I am troubled by the idea that Hillary Clinton might run for President not because of who she is but because her husband has already been President.  The idea that Presidential quality runs in families should be anathema to Americans - this is, after all, a Republic not a Kingdom.

My problem with Hillary is that I don't like the person she tries to be, regardless of whether she is being who she is or not.  I want Hillary Clinton as far away from the 2008 election as she can get.  Maybe she can run for President of Australia.

I'd be quite happy with another President Clinton. On the other hand, the level of opposition to Hillary Clinton by the right and the out of touch easily swayed by the the rabid right media talkers might make it too steep of a hill for her to overcome, electorally speaking. Of course, the right could just be trying to eliminate their toughest opponent without spendiing a dollar of their standard bearer's election stash.  The degree to which they are trying to drive a stake through the heart of her potential candidacy, at this point in time, may be the true reflection of their concern of her strength.

Given that way that Sen. Clinton has "me-too"ed Bush's military adventurism Iraq, she most certainly won't be my first choice as a Presidential candidate in 2008.

-Dave Adams-

Joshua Marshall recently addressed another aspect of Senator Clinton’s possible presidential candidacy. He called it political dynasticism. We’ve had father and son, may have husband and wife, and it really got stranger with Bill Clinton’s status as Pop Bush’s "adopted son."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007519.php

Convincing them otherwise is difficult, but the thing to remember is that conservative typecasting of HRC reinforces her popularity among the roughly half of the population that responds to this typecasting with their own, positive assumptions about her.

Assuming minds aren't going to change all that much, I think we need to shoot much higher than 50%.

Democrats aren't really known for just squeaking by our elections. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Suppose HRC wins 2 terms:  that's 7 presidencies in a row with two family names! Insane!!

In America anyone can be president... as long as their names are Bush or Clinton.

Ok, joking aside, I'm going to disagree. This came up with a post of Josh's, too, worrying over a dynasty. The problem for me is that it is basically about her viability as a candidate: she's popular because she's Clinton (or because she's a Clinton).  To vote against for her that would be like voting someone for the opposite reason: because she's electable. We tried that. Suppose we just worry about who we like!

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

.....She should be leading instead of posturing for a Presidency she cannot win. She is a devisive figure.

Actually, Hillary is not a divisive figure. That is the Republican lie about her. Divisive figures, like Bush, are those who constantly insult the opposition, propose far out ideas, try to play one side against the other, etc. Hillary does none of those things. If Hillary had been true to her beliefs, and not so concerned with "positioning" herself, she would enjoy a considerable lead as a candidate for the Democratic nomination. Once she chose to give up her own beliefs and pretend to be a centrist or even a Republican Lite, she lost any credibility she had with Democrats, and gained nothing at all with non-Democrats. Add to that, the incredibly stupid move she made by supporting and continuing to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and she has no chance at all of gaining the nomination. Hoppy in Sacramento

Ny problem with Hilary is that, while she's been a fine senator (in my state) who nonetheless carpetbagged her way in,  her one opportunity at being an executive was the health care initiative. She chose to follow a dishonest, opaque process to run that initiative--not unlike Cheney's energy policy-making. I could forgive that if the result had been  an effective policy; sometimes policy-making requires some backroom dealings. But the thing she released (and I read the freakin' thing) was a pile of crap. 

In some ways, she's the opposite of Bill.  She's not the policy wonk.  She's the power-seeking triangulator. Bill actually implemented effective policy refoms. He balanced the budget.  He shifted welfare incentives.  He cut wasteful defense spending.  I have no confidence that Hilary would do any of those things.

At the moment, I'm taking Feingold. He's stood up for principle. And, pace Luigi, the sucking up to the right has failed. The adoption of effective policies, like welfare reform and balancing budgets has not failed. The wingnuts, at least right now, have shown no interest in effective policy.  Hilary's fealty to failed republican foreign policy writes her off, in my book. 

Yes, Hillary is way too conservative for most posters here.  In her quest for the presidency, she's positioned herself just to the left of Lieberman.  But why do so many Democrats have such angry feelings about her?  You'd never find a thread of complaints as long on Biden or Lieberman, and they're pretty damn irritating.

 I really think Hillary's image problem (and perhaps also her strength with some voters) is her symbolic role as the uppity woman in American politics.  Older women often dislike her and Republicans use her for donations like the Dems once used James Watt.

