Is Hillary Clinton Positioned as the'08 front runner? Opinions Wanted...

[Robert Murphy]

My Fellow Dems,

Consider this passage

"Obama is well aware of the obstacles he would face, including his limited experience in foreign policy, and Hillary Clinton's embedded position as frontrunner."

--"The Path to Power"; Jason Weisberg; Men's Vogue, Sept./Oct. '06

This is but one example of what is so predictably becoming media conventional wisdom: Hillary Clinton is the de facto front runner (if not the de facto nominee) for 2008. Also, unless I have been misinformed the lady does indeed have a not inconsiderable head start in both fund raising and preliminary organization over any other potential Democratic candidate, and that she is the favorite of much--perhaps even most--of the party establishment.

While I support Clinton as a senator, the thought of her as the '08 nominee makes my stomach churn. Too bloody often on too many issues Clinton has almost cartoonishly raced for the so-called "center;" i.e. that point on the political spectrum where neo-Republicans like Joe Lieberman reside. (Aside: anyone else notice how the media still routinely refer to Lieberman not as a conservative but a "moderate" Democrat?) Remember that ludicrous anti-flag burning law she co-sponsored? But one instance among many.

OK, so what's my question/point? Well, maybe much of the party establishment is indeed enamored with Clinton as the nominee, but what about the the Democratic rank and file? (See: us) Hardly a scientific sampling but I don't know a single Democrat who doesn't cringe at the very notion. Hillary as the "embedded frontrunner" came as news to me. If the party leadership is indeed solidly backing Clinton, then it appears they are out of touch with the majority of their own party.

Alright, here's where the gasbag clams up. ;) Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated.

Robert

[Kiouni]

1. Maybe, but

I like her but i think she's a decoy for someone like Kerry or Edwards. Hopefully edwards. Shes and easy target and will take the brunt of any early gop flack. It's fairly apparent who the shitards are going to nominate and i don't think the GOP has the foresight to institute misdirection.

[lvx35]

2. Her nomination to the presidency is the last step in the rite.

and after that, the ritual will be completed and the age of Horus will be upon us.

At least, that's how it feels to me; like there is some bizarre esoteric ritual being carried out which we have no control over...first a president has his son in, then his succesor puts his wife in. In the mean time, the rest of us are wondering why in the hell we would want to run Hillary...if NOTHING else, conservatives, moderate and extreme, have been trained to HATE her by talk radio jocks for the last 15 years!!!!

[formernaderite]

14. if she's nominated a true third party candidate will emerge

her nomination will be the death call of the democratic party....very sad.

[lvx35]

30. I don't think so.

I mean, she seems all elitist and brittle right now, but all she really has to do is shake that image. If she were to put on the blue collar garb and go to a factory, hold up a wrench, and announce that we the American people "can do it!" (a Rosy Riveter image) while talking about building a world beyond global warming and oil dependence, I'd be in love. Lots of us would.

So I think its possible for her to carry it. I just think its weird how she's being treated like she's ordained by the media when nothing like this has happened, she has yet to capture her base.

[Lasher]

3. Polls indicate she will be the Democratic nominee.

Here is a site where you can view results of polls where Democrats were asked which candidate they would vote for in the 2008 primary.

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

Looks like she has on average about a 2 to one advantage over her nearest competitor.

[izzie]

10. I do not want another carbon copy of what we have had

They are staring to look like cup cakes from the same pan with different 'Jimmies' on top. Even the name gets to me. I do not think I could take another Clinton or Bush. Edwards looks like a better man in every way. Just once I would like to see some one who is not deep into that whole DC crime family. I would vote for some one not in the GOP but I sure will not be happy if it is the same old people. One can hardly tell who is who between McCain or H. Clinton right now as they keep trying to say the right thing to the right people. It is like we have to pick which slime we can take. I guess they do reflect our society but I just hate to face it.

[Lasher]

13. I could get behind that sentiment, Iizzie.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

We have collectively created these politicians. They succeed by making sure they don't make any segment of voters mad, more than they do by achievements or potential. I'm part of that mechanism too. For example, I don't think I'll support Gore, mainly because I'm worried he might play fast and lose with the life blood of Social Security, payroll taxes. There's other 'drop dead' issues that trigger similar sentiments: Abortion, gun control, war, gay rights, immigration control, jobs, the national debt, and on and on.

