Ah, predictions. How did they work out in New Hampshire?

Mark my words - somebody will be president.

Um, can we see that photo of McCain hugging Bush again?

Speaking of Obama, his national campaign co-chair has just driven my regard for Obama down through the floor.

If you watch this video:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_campaign_cochair_questions_hillarys_tears.php

you'll see Jacksons' attack. Jackson's attack is a transparent, cheap lie. He claims that Clinton's tears-moment was her crying about her appearance. That is utter BS.

If you watch the tape of Hillary's moment of emotion on Sunday, you'll see that her emotion comes through as she talks about the opportunities this country has given her, and her concern that opportunities may slip away for many Americans if we don't get back the country back on track.

Jackson lies and says she was crying about her appearance, misogynistically trying to turn it into some demeaning "girl crisis".

This is dishonest gutter politics of the lowest sort, and Jackson knocks Obama back nearly to square one in my mind. His campaign advisor spouts here a cheap lie about Clinton, and plays the race card against some fabricated gender card.

This puts an asterisk on everything I have liked about Obama so far, because now everything good, inspiring thing about him seems potentially phony.

and umm, how many wives has McCain had?? not all at once, but separately :-)

Then isn't the question to ask, which one will make the most effective president? That's the question I've asked all along, and the answer keeps coming up Obama.

Um, can we see that photo of McCain hugging Bush again?

Got a rather nice Andy Warhol version on Daily Kos

All true, Kevin, but this is probably the only match-up where the GOP has ANY shot. Let them think it'll be a cake-walk. It'll breed complacency. I do fear McCain/Clinton, but not with the same intensity as Bush/Kerry. That could change if Hillary won the nomination and did the unthinkable: bring Obama onto the ticket. It may be a pipe dream, but I can't help but feel that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be like the climax of the second Lord of the Rings where Gandolph appears on a hillside emblazoned in white and just plows through the Orcs. Still, I'm pulling for Obama.

The CNN poll had Clinton at 51% McCain 49% this morning if they went head to head today... and that's usually considered a 'liberal' sampling.

I respect your opinion, Kathy, but based on what, may I ask?

You need to get off this "Hillary can get women's votes" routine. Of course she can -- but she can also get votes of grownups (particularly those of a "certain age" who are most likely to show up at the polls when the youngsters have lost interest and moved on to something else).

There's also the little matter of Hillary having shown she's tough enough to stick it out through the worst the Villagers can throw at her -- do you know for a fact that Obama could withstand all that?

And there's also the fact that Hillary long since earned her advanced degree in surviving swiftboaters -- hell, Obama hasn't yet experienced a little show over the bow from that bunch.

Frankly, I've been backing HRC for a long time because I believe she's the only Democrat able to withstand the shit likely to be piled on the Democratic nominee by a hostile press and the evil Right. Much as I'd like to see Obama as national cheerleader, I really haven't seen anything to convince me there's steel behind his silvery tongue.

"Bottom line: Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can beat McCain. They'd have a Democratic tailwind at their backs and a Republican opponent with plenty of negatives — and both of them are smart enough to run campaigns that make the most of those negatives. Nine months is a long time and anything can happen, but I'm not afraid of McCain. He's eminently beatable."

That's funny Kevin, because I feel the exact same way about Hillary (who I believe cannot win) and Obama (who I believe will not win) against any of the leading GOPers; even McCain, who I despise with a passion because of his positions on campaign finance and amnesty for illegals.

Um, can we see that photo of McCain hugging Bush again?

For Democrats, that picture is worth ten million votes.

Look at it carefully. It isn't just a hug. It's an expression of abject subservience. McCain might as well be wearing a leather truss with a red ball in his mouth.

Not to mention that there are a lot of republicans like me that would never vote for McCain. Might even vote for Hillary if He's nominated.

Look what I came across over at the FreeRepublic.com: "I told you, ask Jim Robinson. He’ll tell you it’s true. The facts are sometimes a little hard to find on the internet. But the fact that John McCain was brought up before the Congressional ethics committee on charges of having raped the wife of another former POW are a matter of Congressional record. Dig a little deeper.
Like I said, nothing came of the charges because McCain claimed that the woman was drunk and initiated the sex, but the woman was a non-drinker, didn’t touch alcohol or drugs."

I think Clinton's message against McCain is pretty simple:

Clinton = Change
McCain = Bush's 3rd term

That's what needs to be on the white board in the War Room.

Clinton will more easily run as the change candidate when she is up against the Republicans. All of these Republicans are vulnerable to the Change vs. More of the same arguments, and all the Democrats can easily make that argument. The Republicans trip over themselves talking about change because they are simply unable to distance themselves from George Bush (except on immigration, but that only appeals to their base...).

The key to winning in 2008 is to keep this that simple.

Here is another damning photo...montage.

If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her, but I will be holding my nose. Her voice drives me insane and I think her "leave Iraq the right way" schtick means we will be in Iraq for the next 10-20 years if we vote for her. It's "peace with honor" all over again.

To summarize: I am a liberal who has always voted for a Democratic president and I can barely stand the thought of 4 years of a president who is essentially a poll driven screech owl. I think it may actually turn me off politics having to listen to her screech for four years nonstop.

AND I AM A LIBERAL WHO ALWAYS VOTES FOR A DEMOCRAT.

The American people don't like Bush and his policies, but then, they were stupid enough to vote for him ... TWICE ... because he sounded like an amiable sheriff from Hee Haw. And you think they are going to vote for Hillary because of policy concerns?

They absolutely WILL vote for McCain, because the American People are NUTS enough to vote for Bush ... TWICE ... so you people think LONG AND HARD about who you want on the Supreme Court when you think about voting for Hillary. If Hillary wins the nomination, it's another 4 years of right-wing conservative nominations. It's that serious.

