Feingold!!

I'll vote for her over any Republican, and I'd be more or less satisfied with her as president, but she's a good deal more conservative than I am, and I won't vote for her in a primary unless the 90% of democrats I would prefer drop out by then.

I agree that her negatives have peaked (or would that be bottomed out?). Shrill things will be said about her, but that will be true of any democratic nominee. Swift boats man your slime.

The candidate whose policy judgments I most agree with is Dennis Kucinich, but he has about as much chance of being nominated as I do.

Yes, and bullet point number two is why I'm so opposed to her. A while ago I read an article that talked about how she's raised ridiculous amounts of money from Big Business of all stripes. That, and the fact that she'll probably have to/want to "act tough" in order to not look...well, feminine, I think, could encourage her to do stupid things.

Man, how much would it suck to be Bill Richardson though. When he announces tomorrow it'll be a tree falling in a forest, and few will hear it.

So the the netroots revolution means nothing ?

The centrist establishment candidate will just waltz throught the primaries ?

I like what one commentator said about the skeletons-in-the-closet issue: "What's she going to do, kill Vince Foster again?"

The ticket you are prognosticating would put me in a bind. I'd probably vote for it but I wouldn't be happy about it. I don't think it would win the general election.

Every nasty thing that can possibly be said about her has already been said.

No, every true nasty thing has been said. Don't discount the ability of the noise machine to make up brand new bullshit.

Are the primary voters going to turn out for her in droves? I don't think so. Also, if the Iraq war is still a big deal, she has not renounced her vote in favor of it. Are the Democrats going to nominate an unrepentant pro-war hawk?

The unhinging has begun over at the Corner. Someone actually suggested that Hillary wants to put us all in "reeducation camps." Seriously.

Here is what I said about Hillary's looming announcement on Wednesday:

Don't get me wrong - this does not redeem her in my eyes. She still helped us get into this clusterfuck, and I not only won't support her in the primaries, I will work vehemently against her; for that reason alone. I won't be forgetting that she was wrong and we were right, and I will be reminding everyone of that at every turn between now and when the election cycle gets going in earnest.

But on the other hand...Hawks deserting the cause is a necessary step in the process. I welcome them aboard, but they better be chastened because God Damnit, when you are this wrong, and the consequences are this big, you don't get a Mulligan.

Barak is going to win the nomination. Hilary simply is not very charismatic and she has waffled on almost every major issue.

"Her negatives may be high, but that's mostly among Republicans who won't influence her primary chances and wouldn't vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway."

That sort of goes along with something I've been saying all along. I've always maintained that her detractors may be a large group, but that the chances of this group voting for a Democrat are fairly slim. There's a large portion of the electorate that is in that swing category, like my mom. Unless she's hiding something, she doesn't have strong feelings one way or another about Sen. Clinton right now, as opposed to 2000, when she voted for Gore but also for Lazio. It's that slice of voters that Clinton will have to attract, and as we both acknowledge, it's very possible.

Also at work here is the same force that has worked in Bill Clinton's favor and in Dick Cheney's favor: nobody could possibly be that bad. If the Republican attack dogs label her as the representation of Satan himself who will turn over the country to Osama bin Laden to perform gay marriages, like they very well could, she'll benefit if she comes across as remotely human.

I predict you're dead wrong.

Democrats tried "safe" with Kerry in 2004. They had much better luck with Howard Dean's "principled" approach in 2006.

Obama and Edwards are much better at getting to people's hearts. They will wipe the floor with Hillary's wooden, 2000-Gore-like form.

The way I figure, Bush is completely disconnected from reality and Clinton only feels the pull through 12 pound test connected to last weeks public opinion polls.

Hey seals and polar bears! Could you please slap Gore around with your flippers and then put him on a bus back to the Canadian border? We'll take him from there.

Judging from the way she (for a long time) supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, she has the sense of a goose.

Do you want another President like that?

On the con side, Hillary has about 1/10 the charisma and presence of Obama. At least, that's how it comes across on the teevee.

"She has a lot of strength in the black community."

In a coldly logical way, is this relevant?

Doesn't the Democratic candidate typically get something like 90% of the black vote?

How many more voters could Mrs. Clinton possibly get, relative to an arbitrary Democratic candidate, because of her strength in the black community?

Hillary and Obammammamma against Rice and Tiger Woods, anybody?

Doesn't the Democratic candidate typically get something like 90% of the black vote?

We're talking primaries here.

Is Andrew Sullivan moving in here now? Are you going to post about it? Will I have to change my book mark to keep reading your blog, will you both be on one page? (Glad the cats are happy, btw.) Long time reader, I never post tho.

Ron.

Netroots is nice & lovely all, and even growing in importance but to thinks it's more then just the newest focus group in politics is just unrealistic. And to rely on just one group is suicidal in the end. A new McGovern like scenario will be waiting then.

sure, kevin, she'll win. and iraq was a good idea. you have an amazing track record. thanks for doing your part to ensure a third consecutive GOP administration in 2008.

At least she wasn't stupid enough to announce she is reporting for duty.

"Every nasty thing that can possibly be said about her has already been said."

Yes, but it will be repeated endlessly until it is received wisdom.

However, the Republic party's candidates are a weak field so far.

John Edwards was on a national ticket, and he has half the unfavorables she does.

The woman is pure electoral poison.

Name,

I'd argue that Obama and Edwards are the "safe" candidates, not Hillary. According to the media Hillary has the high negatives, wooden delivery and divisive history that makes it impossible to win the general election. How that counts as the "safe" electoral candidate is beyond me.

Obama and Edwards have the media meme that they are charismatic and uniters. Especially Obama is recond to be the second coming of (insert personal favorite political messias) by the media.

Now that is said, it's important NOT to simply take the last election "learn" the lesson from that and do the opposite of what you did wrong last time.