However, I think Dems are indulging in self-defeating behavior when we take our politicians so personally.  There's always something wrong, something that keeps us from embracing our candidates.  On the other hand, Repubs just program themselves to love the Leader.  If--and this is a big hypothetical--Hillary turned out to be the Dem most likely to succeed, personal animosity towards her would probably keep many Dems from supporting her.  She's about my last choice for the nomination, but if she won it, I'd support her.  Now I'd have to draw the line at a Lieberman, but luckily that's far more theoretical than a Hillary nomination.

I don't like Hillary but I don't dislike her.  However, I positively detest, loathe, abhor Biden and Lieberman. The ONLY reason I focus on Hillary is that she may well get the nomination. Lieberman and Biden are about as likely to be nominated as I am. They're furniture. Rotting furniture.

The poll I cited wasn't a presidential preference poll (the kind that shows name recognition) but a favorability poll.  And over ninety percent of Dems who had an opinion had a favorable one.  That doesn't mean that they'd vote for her in the primaries or that  she'd be their first choice.  I think that she would probably not win should she run.  But she is very well liked by the party base; I thought that's what you meant by "credibility." 

She might surprise me, but I don't expect her to run for the presidency.  I get the impression she's not positioning herself for a White House run, but for a more visible position within the Senate.  She spent eight years in the White House, not all of it pleasant, and I don't think she's itching to go back there. 

As far as "pretending" to be a centrist, rher husband was head of the DLC and the foremost proponent of Democratic Party centrism.  She has a reputation as a liberal, but her record is as a "New Democrat." 

To show that she broke with her beliefs on flag burning, you'd have to find a previous statement that was contrary to what she's proposing now.  Her old man (I know it's not fair to bring him up, but she doesn't have a long political career on her own, and most of the time she has followed him) supported a law against flag burning, but once the Supreme Court struck it down, he said he would stop short at a Constitutional amendment.  She's staked out a position similar to his:
 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

I don't agree with her on this, but it doesn't show a lack of consistency.

Further proof that women continually hate other women who attempt to get ahead or do good for people.  Play nice in the sandbox, girlies!

Lieberman, Kerry, Biden, Feingold...all unelectable. 

 
The question becomes: Would you be willing to put aside your petty feelings about HRC (most of the negatives spewed above are just petty BS - including voting for the Iraq war - I'm sorry, what did our last presidential candidate say he voted for, or against, or for?) if she could regain the White Palace, or would you rather sit on the sidelines for another 4 to 8 years while Bush Lite plays the masses.

Not saying that will happen - we got two more years to go.  But, what if it came down to vote HRC or give the Bushies another four?  (Jeb, McCain, etc.)  Or eight? 

 The Dem's current political situation is one of having to find a candidate who is electable.

That was Kerry, 04.

Electability is why Bush is President. 

Electibility is safe. We need bold. We need leadership.

Dissent Protects Democracy

As long as we're naming candidates, I have to put Bill Richardson out there.

He's a governor of a western state, with national executive experience--Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy--and he has good foreign policy credentials as our former ambassador to the U.N.   In fact, even though he is governor of New Mexico, the Bush administration still uses him in negotiations with North Korea. And, incidentally, he's hispanic.

 So, he's who I'd support.

bluebell

As far as "pretending" to be a centrist, her husband was head of the DLC and the foremost proponent of Democratic Party centrism.  She has a reputation as a liberal, but her record is as a "New Democrat." 

I don't think much of the base understood what this "New Democrat" stuff was all about back in the Clinton years.  It has become much clearer that this is a sell out to the right. That may not hurt her with the general public but it sure will keep me from voting for her or any DLC candidate.  It is indeed amazing that the media continues to portray her as liberal when she is featured as a leader on the DLC web site which does such a fine job of expounding on conservative pro-war policies and bashing the liberal members of its own party.

I hope Senator Clinton does not run for President in 2008. I believe she carries too much baggage to make a successful bid. I actually have nothing against her, but I believe she would be forced into continually answering right-wing attacks and whatever agenda she put forth would get lost in the swiftboat-like attacks. One thing I would like to see her do is rise above the "plantation" sound byte rhetoric. We desparately need Democrats who can say something of substance. I know we live in a sound-byte world, but more substance beyond Republican bashing would be refreshing. My two cents, and that's probably more than it's worth.

It's not the "dynsasty" thing that bothers me; it is the weird sense that she and many others seem to have that being President is the ultimate goal in politics.

From what I gather, Hillary is an excellent Senator.  So is Biden.  So is Ted Kennedy, and many others, for that matter.  Why not stay where they