Either Hillary Clinton is going to absolutely destroy her Democratic rivals on the way to the White House, or John Edwards and Barack Obama need to find a way to wake up their sleepy campaigns.
For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats — and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.
The problem is, the primaries are just over three months away, and while Edwards or Obama will need a sizable win in Iowa to shake Sen. Clinton’s campaign, she seems to have so many of those post IA/NH primaries in her favor (including South Carolina, which should easily be Obama or Edwards country).
I like all three of them, but over the last year it’s as if Clinton is running her campaign on a whole other level (in function it is much like the Bush ‘04 campaign) while Obama/Edwards simply fumble away.
In the case of Obama, it’s not like he can honestly say he doesn’t get a national platform - he does, or that he doesn’t have the financial resources - he does. But what I see from him is the running of a theoretical campaign. Yeah, it would be great to step above partisanship and end the partisan bickering, etc., etc. But I think that sort of kumbaya rhetoric is not what a post-Bush Democratic base wants to hear at all. It certainly does nothing for me, and in many ways I’m supposed to be Sen. Obama’s target demo.
For Edwards, even with him fighting out with Obama to be the “Anti-Hillary”, I wish I saw a more competent press operation. Way back when they were dealing with William Donohue and the whole blogger issue, I said that wasn’t a good sign, to the consternation of some of his fans, but no matter what the situation given to Dems by the Bush legacy, the election will still be a hell of a fight and we need scrappers. Edwards has also had to suffer from media hostility, but the best counter to that is offensive press operations. The Edwards people have preferred to let bad stuff just linger out there in the ether, John Kerry style. I don’t know why it would be so hard for campaigns to have someone on call 24/7 to issue biting campaign retorts to any and everything. We’re in 2007, not 1997 or 1987.
Clinton’s big achilles is supposed to be Iraq, but even to people like me who still think her vote was idiotic and find her explanation for it lacking, you get the sense that besides the sort of folks who wlll never be happy with any Democratic ever for not being progressive enough (these folks would bitch and moan about FDR!) - most would be happy with her. A year ago I thought she couldn’t win, now I think I feel differently.
I think many of the comparisons to 2004 don’t wash. Lieberman at one point led in polls, but nobody thought he would ever win anything. Dean had the right message, but what I consider to be a personality ill-suited to the butt kissing and making nice involved, as well as what are some of the worst ads in the history of political advertising. Clinton, on the other hand is seen as someone who can win with the best sort of press/campaign operations you’re likely to get for a Democratic candidate.
The electorate is fickle, doubly so for the Democratic base who is always looking for JFK 2.0 to wow them, but if I were to put money on it, I wouldn’t bet against Sen. Clinton.
Then again, I could be wrong.
I cannot wait until the frightwingers start screaming about the Patriot Act and the Unitary Executive or wiretapping when she is elected. My FIL will be sputtering in rage while I laugh my ass off.
That’s the only reason to vote for her.
I agree. They will flip-flop instantly on all of the authoritarian anti-civil liberty crap they were more than happy to bestow upon Bush. And they will do so as if the last eight years never happened, wi.
And it will up to the Dems to go with them on it. I just hope Hillary is willing to give that sort of power up. I’m not entirely convinced.
The right has in the past effectively used the mantra of “Annoy the media, vote for X”. Should Sen. Clinton be the nominee, I think there’s gold to be mined by discussing the idea of “Drive Rush Limbaugh insane, vote for Hillary Clinton”. I know that if she’s the nom, I look to the day of her inauguration as a second Christmas in which I would do nothing but listen to Limbaugh, watch Fox, and read right-wing bloggers for 24 hours straight just to dip into the insanity and rage.
Gore, bitches!
These days, JFK 2.0 would be a Republican. What MoveOn-style Democrats are really looking for is Henry Wallace 2.0. But, you’re right, the larger base of the party will settle for Hillary 2.0.
How would JFK 2.0 be a Republican? Please elaborate, because I’m not quite seeing it.
obstacle #1 for Obama and Edwards:
too many other candidates left in the race/debates. Biden and Dodd need to drop out, and Gravel needs to be excluded from at least one debate.
obstacle #2: each other. They’re both competing for the anti-Hillary vote, so inevitably, in order for one to have a chance to win that way, the other will have to drop out(I’m looking your way, John Edwards).
obstacle #3: the MSM narrative–the only hope is that they get bored of talking about how inevitable she is, and actually do some investigative journalism.
obstacle #4: the Dem electorate’s rose-colored glasses on the previous Clinton administration. Full disclosure: I didn’t vote in 1996, partially because I was disappointed with Bill Clinton. I thought I was voting for a progressive, but I was apparently mistaken. I won’t make that mistake again–even if I vote for Hillary in 2008, I’m highly unlikely to support her in 2012, even if Dick Cheney is on the GOP ticket.
obstacle #5: the notion that attacking Hillary too forcefully will backfire. I don’t know if that’s always true. Plus, if nobody launches a serious attack on her during the primaries, how will we know whether she’s really capable of parrying the strong negative attacks she’ll encounter in the general? And, no, dealing with it as first lady and as senator isn’t the same as dealing with it as a presidential candidate.
a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.
See, I don’t see that at ALL. The only change she represents in Washington is gender.
Edwards has also had to suffer from media hostility, but the best counter to that is offensive press operations.
Another plus for Barack. When he takes shit in the press, his campaign responds swiftly and strongly.
I think that if Barack wins big in Iowa, it will shake the MSM out of their stupor and get them to realize that Hillary isn’t inevitable quite yet. (Though I don’t fool myself of a big win.)
Duder said:
Gore, bitches!
Okay, pal. Go back to sleep.
JFK would be a Republican for the same reason Martin Luther King would: because wingnut trolls are historical illiterates.
“These days, JFK 2.0 would be a Republican.”
Um, no. The Kennedys were and are progressives in every sense of the word. The two biggest movements of Kennedy’s presidency, civil rights and the space program, were landmark progressive movements. Kennedy was squarely on the side of civil rights. He also paved the way for immigration that favored latin american countries. And his initial vision for the space program was a joint venture between the Soviets and America.
Contrast any of those to modern Republican views of contempt for minorities and latin American immigrants to their “axis of evil” foreign policy sledge hammer.