If you refight the last elections, you'll lose, even have "learned". New elections, new rules.

Hillary might be the "safe" candidate and still win.

Obama might be the "safe" candidate and still win.

2008 isn't 2004 or 2000. Applying blanket lessons is a sure way to lose.

I don't think that anyone who supported the Iraq War as long and as persistently as Clinton did - ending only last week - will have a chance. She's proven to be a captive of the Shrums and other triangulating dweebs of the Democratic Party

Do we have to draft Wes Clark or Al Gore?

Doesn't the Democratic candidate typically get something like 90% of the black vote?

We're talking primaries here.

Her negatives may be high, but that's mostly among Republicans who won't influence her primary chances and wouldn't vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway.

I think the Saturday announcement gives her the longest amount of time between Maureen Dowd columns.

Smart.

Edwards is also a great candidate. Interestingly, it seems all the talent is on the Dems side this time.

Barak is going to win the nomination. Hilary simply is not very charismatic and she has waffled on almost every major issue.

Here's where I think Kevin is right, and you're wrong. Hillary's current image is a caricature. She will come off far better when people see the real Hillary and not the dittohead fantasy.

Kevin is missing something, though. She will get horrible press. It's already started--like the bizarre story from Ann Kornblut where insinuated that Hillary was faking a cell phone call to avoid reporters.

This really is the grass roots vs corporate money smackdown. Edwards has positioned himself well for this kind of battle. Obama complicates Hillary's situation significantly--he's waging the same don't make waves candidacy, and he has to make her nervous about her black base. I personally think they both are going to have trouble delivering black votes as their namby-pamby positions become more widely known.

To me, this all looks good for Edwards, or a new Al Gore.

Hillary wouldn't be my first choice, for two main reasons: one, her support for the war (and the extent to which that reflects her "triangulating") and two, her divisiveness.

I happen to think fairly highly of her as a person, but there are scads of people in this country who are convinced she is the spawn of the devil, and will never be disabused of that notion. Democrats are never going to get those people's votes anyway, but I'd rather not cheer for 4 or 8 more years of extreme political division in this country.

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be hard to turn down, though- although I'd much prefer a Obama/Clinton ticket.

I think it's dangerous for Dems (and the country) to get into the mindset that they've got the presidency locked up in 2008. We'll end up with Hillary or someone like her, God forbid.

John Edwards is a far better candidate:

His two Americas theme recognizes the economic divide. Hillary is clueless on this.

Edwards actually gets it on trade: fair trade, not free trade. Both Barry Obama and Hillary are free traders.

Edwards takes the side of the little guy against big business. Hillary and the Big O? Big time backers of the corporate agenda.

Finally, on the war: Edwards is out now. Hillary and Obama are doing their Bill Clinton triangulating imitations. With either of these two we'd be in Iraq far past 2012.

The choice is clear.

I actually like Hillary Clinton. She's a smart, strong woman, and we need more like her in public office. However, I don't think she has a chance in hell of winning the presidency. I think the general antipathy to political dynasties is very very high these days, after the debacle of Bush II. And when we start hearing about Jeb Bush moving into federal politics that feeling is just going to get entrenched more deeply.

zonkala,

I think Kevin is talking about both the primary and general election. proved by well, the fact that he mentions both

Her negatives may be high, but that's mostly among Republicans who won't influence her primary chances and wouldn't vote for a Democrat in the general election anyway.

The She has a lot of strength in the black community probably does too. It'll help her in the primary by votes and in the general by not having the "taking for granted" accusation that was leveled at Kerry.

Brian: Agree.

But I only allow Edwards a positive rating because he has apologized for his vote.

A commenter over at Steve Gillard's site makes the very good point that she has been in a bubble for a very long time.

I can't believe I'm quoting Bob Novak, but he was spot-on when he said there was "no joy" in her campaign. There are all these excellent reasons why she could, would, should become the Democratic nominee, but there just isn't any happiness about it.

I also think it is crucial that we have a candidate who isn't associated with Bush's War in Iraq. I still believe that if Kerry had not voted for the Resolution or had been able to explain his position lucidly (as to why and how it was so different from that of Bush) he would be our President today.

Wesley Clark won't be the nominee in either position. The "New York money people" don't like him and, as we know, they control the world.

I have always hoped we could just re-elect Al Gore.

I don't think Hillary has much strength in the NYC-area black community any more. Not after, at the height of the protests against a notorious police shooting, with black New York in the streets, Hillary held a presser to launch an attack on video games. She still hasn't said anything about trigger-happy New York cops (and yes, I'm white and far away, but Steve Gilliard is generally right about those things, and he's on the spot).

There still might be possibilaties there dave. It's almost a full year till the primaries start, a week is a long time in politics. A year is an eternity.

I'd like Gore to finally not only win the race, but also serve as president. But thats just dreaming out loud right now.

I happen to think she'd make a pretty good president. But I am troubled at the thought of this sequence:

41. Bush
42. Clinton
43. Bush
44. Clinton

The thought of the presidency see-sawing between two families for a generation or so is a bit disquieting, as if they were our versions of the houses of York and Lancaster.

Or is it just me?

I'm with Kevin on this one. I think she'll hit the rest of the country the way Reagan did in 1980. He had been portrayed as a bogeyman for a decade. If he was elected, all hell would break loose. Then the debates came, and Americans saw the guy didn't have horns. Made it a lot easier to vote for him.
Also, Hillary has a way of winning over enemies. (Don't ask me how.) The firefighters booed her off the stage (literally) in 2001. Last year, they endorsed her.

I have two thoughts why Hillary should not be nominated.

First, Hillary's campaign will be perfect. It will be well organized. It will be well staffed. It will be everything corporate money can buy. The woman might be a great person, but how will we ever know. Her every move will be scripted to the tenth degree. Her campaign will be without passion. Souless. Utterly lacking in inspiration. It will, none-the-less be perfect.

