"Hmmm, after I win, I'll eliminate my political opponents."
Posted on 04/10/2006 1:28:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Washington — It's the race within the 2008 Democratic White House race, the marathon to see who can emerge as the alternative to Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.
Convinced that Clinton is too divisive to win a general election, many Democrats are looking for a candidate with more crossover appeal, and a number of potential candidates already appear to be auditioning for the role.
"I really don't think she can win, and I really wish she would remove herself," Carol Huxel, a Democrat in Goffstown, N.H., said in a phone interview. "There are big, big swaths of the country that really don't like her."
Huxel, 47, a mother of four and the manager of a nonprofit volunteer organization, was one of about 30 Democrats who participated recently in a focus group for Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
But even though Huxel's views are widely shared in Democratic circles, the more non-Hillary candidates in 2008, the merrier it will be for Clinton, experts say.
"I think Hillary probably has been counting on a gang of them coming after her," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York. "And, of course, she probably has been counting on the gang all being hes [men]."
Miringoff has done more polling on Clinton than any other analyst, mostly because of her campaign this year in New York for a second term in the Senate. But Miringoff also has taken a measure of Clinton's standing in the 2008 presidential contest, which appears to be moving in a parallel track with the 2006 congressional election. And his polling, like that of other analysts, establishes her as the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In the latest Marist Poll, Clinton was the choice of 33 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, well ahead of former Vice President Al Gore at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 16 percent and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 presidential nominee, at 11 percent. All other possible candidates polled less than 5 percent.
Similarly, a Gallup Poll conducted about the same time had Clinton at 39 percent, Kerry at 15 percent, Gore at 13 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.
But while Gallup reported to its subscribers that Clinton was "a polarizing figure," it also noted that she may have "a secret weapon" by virtue of her gender.
"It is possible that women may disproportionately swing to her in hopes of having voted for the first female president," Gallup's report stated.
Even so, "there's some concern in the party about her electability, especially in the red states," said Miringoff. "So, there's a search on for, not exactly the anti-Hillary candidate, but rather the non-Hillary candidate."
Indeed, Luntz, who just completed focus group research with Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire, recently told political reporters that winning is everything for Democrats in 2008. "As in 2004, Democrats want to win," he said. "Unlike 2004, they really want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination who they fear will lose to the Republican nominee."
And that includes Clinton.
While she has "honest-to-goodness star power," Luntz noted, she came across as "highly partisan, overly negative — and often bitter" to some of the Democrats in his focus groups. "And that leads some to dismiss her as unelectable."
Indeed, "the people in Kansas are not going to vote for Hillary, no matter what," said Huxel. "And the Democratic Party's leaders aren't realistic if they think they can run Hillary. The party is just not listening to us."
The recent interest in Gore, the 2000 nominee, stems in part from the search for a non-Hillary candidate, despite Gore's insistence that he does not intend to seek the 2008 nomination.
"There's a little of whispering going on about Gore," said Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland professor and author of an upcoming book, "Whistling Past Dixie: How the Democrats Can Win Without the South." "Democrats are worried that Hillary Clinton can't win anywhere in the South."
Consequently, most of the non-Hillary attention has fallen on Mark Warner, the moderate former governor of Virginia, who left office with a record approval rating of 75 percent among voters in a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. The New York Times Magazine, in a 12-page article last month, suggested that Warner, a centrist Southern governor, could be "the Bill Clinton of 2008," springing from national obscurity to the presidential nomination the way Clinton did in 1992.
Warner makes the argument that the next Democratic presidential nominee "has to be able to compete in all 50 states," not just targeting the 16 or 17 states on which Gore and Kerry pinned their presidential hopes. And Warner's stump speech theme that "results matter" resonated the most in Luntz's focus groups. But Warner isn't the only "red state" Democrat making the argument that the party cannot win — or govern well — without broader support. And Warner is a relative newcomer, having won only one election in his political career.
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, in a recent interview, said Democrats have to stop coming across "condescending and ... elitist" to Southern and Midwestern voters. And he noted that he's got more practice at winning in red states than any Democrat eyeing the 2008 nomination, having won five statewide elections in his solidly Republican home state since 1986.