But maybe it's not all bad when we end up with the most vanilla candidate. Our political process is a compromise, whereby we hope to select an individual who best represents the whole group. It's a compromise, and if you were to say that it's an exercise in picking the lesser of evils I would agree. But I tend to be a guy whose glass is usually half full.

Two years is a long time and a lot will change before 2008. But right now the polls are giving us a pretty strong indication we will nominate Hillary. I think she would be a great president, but I'm anxious about her ability to win in the general election because of her negatives. 40% of Americans are saying they would definitely vote against her, and only 31% would definitely vote for her.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Hillary%20Meter.htm

That's a disadvantage coming out of the blocks. If the presidential election were held today, according to the polls, Democrats would nominate her like a bunch of lemmings and lose in the general. But change will occur, as I said. It is the only thing that is truly perpetual.

Sorry for waxing profound, but you started it.

[MADem]

29. We have met the enemy and he is us. Well said, Lasher

They do spend too much time pandering to achieve the greatest coverage. And of course, the rise of the "one issue asshole" is a fairly recent phenomenon, unlike the old days where one held one's nose and voted the ticket if one agreed with the party platform by and large.

Nowadays, if the politician in question doesn't agree with ONE issue that these single issue voters hold near and dear (even though he or she might agree with a thousand others equally near and dear) they'll take their ball and go home. And this phenomenon is PERSONALITY driven, too. You can have two politicians with the same stance on one of these "one issue" issues, yet one is the "asshole" and the other one is "not perfect, but not bad." That has to do with voter stupidity (didn't keep track of how the politician voted) and prejudice (the appearance, ethnicity or gender standard), in some cases. The demand from voters for this obscene sort of ideological purity and lockstep thinking is unachievable. All politics is, and always has been, local.

I'll listen to Hillary, I like her, but I don't consider her a "lock" by any stretch, no matter how the media (which is busy beating its breast and whining MEA CULPA for their shitty unquestioning coverage of the past six years) tries to spoon feed any scenarios to us. She's gonna have to earn it, and that is IF she even runs. I wish her and all the candidates good luck, and hopefully we'll get some fierce debates out of the contest.

[Lasher]

38. "One issue asshole" I like that, think I'll use it.

I can not take personal credit for the line, "We have met the enemy and he is us." It is one of my all time favorite quotes, from the comic strip character Pogo.

I see I am not the only one who is inclined to wax profound , MADem. Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

Now I gotta go watch WVU whup up on UConn in the second half of the football game.

Lasher

[xkenx]

51. Polls this far out are

merely name recognition among the vast numbers of (potential) voters who get their news from 15 second soundbites on the 11 o'clock news. Some of them may even think it's Bill changing his name to Hillary or don't even notice the first name. Among more informed/activist Dems., Hillary is nowhere.

[Lasher]

53. Things will change

You're right about name recognition, but I think most people realize who Hillary is. She might be so far ahead right now because lots of folks recognize her name, but few or none of the others.

You know what I like best about the prospect of seeing Hillary elected to the presidency? Watching all the right wing zealots' heads explode.

[greeneyedboy]

4. the media wants to have something to say, so they need a frontrunner

even though campaigning and primaries won't start for another year.

at this point in 2002, who was the frontrunner? 4 years ago, i had only heard of Howard Dean because of the marriage rights controversy in VT.

lots of shifting will take place in the next two years.

anyone who wants to talk about 2008 before November 7, 2006, is wasting time, IMO.

[MADem]

5. I think she has a slight lead, but that's only BEFORE the games begin

Once the cycle of debates and primaries starts, all bets are off.

I'm going to listen carefully to every candidate. I'm going to weigh their positions and their thought processes.

Some will be better known than others, but really...how many people knew who the hell Bill Clinton was when he first set out on HIS journey?

Name recognition matters. Money in the warchest matters. But Bill Clinton won not on those, but on the strength of his IDEAS and his ability to communicate them.

He wasn't a frontrunner, a leading light, a hotshot--he was a scandal plagued Comeback Kid. And the "conventional wisdom" kept saying he was TOAST. And the CW was dead wrong.

Anything can happen.

Rule no one in, rule no one out. Listen, learn and choose.

[blm]

22. Bill won the Dem primary on his debate performances. He won general

thanks to the four years Dems in congress were beating the crap out of Bush1 on IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate - generating really tough headlines for Bush1 for FOUR SOLID YEARS.

