I kid you not, I'd trust Nancy Reagan more than Hillary.

And the fact I would like to see investigated first is, did suburban soccer moms really vote for George W Bush in 2000 and, particularly, 2004? If so, why?

sPh

I've never trusted Hillary since she abandoned the health care issue when it got tough. She then abandoned the village. She has now marched off to war.

Democrats sold out on health care. That is a genuinely major issue. We proved to Americans that we lacked character, resolve, persistence, dedication and the faith to see a tough issue through.

We have offered Americans no reason to believe they can trust us on any other big issue.

I don't trust Hillary and I really don't trust the people who back her.

I wouldn't trust or listen to anything James Carville said. He sleeps with a fascist bitch who has made a career out of creating false propaganda to disseminate to the American public on behalf of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

If James Carville is a decent American and a good Democrat, how could he let his children anywhere near that monster, Mary Matalin or even stand to be in the same room with her?

Carville and Matalin market their marriage as a Punch and Judy Show for grownups. Maybe some people found their act amusing before the war but now it is nauseating to watch the two of them pretend to be anything more than a couple of charlatans out for a buck.

Mrs. Goebbels may have been a charming and entertaining lady but you wouldn't let her lead the German resistance, would you?

Get Carville out of the public's eye and stop him from representing Democrats now!

Hillary's postion on Iraq is a loser for most women. She' so determined not to be called a flip-flopper, like Kerry, that she's clinging to a bad position. It just makes her look pig-headed instead of rational. Women voters want a candidate who is strong but compassionate. Why else do you think Bush invented that nonsensical phrase "compassionate conservative"? He didn't do it to attract the male voters. IMO, there are a number of strong, compassionate women in politics--Barbara Boxer, Louise Slaughter, Jan Schakowsky, among others--but Hillary isn't one of them.

This reminds me of a comment my junior-high-school government teacher made. He wondered why, if women were the majority of the electorate, they didn't rule the world -- they could monopolize every vote!

It took me longer than I care to admit to figure out why this bothered me, but it's quite simple: all women are not the same. As Reed says, it then becomes a question of whether gender will be an overriding consideration for female voters -- or even for male voters.

PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.

Who are these women who would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat? And a better question, where are they? I live in New York and I don't know a single woman who doesn't explode at the very suggestion of an HRC presidential run. And anyway, if these guys really think women are backward enough to vote for someone purely out of gender loyalty, what are they going to do if Condi runs? After all, she at least didn't need a man to make her famous and powerful.

(Just the thought of a Rice vs. Clinton race has me so depressed I think I'm going to run downtown and see if I can't cancel my voter registration.)

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose a Hillary candidacy, most of which have been discussed on this post.

But I really don't think that the Riding-Bill's-Coattails thing is either fair or right. Like her or loathe her, the fact is that she's whip-smart and tough. She maintained her own career for the bulk of their married life. To say that she's somehow only successful because of him to me smacks of the ancient idea that a married woman is necessairly subsumed into her husband. She was well on her way to sucess before marrying Bill and has continued after him.

Carville and Penn left the word "Iraq" out of their op/ed. No discussion of 08 is complete without the word "Iraq," and that's Hillary's weak spot. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

PS: I think Hillary is the second- or third-most polarizing figure in the U.S. political landscape.  George W comes first, obviously.  The trick is to figure out whether to count Bill.... 

That, to me, is a key question on her electability.  It seems (anecdotal evidence here, but then I'm not a pollster) that about half the people love Hillary, the other half hate her.  She probably wouldn't have the chance to "let the voters get to know" her.  From the murky depths of memory, I recall that campaigns rarely bring down a candidate's negative numbers, though they can increase the positive ones.  If that axiom is correct, well, Hillary would be in a lot of trouble in a general election. 

PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Hillary can win. Next question: why should we want her to? True, she'd be superior to what we have now, but that is true of any Democratic candidate and some of the Republican ones.

Who is Hillary when you brush away the fairy dust? An undistinguished junior senator with a drab personality. 