Second, the Clintons are sooo 1994. The are old news. They have long passed their expiration date. We need something new. Hillary isn't it.

Seriously, is there anybody out there who really want's Hillary Clinton in the White House again? Anybody who isn't being paid or doesn't own her that is.

I'll vote for her over any Republican

I used to be fairly bipartisan -- growing up in Kentucky, where the Democrats served up a succession of mediocrities to be a shoo-in for Governor, I used to take positive pleasure in casting a futile vote for the Republican -- but the conduct of the Republican Party over the last decade means I'd vote for Skippy the Wonder Lizard before a Republican.

Yeah, the only people THAT DON'T LIKE HILLARY is the MoveOn.org crowd, the Paul Krugman crowd, the Howard Dean people.

Kevin acts as if they are irrelevant. But they are not, and they know that Hillary, like Bush doesn't really want to get out of Iraq. It was plain by her silly talking on C-Span.

Hillary has the same propensity to lie as the Bush administration does. I'm tired of liars for President.

I've never forgotten that Clinton lied about WMD too. Clinton said those 16 words were just a mistake, and clearly Bill Clinton knew those words were not just some kind of mistake.

You can have Bush supporting the war or you have Hillary, I pick neither. Where is Al Gore when you need him? We need an honest person, not another dishonest one.

I won't vote for her. not because I particularly think she won't do a good job, or politics, or anything, but I don't particularly want to line in a county governed by two families for 24 years. is our talent pool so shallow, and our opportunities so limited that we are willing to say that from 1989-2012 or realisticly 2016, the best people we could find are named Bush and Clinton? What are we, Argentina?

Out here in the hinterland, I'm noticing a mood for a much, much bigger change -- not to say clean-out -- than Hillary would represent.

The thought of the presidency see-sawing between two families for a generation or so is a bit disquieting, as if they were our versions of the houses of York and Lancaster.

Or is it just me?

No, it isn't just you.

The same applies to Jeb, as well, perish forbid.

PW

You got that right. The people outside the beltway are looking to clean house.

Ronn Z
Don't ask me how

She works very, very hard. She's been to every county in NY. She really did her homework on NY issues. She's been a fine senator, not as progressive as I would like, and, like many senators, a little cowardly.

For me, her one opportunity to demonstrate executive skills, the health care plan was completely botched. And it was botched precisely because of her excessive caution and her concern for the party's monied interests.

My vote, here in NYC, doesn't matter. I'll vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. The republicans don't have a decent candidate, nor, IMO an electable candidate.

I am ambivalent about Ms. Clinton. I think she is likable but too hated by a large portion of the electorate to be elected. She understands the needs for business regulation and wealth transfers, but is very beholden to the same large corporations that have accumulated so much wealth and thinks they need to be protected with public policy. She is also not strongly anti-war to satisfy me nor the present policital times, which is going to hurt her the most in the primaries. If there was no war, I would give her a better chance of winning the nomination.

PS: How well would Hillary do if she got the nomination and found herself running against Chuck Hagel? C'mon -- be honest now!

*Sigh* Al Gore would be my choice.

But I will say this... hell will freeze over before I vote Repub.

But right now, nobody knows any of the other candidates. Why should an ex-first lady and current NY Senator have a better shot with people in Iowa or New Hampshire than anyone else?

Unless the primary schedule is packed so close together that only a candidate who starts with $15 million in the bank can get their message out, some of the others should begin emerging as they become known.

Just one debate and the playing field will be much more level.

Did you see that recent report about how Democratic women candidates did in the congressional elections, versus their male counterparts? It was pathetic. Does anyone seriously think Hillary's got the kind of charisma that will keep her on top once people have seen her debate the other candidates?

No.

While there is definitely a danger that, as with the last presidential election, the media will pick the winner because the large playing field leads to the pundits preferring to construct memes about who is important, while ignoring the rest.

But Hillary isn't the one who will benefit.

I'm with Roddy McCorley and northzax on this one. I honestly do think that granting implicit monopoly of executive power exclusive to the House of Bush and the House of CLinton has psychologicial implications that are not being thought through. It says to ordinary Americans that, contrary to the heart of the American dream, you can NEVER achieve the supreme office of state unless you have the right parents or husband. The effects of this can be insidious. Once, with Bush, could be written off to coincidence - but twice might not be.

Roddy,

Family names repeating in politics is pretty standard actually, You've got the Adams, the roosevelts, almost the Kennedys and now the Bushes. And thats just looking at the presidency if you'll look at the house, senate and governerships you'll find many dynasties. High level politics are all about wealth and most important: contacts. Both tend to run in the family. Other democracies aren't different in that respect. It might be disquieting to some but it's only a natural consequence of the system. Some of the best politicians and presidents come from dynasties (and some of the worst as well.)

If you disagree with that Even the fact the clinton name should be less troublesome then it normally would to you. Both the Clintons are first generation politicians, and on both the clinton and the Rodham side there are no other politicians in the family. And their child seems unlikely to enter politics. For a dynasty that's pretty meager pickings.

"I happen to think she'd make a pretty good president. But I am troubled at the thought of this sequence:

41. Bush
42. Clinton
43. Bush
44. Clinton

The thought of the presidency see-sawing between two families for a generation or so is a bit disquieting, as if they were our versions of the houses of York and Lancaster.

Or is it just me?"

Ditto for me on that.
Besides, voting for her in the general election would require major holding of the nose to avoid the stench. On the positive side, so long as Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer can live until at least January 20, 2009, at least Hillary would not be appointing right wingers such as Alito or Roberts to the bench.....

I echo northzax and Gregory's concerns. America is a democratic republic, not a monarchy. I have a real problem with two families dominating the White House for as much as 28 years. It isn't right and it isn't healthy for America.

