Centerfield

Astute reasoning. Hopefully, Clark and Gore will rise to the top - a real choice for democrats.

Posted by: George at January 17, 2006 11:28 PM

That sounds like a sureity to me. And I'd bet she will "withraw" as late as possible to maximize her standing. Al Gore? If I could lay $100 at those odds I'd be set for life.

Posted by: Dennis at January 17, 2006 11:54 PM

The right has been salivating for a Hillary run for the White House. I think you hit it on the head in point 'one'. Conservatives dislike her, for those that think 'actively hate' is too strong a phrase. I agree that it is more along the line of hate, though. The GOP could run a homeless, high-school drop-out crack-fiend in that race. All that candidate would have to be able to say for the entire campaign is 'I'm not Hillary', and they would win. GOP turnout would reach staggering heights. You would see US Voter Turnout above 70%.

Posted by: Scott at January 18, 2006 12:02 AM

I have struggled with this question. From a purely objective prospective, I think that she probably accepts that it would be almost impossible to win because of her high negatives in addition to the gender glass ceiling. But I also think that the possibility of (1) being the first woman president, and (2) being the first spouse of a former president to be elected may prove too tempting.

Does anyone think that she would accept the VP spot if offered from, say, Mark Warner? (Personally, I don't.)

Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 18, 2006 12:42 AM

I think you make some good points, but there are a few things in my mind that assure me she will run.

Hillary really, really, really, really, really, really wants to be President. If she opts out now she runs the risk of having to wait another eight years for the nomination. That means going through another Senate election, and the competition may not be as weak as this round. Despite all the strikes againsnt her, this may be her best opportunity to get back to the White House. And did I mention that she really, really, really, really wants to be President?

Posted by: Clint at January 18, 2006 01:58 AM

Oberon,

If your third point is correct, then I believe your prediction will be spot-on. Having said that, however, I'm not necessarily convinced that she believes that, and I would never underestimate the power of her advisors (living in a dreamworld of their own where the Democrats won the White House in 2000 and 2004 landslides and are a lock to win in 2008) to convince her that she really can win if she runs. Jesse Jackson and Agosto Pinochet both fell for their own staffs' propaganda to their own misfortune.

Don't know enough about Governor Warner to know if he's locked up anything, but it will be interesting to see.

Posted by: Bobby at January 18, 2006 03:14 AM

I agree that my third point is the weakest link in the chain. Most people (self included) have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.

Posted by: Oberon at January 18, 2006 07:10 AM

Clark and Gore will rise to the top - a real choice for democrats.

Care to expand on that thought? (The "real choice" part.)

Posted by: David Fleck at January 18, 2006 08:36 AM

There seems to be no way in Hades that Hillary could win the Presidency, and your points above are just a few of the solid reasons why. She may even have trouble winning the Coasts, not to mention the South. As you said, the hard Left isn't that fond of her, and the right hates her with every fiber of their being. The fact is, the only ones REALLY pushing for her to run are the well-fed elites that she appeals to, and Republicans.

Although the way Republicans talk about her, I sometimes suspect that they're really afraid she might win. It scares them to death.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at January 18, 2006 11:09 AM

Rafique is correct. The right despises Hillary, they love to talk about how un-electable she is, but the fact that they haven't beaten her in NY scares them (although it probably HELPS their fundraising) and the thought of a Hillary presidency scares them even more.

Posted by: scott at January 18, 2006 01:12 PM

I suspect that Hilary has more patience than Clint suggests. Which would make waiting, even an extra 8 years, worth the increased chances of winning.

Of course, if she is really, really, really intent on being President, the clever move would be to do another term in the Senate, and then become Governor of New York. Governors win the Presidency vastly more often than Senators.

Posted by: wj at January 18, 2006 01:25 PM

I think Hillary would be better served as the VP or in the cabinent. This would better set her up at a run eight years later, assuming the Democrats win in 2008, which is a big assumption.

Hillary wasn't a VP contender in 2004 not only because she wasn't going to settle for it, but also because the electoral math was abysmal. Of course why Kerry picked Edwards is beyond me. The south is locked up.

I don't believe Gore will run again, although it would be interesting if he did. I think he's found a soul somewhere between 2000 and now.