The only chance we have of beating the Republicans and people who vote for Presidents based on beer preferences is to vote for someone who doesn't make Americans hair stand on end.

Don't fall for this crap again. Not again.

Another picture to show: McCain sucking up to Jerry Falwell (a waste of time, as it turned out).

Frankly, I've been backing HRC for a long time because I believe she's the only Democrat able to withstand the shit likely to be piled on the Democratic nominee by a hostile press and the evil Right.

Honestly, is that a good enough reason to back a candidate? And, if so, who's to say that Obama or Edwards wouldn't 'withstand' similarly? (especially Edwards, who's gotten quite a bit of flack this past year)

In spite of who's going to get the nod, the press and Rightists will all jump to the occasion to bash the nominee. It's their national sport.

Kevin wrote: "... no one is paying much attention to McCain's weaknesses. But he has plenty of them, and once the national campaign really starts up they're going to become very, very public."

The corporate media will pay no more attention to McCain's weaknesses than they did to George W. Bush's weaknesses -- let alone his career of white collar crime -- in the 2000 campaign. Meanwhile the corporate media will invent nonexistent weaknesses for the Democratic nominee.

You really should read Bob Somerby some time.

If it's Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain in the presidential election, Clinton and the Democrats will trounce McCain and the Republicans from the national level on down ... if the election is fair.

I'm a Democrat who would be comfortable voting for any of the Democratic contenders. I worry far more about the second if than the first.

If there is any rationality left in the Republican Party, they must be planning either (a) to hand over a bankrupt and dysfunctional nation to the Democrats or (b) to steal the election and keep running the nation into the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&feature=user

kevin, I think you underestimate the "president named either Bush or Clinton for 28 years" turn-off factor. Republicans who don't like Mcain will hold their nose and vote for him, particularly if the Washington media's crush on him manifests itself in their coverage of his campaign, (which it surely will) negating or underemphasizing many of the problems you raise for his candidacy. Obama (or Edwards, my guy) might not get those folks, but they might stay home if there isn't someone to vote against. similarly, some younger folks who've been dominated by these two families for their entire lives are alot less likely to bother to go vote for her. Hell, i'm 42, and i know i'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but i have a hard time working up too much wonder or enthusiasm for it.

Please understand that i'm not equivocating the two families. the clintons gained what wealth and power they have in this generation. the Bush's are a longstanding wealthy political dynasty. But this won't make much of a difference to many.

and, as an aside, reading your pre-NH post on Hillary and the "fever swamp" has made me wonder if you don't attach too much importance to this election as a chance to make a bunch of right wing assholes eat crow about their demonization of the Clintons in the 90s. yes, it was bad, but there are bigger issues on the table than that, and tho she isn't the hateful caricature that they made of her, her suffering at their hands doesn't make her innocent of her own ethical and political failures.

I've voted for every Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976 and there's no way that I will vote for Hillary (with the possible exception of against Giuliani). Watching Hillary and Bill campaign has convinced me that re-electing them would be a complete disaster, and one that I will have no part in bringing about.

The strand I see that connects Republicans who want tax cuts for the rich with Republicans who want to bomb as many Muslims as possible with Republicans who want to force women with unwanted pregnancies to go to term is judgment of other people. Anti-empathy. A feeling that other people, less virtuous than oneself, deserve bad consequences they get.

That's why it plays to Republicans' strengths when voters feel cornered by fears of terrorism and crime. That's why I think Republicans want to inflate the threat from Al Qaeda to World War Two and Cold War levels. That's why Giuliani was able to garner (for a time, anyway) social conservative support -- he really wanted to kill and torture Muslims.

I think McCain lacks a certain fire on this score: the opposition to torture, the recognition that immigrants, even illegal ones, are actually human beings. Not that it makes him a loser -- he'll still be tough to beat -- but he's going to lack a certain ugly id appeal that Republicans have worked in many national elections.

won't get their enthusiastic support, the way George Bush did. Ditto for nativist votes. He's got a long, very conservative voting record that's never really been exposed to a national audience.

Now presenting Orrin Hatch 2.0.

Revised press interface, completely re-written biography module, but under the hood, a lot of legacy code, and no major changes in the basic spec -- a maintenance release, not a breakthrough. (Marketing insisted on a name-change, though, and "John McCain tested well.)

I join several others here in seeing no reason to believe that the mainstream media will even begin to cover McCain's many weaknesses. On what precedent of the last 15 years would this confident pronouncement be based?

As far as McCain goes, the media is just leapin to another one of its mindless horse race conclusions when it acts as if McCain is now strong again.

The reality is that McCain has regained his popularity because every other Republican candidate has turned to even more disgusting shit.

When McCain enters the general, all the things that rendered McCain so unpopular for so long on the Republican circuit are going to come to the fore again.

McCain is just the last turd standing.

If McCain is nominated it will be Bob Dole redux.

GSpot1: "Clinton = Change; McCain = Bush's 3rd term"

Which of these looks like change?

1) Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton
2) Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, McCain

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, I honestly don't know what I will do. I will be so angry. I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but I can't imagine voting for four more Clinton years either. The nation has endured seven years under Bush. We would survive four years of McCain. He wouldn't be as incompetent as Bushco nor as polarizing as Clinton.

Know what's cool? Nine more months of Maureen Dowd psychoanalyzing Hillary Clinton. Every. Column.

If it's McCain vs. Hillary, McCain wins, for the simple reason that there are lots of Democrats like me who will not vote for Evita Clinton. Ever. I will just stay home, but others will flock to McCain.

Kevin Drum is a learned simpleton.

Here's why:

Hillary Clinton can't even tear-up without it becoming a national cat fight.

She is a divider not a uniter.

The way you and I feel about Bush is exactly the same way every Republican feels about Hillary.

