Yeah, but you hate Hillary Clinton

I've come to realize, in my career as a Hillary Hater, that there aren't as many of "us" as I thought--though there are a lot. To put it another way, there are probably enough to defeat her in November (especially against McCain), but not enough to stop her from getting the Democratic nomination.

That said, I'm not feeling the Hillary Hate as much as I was before. The other night I came up with two reasons to actually think she'd be a successful president:

1) The most common squandered asset in any presidency is the first year/"honeymoon period." She'd almost certainly do more in this window than Obama (or anyone who hadn't been there before), by virtue of knowing the importance of that window and learning from the terrible mistakes of the first Clinton administration in 1993.

2) In negotiating with Congress for legislation, having been there in the weeds of legislative horse-trading would give her an unusual insight into how to move reluctant supporters and neutralize opponents. ("Sen. McConnell, release your caucus to vote on my healthcare reform bill and I'll tell my guys not to get in the way of your Televise the Torture! Act.")

edit: this was in response to TraderDave. Woulda made sense if Professor PoliSci had waited another two minutes to post...

traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:hoya, I think your Kerry analysis is sound but the bigger deal might just have been that it's very, very tough--close to impossible by historical standards--to defeat an incumbent president in wartime. Even one who's as obvious a screwup as Bush.

I campaigned in Ohio at the end of that election. People were scared--exactly as Rove wanted them to be. Between that and the misinformation the church networks were spreading about Kerry--which his idiot advisers hadn't done enough to counter, being too busy buying ad time for their firms--it was just too much to overcome.

As for McCain, what I think will be interesting is how far the Limbaugh/Hewitt type crazies will go to stop him in the short time before he locks it up next week.

Then there's the Edwards dropout news. I'm not happy. His supporters seem to be mostly low- and middle-income whites who are spoiling to fight; though the Clintons mostly (exclusively?) fight on their own behalf, I'm not sure the Edwards voters will grasp that distinction, and they'll probably just revert to Clinton Brand loyalty.

Between the Santana news and this, not a good last 18 hours or so.

I fear you are going to be proven correct but if I'm low- to middle-income I'm identifying substantially more with Obama than Clinton. I think there is a decent chance that Edwards' supporters are swept into the Obama wave of change. Obviously an Edwards endorsement would be ginormous but it doesn't sound like that'll happen in time for Tuesday.

Didn't Edwards have a lot of male support? I would think from a gender standpoint there are a lot of men who simply won't vote for Hillary.

Warszawa wrote:

traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:hoya, I think your Kerry analysis is sound but the bigger deal might just have been that it's very, very tough--close to impossible by historical standards--to defeat an incumbent president in wartime. Even one who's as obvious a screwup as Bush.

I campaigned in Ohio at the end of that election. People were scared--exactly as Rove wanted them to be. Between that and the misinformation the church networks were spreading about Kerry--which his idiot advisers hadn't done enough to counter, being too busy buying ad time for their firms--it was just too much to overcome.

As for McCain, what I think will be interesting is how far the Limbaugh/Hewitt type crazies will go to stop him in the short time before he locks it up next week.

Then there's the Edwards dropout news. I'm not happy. His supporters seem to be mostly low- and middle-income whites who are spoiling to fight; though the Clintons mostly (exclusively?) fight on their own behalf, I'm not sure the Edwards voters will grasp that distinction, and they'll probably just revert to Clinton Brand loyalty.

Between the Santana news and this, not a good last 18 hours or so.

I fear you are going to be proven correct but if I'm low- to middle-income I'm identifying substantially more with Obama than Clinton. I think there is a decent chance that Edwards' supporters are swept into the Obama wave of change. Obviously an Edwards endorsement would be ginormous but it doesn't sound like that'll happen in time for Tuesday.

Didn't Edwards have a lot of male support? I would think from a gender standpoint there are a lot of men who simply won't vote for Hillary.

I think you are correct and that is a very good point.

dajafi wrote:Yeah, but you hate Hillary Clinton

I've come to realize, in my career as a Hillary Hater, that there aren't as many of "us" as I thought--though there are a lot. To put it another way, there are probably enough to defeat her in November (especially against McCain), but not enough to stop her from getting the Democratic nomination.