Bush2 had no investigations, and had an abundance of media headlines treating him as a heroic figure for the three years after 9-11. He also had the last Dem president, Bill Clinton, VOCALLY and PUBLICALLY supporting him on key issues throughout his first term.

Big difference.

And I would guess that Hillary would be the Dem most trusted to cover up for Bush2 the way Bill did for Bush1.

Not pursuing outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate - covering up CIA drugrunning - certainly was a great choice for this nation. Just ask the 9-11 families.

[MADem]

28. Well, you're sloughing off my main point, which is that most people

outside his immediate region had no fucking idea who Clinton was when he began his quest for the presidency. He had little money, no name recognition, and yes, he won the thing on groundpounding and sheer force of personality. He could communicate, and he could "feel your pain" and that was his hook. But he wasn't the favored Democrat, by ANY stretch. I mean, who else threw their hat in the ring back then? Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown, Paul Tsongas (I was a supporter of his early on), Gene McCarthy and a few other lesser-known lights. On the GOP side, there was Pat Buchanan and David Duke, total assholes, which didn't help the flavor of that team even though GHWB was the shoo-in for the nom.

I really don't think it was Iran-Contra, BCCI or any 'scandal' that did Bush the Less Stupid in. Carville nailed it--"It's the economy, stupid." If the economy had been humming along, if people had purchasing power and job security, and especially in the wake of that flag-waving, fabricated horseshit having to do with the "freedom loving peoples" of Kuwait, he would have won in a walk. It was the economy, it was job losses, it was malaise. Clinton saw that weakness and exploited it masterfully.

Anyway, my point remains. It's early yet. A lot of people thought at the outset that 'for sure' the Democratic nominee in the first Clinton race would have been Bob Kerrey, tall, charismatic one legged war hero, or Paul Tsongas, the late brilliant and thoughtful legislator. As the contest proceeded, Jerry Brown of California got a massive amount of traction for a while, there. But Clinton won the contest. Conventional wisdom didn't apply in that race, so there's no reason to think that just because the press bleats now, in early days, about a favorite, that the nation will, once they get a look-see during the primary season, agree with the press's assessment. They didn't when Clinton got the nom.

[blm]

34. Voters would let an economic downturn slide if a president is trusted

in an overall way. The seriously bad headlines Bush1 was getting for fOUR SOLID YEARS caused the people to break trust with him, and he couldn't recover even as the economy ticked up in the final months.

I definitely agree about polls right now.

Remember the 1998 polls that showed every GOP being Gore? Even Elizabeth Dole beat Gore by about 10% back then - - total crock. People don't KNOW much about any candidate till they see them in the series of debates.

[roody]

48. Would Clinton have won without Ross Perot?

[Syrinx]

6. how did she vote on the pro-torture/anti-habeas corpus law?

If she voted for that thing, I can't support her.

[NoPasaran]

55. She voted against it n/t

[Zero Division]

7. She has the greatest name recognition, like Lieberman did.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/07/post_773.html :

It's hard to remember now, but Lieberman was the early front-runner for the presidential nomination in 2003, until he was outpaced by Howard Dean.

I suspect that Hillary is not as likely to run for president as many think or wish.

[FogerRox]

8. IIRC NY had her 44-46, support in her state is split nearly even for a

Presidential run.

[Zero Division]

9. OTOH, I do believe she has a better chance than Lieberman.

She does have a strong group of supporters and (it's my impression, at least) she seems to inspire a less negative response among self-identified liberals than Lieberman. However, her negatives are simply too high to ignore.

And I don't find the arguments that her positives will effectively counter those negatives to be at all compelling. For instance, there are those that point out (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.cannon.html) that her negatives are about as high as Bush's negatives prior to that dark day in November of 2004. I find it quite hilarious that anyone would use that as an argument that Hillary can overcome her negatives--she'll never have the kinds of advantages Bush had going into that election, such as being perceived as the incumbent.

[wyldwolf]

11. She isn't my first choice... but why is it so hard to understand...

...that she is the frontrunner now? All the polls say so.


Name recognition? Maybe. But Gore, Kerry, and Edwards certainly have a fair share of that, too, and they're not leading in the polls.