I also think you are dead wrong with your "iron laws of the press corps" comment, Kevin. You seem to forget that this press corps you are talking about, took a real estate investment made by Hillary's husband 14 years before he became president and turned it into an 8 year investigation into every aspect of his life, from the curvature of his penis through the amount of the tax deduction Clinton took for his used underwear through the shape of the hole in Ron Brown's head when Brown's plane crashed. We will be treated to a reprise of Vince Foster, Cattlegate, Rose Law firm billing records and on and on and on. And this press corps will treat it all as if it were shiny, fresh and new, because the average American is so goddamn dumb and forgetful that they won't remember that it has all been debunked several times before. It will be a windfall for Rush Limbaugh and Joseph Farrah and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and G. Gordon Liddy and Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter and so on. God help us all. I think I will go live in a cave for the next 10 years or so.....

Obama/Edwards is the ticket!

Conservative Deflator,

How much of that kind of media & Republican action purely tied to the Clinton name? and how much of that is just standard operating tactics against any succesfull democrat? We know that Hillary can take it. How will Obama or Edwards stand up to that?

U.S. helicopter shot down north of Baghdad – 13 dead. Stay the course.

The one undeclared candidate who keeps coming to mind is Al Gore. Consider his advantages:

• He has experience in the Senate and in the White House.

• He's extremely knowledgeable on domestic issues and foreign policy.
• He served in Vietnam.
• He was an articulate critic of the Iraq war long before it was fashionable to be one.
• He has been an outspoken opponent of the Bush administration.
• He has shown himself to be a passionate and influential leader on the major environmental issue of our time.
• He's an excellent debater.
• He's shown he can win a national election (if the votes are counted fairly).
• As with Hilary, every nasty thing that can possibly be said about him has already been said. Unlike Hilary, he has fairly low negative ratings.

And...

• He had no role in Whitewater, Monicagate, travelgate, Vince Foster, etc, etc. To most people, he represents the best of the Clinton presidency without any of the scandals.
  

Really, the only negatives about Gore are that he's considered a bit of a stiff and a policy wonk. But, after 8 years of a reckless and clueless administration, I think most Americans are going to be looking for stability, experience, and sober judgement in the next president.

He's our best shot at undoing the damage of the past six years. So how do we get him to run?

She will raise insane amounts of money.

And its money that doesn't come from the netroots, so what does that tell us about Hillary?

That she makes her money the same nasty way Bush does, by sell American to highest bidder, that's how. It's government for sell and Hillary isn't hiding it well. The DLC slut.

Enough said, why vote for Bush twice.

What planet do you live on, Kevin??? She won't get the nomination, because Democrats (all except her "base", the tiny niche group who like her, all women) know that she can't win the election.

I'd vote for her, but she'd be right up there with the yellow dog.

The Washington Post:

The Fix: Clinton Embarks on Listening Tour

Will she be better at pretending to listen, I mean, better than Bush was pretending to do anything?

Hillay is just another Bush.

Oregonian,

As with Hilary, every nasty thing that can possibly be said about him has already been said. Unlike Hilary, he has fairly low negative ratings.

I'm for Gore as well, but at the moment polling shows his negatives are higher then his positives, so he stands at a net negative at the moment. Even Hillary has higher positives then negatives at the moment. That might be because Gore isn't in office right now and breaking a lance for a rather controversial issue, but it is something he must adress to win.

Other then that the best point you make is

To most people, he represents the best of the Clinton presidency without any of the scandals.

I always wonder why people don't bring up the fact that he oversaw the biggest reduction in goverment rules ever as vice president. He cut costs and improved effectivaty. Making government cheaper and better.

Serious, what' s not to like about that?

Gosh, Bush isn't going under the FISA court at all.

Dan Froomkin points out that Bush is still wiretapping. Did the media LIE to us?

On Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote a letter to senators announcing that "any electronic surveillance that was occurring" as part of the administration's controversial warrantless eavesdropping program " will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

WHAT, the NYT and WP can't get it right?

Many observers jumped to the conclusion that the administration had been forced into a major retreat in its battle to expand executive power. (See yesterday's column.)

But over at the White House, President Bush, who was granting interviews to a handful of regional broadcasters, was telling another story altogether.

In a brief sit-down with Sabrina Fang of Tribune broadcasting, Bush had this to say:

"Actually the courts, yesterday, the FISA court, said I did have the authority. And that's important. And the reason it's important that they verify the legality of this program is it means it's going to extend, make it more likely to extend beyond my presidency. And this is a really important tool for future presidents to have. . . .

"I felt yesterday was a very important day for the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Nothing has changed in the program except for the court has said we analyzed it, it is a legitimate, it is a legitimate way to protect the country."

Will I guess Hillary will be able to wiretap too, as Bush peddleing the great new wonder powers he got here.

Are Dems going to do anything, because short of impeachment, there isn't anything else they can do about Bush.

If only the Dems weren't so spineless.

Yes, we've "progressed" in America. Blacks and women can now be serious presidential candidates -- but only if they're Ivy League lawyers, and already part of the ruling elite.

Sigh.

No more royal family bullshit please.

We need to pass a law that if an immediate family member or direct descendent of yours was president with two generations you cannot run for the office.

"Hillay is just another Bush."

Ignoring the typo, this is the kind of ridiculous thinking that inspired people to vote for Nader in Florida. Remember how well that turned out.

Every one of our potential candidates will have weaknesses, deficiencies, difficulties.

Hillary will have to explain clearly her position vis-a-vis Iraq, and if it isn't clear to the average person that her position represents a credible way out, I don't see how she wins the nomination. Secondly, she will have that eight year record of Senate votes that can be cherry-picked and swift-boated, so Kevin, there may very well be new negatives floated.