I believe the best bets for the Democrats in 2008 are either Warner, who could arguably put Virginia in play. He's impressively popular in his state. But it really depends on how visable he can keep himself until 2008.

Another is Richardson from New Mexico, who could put the southwest into play. He served as ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and Governor of New Mexico. He was also considered a protogee of Clinton. He has the credentials, but that's not always enough.

Posted by: StantheMan at January 18, 2006 04:05 PM

I think HC wants to be President, and people who want to be President run if they think they have a decent window, because they know there's no such thing as an ideal window.

I suspect that by 2008 "time for a change" sentiment will be high. She's got more stink of a winner on her than Gore, Kerry, or Clark. So I think she can win the dem nom. And I think that if she draws the right GOP opponent, she can win the presidency. If the GOP runs a darling of the social conservatives, I think she'll clean his clock. Against a moderate or a charismatic guy like McCain, she'd have trouble.

High negatives just tell us who's already decided. How many of the people who just despise anything Clinton are people who really might vote for some other democrat. If you can show me 100 people who have highly negative reactions to HC, I can probably show you at least 65-75 people who will NEVER vote for a democrat. Then, among the remaining 25-35 people, I'll show you 24-34 who would vote for HC if they felt her opponent was more of a turd.

Posted by: bk at January 18, 2006 04:37 PM

I agree with that. If, say, Allen gets the Republican nod, or even Frist, then Hillary has a chance.

But if it's McCain, then that's a different story.

A winning GOP ticket would be McCain/Rice. It would appeal to the moderates and the neocons alike, and nothing short of a Democratic miracle could stop it.

Posted by: StantheMan at January 18, 2006 04:55 PM

I agree 100%. And I hope she doesn't run. More importtantly, I hope registered democrats are smart enough to nominate someone else.

A top book reviewer on Amazon, Robert Steele (moderate Republican) is disgusted with national politics. He fully recognizes the need for a newer style fresh candidates who truly exemplify the best of each party. He was actually a huge Dean supporter in 2004 because, negative publicity aside, he liked the substance and fresh perspective the Dean brought to the table. I can't say I disagree with him. His republican pick in McCain (ofcourse!). He thinks that match up gives America the best choice and the best outcome regardless of who wins.

Like Mr. Steele, I'm angry when "America gets the candidates and government it deserves" because of ignorance, partisanship and general apathy to the political process...this last one is worsened when we continually put up candidates that do nothing to change the DC culture that so many people rightfully hate.

Posted by: John at January 18, 2006 05:56 PM

The right has been salivating for a Hillary run for the White House.

What say those of you who feel you have a finger on the pulse of the right?

We know that the right's distaste for all things Clinton runs high anbd deep, that's a given. But from my distance as an independent libertarian/neo-liberal centrist, I sense more fear and dread than eagerness. What do those of you who lean right think? Are conservatives more of a mind that Clinton would get her clock cleaned, or do they just wish this, even as they feel uncertain of whether it's really true?

After all, people hate and fear that which they don't feel they understand. Which is not to say that I believe conservatives think that they don't understand liberals. Most true partisans look down their noses at the other side as hopeless. They think that they fullly understand and can easily reject the other side's viewpoints. What they are then left failing to understand is why other Americans could possibly vote for the other guys. So what they fear is the possibility that enough dummies making the wrong choice will lead the nation further astray.

I think the facts that Bill Clinton was elected twice and that Hillary has already been in the white house, has been elected senator, and that she talks reasonably toughly on foreign policy has been enough to give a seeming majority of conservatives more of a healthy clinton dread than a thirst for a rematch. At least that's what I've sensed.

I actually sense more doubt about HC's viability from independents and liberals. If any sentiment is likely to derail HC's viability, I think it will be a distaste of the silent middle for a re-fighting of the Clinton era battles. But the last election was a battle fought on partisan terms, where both sides worked harder than ever to bring out their bases. IMO neither base is inclined to eschew divisive figures. And while the GOP might be persuaded to embrace a more moderate figure to keep the white house, I think the outsider resentment of Democrats makes them more likely to want a standard-bearer. And I think HC gets granted that as being in her genes. She can get away with more hawkishness in the primaries than most other viable democratic candidates.

Posted by: bk at January 19, 2006 11:20 AM