During her time as First Lady Mrs. Clinton was associated with one major policy initiative -- national health insurance.  Shall we elect her on the basis of that performance? 

What will be her slogan? "National Health Care: This time I won't muff it"?

There is a problem with an inordinate focus on "electability."  Didn't folks in Iowa think they were voting for the "electable" candidate when they threw their support to John Kerry?  That's certainly what the smart money was saying at the time.  Turned out the smart money was wrong.  He was an intelligent man with an admirable record, but a terribly weak campaigner.

There is hubris in the belief that one can determine who is electable in advance of their being tested in the heat of a national campaign.  Hillary is a plausible candidate.  Edwards, Vilsak, Gore, Feingold, Warner, et al. are also plausible candidates.

To me the interesting question is not who is "electable" but who is worth electing?  My mind is open on that question.  I am even prepared to be surprised by Hillary, but I am not optimistic based on past performance. 

Ovid

I don't think she looks pig-headed; I think she looks like she will do ANYTHING -- whatever it takes to get the nomination. And that is precisely why she cannot get elected, and should not get the nomination.

Jan Knaus

... which is why they left it out.

Tom

Good thing about the article: Yes, Hillary does have avid supporters, no doubt especially among women. Best thing of all about article: Yes, the GOP slime machine and the compliant media will go far to make anyone unelectable, so let's not preclude someone now on that score (and similarly, stop blaming Kerrey, Edwards, and Gore, all of whom should stand on their merits again). If the playing field were level, the next election would be a joke, and instead it's a contest.

Most illogical thing about article: the existence of Hillary haters (beyond us who oppose the war, I mean, more the kind who hate her for "letting" her husband have an affair or for being a commie), while irrational to me, is not fairly equated to openness to Swiftboating. Most insidious thing about the article: all about electability, and it's about time we stopped trying to second guess the polls and move the democratic process forward, by advancing people and ideas we care about. The GOP does. Oh, and I agree with those who find Carville a problem for the Democrats. (I'm sure Penn the pollster just does his job.)

Most illogical thing about this thread: brings out judgments on her war record, which is meaningful to me but off topic. Most overblown thing: the dynasty issue. Bush would never have got to governor or even out of jail without family, but his father probably swayed few voters in 2000, given how popular that president was. Similarly, Clinton got this far from publicity alone, but from now on, let her fend for herself, knowing that her husband may even be a negative. Of course, I'm backing others, but I'll respect her if she pulls it off.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Mike

I'd vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if that was the choice of the Democratic Party. But currently my thinking is that I rather that her name not be the name heading the ticket.  In fact, I rather hope she doesn't enter the Presidential Primary Contest this time around.  I take this view not because of anything particular she has said, though I disagree with what I think is an overly clever attempt to avoid offending any democrat by deliberately blurring her position on the Iraq debacle.  John Kerry has had the courage to admit he was wrong, wouldn't it be nice for Hillary Clinton to follow his example?

But the principal reason I hope she doesn't run is not that she'd be divisive, but that she'd become the principal subject of the debate.  What we're seeing in this post and in this thread, to wit, endless variations on the theme,  is Hillary electable or isn't she?,  would so dominate the discussion that the ideas we are passionate about  would be obscured, if not obliterated.  I'd like the campaign to be about health care, about social security, about clean air and clean water, about dignity for everyone, about a living wage, about an end to even the hint of toleration of torture, and about a sane and just foreign policy, rather than a debate about the electability or unelectability of Senator Clinton.

Mike

To me the interesting question is not who is "electable" but who is worth electing?  My mind is open on that question.  I am even prepared to be surprised by Hillary, but I am not optimistic based on past performance. 

Amen.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I recently heard Senator Clinton give 2/3 of a fine speech at the Take Back America Conference.  She was articulate, succinct, funny, and convincing.  Then she assayed foreign policy:  that section was masterful, in its way... but not masterful in a way I appreciate.  It seemed to me that every phrase was carefully crafted to leave listeners of whatever stripe believing that Clinton believed as they did, more or less.  That might have worked if the audience were more naive.  Alas, the audience to whom she was speaking was anything but naive. 