Obama has the aura and all the good vibes, which may well turn off the curmudgeons voting in the cold and dark in January in New Hampshire and Iowa. (I worked for Dean in NH, and in the nine days leading up to the 2004 primary, I think the high temperature was 15 degrees.) Really, everybody over 50 is going to look at him and go - where's the experience? National Security may well be priority one among the electorate after Bush bombs Iran and the Shiites in Iraq start a Tet Offensive against the American occupiers in retaliation.

Edwards also has a lack of foreign policy gravitas, but he may look like old man wisdom juxtaposed to Obama. However, it would help if he could grow a little grayer - he's 54 but looks 35. He has clearly broken with his vote on the war. He needs to show that he can hit back better and faster than he did as Kerry's VP candidate.

Gore says he's got another mission, and I believe him. I think he's gotten enormously more mature and likeable than he was in 2000. Ah, the irony, he could win but he doesn't want it.

Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Tom Vilsack are good people and each has the distinct advantage of never having been a Senator. But politics is a positive-feedback system - the more you look like a potential winner, the more money and buzz you get, and the more likely you are to win. These three need to get over the hump of being seen as potential nominees. Otherwise, they're going to be forever "second-tier" until the money runs out.

And then there's Kerry. Please please somebody up in Massachusetts tell him it's over. It's not that he's not a good Senator, or for that matter might make a fine president. He just cannot convince anyone now that he can win, not after 2004. The "botched joke" just before the 2006 election just dredged up so many bad memories.

I should also mention Kucinich. He is the conscience of the Democratic Party, and the most Christian (as in "Christ - like") of all the candidates. He represents peace and progressivism and a genuine interest in (not just concern for) those among us who have the least. One day in the future America may be a good enough country to embrace someone like him. Not now, heavens no.

Now, rather than be a total downer, I should say that we stand a good chance of winning in 2008 whoever the moninee is. Odds are that we'll have either a woman or African-American as one of the nominees (Pres. or VP) and quite possibly both. The sense of history and significance that such a ticket would bring about would be fantastically exhilarating. Pick any combination with Clinton or Obama as one of the pair and compare to anything the Repubs could possibly throw together (hint: two old white guys with plenty of Bush-fawning quotes to cherry pick and hurl at them).

Vincent,

Even male WASP's can only compete if they're Ivy League lawyers, and already part of the ruling elite.

It might be wrong, but at least its consistant.

Why doesn't Bush just fire the entire FISA court now, seeing has how these judges without anything to do, are simply drawing paychecks from taxpayers.

Talk about your government entitlement programs. Maybe Hillary can fire them all since they are completely bereft of purpose these days. The only moral judge among those privileged government FISA parasite judges has already morally quit his do-nothing job.

Senator Clinton is a good Orange County Democrat: conservative, well financed, and completely without any liberal agenda. Meaning, of course, that she is capable of getting the votes in places where Democrats won't win in November. In blue areas, the base will not forgive her for being a hawk and for toeing the line until her consultants proclaimed it safe to oppose Bush.

Both of the front runners from both divisions of the Party will have a difficult time winning their respective nominations because of their stance on the Iraq Occupation. Both Hillary and McCain are going to have to become anti-war in order to win any primary elections. The Republicans are not going to vote for a pro-war, the crisis looms, we must escalate candidate, and the Democrats are going to insist their candidate be anti-Iraq occupation. To me, Hillary is a stay the course candidate who has not repudiated her stance on the Iraq invasion. I think that works for her as a senator from New York, but not nationally.

Hillary has two advantages over all other Democrats running.

* She has been investigated to death, going back to her high school days. Every check she has ever written has been subpoenaed. She has survived a massive witchunt by partisan prosecutors and congressional committees. There is nothing to "expose" about her.

* She understands how the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy works, its various tentacles, its MSM handmaidens. She understands the whole mechanism. She knows what to expect from the Right Wing Noise Machine.

Okay, this hopefully won't be too long a post, but I've got a bunch of stuff to say here.

Lemme echo many here, and say that this former Howard Dean NH volunteer, contributor and blog activist would give a minor body part to see Al Gore run again. What Al has that the campaign lacks is serious passion on a signature issue. It's not the war; being a Cassandra in '03/'04 was valuable and deserved support for being right alone -- but today everybody with a brain opposes it enough to negotiate a withdrawal. With Gore it's the single most important challenge we face for the next several generations -- global warming and alternate energy. He could unlock a spirit of innovation and optimism that define America at its best.

But sadly enough, Gore won't run. He won't allow himself to be drafted either -- he just doesn't have that kind of burning ambition. His political career was at the behest of his dad, and he did his filial duty in discharging that. But since his relationship with his dad wasn't *all fucked up* like Bush's, he has nothing deep and psychological to *prove*, like Bush. So we can put that dream aside, enviro-friends ... *sigh*.

Kevin may have been wrong about the war, but he was oh-so-right about John Kerry -- by far the weakest candidate in '04, because he didn't know who he was. Kucinich and Sharpton were rocks of Gibraltar in comparison in that sense. And let me tell you -- this is precisely why I'm not on the Obama-wagon. All I can hear is Mondale's devastating comment in '84 to Gary Hart: Where's the beef?

Obama has an utterly sterling progressive voting record from his eight years in the Illinois legislature. He's a veritable 60s ACLU crusader, for publicly funded abortions, gun control, criminals' rights. It's like -- where's the liberal Charles Bronson to make a speech before his wife and daughter get mugged in Death Wish? But instead of running as an unabashed, unapologetic liberal a la Kucinich or Sharpton -- he's Mr. Can't We All Just Get Along. I'm sorry -- this makes me wanna puke. I have The Audacity of Hope and I haven't been able to finish it. There are only so many plattitudes I can read before it's like your third bowl of popcorn.