That said, I'm not feeling the Hillary Hate as much as I was before. The other night I came up with two reasons to actually think she'd be a successful president:

1) The most common squandered asset in any presidency is the first year/"honeymoon period." She'd almost certainly do more in this window than Obama (or anyone who hadn't been there before), by virtue of knowing the importance of that window and learning from the terrible mistakes of the first Clinton administration in 1993.

2) In negotiating with Congress for legislation, having been there in the weeds of legislative horse-trading would give her an unusual insight into how to move reluctant supporters and neutralize opponents. ("Sen. McConnell, release your caucus to vote on my healthcare reform bill and I'll tell my guys not to get in the way of your Televise the Torture! Act.")

edit: this was in response to TraderDave. Woulda made sense if Professor PoliSci had waited another two minutes to post...

So you felt compelled to "come up" with (i.e. conjure - ) two reasons why Hillary would be a successful President. Obviously, her experience in Washington is a major selling point for those voting for her. No matter what Obama does he cannot change the fact that she has multiples more experience than he does. That said, specific to the points:

#1 - I think Obama has the energy and drive to really hit the ground running as President. I could see him implementing something like a 100-day plan or similar so that people are able to see immediate results and get the confidence in government going again.

#2 - Obama has experience in horse-trading as well and I think he is far more likely to have success dealing with Republicans than Hillary would. Just watching or listening to the Republican candidates, you can hear the "hatred" they have for Clinton.

Unfortunately I feel as though I've become "that" guy, you know, the nut job that is at all the political rallies, making phone calls, etc., etc. Barack Obama may end up disappointing me like all other politicians do but something tells me he is for real.

I am a Hilary supporter but don't see her winning over enough voters at this point because she is so polarizing. Not too many people were on the fence about her at the start of the campaign as they were for Obama. I see more of Edward's supporters jumping over to Obama just because of the anti-Hilary factor.

Unrelated question - Is Gore eligible to be VP again? I did not know if there are term limits on VP along w/ president.

traderdave wrote:So you felt compelled to "come up" with (i.e. conjure - ) two reasons why Hillary would be a successful President.

Yeah, pretty much. Blame it on my conscience, sometimes known as Disco Stu

You might be right on both your responses to my arguments. But I think the thing about the "honeymoon period" is that you have to live through it to "get it." The Clintons screwed up their first one so bad that they'll know the pitfalls--and if Hillary won the presidency, I bet she'd release her health care reform proposal within two weeks of taking the Oath. Much as I love Obama and have faith in his ability to figure out the job in fairly quick order, I don't believe he'd be able to hit the ground running as hard.

Of course, given his broader appeal and resonance with the media, it's entirely possible that he'd enjoy a longer and more intense "honeymoon period" than the Clintons, so he'd have a little more margin for error...

traderdave wrote:Unfortunately I feel as though I've become "that" guy, you know, the nut job that is at all the political rallies, making phone calls, etc., etc. Barack Obama may end up disappointing me like all other politicians do but something tells me he is for real.

Nah. You're just into it--which is the idea in a democracy (and a credit to the O-man for inspiring you). My belief, maybe naive, is that the more people are into it, the better the odds that we'll get a result the country accepts, if not embraces.

Will Hillary even get a honeymoon period?

Dick Codey, the most popular politician in the State of NJ, will endorse Barack Obama.

Codey had been supporting Edwards.

*Obama is apparently planning to do statewide TV ads in states with statewide endorsers in them. Would be interesting to see if Grandpa Codey is used as a pitch guy for Obama. I guess since the Dems do proportional delegates, Obama might play in NY/NJ, even though he's probably going to lose them both.

momadance wrote:Oh God, not again..

My libertarian nightmare

momadance wrote:Oh God, not again..

It doesn't matter. He got 0.4% of the vote last time. The only people that voted for him wouldn't have voted for Kerry.