Here’s one of Carville and Penn’s key arguments, and to me the most powerful one: Pundits and fundraisers and activists may be unsure of whether Hillary can get elected president, but Democratic voters, particularly Democratic women and even independent women, are thrilled with the idea.

Here's one democratic woman who isn't thrilled with the idea. I would vote for her if I didn't have a choice, but I would prefer someone else instead.

Mary from RI,

Get off your high horse. Did you forget "President Clinton had a bill, E-I-E-I-O. And in that bill was lots of pork, E-I-E-I-O. . . ." on the floor of the United States Senate?

Or maybe you don't remember that Senator Al spent six years "investigating" the Clintons? New Yorkers got so sick of listening to his shit, they threw him out of office in 1998.

Since you are not from New York, maybe you don't know that Senator Al and his pals like George Pataki and Charlie Gargano have made New York State a cesspool of corruption.

Read my post about Senator Al and Hillary Clinton and maybe you will "get it".

If I offended your delicate sense of decorum, tough shit.

Would you prefer "Hillary Rodham Clinton is crawling up Al D'Amato's ass"? 

Hillary is simply not electable. If the Dems believe she has "as good a chance as any" then they are in for another four years of Republican rule...

Hillary has a stigma with too many people across the United States. Though Bush is far more unpopular, the Clinton name carries with it a lot of powerful enemies.

The gender issue is the reason why Hillary will not be elected. There are simply too many men who will not vote for her. The Dems know by now that California and New York alone cannot win elections. If Rudy Giulliani runs and gets the GOP nomination I would argue that he could take it, thus ending any debate.

But alas, the Giulliani argument is as speculative as the Hillary nomination argument. I'm still of the persuasion that Dean, et al. will convince her not to run in exchange for a high cabinet post in the next Democratic administration...

HB, Mary from RI et al,

Maybe you don't like the way I talk about Hillary Clinton but there is a point to it. D'Amato is a right-wing Republican of the skeeviest kind. He will turn around a stick a knife in Clinton's back when it most benefits him and the Republican Party.

Clinton is a f**king idiot who thinks she can make deals with people like Al D'Amato. You can't. The Republicans have been putting together a portfolio of Clinton's transgressions since 2001 in anticipation of her run for the presidency.

Anything Clinton says to D'Amato goes straight back to Karl Rove.

Remember the Hassidic community in upstate New York where all 1200 members voted for Hillary Clinton in 2001 and the Republicans claimed that it was a payoff for Bill Clinton's pardon of four members of the community?

It was a setup. The 1200 votes did not matter to Hillary Clinton - she won by 3 million votes. The Hassidic Jews were out to embarrass Hillary Clinton. Everyone but Hillary Clinton knows the Hassidic Jews are rabid right-wingers.

Y'all better be sure cash did not change hands when Bill Clinton pardoned those four Hassidic Jews. If it did, believe me, it will come out in 2008.

For six years, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been running around New York State clueless as to how New York State politics really works.

Bill Clinton was cozying up to Tom Golisano not too long ago. Golisano is another one who will stick the knife in Hillary Clinton's back without a second thought.

Trust me, PageSix has been compiling a dossier of dirt on the Clintons ever since they moved to New York. The cockroaches will come out of the woodwork in 2008.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

George Bush definitely got a lot of votes in 2000 because of name recognition and his connection to his father. He would not even have been Governor of Texas in the first place had he not been his father's son.

Hillary Clinton suffers from the nation being weary of the Bush/Clinton partisanship. She is right smack in the middle of it, and a Clinton candidacy in 2008 would simply prolong the continuing madness.

Also, I don't particularly like her as a candidate. I'm tired of caving Dems.

That is why there is a Dem Primary in 2008.

May the best woman or man win.

For me--I like Mark Warner, Wesley Clark or John Edwards. But if Hillary wins--then we will support her.

I believe she could win but Warner, Clark or Edwards have a bigger chance of winning.