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa also has non-Hillary credentials to brandish. He is the only Democratic governor Iowa has had since 1968. And the Hawkeye State is one of those that swings back and forth between the Democratic and Republican parties in presidential elections. Plus, Vilsack is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization of pro-business centrists that Bill Clinton rode into the White House in 1992.
Warner, Vilsack and Bayh are all polling in single digits so far, however. And while the next presidential election is still more than two years off, it's going to take somebody with double digits to become the non-Hillary candidate, said Chris Lehane, a senior aide to Gore during the 2000 campaign.
"Hillary is as strong as any non-incumbent candidate in modern history on the Democratic side, where she will have the three M's for a successful campaign — money, mass support from the critical constituency groups and a message," said Lehane. Ironically, "for someone to become a true challenger [to Hillary Clinton], they must become an insurgent and run from the far left of the party."
That could be Edwards, who is making poverty his signature issue; Kerry, who fulfilled 2004 campaign promises to abortion rights groups by trying to filibuster President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court; or Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who wants the Senate to censure the president for authorizing warrantless wiretaps as part of the war on terrorism.
She has no chance what so ever of winning.
"Hmmm, after I win, I'll eliminate my political opponents."
only if McLame gets the nomination.
I certainly HOPE this country isn't so stupid it would elect someone this dangerous to be our President. But our country seems to have a short memory and at this junction in time, I wouldn't rule anything out. I really need my faith in the American voting public renewed, but I don't hope to see that in my lifetime.
A better question would be "Can we see to it that she loses?"
Consequently, most of the non-Hillary attention has fallen on Mark Warner, the moderate former governor of Virginia, who left office with a record approval rating of 75 percent among voters in a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. The New York Times Magazine, in a 12-page article last month, suggested that Warner, a centrist Southern governor, could be "the Bill Clinton of 2008," springing from national obscurity to the presidential nomination the way Clinton did in 1992.
"Yesssss...Me-sa win, My Precious."
"Oh, why wait. If I Foster them now, they can vote for me in the election."
I hate to say it but I firmly believe that she will be the next president. She has the dim nomination sewn up with all the money she has in the coffer.
I don't see the republicans getting it together in time. He or she had better be top notch and deserving support from the conservative base. Otherwise the base will stay home. We have been let down too many times by the republicans from Washington.
Clinton will fight mean and dirty. I can't think of any republicans that will do it. I can think of a few conservatives like Tancredo that would. The republican nominee will stand a much better chance if the economy is still going full steam ahead.
The pendulum swings in American politics and I fear it will swing to the left this time.
She has "star power?" Only to the brain dead.
"... women may disproportionately swing to her in hopes of having voted for the first female president," Gallup's report stated. .. ."
the sheep willingly go to slaughter, I guess.
If Hitlerary wins, she'll sell our sovereignity out to the UN and form the propecized globalist NWO one world government, which will have one of these Pledges Of Allegiance :
I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag, of The United Nations that took over America.
And To The Blasphemy For Which It Stands,
One Government Under Satan,
With hellfire, and damnation For All.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations, and to the socialist doctrine for which it stands, one mindset, under secular humanism, inflexible, with forced equality of outcome, and moral relativism for all.
As a result of my ignorance, apathy, and liberal education, I hereby pledge what little allegiance I have to anything, to the flag of the United Nations and to the one world government for which it stands: steeped in extreme environmentalism and based on absolute tolerance and multi-culturalism, which proudly proclaim that no one form of government, religion, sexual persuasion or idea is any better than any other. One world, indisputable, under a united religious spirituality, that worships the creation, not the Creator. With whatever liberty the governing elites and social engineers dictate it is safe for me to have, and social justice [Socialism] for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations
and to the One-World-Government for which it stands;
All nations equal, worshipping the earth,
indivisible with disarmament and
economic distribution for all
I guarantee you that in the days of the NWO UN one world government, desecration of the UN flag will probably be punishable by an automatic death penalty.
Enjoy your freedoms while you can...if Hillary wins, liberty loses.
Constitutional crisis.
Can Bill Clinton serve as co-president another 8 years?
Whining - yes
Winning - not in the hell no!!
Don't limit that to Hillary. It's the RATS standard M.O.
Can? well anything's possible this far out I guess..
Will? Nope.
I would not want to see `Cankles' run: I'll bet her rear end looks like two White trucks trying to pass each other.
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.