They will line up in a rain storm to cast their ballots to defeat her.

And I don't blame them a bit...

It's much too early to be speculating about the November Match-up.

McCain is able.

As in able to SCARE us all into perpetuawar.

We're there already.

A Hillary vs. McCain election would doom us. Bad and worse for President, when we need spectacular or else. Hillary is disliked by many Democrats for her Republican lite proclivities.

And let me say this about her tears. They were as fake as that planted "how do you do it?" sycophant question. The answer is, she became like Rove. That is how she did it. The same way Bush handles his great troop loss sorrows. I am very disappointed with many folks on this board. Hillary threatened us with terror attacks if Obama won, said we would stay in Iraq, and has compromised away any credibility on health care by taking the big dollars for the health care shills.
I see the GOP trolls are now Hillary fans, and it makes me sick. Again I ask, what progressive could support Hillary? She stands for very little that used to define us as a party.

Even though I really, really don't want to vote for her -- Gore v. Bush taught me, that I'm going to be forced to vote for HRC if she is the nominee.

However, my girlfriend, who is less politically inclined, after Obama's loss, said she'd rather vote for McCain. I had no desire to argue against that.

I generally do not succumb to something as trite and superficial as visual impressions, but most of the Republican field looks old and tired. No one, except maybe Thompson, looks any more tired and old than McCain.

This is important at a time when Movement Conservatism is sounding tired and old. I think McCainagainst either of the top three Democrats will suffer by comparison.

one other thing. As a fifty-something man, I can appreciate an older man enjoying a young "trophy" in his second (third or fourth) marriage. But there is just something unseemly about Mac, Fred and Rudy with their "hot young wives". Again, I know that is superficial, but it seems to feed into a narrative about the Republican party.

Don't the marriages of Clinton, Obama and Edwards seem real and authentic? For all their foibles, does anyone doubt the deep connection between Bill and Hillary. And by the way, I am an anti-Hillary (anti-DLC) person.

I see the downside of Hillary winning the nomination in three parts:

1) She will galvanize and unite the currently splintered GOP against her.

2) She will lower the enthusiasm level considerably for lifelong Dems such as myself.

3) She will lose the "independent" part of the electorate that will not vote for a Clinton or a Bush.

And yes, she would make a good president.

If HRC brings out women disproportionately like in NH, McCain wouldnt' be a problem

Obama would IMO handily beat McCain on the strength of future vs. past.

McCain has base troubles even in NH - see TPM today. He is not that strong.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible general election candidate. She is the one factor that can unite all Republicans, despite many forces tearing the party apart this year. She has exactly ZERO cross-party appeal, precious little appeal to Independents, and she is disliked by a fair proportion of Democrats. (Last poll I saw had her at 45% negative opinion among Democrats.) What are the chances that people will change their minds about someone they've known for years? People have crystallized views on her.

She is an awful candidate, given all this baggage. She may "still be standing" after everything the GOP attack machine has thrown at her, but she is deeply damaged goods. She may be knowledgable about policy and she may be personally talented. But she has massive electability problems, given the stereotypes and hardened opinions that the American electorate holds about her.

Although it's difficult for me to figure out what red state would go blue for her, the best we could hope for from Hillary is to eke out an electoral college victory. And I can only imagine that happening because of a whole host of other factors that favor Democrats this year: probable recession, struggling economy, historically unpopular president, and a tired party that has been in power for 8 years.

But Democrats are nothing if not experts in losing elections. Our party establishment is just saddling us with another weak candidate. Perhaps, like Kerry, Hillary will listen to the excellent advice of our Democratic consultants and fail to mention any of the failures of the Bush administration at our national convention later this year.

The head to head matchups are at realclearpolitics.com

The empiricists among us can peruse them. The rest can continue to talk about their feelings.

McCain is too old and too ill.

His age and the form of cancer he suffers from must be taken into account.

Notice how--and this seems recent--his left eye seems to close when he smiles.

Who will serve as VP? Will he/she be up to serving for long periods in the event of chemo/radiation?

Will he make a suitable president if McCain has to step down?

I'm surprised no one is discussing this.

t

The empiricists among us can peruse them. The rest can continue to talk about their feelings.

Empiricists know how polls change over times.

What FLee said. A candidiate that begins with Clinton's high negatives is almost impossible to elect. I suspect McCain would beat her in several close states that went for Kerry last time and that she would not pick up single red state. If "change" is this year's mantra (as opposed to this week's mantra, as I suspect),I don't think it comes trippingly off Clinton's tongue.

I think McCain would probably beat any Democratic candidate, almost certainly Clinton (who would certainly beat any other Republican except possibly Huckabee). Kevin, it is not so much whether you think that McCain is an inherently popular candidate, but both you and Chait (for reasons I will let your bete noir Bob Somerby explore) fail to mention why he will be a popular candidate come November: he is the candidate of the MSM. And they despise Clinton. The tone of press coverage of a McCain-Clinton campaign would make the 2000 coverage look like it favored Gore.

BTW, didn't McCain say something about only serving one term if he were elected President?

If that's true, wouldn't that be a pretty important factor in voting for him?

Clinton is not a terrible general election candidate, not at all. And the points she hit on last night in her speech: health care, predatory student loan lenders, the mortgage crisis, energy costs, Iraq, really speak to the concerns of a middle class in trouble, one that has certainly proven to be invisible to this administration.

John McCain may be seen as strong on national security, but people want OUT of the war, not in forever. Plus, the evangelicals will not show up for him. Despite the media fluffing, I think old man McCain, with his "let's stay in Iraq for another 100 years" line has some serious flaws.

You can repeat the "she can't win" meme all you like, but I think it's an outdated one, given the current importance of domestic issues and a middle class that has been screwed by the Republicans for the last 8 years.