What doubly disturbs me about the Obama-nomenon is what the big donors who just kicked in to him are saying: "Oh, I think he'll bring a *fresh excitement* to the race." Excuse me, Mr. Big Donor, I'm part of the Base, and I don't need *you* to tell *me* what will get me excited, thank you very much. This is the same sort of strategic support, backing somebody because you think other people will like them, that gave us John Kerry. And Obama's problem is veritably Kerryesque. Just as Kerry ran from his principled leadership of the antiwar movement, Obama in the senate is like a charismatic Joe Lieberman -- it's like he *lives* to shake hands with Republicans and co-sponsor something equivocating. Check his climate bill ... *retch*

Damn, do I feel badly for Bill ("Who?") Richardson. As someone observed upthread, he's going to announce tomorrow and nobody will notice. And he's a guy I could get behind, too. He's got both substantial executive and foreign policy experience; I'll be watching him ...

And that leaves Hil and her bloviating colleagues in the senate. Can we all just dismiss Biden and Dodd out-of-hand already? I don't think three-hour State of the Union addresses are what America particularly wants or needs. Maybe I'm being too quick about this, but senate lions annoy the fuck out of me, even when I totally agree with them ... Gahh -- imagine President Byrd ???

As for Hil herself ... I hate to say this ladies 'n' germs, but I'm beginning to warm to her a little. I agree with Kevin -- though her negatives are hard, they're among people for the most part who'd never vote Democratic, anyway. But there's another side to that that's actually kind of delicious. The wingnut-o-sphere will become literally unhinged and ready to be tied down on the gurney and hypo'ed -- and that might actually be sorta fun. It's a different world than it was in '92 or '96. Fox and talk radio are no longer "alternative media," they're the establishment. I really do think -- especially absent a really good GOP candidate (and McCain certainly doesn't fill that bill); all that pent-up anger at Bush and GOP misrule -- that they'll seriously overshoot their target and create wellsprings of sympathy for Hil among the currently Hil-lukewarm and even Hil-hostile. Kind of like the way progressives flew to Bill's defense during Monica even knowing in our hearts that he's a sexual harrasser.

Plus I have six words: Bill Clinton as Secretary of State. Could you just *imagine* ... guy gets off a plane in a foreign country and people line the street waving American flags ...

Hillary is sponsoring a retroactive troop cap. More than a non-binding resolution, more than unrealistic proposals to defund the war, that's the most realistic shot we have of beginning to rein in George and Dick's Execrable Misadventure. As a war opponent, I think she deserves serious props for that -- as does Dodd and all who support the idea.

Bob

"I don't think that anyone who supported the Iraq War as long and as persistently as Clinton did - ending only last week - will have a chance."

Hillary has been criticizing Bush's conduct of the war going back to 2003.

"I've always maintained that her detractors may be a large group,"

Her detractors are not a large group. They are a small but powerful group with a huge megaphone. They own large segments of the media.

But instead of running as an unabashed, unapologetic liberal a la Kucinich or Sharpton -- he's Mr. Can't We All Just Get Along.

Yeah, imagine that. Unlike Sharpton and Kucinich, Obama is running to win. Bad Obama. Bad.

Bill Clinton as Secretary of State.

I am on record as saying that whoever promises to appoint WRC as SoS will get my vote, but I got news for ya -- that ain't gonna be HRC. No way will she put hubbie into an official position.

'I have six words: Bill Clinton as Secretary of State. Could you just *imagine* ... guy gets off a plane in a foreign country and people line the street waving American flags ...

Yeah, if only he wouldn't fuck the hired help...

My 23-year-old son just text messaged me the following:

"I'm voting for Hillary. Only a Mom can clean up this mess. We've screwed things up royally, and you ladies will have to make order from chaos. Sorry Mom."

I am on record as saying that whoever promises to appoint WJC as SoS will get my vote

Me too, Disputo. That is the message I sent back to the kid.

if only he wouldn't fuck the hired help...

I couldn't care less. At least he didn't screw the public.

And there is hope for that kid yet! He just messaged back:

"WJC as SoS? Awesome idea. That's why I talk to my Mom.:)"

"Every nasty thing that can possibly be said about her has already been said."

I'm with DonBoy. The Clinton Rules of Journalism apply - you can say absolutely ANYTHING about Hillary, and no one in the MSM will challenge you on it.

It's not the wingnut crazies I'm talking about here. It's the So-Called Liberal Media, led by the NYT.

Steve:

That's part of my point. The MSM (and at this point, I include Fox and ClearChannel) are going to be snarking and swiping at Hil all through the campaign. What I see is a backlash potential on the blogs, where -- ironically enough, jebus! -- the left blogosphere rushes to the defense of Damsel Hillary against the hoardes of cynically evil MoDon'ts of BeltwayJournalismLand ...

Since I honestly don't think her '02 AUMF vote will be so much a factor as it crucially was in '04, we may live to see the Bizarro World experience of watching Markos championing Hillary against a tut-tut-ing Broder column :)

Bob

Hillary is way to wishy-washy, almost as bad as John McCain. I think she will fizzle out early in the primaries.

She was way too pro-war when it really counted, is for a flag-burning amendment, and is a corporatist. She is not going to solve any of our problems.

She will be repug-light and will look week during her entire administration. Why not have a real repug, rather than Hillary...

The Clinton Rules of Journalism apply - you can say absolutely ANYTHING about Hillary, and no one in the MSM will challenge you on it.

And the public will take about as much notice as they did during the clinton years.

According to the media she already killed Vince Foster, and she still has a net approval rating. What she gonna do? kill him again? Right now if she's found kicking puppies for satan, people wouldn't change her mind about her. Her negatives have peaked.

Brian:

I dunno, but personally I don't look for presidents to "solve our problems."

I look to presidents to not make our problems any more worse than they absolutely have to be ...