But so what? For whatever reason, whatever excuse anyone wants to give, no matter how we spin it and rationalize it away, Hillary Clinton IS the frontrunner right now. Period.

[quickesst]

12. Personally....

I think too many people here believe DU is a real "sampling" of the Democrtic public. Although they number many, I believe the mainstream democrats are not quite as progressive as most here. One of the biggest laughs I get here is reading a thread about how great things were under Bill Clinton, only to have the next thread talk about how sick people are of the Clintons AND Bushes. This is silly, and if she is the nominee, and your vote doesn't go to the her, you'll put another smile on another repugs face, and when we have four more years of the bfee, you can sit back and smugly claim that you voted, or didn't vote your conscience, while your kids and grandkids are being indoctrinated into the new theocratic fascist regime. Simple. But hey, that's just me. Thanks.
quickesst

[robcon]

15. I think Clinton will win the noimination easily.

And I think she will be our next president. She hated by the wings of both parties, but she's a great campaigner, well-funded, and well-known.

[madfloridian]

16. Yes.

She has all the advantages, the most money, plus Bill Clinton campaigning for her already. She is also getting Murdoch on her side, and Bill's friendship with the Bush Family will help her.

Relax, take a deep breath.

[Dinger]

17. Good, Guess Primaries Are About As Quaint As The ex-Geneva Conventions

Why even have a primary? It'll save a lot of money - what the hell?

[madfloridian]

18. Hell, forget about primaries...the decision is done.

And have you noticed Obama...next VP?

[Dinger]

25. Yeah, We Can Relax Now

Whew, that was a close one!

[roody]

49. Does she have Diebold on her side?

[dapper]

19. I kind of like Hillary

but I have this gut that there are better candidates. I have to admit, right now, Gore is my #1.

Dap

[Clark2008]

20. Oh hell - neither one of them can win a general election.

He's black and she's a woman and this country, under Republican unacknowledged winks and nods regarding the permittance of sexism and racism, will not elect either in 2008.

Sad, but true (and I'm female).

[Heewack]

21. Hillary Clinton will be the next POTUS!!

That is all.

[madfloridian]

23. Accept it...it is easier.

Don't fight it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. Hell with that!

I'm not going down without a fight - and I know you won't either.

Strength in numbers - that's the only way we can stop her.

[talk hard]

44. I just read you say dont' slam Kerry

now youre beating on Hill

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. Oh please

I said I didn't want her for our nominee. That's "beating" on her?

Go take your faux concern somewhere else.

[talk hard]

61. she has

more balls than whassiface at least hahahaha and she scares Republicans

[rep the dems]

47. Why should we just accept it if we don't think that she is the best

candidate?

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. I think madfloridian is employing irony here

TPTB and the media are trying to tell us that it's a given that Hillary will be our candidate, and her post is an ironic reflection of that.

[wisteria]

24. Front runner now, perhaps not later on.

The establishment Dems are not the only voters out there. You hear often, that her current first place spot is due more to name recognition than anything else. It still remains to be seen if Democrats see her as having real presidential potential when the primaries get underway.
Personally, I have a list of presidential favorites and she isn't on it- not even last.Honestly, I would fight with my time and money not to see her become our candidate in 08. I would love to see a woman become president some day, just not Senator Clinton in 2008.

[hatrack]

27. By whom? Rupert Murdoch? Wolf Blitzer? Norah O'Donnell?

I mean, it's understandable from their point of view - no thought or research required - but other than name recognition, I can't thikn of any other reason for her to be the front-runner than their say-so.

And I think the collective conventional media wisdom is worth about two pinches of turkey shit.

[dmosh42]

31. Only the media sees her at the top

When we get down to practical politics and the hard answers, I think the Dems will want experience and straight talk. Hillary is very good at staying in the 'safe zone', but I think we want someone who really does point in the 'new direction'.

[Imagevision]

32. No way, she'll be sweating Obama...!

[Bucky]

33. By definition, yes. But she's got a glass jaw & gone after Super Tuesday

Seriously, I think she's a great Senator and will only help herself with a strong showing in the 08 primaries. But expectations for her performance are just ridiculously high right now. All the commentators have been chattering about her since, well, since Bush first got inaugurated. She's played a smart game, both in noncampaigning and in raising money. That said, just about every other candidate now suffers from the soft bigotry of low expectations. After Super Tuesday, it'll be a shootout between the two leading anti-Hillarys

[The Sushi Bandit]

35. GORE IS THE FRONT RUNNER

Repukes and the media have a Hillary fixation, real Dems dont!!