Why do you think McCain's weaknesses will be exposed? How will the media ever drum up the independence to question him?

"They were as fake as that planted "how do you do it?" sycophant question."

Actually, I heard on MSNBC that the woman who asked the question ended up voting for Obama.

Kevin, why on earth would you treat Judis' predictions seriously when he confidently said Hillary was toast just a few days earlier?

I think McCain and Thompson are the only GOP candidates who could reliably beat Hillary. Any Republican candidate will beat Obama.

Whoops. I meant McCain and Thompson could *conceiveably* beat Clinton, not reliably.

I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, and clearly in a Clinton-McCain contest the press would massively favor McCain. But if last night is any indication, it seems likely that the blatant favoritism and open Hillary-hate would be likely to cause a backlash. After all, despite the near-unanimous loathing of the press in mid-1998 and the effort, not only by the Republicans but also by the Washington press corps to eliminate Bill Clinton, his public support stayed in the mid-60s.

So I do think that Clinton would beat McCain, though narrowly.

Just purely anectodal, but I've been through 9 Presidential election cycles, fervently voting for a Democrat each time. I will not vote for Hillary, though, I just won't. Either I won't vote (unlikely) or I'll vote GOP (with nose held). I have never felt so negatively about a Democratic candidate in my life and I'm sure I'm not alone. With her we will be in the same soup we're in now, total divisiveness and centrist policies (meaning nothing significant will be accomplished). Plus, she can't get a succinct thought out of her mouth if her life depended on it.

I don't know who can win, honestly. Whether it's Obama or Clinton, the conservatives will come out in droves to vote against them. On the other hand, lots of conservatives dislike McCain.

And those of us who dislike Bush desperately want a Democrat in the WH. But there is going to be a big fight to see who the nominee will be.

Anything can happen. How's that for a prediction?

John McCain is a good man. I like him alot. He has one big problem: He's caught in the Republican-Plan-For-Endless-War Monkeytrap. He's toast. End of Story.

Sorry, John

Cal: Well why did she attend a late Clinton rally and ask the biggest softball question of 2008? And there is no way to prove she voted for anyone. Honestly, that question provided a plausible narrative for the profoundly questionable doings yesterday.
If Democrats despise her in high numbers, how is she electable again? She is a buzzkill. Sigh!!!

I am currently undecided and will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is but I am certainly enjoying all the Republicans proclaiming that Hillary is unelectable because Republicans don't like her.

What about the un-talked about racist element of the Republican party? Which is stronger with them? Racism, or sexism?

And for those Democrats upset that she is not 'left' enough - look what happened when you voted for Nader. Ugh.

sparko,

If Democrats despise her in high numbers, how is she electable again?

That is a simple question. Because we despise Bush (and with him the Republican party) even more!

Sorry dude, but y'all embraced Bush and now you can hang on as he drags you all the way down.

Tripp. Nice. Undecided indeed. Look, if Hillary is nominated, I think this might be the year for a real Third party. Repuicans hate her, almost half of the democrats do. She cannot win a free and fair election. She is wildly unpopular. For good reason. Unless you liked the last eight years.

PTate: If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, I honestly don't know what I will do. I will be so angry. I can't imagine voting for a Republican, but I can't imagine voting for four more Clinton years either. The nation has endured seven years under Bush. We would survive four years of McCain. He wouldn't be as incompetent as Bushco nor as polarizing as Clinton.

No, he wouldn't be as incompetent as Bushco. Perhaps he wouldn't be as polarizing as Clinton. But he will keep Bush's insane foreign policy intact. He will keep us in Iraq forever. His counterproductive version of a "war on terror" exacerbates terrorism and will further erode our international standing. He will push further irresponsible tax cuts. He will continue to pay lip service to environmentalism while looking the other way on enforcement. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned and promises to further pack the court to make that and other irreversible-for-a-generation decisions possible. That's just off the top of my head.

No, he's not a member of the Bush or Clinton families. He's got that going for him. But he could do incalculable damage, even if we could be assured of "only four years."

I understand your frustration. Everyone's gotta do what they've gotta do. But I will never understand how anyone who truly believes in and supports progressive values could vote for McCain.

I want to add my voice to the vast number of comments scolding Drum for underestimating Hillary's negatives (and only attacking the pro-McCain view). I would vote for her if it came to that but I sincerely doubt she would be able to win the general unless the GOP picks Romney the Robot. I have friends, hard core lifetime GOP friends who have already told me they'll support Obama (which is totally unbelievable to me) but would vote for any GOPer over Hillary. While anecdotal, the stories are starting to add up and become a trend.

Let's also remember that within the "Hillary winning the women's vote" argument has so far ommitted the fact that Hillary won DEMOCRATIC women who would vote for Barack in the general anyway. There is NO evidence to suggest that she can win GOP or Independent women. Barack can. Ironically, the electability issue, from where I'm sitting, has totally turned Barack's way.

Finally, I would like to suggest that the ONLY Dem candidate that would have the kitchen sink thrown at them would be Hillary. People talk about her being the only candidate strong enough to stand up to the GOP propaganda machine but the intensity of hatred for her from that machine is totally uncomparable to their feelings for Barack. They don't want a Dem president, but all indications are, they could live with President Obama. They couldn't live with President Clinton before and I don't think they've suddenly gotten softer on that issue. The "Hillary is tough" argument, to me, is a red herring.

Finally, I don't think McCain is going to be the nominee but if he was, that would marginally scare me. The Dems should win anyway this cycle, but McCain, for reasons I will never understand, is generally loved by both the media and large segments of the country. He would, at the least, make the election rather (uncomfortably) close against Obama and might even win against Hillary.

Not one Republican in the country scares me.