Bob

...I'd rather not cheer for 4 or 8 more years of extreme political division in this country. pdq.


Plus the many similar posts so far...


Bushes, Clintons, for the love of our great nation, please, PLEASE go away.

Kevin,

Pardon my skepticism but you are deluded to speak in such positive terms about Hillary. I'm on board with you as a progressive and agree with most of what you write on your blog, but I will never, ever vote for Hillary. If the Dems nominate her, a Third Party candidate will be garnering more votes (from disillusioned Democrats) than at any time since 1948, even it means hailing President Giuliani in January 2009...

I was a major Hillary supporter back in 2000. But then Hillary not only voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, but then continued to support the war and be one of the most persistent Democratic hawks in favor of it in the years thereafter. Even when it became obvious how disastrous the Iraq War had become in 2006, Hillary stayed on as one of the most prominent hawks among the Democrats, like Joe Biden. A pox on both of them. Hillary has also been among the most hawkish people in both parties on Syria and Iran-- a very dangerous position that's pushing us toward another major war.

If it were just the war alone I could perhaps begrudge Hillary. But she and Biden were among the major supporters of that appalling bankruptcy reform bill, which shoves in and twists a knife on people forced into bankruptcy by things like serious medical illness (thanks to our dwindling health insurance safety net) or auto accidents. One of my good friends faced bankruptcy for this reason, and this cruel, heartless bankruptcy bill that Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Biden promoted is terribly damaging to her.

Then there's Hillary's support for outsourcing, backing of the flag-burning amendment-- in short, far too much for me to take.

What I find so infuriating about the Hillary hoopla, is that we really have the best chance in many, many years to finally put a Progressive into the Oval Office, the way the electorate is incensed at the Republicans right now. But instead, the Democrats talk up a hand-picked, DLC candidate gushed over by the corporate elites (Rupert Murdoch is a fan) and also by the pro-war types who are profiting from the Iraq War.

If the Dems are stupid enough to pick Hillary for the 2008 nomination, I'd rather that somebody like Giuliani win in 2008, so that we'd have a chance to elect a real progressive (in the midst of even more fatigue at the Republicans) in 2012.

So go ahead, just go on cheerleading for Hillary in 2008. Meanwhile, the rank and file of the progressive, war-abhorring Democratic Party will be looking elsewhere, and in December of 2008, we'll once again be treated to yet another episode of hand-wringing and frustration at the hapless, incompetent Democratic Party that can't do anything right.

Kevin Drum has absolutely no political skills. None. At all. I'd trust Jerome's prognostications over at MyDD before I'd trust Drum's, and that's really saying something. Kevin Drum mistakes support for Hillaries husband and the support of some minor black leaders as support from the black community. Nobody who has had actual exposure to the black community would make that mistake. Reading this post, it was actually hard to believe that Drum was talking about someone who lost a full !/3rd of her primary supporters last year. 1/3rd. If she keeps that up, she'll be heading into NH with the support of just 15% of Democrats nationwide. Even in a crowded field, there is no way to win with that percentage. She has 100% name Id, is there anyone who really truly sees room for her to build that support?

Add to this the fact that she's taken redeployment off the table, and have no mistake that 2008 will be about the Iraq war, the Iraq war and more or less only the Iraq war. Edwards, Obama, Dodd, hell, everyone will make sure that everyone knows that a vote for hillary is a vote for the Iraq war. No matter how much Drum loves his little war, even he has to realize that her position is going to kill her candidacy. Even if she somehow (cough*Vote Rigging*cough) wins the nomination, this position will neutralize the primary advantage we have over ANY Republican nominee, our status as the anti-Iraq war party. Her video game stances will kill our advantages among young people, and if she makes it a primary aspect of her campaign (and knowing her triangulating ways, she will) then we lose that advantage permanently. Add to that the effect she'll have on down ballot races in the west and south, and it becomes clear that nominating Hillary will help Republicans. It will help them hold off Democratic advances in the senate and house. It will help them win the general election by removing our biggest weapon. And it will help Republicans make up their losses amongst young people (Even if they don't vote yet, they will later, and they will remember who oppressed them) because a Hillary campaign is likely to be a campaign against pop-culture. This isn't worth a chance at having a female president. If you think it is, you need to get your priorities in order.

Well, since this is all sheer speculation and conjecture. Let's take another angle. How about TV drama series as the basis for predicting who will win the nomination and Presidency.

Based on the series 24...it will be Obama

Based on Commander in Chief, it will not be Hillary..the show was cancellled

Based on West Wing...it will be Bill Richardson

How about we compromise with a Obama/Richardson ticket and pray no one assasinates either??

I do agree with Ernst that worrying about the MSM is moronic. They had a lot more clout in the 90's, and nothing stuck to the Clintons in any serious way. People do LIKE Hillary, no matter how much the folks in Washington hate her. Her Negatives peaked a long time ago. The war and the Bush presidency have seriously damaged the publics confidence in the media. If they couldn't kill her popularity then, they can't do it now. Besides, they'd attack anyone else the same way, with the same words, and with the same ferocity. These people don't have decency, in fact they are barely people. They don't matter.

"She has nowhere to go but up. Seriously. Every nasty thing that can possibly be said about her has already been said."

I'm not a big Hillary fan, and I don't wish her ill. But if Kevin thinks "every nasty thing" about Hillary has been said, he is "misunderestimating" the Right-wing.

I can't wait for 2009, so I can read stories in the "Daily Howler" regarding how the MSM aiding the Right (oxymoron?)in spreading stories of the scores of murders Hillary ordered and the female corpses dug up for her to engage in lesbo-necro sex.

I don't see Hillary Rodham Clinton beating Obama in the Black community. But I live in a Black area where the state rep was an early supporter of Obama in his U.S. Senate campaign. We got to know Obama before he was a national figure.

