Sunday, April 16, 2006

Is Hillary Electable in 2008?

UPDATE, FEB. 11, 2008: The analysis in this old post still holds true, so I hope you read it -- but of course, there's a lot of more current data, so if you're interested in electability (or the current election in general) please visit VichyDems' home page. The most current posts on electability, at least as of today, are there (direct links here and here). Thanks! Thersites.

ORIGINAL POST:

Is Hillary Electable in 2008? That's the poll question today at JustHillary.com; please visit and vote NO.

Why? Because the DLC "centrism as an electoral strategy" has been a dismal failure. It cost Democrats the Congress in 1994 and stopped us from regaining it in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, and if Rahm Emanuel has his way, it will stop us from regaining it in 2006, too. The last thing we need is a controversial and manipulative candidate like Hillary riding the same non-wave to defeat in the Presidential election in 2008.

John Kerry's nomination over Howard Dean in 2004 demonstrated that Democratic power brokers only bless candidates they believe can win the general election. And John Kerry's nomination over Howard Dean in 2004 demonstrated that Democratic power brokers don't have a damned clue what electability really means: Dean would have hammered Bush, while Kerry triangulated his way to a narrow defeat, as triangulators always do.

So, though it's just a small-site poll (no insult; this is a small site too! It's just not exactly a Pew poll), please go tell whoever's watching that no, Hillary Clinton isn't electable, and her politics won't work, and her selfish - undercutting - of other Democratic candidates disqualifies her from serious consideration, and you're not fooled.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

5 comments:

Intrepid Liberal Journal said...

Amen!

lucretia said...

Theresites2:
I think the Dem Power Brokers did know very much. Why? Because Dean had no special interest money behind him,i.e. corporate money. Therefore,as Pres. he would not have had to cater in decision making to any of these interests, and most of all, at that time he would not have gone on with Iraq. Iraq and getting the Mid East oil in quantities to dominate the world is their long-time objective--not just GOP ideologues,but Dems too.

I've read thatGore would have done Iraq too. It would have been for this reason.

A candidate without special interest money is a HUGE threat to power brokers. The party would not have controlled Dean.

JJ said...

I think you should start with Zell Miller (over Joe Lieberman), but that's just my opinion (based on your descriptive title).

But to respond to this post: Howard Dean's loss and John Kerry's nomination were two separate phenomena. Howard Dean ran out of steam partially due to media manipulation and obsession with "The Scream," as well as the Dean campaign's lack of national campaign experience. They spent too much, far too soon. They alienated party insiders- and even if you are an "outsider" and banking on that cred to get you places, you still have to deal with the machinery as it stands today- not how you wish it to be. It's simply more complicated than a cabal sitting down together and deciding that John Kerry should be the nominee. The primary calendar for instance: 2004's calendar wasn't particularly helpful to anyone, except those states that moved up the ladder on the voting schedule.

You're living in fantasy land if you truly believe Howard Dean would have "hammered" Bush. Frankly, the candidates chosen were the best for the job; it just so happened that they were as uninspiring to the masses as many of us insiders believed.

Yes, Hillary is completely unelectible. She's got too much baggage; she's hated within the Party, let alone outside it. But I'm betting she gets really, tantalizingly close to the nomination.

lucretia said...

Jen Johnson: Dean's campaign was virtually over by the time the of the "scream." Iowa was a direct hit to Dean.

Yes the media was harsh. The media is controlled by six corporations favoring Bush, and especially candidates who they can control through their enormous contributions. Kerry baby was willing.

They could not control Dean.

Dean's campaign money was low by Iowa sure. Big forces were against him. But he would have got more and more from us if he had won. As it was he still raised a lot of money anyway.

Everyone was afraid of Dean including Bush. Bush had said he hoped the nominee would be Dean because he would be easier to beat. I wrote the S.F.Chronicle this was a Bush trick to influence people so another candidate would be nominee. They printed the letter, at least for its interest.

The Dean campaign no doubt alienated party leaders, you bet bigtime. When someone collects money without strings of course insiders get nervous. Where would a lot of them have been?

Most important the DLC/DCCC/DSCC group of candidates and leaders wanted THEIR hands on this election. Well they got it.

I do not think Kerry ever intended to win. He deliberately chose to do and say nothing. His speaking was poor without details about his economic plan, health plan in particular. I read them on his website in preparation to do some speaking. The plans were cumbersome to learn, and needed straight forward explaining. He never tried to do that,just referring to "my plan for this".

He did not contest the Ohio voting methods which were a mockery.

Frankly, unless Dean can make a difference over the years, we'll only have one party.

Welcome to the Future!

John said...

We would like to nominate you for a FreedomToBlog.com Best of Blog Entry.

Please visit our site at: http://www.freedomtoblog.com to submit your blog entry!

Benefits include:
1) Permanent Backlinks to your blog
2) Fully SEO optimized for maximum exposure
3) A chance to be published into a top 500 best of blog book"