They are frightening animals capable of endless butchery, but personally they are always wussies. Politically they are dog shit.

They have nothing, they are nothing.

McCain is the strongest candidate the Republicans could field this cycle. His greatest liability in the general election is his age and health, in my opinion. Conservatives definitely don't like his immigration stand, but none of the Democratic candidates can use that against him, so that issue would be off the table- immigration hurts him in the primaries, and could still end up preventing him from getting the nomination, but if he does get it, Republicans will vote for him, especially if the alternative is Hillary Clinton. Will Clinton's negatives inspire Republicans enough to negate the Democrats' obvious enthusiasm for getting Republicans out of the presidency? Maybe.

The election will be closer than Drum seems to think, no matter who the nominees are.

frankly0 writes:

Empiricists know how polls change over times.

As the NH results showed, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and polls.

What concerns me is HRC's effect on downticket races. If she's the nominee, the crazies will come out of the woodwork to vote against her - maybe not in numbers big enough to deny her the White House, but perhaps enough to sink Democratic House and Senate hopefuls in tight races. Obama, meanwhile, brings non-voters in (at least he did in Iowa, and may have in NH as well), which helps Dem chances if they don't split their tickets. McCain might have the same effect on the other side, which could slim a potentially-big Democratic majority.

If Hillary is so unelectable, how come she won yesterday in a state largely considered conservative? And those individuals who claim to be democrats but would vote republican, do you mind sharing whom you voted for the last 4 elections? I am supposed to believe you will vote for John "Iraq forever" McCain or Mike Huckabee, the Babtist minister? You must have your priorities meessed up if you allow a media narrative determine your vote.

Lies, damned lies, and American voting machines. The polls were wrong only about the only race that mattered.

Sparky,

Obviously I meant undecided among the Democratic candidates. And feelings can change. Polls can change. Don't put too much faith in either. The future is as yet unwritten.

But by golly the past nightmare that was Bush has nearly made me a Democrat for life. Ugh. I'm starting to understand how some of the Clinton haters felt.

Yancey: You keep pretending that immigration is McCain's only weak spot issue-wise. I understand your John Cleese-like disinclination to talk about the war, but his million-year plan for Iraq is going to be a disaster for him with independents.

We would survive four years of McCain.

Sure we would. But what about the neighbors kids? Not the well-heeled ones, but the ones without economic advantage? His woody for perpetual-war makes that statement seem, to me, utterly ridiculous.

Raoul, NH has changed. Since the Great Migration of the late 80's and 90's, it's enjoyed an influx of well-educated and affluent (i.e., liberal / moderate) migrants from NYC and Boston. It's a purple state that is waxing blue.

God, Democrats are such fraidy-cats.

I'm not for Clinton -- I'm for Edwards still; Obama if I'm convinced it's inexorably him or Hillary -- but any Democrat is going to win this year. By a significant margin. The Bush administration has left his party with the worst record in half a century. By election time, we'll be deep in recession. And I'll bet anything this "the surge is working" nonsense will be seen for the myth it is.

Yeah, McCain. The guy who wants to be in Iraq for 50 years will win over the electorate that wants out of there yesterday.

It's amazing to me how little history people know. Reagan was "unelectable" -- until he won by a wide margin because the Democratic incumbent had failed miserably. This year is that situation in reverse. People may resist and squawk -- they did in 1980, not giving Reagan a poll lead till about ten days out. But they'll always vote against failure. Any Dem, easily.

1. There are certainly some people who might vote for another Democrat but who are turned off by Hillary for reasons that date back to the 1990's. How many of them, I don't know. But they exist.

2. There are people who think, as I do, that Hillary Clinton is too much of a hawk and that her election will lead to more warfare and ensuing deaths of hundreds if not thousands of troops, as well as terrorist blowback, and that it will also validate the choice of many Democrats to err on the side of hawkishness in the future. Personally, I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton unless she promises to remove all the troops from Iraq within a specified, short timeframe, with no BS about training missions, fighting terrorists, or the rest.

Voters in #2 might be tempered by fears of a redux of Nader in 2000.

My guess is that Kevin is wrong and that Hillary is less electable than Obama. On the other hand, my guess is that Kevin is correct that the tailwind behind Democrats is enough to elect her anyway. She would still, however, win with less of a mandate than Obama would in such a scenario.

Tripp: I am a Democrat for life so long as we don't represent GOP values. The Goldwater girl, and the curious incident of the polls barking in the night have me spitting fire. Republicans loved last night. I supported Hillary until about 2002 when she became one with Rove and GOP disasters.
Republicans are playing feminist outrage like a freaking violin too.

Kevin, your analysis assumes that the subset of "swing voters" you identified will care about McCain's actual record. They won't. Anyone capable of swinging between McCain and the democratic nominee is surely one of these "I vote for the candidate not the party" idiots. Those folks either have have already made up their minds, or will, based on the (mis)impression from the mainstream media that McCain is the straight-talking maverick. Which, of course, he isn't.

Also, the notion that Hillary will get some women that Obama won't is simply wrong. I can't imagine there's one Hillary supporter alive who would either stay home or vote republican if she's not the nominee.

Look, I like Hillary best, but her negatives are huge and intractable. Against any other republican nominee, she wins for many of the reasons you stated. But combined with McCain's ability to attract ignorant independents, those negatives are a huge cause for concern.

The nation has endured seven years under Bush. We would survive four years of McCain. He wouldn't be as incompetent as Bushco nor as polarizing as Clinton.

Adding to shortstop's comments, I'd simply say that if Democrats can't exploit this opportunity to retrieve the presidency, then we're not fit to govern ourselves, much less the rest of the country. Worse, if Democrats *won't* exploit this opportunity to retrieve the presidency, then we forfeit our right to bitch about the inexorable Republican march toward soft fascism (and, no, I don't use the word lightly).