…who supported the Iraq War as long and as persistently as Clinton …: Max Power at 1:36 PM

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With Hillary Clinton…
Aired August 29, 2004 - 12:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR:...
…BLITZER: Do you regret your vote in favor of giving the president the authority to go to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
CLINTON: You know, Wolf, I have said I don't regret giving the president authority. I regret deeply the way he used that authority. And I think there is plenty of reason for us to question the decisions that were made from the moment that he received that authority.
BLITZER: But when you voted for that resolution, like almost everyone else, you believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
CLINTON: Right, right. Well, indeed I did. And if someone asked me that if we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote. You know, no administration would have come to the Congress and asked for a vote that would have authorized any kind of action based on what we now know….

So, in fact, she disavowed this in 2004 yet according to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, AP and all others, she still supports her vote and the war.

Walter E. Wallis at 1:05 PM

…like the bizarre story from Ann Kornblut where insinuated that Hillary was faking a cell phone call to avoid reporters… jayackroyd at 1:41 PM

This should be a great primary. Hillary brings Bill to her campaign. That's a huge plus. He has experience answering RNC smears within 24 hours, which is the way it has to be done. The smear&lie campaign against Obama is incredible now and it will only worsen.
Richardson is going to enter. That gives the Democrats credible female, Latino, and African-American candidates.

What about the part where millions of progressives and Greens stay home rather than vote for another asshole triangulating Republican Lite DLC tool?

Her decision to make the announcement on her website on a Saturday, rather than at a traditional press event on a weekday, was interesting, wasn't it?

Yes.

I have no idea whether she'll win. Leftists I know don't like her. If the war turns worse, then her vote for it will weigh her down (especially with all the quotes in favor from her speeches.) Her switch from opposing biofuels subsidies to supporting them was accompanied by a terrible speech ( as senator from NY, she opposed the subsidies because of the cost to NY taxpayers, but as a presidential candidate she has a national perspective.)

I prefer Phil Bredeson, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson, but Hillary is definitely a good candidate.

someone sez:

She has nowhere to go but up. Seriously.

someone else sez:

People do LIKE Hillary, no matter how much the folks in Washington hate her. Her Negatives peaked a long time ago.

There is no up left. Yes, her negatives peaked long ago, and have gone sideways ever since.

Here is a recent poll:

(Favorable/Unfavorable/No Opinion/Not Familiar)
Clinton: 51%/46%/3%/0%

Everyone is familiar with Clinton, and the number who hasn't decided how they feel about her is negligible. The only way she gains on this is by convincing people who have hated her for years to vote for her.

Contrast this with Obama:

Obama: 46%/21%/12%/21%

Sure, his lags behind Clinton in favorability (by 5%), but fully one third of the people surveyed didn't know enough about him to even have an opinion. He's got room -- and the time -- to get above 60% favorable; Clinton is locked in at 50%. Clinton will never win a general with that.

Democrats tried "safe" with Kerry in 2004. They had much better luck with Howard Dean's "principled" approach in 2006.

The problem with that argument is that Schumer and Emmanuel had far more influence in the selection of the winning candidates than Dean had, and they selected candidates that the Deaniacs mostly did not like. The one candidate who clearly had the most Deaniac backing was trounced by Liberman in the general election after winning the primary (though he also was not backed by Schumer/Emmanual after losing the primary).

Mike:

Good post. And I think they'll be a substantial number of blog-savvy progs like yourself who will rally to Hillary's side as these attacks begin to mount. Nothing the lefty blogosphere likes so much as someone embattled, nothing they ho-hum about more than an MSM darling. As that mantle shifts to Obama, and we watch Obama continue to equivocate and make nice, ringing statements about nothing (bipartisanship, transcending the poisoned discourse, other toothless goo-goo speak) -- the more the big prog guns might dust off their well-used Clinton Denfense Arsenals.

And I totally agree that Bill is her biggest asset -- and disagree with Disputo that Hil won't use him in a high-profile cabinet position. SecState would, of course, be ideal ...

As for the other progressives in the race: Kucinich and Edwards are righteous, but neither have any foreign policy experience. I'm waiting to see how Richardson -- with longtime executive branch experience as a trade representative and diplomat as well as being a governor -- will shake out. I really hope he doesn't fizzle.

As for Obama -- I'm sorry; the guy needs to run on his uber-progressive record. If he doesn't come out early and define himself vis a vis his support for publicly funded abortions and gun control -- he can bet his bottom dollar the GOP will do it for him. I'm starting to smell John Kerry all over this guy and it doesn't make me very inclined to support him, needless to say ...

Bob

YAWN

I`m glad she is the "front runner" at the moment given that no "front runner" this early has ever won the election. Same with Obama. Maybe this will be the cycle that changes. Maybe not.

YAWN

Come back & wake me up in February 2008 & I`ll start paying real attention.

Clowns to the right of me, clowns to the left of me & here I am stuck in the middle w/a bodacious gaggle of foolish puppet sheep.

YAWN...

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

YAWN

After the worst Presidency in my lifetime (and arguably in US history) it is quite natural (and healthy, imo) for people to take extraordinary interest in the process that replaces him.

I have always hoped we could just re-elect Al Gore.

I think Gore is the strongest Dem candidate, if he times his entry just right and avoids all hint of campaigning right up until then.

First, the timing for his environmental message is just right, and he is a true leader on the issue.

Second, his opposition to the invasion is now the dominant view of what would have been right at the time.

Third, there is a strong sense that he would have been a better president than Bush, that the outcome in 2000 was unjust (even if technically legal), and that he earned the presidency so he ought to be given another chance. I hope he presents a more Clintonian economic policy than he ran on in 2000.

I don't see Hillary Rodham Clinton beating Obama in the Black community.