Posted on 01/29/2006 12:49:56 AM PST by MadIvan
THE frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is heading into a hail of opposition from within her own party after a poll showed last week that most Americans would “definitely” not vote for her.
Aides in Bill Clinton’s White House are warning she could be a risky choice. To their left, an anti-war “stop Hillary” bandwagon is gathering momentum, threatening her ability to unite the Democrats.
Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary, fears the 2008 campaign could be brutal for the former first lady, now a senator for New York. He remembers how she became a “lightning rod” for the right during her husband’s years in office.
“She has proven that she works hard at being senator and does that job well, but bringing the country together and moving it in a different direction is an entirely different matter,” McCurry said. “It is very hard to reinvent yourself in politics.”
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last week found that 51% of Americans “definitely” would not vote for her and only 16% said they definitely would. Among men, 60% said they would not vote for her.
Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, said there was “nervousness” among Democrats about backing such a controversial figure at a time when many Americans believe President George W Bush had polarised the country.
Like McCurry, he wondered whether Clinton was “the kind of lightning rod that would stimulate all of the opposition” and resurrect the “hate side of the political agenda”.
“Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? We’ve been through the Clintons, we’ve been through the Gores, we’ve been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics,” Panetta said.
Bush described Clinton as “formidable” in an interview ahead of his annual State of the Union address this Tuesday. Republicans are determined not to underestimate her voter appeal in 2008, particularly as they are short of well-known candidates.
“This is an unusual year because this is the first time there hasn’t been a kind of natural successor in the party,” Bush said.
The Democrats have a new rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are anxious to win, but he remains little known on the national scene.
The doubts about Clinton’s electoral viability have surfaced as she romps towards re-election as New York senator this year.
She has already seen off one Republican challenger — whose campaign was reduced to tatters — and last week dispatched another, Ed Cox, the son-in-law of former president Richard Nixon. He turned down his party’s increasingly desperate pleas to stand.
Clinton’s modest success with voters in small-town upstate New York is taken by some as proof that she can win over conservatives, although according to last week’s poll, 90% of Republicans will “definitely” not vote for her.
New Republic magazine, the left-of-centre weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the South and Midwest. “She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage,” it warned.
Clinton’s hawkish stance on the war on terror, Iraq and Iran has infuriated the anti-war movement. Molly Ivins, a left-wing commentator, wrote last week she would not support her for president. “Enough,” she fumed. “Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone.”
McCurry believes that, contrary to legend, Clinton is a conviction politician rather than “a wild-eyed liberal”, yet were she to become president her divisive reputation could get in the way of her programme for government. “It would not be a comfortable place to be hunkered in a bunker for four to eight years getting pelted by the Republicans with rotten tomatoes,” he said.
Clinton is waiting for her Senate race to be over in November before making a final decision on whether to stand. There is no doubt she would love to return to the White House, this time with Bill as “first gentleman”.
The further away he is from the centre of power, the more Bill Clinton has gained in popularity. If he returns to the fray, the cash-for-pardons scandal at the end of his presidency and the minutiae of his sex life are likely to be re-examined. And after two Bushes in the White House, two President Clintons could be regarded as overly dynastic.
In the Senate, Clinton has forged political alliances on such issues as heathcare with the rightwinger Newt Gingrich and on the environment with Senator John McCain, a 2008 Republican contender. According to McCurry, she is enjoying the role of consensus-maker.
“She clearly understands there is a real need to re-establish some sense of bipartisan co-operation and has to assess, ‘Could I be that kind of leader?’ That takes you to the question the polls raise, which is: would she get that opportunity?”
Clinton has raised more than $15m (£8.5m) for her Senate re-election campaign, which could be diverted to a White House run. She has all the name recognition, money and ambition a candidate could want, but is keeping her options open about whether to stand.
“Sometimes presidential campaigns take on a momentum of their own and they become inevitable,” said McCurry, “but she is wise enough to avoid that predicament.”
This "Oh be careful Hillary" bunk is just being thrown out there to lower expectations and draw out her potential opponents. Her handlers want to keep the spotlight off her as long as possible but they are working behind the scenes to derail competitors early in preparation for the coronation. The media are dupes...
P-p-p-p-please don't nominate Hillary for President.
Respectfully disagree, Victoria. Underestimating an opponent in war, on the football field, or in the political area is a path to defeat.
True, but her chances of wining are quite small. However, when we fight, we should fight to win regardless of who our opponents are... big or small, so in a sense I agree with you.
Bank on this.
Warner/Richardson
The RATS have to take at least two red states. Hillary will not bring the RATS more than what they have now. She cannot steal Florida or Ohio.
Warner and Richardson offer the RATS the best chance of getting NM and Virginia. NM and Virginia is 18 votes. That creates a tie. Anyone know what happens then?
OK. And after years of lovey dovey by the MSM she's only at 16% in the polls, and with a little bit of luck and more cutie patootie wide-eyed pictures of her, she'll probably gain another 10 – 15 points.
"OK. And after years of lovey dovey by the MSM she's only at 16% in the polls, and with a little bit of luck and more cutie patootie wide-eyed pictures of her, she'll probably gain another 10 – 15 points."
No way. even the MSM won't be that stupid to take a losing horse and throw it in the race, even Hillary. It would be easier for Hillary to take all the campaign cash, stay a Senator and live in her cozy little hamlet.
With Gore, the MSM thought they had something. Problem was RATS didn't break 50% in the previous two elections. With Kerry, it showed left wing dominance in an almost dead political party. They had to figure it out by now.
Liberalism is dead at the national level. Warner/Richardson is the RATS only hope to recapture the White House in 2008.
If she takes the money she has saved up over the past couple of years, she can run for re-election in NY for the rest of her life without having to raise one more penny. She need not ever kiss another butt again, as long as she lives.
That's gotta be tempting, don'tcha think?
"Stop Hillary" = "Fooling people that Hillary is a centrist"
Resurrect??!!!! Mr. Panetta, you are either being completely disingenuous or you really, really, need to get out more.
"That's gotta be tempting, don'tcha think?"
That's my point. As Senator she will never have to do another thing for her entire life except to show up to fundraisers, vote every once in a while and maybe get her name on some bills if there is another RAT President.
If she runs, she gives it all up and she already knows that she will not get 51% of the vote, especially when hubby, who came off much better than her only got 43% and 49% respectively. Unless she knows she can steal Florida or Ohio and get away with it, she won't win.
Then she will have to look at the Anti-Hillary stuff that will come out as well as the Barret Report and what has been redacted.
No, she will be Senator for life in NY. IMHO she is closer to a prison cell than she is the White House.
I've just never understood the Freepers who are so opposed to her nomination. As I've said numerous times in the past, she doesn't have a prayer of winning the presidency. Republicans could put up a one-legged lesbian tree frog and it would win.
I have a friend who has almost never voted for a Republican and she (yes, SHE) gets absolutely depressed at the thought of Clinton being nominated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.