Sheesh. Tie McCain to Bush and he will lose to any Democrat. Bush's numbers are abysmal.

shortstop,

As I explained on the other thread, Iraq is a liability for any Republican nominee, even a nominee who might advocate withdrawing the troops quickly. Of the Republican candidates, McCain is actually the one who makes the most common sense on Iraq. Democrats like yourself don't understand this because you have always been adamantly opposed to the war from the beginning, but a majority of Americans were not, and they don't want to see the sacrifices to be completely wasted by a hasty retreat. It is the reason McCain has surged to into a potentially winning position in the Republican party, even though a sizeable fraction of Republicans now admit the invasion was ill-advised.

I don't doubt that a solid majority of Americans want to find a way to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but if a Democratic candidate runs a campaign in the general election promising a quick withdrawl from Iraq, McCain will win the election if he is the opponent. I found it very interesting how Clinton herself describes what she might intend for Iraq, and how she distinquishes herself from Edwards and Obama on the issue. She clearly recognizes the danger. How she finesses this issue going forward will heavily influence the outcome.

She has already stood up to everything the GOP has thrown at her? HAHAHA. She won twice in New York against absurdly weak competition, i.e. she ain't seen nothin' yet. And ask yourself why she ran for the senate in NY and not Arkansas.

We will destroy her in the swing states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, even Pennsylvania) with ease. The Swift Boat effort will look entirely tame to the forces brought to bear in the swing states if Clinton is the Dem nominee, and there won't be a Ross Perot on the ballot to help her (unlike her husband).

Pat: Based on the fact I see Clinton as a very effective legislator, but not a very effective commander in chief. She's a wonk, and a very knowledgeable one, but a wonk isn't nearly as persuasive when it comes to convincing a majority of the American people to rally around a health care plan, an energy plan, etc.

Anyone with the brains can do wonkery, but truly effective leaders need more than that. They need to be very good salespeople, negotiators, and persuaders. Everything I've seen (and read) tells me Obama is much better at this than Hillary, who failed pretty spectacularly in '93 with her health care plan.

Bill Clinton had his moments, but he chose his battles pretty parsimoniously, repeatedly backing down when he didn't feel he could persuade the public to his side. I don't think he was very convinced of his own talents.

Plus, Pat, if you want a much more in depth argument, I made one here.

McCain has also to answer for having turned into George W.'s dog in recent years. He has flip-flopped on things like taxes, and might be vulnerable to Romnification. How authentic is he really?

I agree with Nobcentral and Tom in Houston -- just because a bunch of white women picked Hillary over Obama doesn't mean they wouldn't pick Obama over McCain. Just like I would pick filet mignon over ribeye and pick ribeye over dog crap.

Like I said in another thread this morning, call me when Hillary wins a state that is less than 85% white. Obviously polls only tell you so much (or little), but the problem I see with Hillary in the fall is that usually presidential nominees have low poll numbers because no one knows them. Can anyone really argue that the american public has not by and large made up her mind about her? Against Hillary, the GOP nominee already has 45% -- McCain starts out with Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania before the campaign even gets going. All these national polls mean nothing b/c it's about the electoral college. My barometer for Hillary is to look at what Huckabee does in S.C. and Florida, if he wins those, it means the GOP is energized and that they are getting people out to vote that do not normally do so. Say what you want about conservative evangelicals in politics, but many of them do stay home on election day (my wife is a perfect example) -- the Huckster will get them out to vote the South, and so will Hillary in November if we nominate her. Mrs. Blue Moon would crawl through glass and stand in a hurricane to vote against Hillary.

I am a Democrat for 34 years now. I have worked on many campaigns, including campaigns for women candidates on the state and local level. I wish I could be excited about Senator Clinton, but I just can't. Because I'm sometimes in her state, I have met officials who have met her personally and they each talk of how they don't find her cold and how qualified she is, but my problem is that everytime I listen to her I just hear talking points. I can never remember a time where she engaged me, where she inspired me. When she cried the other day, she just moved towards her talking point about how some of us are ready on day one and some are not. Watching that video, I didn't have a clue about what was real and what was not.

I have tried to listen to her and will try again, but right now I really don't want the Clintons to return to the White House. I just don't. Both of the Clintons are just too jaded at this point. If you ask them any question, even a legitimate question, they'll treat it as if it was a right wing attack.

This country is bigger than the Clintons. The Democratic Party is bigger than the Clintons. They had their eight years. Yes, I want a woman President just like I want more women governors and senators, but does it really have to be Hillary Clinton? Do we have to choose her to be the nominee just because the right wing hates her?

Thanks, Kathy. I'll give it a read!

Which of these looks like change?

1) Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton
2) Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, McCain

Which of these looks like change?
1) Man, man, man, man, man, man
2) man, man, man, man, man, woman

Regarding Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s remarks -- I can't believe Obama has appointed Jesse Jackson, Jr. to co-chair his campaign in the first place... Jackson MAY be an absolutely great campaign chair, but a lot of people just don't take his father seriously. I'd worry that people would draw the same conclusion about Jr.

The media hates HRC and loves loves loves McCain. That dynamic will play out in the General. Also, the Repubs won't have to do much to send her negatives through the roof-a lot of people in the middle are lukewarm to her at best.

It will be 2000 Bush/Gore all over again. Moreover, HRC probably stifles Dem gains in Congress that an Obama candidacy would likely bring. Hillary is the only thing that can keep us from winning the WH this year. I swear some in our Party would pick Michael Dukakis over JFK if given the chance. And that might be exactly what we're doing.

McCain V. Clinton? McCain by 10 points, minimum.

Here is why:

Republicans are either going to sit this out, or vote for the Republican candidate -- period. (Only people who call themselves Democrats cross party lines.)