[saltpoint]

36. She gets my vote if she's our nominee but I have other candidates

I would look to first as favorites.

I think Limbaugh et al's taunting of her is untoward and cowardly, and I would not wish to see her career suffer owing to their debasing crap. Hannity. Limbaugh. Those guys.

She has a pile of cash and the big Rolodex but I see her placing third or below in the January 2008 Iowa caucus, and after that I don't believe she recovers for the remainder of the primary season. Kerry, Edwards, Bayh, Gore if he jumps in, and maybe Clark and Biden are all better positioned than HClinton for that Iowa caucus.

[Clinton Crusader]

50. Agree.

IF she gets it, I vote for her. BUT, I feel the next POTUS will be either Gore, Kerry or Edwards. But it so damn early, I really don't know.

I would prefer to see her Senate Majority Leader, frankly.
:shrug:

[saltpoint]

56. She'd be pretty effective as Majority Leader, I think. It would be

an agenda-setting position for her, sufficiently high-profile for a later White House run if she wished, and she'd continue doing right by her constituents.

[hcil]

37. I don't give a fuck. I'm all the way rooting for Obama

Obama is the BEST!!!!!!!!!!!:toast:

[talk hard]

39. it's just gossip

[Stephanie]

40. Follow the money.

That's all it's about. She has more than everyone else.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

41. Fine with me.

I was very happy under a Clinton presidency, and certainly would prefer her over any republican.

Being a strong environmentalist, my preference is Gore, and if he runs I think his chances will be even better. But time will tell. Things are changing on a daily basis for this coming race in twenty some days, so I am not making any predictions as yet for the one two years down the road.

[Diogian]

42. Goodbye from me

If Clinton is nominated I will stop my donations and vote green.
End of story

[Frustratedlady]

43. I think her biggest plus would be Bill

and you know he would be advising her behind the scenes. Right now, I can't get very excited about her. I hear too many people put thumbs down, just at the mention of her name. I could be wrong.

[Pepperbelly]

45. I don't know that she intends to run.

She might. She might not. She has made no moves in that direction, hasn't been camping out in New Hampshire or Iowa. If she runs, she may or may not win the nomination. If she wins the Democratic nomination, she has my vote. If Obama or Clark or Kerry or Biden or Rangel or Sharpton or Edwards or Lincoln or Gore or whoever wins the nomination, they, too, have my vote.

I do not subscribe to the Lieberman school of party membership and loyalty nor am I taken to merely taking my toys and going home to sulk if everthing does not go to suit me. But what the hell, I still believe that which party is in control makes a BIG difference in the lives of regular people.

[IDemo]

46. Hillary says she has 'thought about it' :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2573631

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

52. Howard Dean, Gary Hart, and Ted Kennedy were "inevitable nominees" too.

I wouldn't wring my hands too much about media coronation of Sen. Clinton.

For what it's worth, she doesn't rate high on my list of potential candidates. I'd support many others over her.

[Bombtrack]

54. Hillary is to 2008 as Lieberman was to 2004

she has the most name recognition, her "frontrunnership" is utter bullshit, and yes, Liebmeran was leading the polls among the people who actually ended up running years out last presidential election.

[election_2004]

57. Wes Clark or Evan Bayh would be better strategically.....

With either Kathleen Sebelius or Debbie Stabenow in the V.P. slot.

Admittedly, Bayh is a lot more conservative than me on many issues, but he doesn't exhibit the same level of arrogance as Lieberman or insultingly-blatant opportunism as Senator Clinton.

I have no problems with Clark, overall.

HRC would drag down the Democratic ticket in red and purple states, causing losses for Democratic congressional, statewide, and local candidates in the battleground states - - even alongside her own hypothetical presidential victory. Some voters would split their tickets between Hillary and downticket Republicans, in order to appear "bipartisan" and to "keep Hillary in line."

[benny05]

60. Poll pls//n/t

[zulchzulu]

62. The worst thing you could be this early is the Frontrunner

They will build you up and then tear you down.

I personally know no one (especially women) that want Hillary as the nominee. No one... nada...

The MSM is too lazy to follow who the possible real contenders will be.