Well, maybe it might matter a tiny bit of Hillary gets the nomination, but still probably won't.

jerseyhoya wrote:Would be interesting to see if Grandpa Codey is used as a pitch guy for Obama. I guess since the Dems do proportional delegates, Obama might play in NY/NJ, even though he's probably going to lose them both.

This is a good strategy for Obama IMO. If you can withstand the barrage of media coverage that would come with Clinton winning statewide yet make inroads in the delegate count by putting up a good showing in congressional districts, then Super Tuesday will be a success.

Of course, this was my thinking yesterday when John Edwards was still in the race. I thought that if the Demos got to the convention with HRC and Obama close in delegate count, then Edwards would shift his support to the other "change" agent, Obama, and thus give him the necessary delegates to claim the nomination. Now that Edwards is out, I'm not sure what to think!

jerseyhoya wrote:It doesn't matter.

Tell that to Al Gore.

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It doesn't matter.

Tell that to Al Gore.

Witty.

Did you read the part that you deleted from the reply?

Plus, Nader's part (the guy that "captures the imagination" of the fence-sitters) is being played by R. Paul right now.

jerseyhoya wrote:Dick Codey, the most popular politician in the State of NJ, will endorse Barack Obama.

Codey had been supporting Edwards.

*Obama is apparently planning to do statewide TV ads in states with statewide endorsers in them. Would be interesting to see if Grandpa Codey is used as a pitch guy for Obama. I guess since the Dems do proportional delegates, Obama might play in NY/NJ, even though he's probably going to lose them both.

Codey was to be an Edwards delegate; he's my State Senator and we got our sample ballots in the mail yesterday.

It again raised the bizarre specter of voting for Richard J. Codey in my polling place at the Richard J. Codey Arena at South Mountain. That has to violate some election law.

jerseyhoya wrote:

momadance wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It doesn't matter.

Tell that to Al Gore.

Witty.

Did you read the part that you deleted from the reply?

Yes, which has nothing to do with the effect on this election. I fail to see how this won't effect Hillary or how his effect on Kerry correlates to Hillary. People didn't despise Kerry they way they do Hillary or, at the time, Gore's close relationship with the Clinton's. Any fence-sitter (thanks Dude) that enters the race, whether it be Nader or Paul, is going to take votes from Hillary.

momadance wrote:Yes, which has nothing to do with the effect on this election. I fail to see how this won't effect Hillary or how his effect on Kerry correlates to Hillary. People didn't despise Kerry they way they do Hillary or, at the time, Gore's close relationship with the Clinton's. Any fence-sitter (thanks Dude) that enters the race, whether it be Nader or Paul, is going to take votes from Hillary.

It has more to do with this election than 2000. Nader cost Gore a shot at the White House. People learned. The number of people in this election that are going to vote for Nader over Clinton in a close state, but would vote for Clinton without having Nader on the ballot, is extremely small.

The Libertarian candidate will be on ballots as well. In some states so will the Constitution Party candidate. People looking to throw their votes away have plenty of options.

As of right now, the map next week looks very bad for Obama:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

He'll win Illinois, of course, and maybe Georgia, Alabama, Kansas and Colorado. And he's actually even in Connecticut and a bit ahead in Idaho--if you credit a poll from six months ago.

But Clinton will win the big two (NY, CA), New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts (gotta figure that 43 point lead will hold up even with Ted Kennedy's endorsement), Minnesota, Arizona, and likely most of the rest.

The question is, one, whether Obama will stay close enough in delegates to seriously extend the race beyond that, and two, whether the media will treat it as a non-decisive Clinton win on points or THE DEVASTATING KNOCKOUT BLOW THAT CLINCHES THE NOMINATION!

Meanwhile, he's now just six points back in the national Gallup poll. After a year in which many of us dismissed the national poll as meaningless and looked at the close state races in Iowa and NH and SC, this is a little ironic to say the least.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Libertarian candidate will be on ballots as well. In some states so will the Constitution Party candidate. People looking to throw their votes away have plenty of options.

Voting Libertarian (or 3rd party) is throwing your vote away? I beg to differ.