq continues, the Republicans won’t win another election. Because President Bush opened Pandora’s Box, victories at the ballot box will likely elude the GOP for a long time.
LOL…seems as if Chase found his way to the punchbowl.
Someone might wanna try to convince him to look at the numbers.
As for the “horror that’s been unleashed in Iraq,” my little brother, presently on his THIRD TOUR over there, asked me to let our little buddy Chase know that the 3rd Armored Division would like to respectfully invite him to kiss their collective asses.
Happy Post-Turkey Day.
Eric in Hollywood
The 2nd American Civil War is way overdue, and Miss Smartypants-suit Hillary is just the person to get things rolling in a big way. Hillary will “win” with the most sophisticated and well-run vote fraud operation in history. Remember, she and Bill have had 6 years to hire the best balot box stuffers in the business, they have the blacks solidly behind them to provide cover for the operation, and the MSM will be laying on heavy artillery starting any minute now. More power to her. We can’t start rebuilding until the liberals completely wreck the place. From the ashes, a new nation, a new homeland of freedom will rise.
#7:
It’s already happening. Just look at Colorado, New Mexico, Montana and Arizona. The latter is projected to the tenth largest state by 2030 – larger than Michigan. In 2006, the popular Dem Governor handily won re-election over her conservative opponent. The Dems doubled their representation in Congress from two to four seats giving them equal footing with the four House Repubs. In the state Legislature, the Dems gained seats in both the House and Senate.
The problem for the Repubs is that their Southern Strategy has worked too well and they are in real danger of becoming a regional party of the old South and as such, control will remain in the hands of theocrats and racists. That’s not really attractive to most of the rest of the country. Heck, the GOP had a tough time retaining their seat in freakin’ Idaho! Add to that the near collapse of GOP efforts to appeal to Hispanics and I think it’s fair to say that the GOP is in for a tough time throughout the west.
“…theocrats and racists,” ian whines.
Funny, how in the short history of this country, only the dhimmicrats have managed to exalt an asshole like Robert Byrd to a position of party leadership. If I were any more of an asshole myself, I’d quote Ole’ Sheets here, but I’m afraid the klan’s words aren’t allowed past my keyboard.
“Theocrats,” while sounding vicious enough, is a whole different story. Anyone care to ask the Token Moonbat for some specifics? I’d ask him myself, but engaging this deceptive fool in anything resembling a discussion is about as fruitful as eliciting philosophy from a dog.
BEAR DOWN, CHICAGO BEARS!
Eric in Hollywood
Why bring Bubba into the conversation, anon1?
Why would Pelosi want to stack the Intelligence Committee? Hope someone asks this question. Does she want her on personal files on other pols? Getting ready for a Kangaroo Court? What’s going on here? Inquring minds and conspiracy buffs want to know.
Chase writes: “At this point, I think the Democrats could put up Krusty The Clown and still win”
I didn’t know that NancyP might be a candidate?