Republicans are right now voting for candidates that are pro-war, anti-middle class, anti-universal health care, anti-U.S. Constitution, anti-privacy, pro-big government power but anti-government everything else. None, none, will vote for a Democrat.

Half of Democratic supporters want change, half want "a winner". If Clinton wins, half of the party's supporters will have to be seriously convinced to even get out of bed to vote for Clinton.

Independents? They will all vote for McCain. Why? Because an Independent is by definition someone who doesn't give a shit about anything. They voted for George Bush ... twice.

Tweety will tell them McCain is their guy and they will vote for him. Fox News is tell them Clinton is a communist and they will vote McCain.

Clinton has a chance against anybody else the Republicans put up -- but no chance in hell against McCain.

Obama, on the other hand, is supposedly more electable, right? Well, give me a break. What is your impression of America? Is it a country that believes in equality, one where the populous is color blind? or is America a racist, sexist country, bent on war, always trying to push down the little guy, always willing to see someone lose their job if it means saving two dollars on their next pair of jeans? Which country do you live in?

Hillary was running ahead of all the Republicans, including McCain, throughout the Fall. She fell behind McCain in the last month when her campaign started to founder and his got better. She had all the same problems (high negatives, independents don't like her, the left doesn't like her, etc.) then that she has now. Maybe she's turned it around after NH, or maybe not. Maybe McCain will drop off. The best candidate in terms of electability is clearly John Edwards, but he has no hope.

"And there is no way to prove she voted for anyone."

But she wasn't a plant. Reporters, who clearly suspected such a possibility, found her and checked with her.

So maybe she lied to them and voted for Clinton. But she wasn't a plant.

And if your standard is that you can't believe anyone without actually seeing them vote, then I sure hope you aren't taking all these comments too seriously.

As to most of the rest of you: you are seriously goofy if you think Obama's got a better chance than Clinton against any Republican. He's a lightweight ex-radical who hasn't done a thing. No way do independents vote for him before McCain.

Jesus Christ some of you people are just plain dull.

You think people hated the Clinton years? You think she's 'polarizing'? You don't like the way she talks?

Fuck, it's like you have completely internalized the GOP spin for 15 long years and you don't even know it. What Americans hate, and have hated for years now, is the Republican party. They despise them. Their standard bearer polls at 30 something percent and has been since 2005. Their candidates reek of carrion and death.

Independents in NH sure seemed to like her. They voted her in. They could have voted for St. McCain and they didn't. And so the eeeeee-villll Clinton won again.

Here's another thing: Upstate NY is a pretty conservative place. Note that she's done extremely well there over the years. Was it magic? No. It was hard work and smarts.

And yes, I completely understand hating her for her war votes. But you guys are just out of your fucking minds if you think that McCain is better on the issue.

I'm not a Hillary supporter yet, but my Christ. The logic some of you are using to vote for a warmongering relic like McCain is just lunatic.

The problem with Hillary is she's not anti-war enough, notwithstanding recent remarks.

Her policy position on Iraq is so nuanced that you get the impression that she could be another Nixon, who prolonged LBJ's war for 6 or 7 long additional years.

Obama should just keep forcing her to answer basic questions about troop withdrawals, residual forces, etc.

And yes, McCain is positively ancient, but if you have Hillary running against him, then you have Kerry all over again.

The Dems don't need another Kerry. What they need is someone that was against the war from day one, and will end the war ASAP.

NH dem votes cast 286,000

NH rep votes cast 238,000

Folks, remember, NH is a conservative state.

Democratic candidate, whomever it is, beats Repub candidate in November, whomever it is.

My guess is that Hillary is not better than 50/50 and probably a likely loser against anyone, especially since her path to the nomination now requires trashing Obama. The way she could enhance her chance is to persuade Obama to be her running mate (which he should put aside his feeling and accept).

But it is inconsistent for Kevin to totally discount current polls, then analyze the race based on his current views. I agree that polls today are not terribly meaningful, but neither are Kevin and others guesses as to what the election looks like ten months from now. Kevin also underestimates the favorable view of McCain among the American people, which will almost certainly be more favorable than the view of Hillary.

Tom,

Let me introduce you to my wife. She's a Chamber of Commerce Republican, she's met Barack Obama, and she'd vote for Hillary Clinton over any Republican and at least some of the Republicans over Obama. I think you need a better imagination.

I can't imagine there's one Hillary supporter alive who would either stay home or vote republican if she's not the nominee.
Posted by: Tom in Houston on January 9, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Honestly, I don't understand the fixation with HRC's perceived negatives, and I really don't understand the "we're tired of Bush and Clinton" theme.

For the former, demtom at 4:53 already pointed out that Ronald Reagan was largely seen as unelectable until stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis crippled the Carter presidency... and all of a sudden "Ronald Ray-gun" was the winner in a landslide.

For the latter, isn't this just an update of the stupid "Clinton fatigue" argument? George W. Bush isn't George H. W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't William Jefferson Clinton. It's obvious that W has departed from his father's policies in numerous (and largely disastrous) ways. I think it's all but certain that Bill Clinton's wife (like his former vice-president) would put together an a presidency quite different from his.

What are the big differences in the Clinton and Obama plans for getting us out of Iraq? I've concluded that neither have any interest in being pinned down any more that absolutely necessary. They both promise to take steps immediately assuming office.

I don't really blame them. The election is a long way off and who knows what may change. I currently trust both of them to make every effort to get us out as quickly as possible. Hope that's not a foolish trust.

My guess is that Hillary is not better than 50/50 and probably a likely loser against anyone

I agree that polls today are not terribly meaningful, but neither are ... guesses as to what the election looks like ten months from now

You're a trip, brian!

Folks, remember, NH is a conservative state.

