Hillary in 08

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter for the US Presidency, but not a wholehearted one. I do think it would be useful for the US to move beyond the bizarre duopoly that has been in the White House or nearly since 1988.

But setting that quite large caveat aside, I think she's the best placed Democrat to win the Presidency and govern effectively, though probably not with the same levels of excitement as an Obama presidency. She gives a good aura of confidence, and she has had eight years' practice in Presidential politics up close and personal which would be a priceless advantage in running a competent administration.

Obama is a very attractive speaker and politician, but I get some of the same vibes off him I get off John Key. Great things to say but not enough to back them up.

So I was very relieved she hauled back from Iowa to win the New Hampshire primary election yesterday. It was a clear if not solid victory, and sets her up well for the big run through to 5 Feb.

What she needs now to do is to ensure her campaign a) stays focused on the future, and b) explores the more personable, emotional side of her as a human being. If she can do that, and not look and sound like reheated 1992 Clinton B, then I think she can both win the nomination and the Presidency. If she doesn't do both she risks not getting the chance to fight a general election, and perhaps more frighteningly leaving the Democrats with a nominee who cannot win.

Because I do not believe that Obama can win a general election against the current Republican Party. I think there is no depth to which they would not consider stooping, and that simply the intensity and vileness of what would be thrown at him would unbalance him more than would occur with Clinton.

Whoever gets it, they have a job to do. The Bush Administration has been so bizarrely, unbelievably, utterly useless and dangerous that to bring America back onto a path of sanity and stability is going to test the mettle of whoever gets the White House from Jan 09.

Comments

[AndrewDoherty]

And what depth of vileness would the Republicans not stoop to to prevent Clinton winning? There is at least as much material there if not more in my opinion. Obama has the advantage that he actually outpolls all of the Republican contenders. Take a look at this Zogby poll prior to the current Obamamania http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404, in December Clinton wasn't ahead of Huckabee, Giuliani or McCain! Obama will attract the votes of many independents, Clinton is unlikely to.

[sdm]

I think the question is Does Hillary carry too much baggage? The Clinton administration had a number of scandals, and Hillary has some things in her past that she would rather forget.

Her heathcare plan for instance from 1993 failed. She goes on about 'experiance' - what experiance? Being the first lady?

"I think there is no depth to which they would not consider stooping, and that simply the intensity and vileness of what would be thrown at him would unbalance him more than would occur with Clinton"

Why? Because The Clinton machine will fight fire with fire!

[BeShakey]

I think the point is that there is probably very little left to throw at Clinton, and she is still near the top. With Obama there hasn't been anywhere near the same level of scrutiny. No matter how squeaky clean he has been (and he's already admitted to a lot) I have no doubt that they will be able to dig up some dirt on him.
I don't necessarily support Clinton, but in terms of scrutiny, I think she is a much safer bet.

[stef]

Hillary still violates the 'pick the winner' principle. You underestimate the depth of hatred the US right has of her and if romney or more problematically hukabee get the republican nod, they'll be out in force.

[Sonia]

The problem with Obama is that he's got good things to say but there's not much substance behind his words.

The problem with Hilary is that she's been and is too much a part of the dodginess that makes up the upper echelon of politics. She'll do a lot if she's President, but only the stuff that fits her own personal agenda. That's not to say, though, that Barack Obama won't do things that align with his personal agenda.

[GNZ]

Hukabee is problematic for the republicans - he can get the Christians out in force but he can't get any of the rest of the republican base out. I'd say obama or Hillary would win against Huckabee.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/01/04/head-to-head-obama-vs-huckabee/
and
"Not surprisingly, Obama carried Massachusetts, California, New York, Oregon and Washington by relatively large margins. But he also took Virginia--which hasn't voted for a Democrat in a Presidential election since 1964--by 9 points. He carried swing states Iowa and Wisconsin--each decided by just 1 point in 2004--by double figures, and Minnesota by 5 points. He technically took Ohio, but the margin was just 1 point.

All of the states Huckabee won were carried by President Bush in 2004. His weakest margins of victory were in the Southwest and Midwest states of New Mexico and Missouri. He also carried Kansas, Kentucky and Alabama."

the christain movement is great at turning out but thats a big margin to overcome particularly with very few undecideds who like Huckabee.

[Millsy]

Have any of you guys read Stephen Baxter's Titan? It was written in the late 1990's and had a subplot about a far right religous Republican candidate who wins the 2008 election. Looking at Romney and Huckabee, I find life imitating art.

Remember there is still a long way to go yet :-)

My pick, is John Edwards v John McCain. Obama is better off serving an apprenticeship as a running mate and then running proper in 2016, while Hillary has too much baggage. America is ready for a female president, but it wont be Mrs Clinton (do you really want power alternating between 2 families?) John McCain is a more moderate figure for the GOP.

[DS]

The problem with Hillary is that huge swathes of America see her as a Lady Macbeth figure; this negative persona has been relentlessly perpetuated by right-wingers for a decade and a half to the point where it is an inbuilt part of their psychology. Hillary would still win the presidency (as would pretty much any Democrat at the moment), but the margin would be narrower than it otherwise would be the case - the Republicans would immediately drop their current suicidal infighting in order to run on an "anyone but Hillary" platform. Moreover, the Democratic candidates competing in congressional and state elections in "red states" would get hammered by this sudden Republican mobilisation: significant because any incoming Democratic President would need some fairly hefty congressional majorities in order to effect a real progressive agenda.

Obama will come under attack, but it will be impromtu attack, rather than a playing on 16 years of propaganda (as would be the case with the anti-Hillary targeting), and it is unlikely that Obama will be a sitting duck a la Kerry in 2004. Obama's major support base also happens to be among younger voters, who have previously not voted in US elections. If Obama were the nominee, a high turnout by blacks (who are ultra-Democratic) and these newly mobilised younger voters could have significant "down ticket" effects on the congressional elections. Don't forget that a state like Mississippi (normally reactionary Republican) is actually 40% black and a state where Kerry outpolled Bush among younger voters in 2004 - if those two groups increased their turnout, life could suddenly interesting.

[Rich]

The main rightwing criticism of Hillary (aside from the reasonable one of disagreeing with her policies) concerns the form of relationship she wants to have. Now for me this is a completely unwarranted intrusion into her private life. But there are, I suppose, a bunch of people who think otherwise, or at least think that attacking people for their personal lifestyle choices isn't as bad as attacking them for their race.

On the other hand, attacking Obama for being black is pretty unreconstructed, however you try and spin it.

[Simon]

Clinton has said a couple of stupid things about the US military and Iraq. She is toast if she runs against a Republican. Obama may be wrong about Iraq but he actually hasn’t insulted anyone.

2004 the Dems ran with anyone but Bush. 2008 the republicans will ran anyone but Clinton. She is loathed by the republican base and they will get out to vote. The republicans will probably stay home if Obama is running.