« World Cup Draw | Main | We've Lost Our King of Comedy »
December 11, 2005
Clinton Train
Shakes here...
Writing in Congressional Quarterly, Craig Crawford takes a look at the issues for Dems with having a presumed nominee in Hillary Clinton. There’s not a ton of new stuff here—Clinton is a controversial and divisive figure; she has serious fundraising ability; her stature intimidates those who might criticize her—but I found his suggestion of a litmus test for sorting out serious contenders rather interesting.
None of her challengers show any inclination to explicitly make the charge that she can’t win against the Republican nominee. For starters, doing so would probably end any possibility of becoming Clinton’s running mate.
That’s my test for separating serious rivals from those who are just auditioning to join a Clinton ticket. Those who can’t find a way to publicly speak to party concerns about Clinton’s general-election appeal will not be serious presidential contenders in my book.
Crawford thinks John Edwards, who “has no interest in playing second banana a second time” and “recently showed a penchant for plain talk, announcing unequivocally that he made a mistake in voting for the Iraq war resolution,” is the most likely credible candidate to go negative on Hillary. If an aversion to second fiddle is the best indicator of a probability of going negative, I would suggest John Kerry, who shows no signs of a reluctance to run again, is just as likely to be first out of this particular gate.
What do you think? Do you agree with Crawford’s test? Do you think someone other than the last two names on the ticket will go negative on Hillary? Will going negative on her backfire and make her more sympathetic? Thoughts on any tactics to derail the Clinton train?
(Hat tip Political Wire.)
December 11, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8349a01e369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Train:
Comments
I sort of doubt that Edwards will do it, given that he generally doesn't go negative on other Democrats. But I wouldn't rule it out, for the reasons Crawford offers.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Dec 11, 2005 2:14:58 PM
That was my thought about Edwards, too, Neil. The one thing Edwards has going for him is his ability to deliver a negative critique without it sounding terribly negative.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Dec 11, 2005 2:37:27 PM
1. It won't be a candidate; it'll be a friendly journalist cut-out. Or maybe a major blog. Someone's important aide will make a compelling case X that Hillary can't win to the cut-out, and it will get presented as the cut-out's analysis.
2. I don't think Hillary's got a shot at the nomination. She just doesn't have the skills of the Big Horse. And I think the flag thing is get turned around on her.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 11, 2005 2:41:59 PM
I also take the sign that Hillary can't post numbers much past 40% as a sign that she's perfectly vulnerable in the primaries. Someone with high favorables and low unfavorables -- John Edwards, or some heretofore unknown to most voters candidate like Mark Warner or Evan Bayh -- can win a couple of primaries, get the wind at his or her back, and take on Hillary.
I'm also not clear on how the talent primary is playing out. Edwards and Warner have the inside track to most of the DLC staff that's worth taking (that is, everybody but Al From). Where people like Sasso, Whouley, and David Axelrod go is so far unclear.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Dec 11, 2005 3:54:52 PM
And I think the flag thing is get turned around on her.
The war thing, too.
Posted by: antid_oto | Dec 11, 2005 3:55:24 PM
Wesley Clark strikes me as the candidate who can most credibly make the Hillary-can't-win argument.
I'm not convinced Hillary will run, but if she does, her numbers are among Democrats are pretty formidable (she's hardly the only Dem to support flag-burning and she's already edging away from a staunchly pro-war position). I don't personally think the Hil-can't-win argument coming from Kerry or Edwards is going to slow her down much.
Posted by: Laura | Dec 11, 2005 5:15:38 PM
As somebody pointed out on some blog, she hasn't been in New Hampshire since 1996. She's not going to run.
Posted by: J Bean | Dec 11, 2005 5:43:52 PM
As opposed to going negative on her for her general election appeal, I would rather see candidates get out of the gate early and question her on the issues. That way, primary voters can decide if they like her because of her name, or because of her position, and if she wins, the perception of her general electability won't have been so directly assailed. Besides, I can't stand when the debate between candidates becomes a debate about the horse race. That's what the entire 2004 primary seemed to be about.
Posted by: Jesse | Dec 11, 2005 6:20:47 PM
By all means, go negative on Hillary! She SUCKS! She shows herself to be a woman of absolutely no ethics or moral courage, nor even a simple point of view of her own. She is driven by polls and focus groups through the dirty toilet water of the DLC. She takes whatever tack the DLC misthinks is THE winning position this time...finally.
She has no real position on Iraq. She has no real position on abortion. Her position is politically calculated at any given any moment. The problem is she politically miscalculated on the Iraq war and is now squarely stuck with her incorrect position. At least Edwards had courage to admit his error. She can't bring herself to admit Iraq was a complete error and unethical to boot. She is closer to Lieberman than to proper Dems.
She needs to be flushed from the Presidential lineup. She sucks. She sucks hard. She sucks BIG.
Posted by: Praedor Atrebates | Dec 11, 2005 6:34:25 PM
She sucks. She sucks hard. She sucks BIG.
I'll refrain from making a Lewinsky joke.
I think her speech on abortion was a good one; making the Anti-choicers look even more extreme. I also think she has as decent a shot as anybody at winning the general, so I agree we should discuss issues this time instead of 'electability'
As far as staffers, I'm just thanking God that Bob Shrum has retired.
Posted by: joey joe joe shabado | Dec 11, 2005 11:51:42 PM
The more time passes it seems more likely Hillary will become negative for many in the Democratic party rank and file - see flag legislation discussion. I doubt, however, that it would be enough to derail her presumed nomination.
I have never liked or disliked Hillary passionately,I liked her but not enthuastically. I have thought whenever someone voiced thoughts on the possibility/probability of her candidacy, that she CAN'T win against ANY GOP candidate. So do I think she would get the Democratic nomination? - yes. Of course I think, that this would prove once and for all to many Democrats and all Republicans, that the Democratic party doesn't want to win and isn't a serious threat.
And while I have been mild on her in the past, if she doesn't stop trying to be everything to everyone in her quest for the center-right voters that are NEVER going to vote for her, she will be edging up higher and higher on my "never for for, even if hell is freezing over" list.
Posted by: ET | Dec 12, 2005 12:34:18 PM
Of course, there's also the school of thought that says any Democrat, who is nominated for 2008, will win the general election -- any Democrat.
If Hillary induces the greatest possible psychic suffering on the Right, then she is the right candidate.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Dec 16, 2005 7:32:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