Democratic candidate, whomever it is, beats Repub candidate in November, whomever it is.

Yeah. Okay.

I guess we're all a little prone to jump at any loud noise, after 2000 and 2004 and all. At least I am.

I guess we're all a little prone to jump at any loud noise, after 2000 and 2004 and all. At least I am.

And it's not like I'm blaming you!

I'm just sayin'.

Going to be OK.

brian is a die-hard Republican (like Yancey) who is obviously engaged in wishful thinking. No candidate has been more thouroughly vetted as has Mrs. Clinton; eight years and $100 Million to demonstrate that she was as clean as they come.

Republicans simply can't face the fact that the Clintons have demonstrated a level of competence and ethics so far above any of their crappy candidates - from the mayor of 9/11 and the ever-changing Mittster to Johnny McWarforever.

Folks, remember, NH is a conservative state.

Why are they considered conservative when they voted for Kerry in 2004?

Mmmm, that was soothing. This primary season is getting to me. I'm going for a run...

One good reason to get national health insurance: we could afford group therapy for all the people who hate Hillary Clinton because of her "screechy" voice.

In the meantime, can someone please explain this to me? I can run a hundred video clips on U-tube and her voice is always the same: a slow, untrained and mundane female alto with no projection. She couldn't pass first audition at a community theater, let alone screech at someone.

That teary video bit the Clintophobe pundits are squawking about actually shows her at her best: speaking reasonably and personally to a small group. A good chunk of the population can agree with her sentiments about getting some actual issues discussed in the campaign.

If millions of people are hearing screechy voices in their heads when they hear Senator Clinton talk, does this mean Dick Cheney has taken control of the orbital mind control lasers?

And ask yourself why she ran for the senate in NY and not Arkansas.

Yes, why on earth would somebody prefer to live in New York when they could live in Arkansas instead....

Republicans simply can't face the fact that the Clintons have demonstrated a level of competence and ethics so far above any of their crappy candidates

Competence I can buy, but ETHICS? You MUST be kidding! Remember Johnny Chung's statement about the Clinton White House: "it's like a subway turnstyle, you have to put your money the slot to get in".

Or let's just remember pardoning a fugitive multi-millionaire whose ex-wife just happened to be a big contributor and friend of Bill.

Look, a lot of the scandals of the Clinton White House were surely ginned up by the Republican scandal machine. But a lot of other ones weren't. I can certainly accept that Bill Clinton competently governed the country for 8 years (which makes him immensely preferable to his incompetent senator). But let's not, as they say in Arkansas, put lipstick on a pig, shall we?

E Henry Thripshaw

You ask, "Why are they considered conservative when they voted for Kerry in 2004?"

1. Kerry won New Hampshire with 50.2% of the vote.

2. They have two Republican Senators (although their governor is a Dem, as are their two Congressmen).

Keith at 6:30, I'm glad I'm wrong. But I think that being off by one isn't being wrong by much. I'm still sticking to my figurative guns on that point. I am curious as to why your wife supports Hillary, however.

I would be a little worried if Hillary faced McCain. I run into people all the time who pay relatively very little attention to politics, but who love McCain and hate Hillary. Most of these people are Republican voters, but I would be concerned about the low-attention independent voters who buy into the "independent" image of McCain, while getting caught up in the frequent Hillary slander from those who really hate her and never pass on an opportunity to pass that on to those not paying as much attention.

On the flip side, I've heard die hard women Republican voters tell me they would vote for Hillary, mainly because she's a woman and would do a better job.

I should amend that from "die hard" women Republican votes to "low-attention, young, otherwise" Republican women voters, the kind who voted for Bush but don't otherwise have any political party fetishization.

Dilan Esper - remember, I was comparing them to the party of Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, George "Eminent Domain" Bush, and John "Keating Five" McCain.

Add to the fiscal improprieties the Republican abuse of power: impeachment, treason by outing a spy, and firing USAs for being insufficiently partisan.

Yes, ethically the Clintons have demonstrated themselves to be far above the Republicans.

Oh, and as for the Marc Rich pardon? Give me a break. Read the facts about the case and note that his lawyer was none other than I. "traitor" Libby. The circumstances regarding his conviction make the case far less clear cut than you seem to be remembering. His criminal acts were less clear than those of Richard Cheney who used shell companies to trade with our ostensible enemies.

Dilan Esper - remember, I was comparing them to the party of Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, George "Eminent Domain" Bush, and John "Keating Five" McCain.

You are right about Bush and Cheney-- as I noted, Bill Clinton looks good in comparison. McCain's involvement with the Keating Five is a much more tenuous scandal; he was the least involved of the 5, and has repented numerous times for it.

But I don't think you can say that Bill Clinton's ethics are far above "the Republicans" as a group. Bill Clinton's ethics were pretty much in the sewer. And there are such things as ethical Republicans; you just have to look elsewhere than in the White House to find them.

I really have no faith in my ability to predict the outcome should Clinton and McCain face off. Like others, 2004 shook my confidence in the American voting public. I will say that reading all the highly charged opinions of people on this site either pro/anti Clinton/Obama has given me a more relaxed perspective on whichever candidate surfaces. As BGRS said on another thread -- we've got a deep bench.

I have been somewhat anti-Clinton during the whole primary season. My choice has remained Edwards (after begrudgingly accepting that Richardson does not stand a chance). But over the last few weeks I have come to appreciate that all the candidates are comparatively worthy. I just don't think anyone can say with any accuracy how the any of them will fare. Am I confident? When I look at the R lineup, and then look at the D lineup – yes. But when I see Bush, and realize we elected him…twice, I do feel a bit sketchy. Or possibly, queasy.

I also tend to believe that people want them (the R’s) out more than they cringe at all-things-Hillary. The