Oh, pardon me - I forgot liberals are supposed to spend all of their time blathering about Barack Obama and the Holy Rollers, not what a real election is going to be like.

If your idea of taking the offensive is hitting the "0" button, kiss this election and the next one good-bye.

If you don't like what I'm saying, just wait and see what the Republicans have in store if Hillary Clinton runs for president. The Swiftboaters were using Kerry for target practice.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have some dirt to dig on Republicans who, by definition, are all corrupt and worthless scum.

Mary from RI & sphealey -See how easy it is to be as articulate as you two!

Neither of you have the decency to spend two minutes and tell me what it is you object to in my comments. I have not written anything here about Hillary Clinton that I haven't already written in the TPM Cafe. Perhaps you are both big fans of Alphonse D'Amato?

As far as am I concerned, the two of you owe me an apology or, at the very least, an explanation.

If you want to reconsider your zeros, I'll reconsider mine.

If you want to keep this little game going, I'll nail both of you to the wall.

Thank you so much for that insightful comment, sphealey. Until I read it, I was unaware that the Republicans had gladly ceded the 2008 election to Hillary Clinton.

You must have the inside skinny on Republican strategy. Come on, 'fess up - you know a Republican strategist, don't you? How else could you have possibly known that the Republicans plan to select a base-pandering loser to run in 2008?

Where do you get your remarkable insight? How in the world did you deduce that the Republicans will resort to obstruction and bitter attacks after the 2008 election? What an astute and observant remark! What foresight!

I am a bit puzzled as to your comment about the Republicans holding on to one house of Congress. As far as I am aware, the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and have not ceded control of either one to the Democrats as of yet. Do you have the inside scoop here, too?

I'm telling you,sphealy, do your country a favor and get yourself down to Democratic National Headquarters immediately. You need to set everyone straight on which way the Republicans are headed. Democrats need your guidance!

Okay, I'll confess - your comment about 'Norquist's "political' exile" with a Rovian twist' was way over my head. Try as I would, I could not make heads or tails of it. I envy your political sophistication and the way you succinctly wrap up the issues. "Political exile with a Rovian twist" will become part of the political lexicon, I'm sure.

I look forward to more of your dazzling commentary in the future!

I wasn't doing either. I was just providing further information. These women are professionals, often active in politics, who give money and would prefer or want a Democrat in the presidency in 2009.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Gettysburg:

I don't buy that argument that Hillary is not electable.

About a third of the electorate thinks she is the devil incarnate. They absolutely loathe the Hillary they see, the caricature of her (ambitious pol? duh, as if anyone serious about seeking the presidency is not?) that has been created over the years. This group can, and does, create an enormous amount of noise.

The middle third or so, the folks whose votes decide close elections, are not consumed with Hillary hatred. They are going to evaluate her merits on a much cooler basis, looking at what she says, how competent they think she is, etc.

Re her unfavorable ratings, sure they are very high, reflecting the core group that hates her. But that group by itself doesn't decide the election. The flip side of this coin is that, with virtually everyone in the country believing they know who Hillary is and having some sort of opinion about her, what is remarkable is the percentage who don't have a negative view of her. Especially when you consider that her opponents have already thrown the kitchen sink at her.

Also, the Republicans are in peak self-destructive form whenever the topic is Bill or Hillary. They just start to twitch.

The Republican political pros know that the Clintons know how to run very, very good campaigns. They know how to get opponents on the defensive. They raise money. They respond to attacks quickly and effectively, etc. So when you hear Republican talking heads talking about what a suicidal act it would be for Dems to nominate Hillary, etc., bear in mind that for some of them she is the last Dem they want to run against.

Is it conceivable Hillary could win Ohio? I don't see why not.

None of the above is meant to indicate that I am supporting her, or whether I believe she is the Dem with the best chance in '08. But I do think the folks who offer the "non-electability" argument are probably incorrect about that. I really don't know why the Post printed a column co-authored by a pollster who declined to share any data supporting what he was saying. I haven't checked to see what Ruy T and Stan Greenberg, among others, to see if they've weighed in on this matter.