Should Dems nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008?

[phk]

Should Dems nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008?

YES: They would be fools not to run their best chance for electoral success

BOGDAN KIPLING

Knight Ridder/Tribune

WASHINGTON - "She came, she saw, she conquered." That's how The Times of India summed up Hillary Clinton's late February visit to the world's second most populous country.

"She prays, she listens, she learns," chimed in Newsday, a Long Island daily.

"If Hillary runs, Hillary wins," said Canada's Halifax Herald in August 1999 about her likely bid for the White House.

Energetic, concise language is the striking common denominator in media comments about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and her political ambitions. Because she herself is clear and decisive, she is the hottest Democrat in the land.

The former first lady had to jump a hurdle or two before she could emerge as a mature, savvy political leader. She had to ease out from public memory the many investigators of White House scandals and her humiliations as the wife of a serial adulterer. She succeeded spectacularly, and Democrats would be mad not to nominate her in 2008. Here's why:

• She can make Americans believe she knows why she wants to be president.

• She is focused, disciplined, determined and, yes, flexible. In the Senate, she has positioned herself close to the political center on social issues -- including family values -- and has gained credibility on defense issues.

• She has a natural political base among black, Hispanic and labor voters. She is a diligent senator for her New York constituents and is justifiably confident of re-election in 2006.

• She is a fantastic fundraiser, holds a lot of Democratic IOUs and, most important, is a woman. You would have to be politically tone deaf not to hear American women saying, "It's our turn."

Put that in the context of actual voting patterns, and Hillary's presidential launching pad looks formidable by any measure.

Women already outnumber men in presidential ballots, and Hillary can ginger up a gender vote in 2008. The Republicans have a credible woman in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to match Hillary, but they also have several impressive men.

The opposite is true for Democrats. Hillary already towers over all other Democratic presidential wannabes. She outpolled them right up to eve of last year's Democratic convention.

It's worth recalling that women voters first outnumbered men in 1984, the year Walter Mondale put Geraldine Ferraro on the presidential ticket.

Ferraro's candidacy was hardly electrifying, but it coincided with profound social shifts. She campaigned for the second-highest office just as women's educational achievements and participation rate in the labor force at all levels started making their mark in politics.

The trend continues, however unevenly. For example, 22 million single women didn't bother to vote 16 years later when George W. Bush failed to excite them and Al Gore, though he did better, still bored them to death.

Last year Democrats did even worse and with good reason. Four weeks before the ballot, 21 percent of potential voters answered "don't know" when asked whether they approved or disapproved of Sen. John Kerry, their party's nominee.

Unlike Kerry, Hillary knows who she is, and so do voters. She is the Democrats' best chance, and they'd be fools to blow it.

[PADem]

I've got an idea: how about NO

[TomC]

I've got an idea: how about NO

Here, here! The article has good points, and I'm not saying she'd lose, but to say she offers the best chance we have is way off.

[Rob]

Hillary is a disaster in the making.

[Notre Dame rules!]

I can't conceive of any scenario in which I would vote for Hillary, but I have to admit that she would be formidable.  She's a Clinton, the darling of the media, and an amazing fundraiser.  Thank God that she is SO polarizing.  Otherwise she would probably be coronated in '08 by decree.

[Keystone Phil]

  She's a Clinton, the darling of the media,

In now way is she portrayed in the same light as her husband. The media would not treat her the same way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. She is far too conservative, very self centered, a carpetbagger and an all around poor candidate.

[chris allen]

I think Hillary will get the nomination. People have been talking about Hillary In '08 it seems for the last 6 years it seems. You get the feeling it's already been promised for her. But she will still have to win Iowa and New Hampshire. I think she'll do better nationally than Gore and Kerry did. With a good VP pick *wink*Bill Richardson *wink* she could get Colorado, New Mexico (duh!), and Nevada. Depending on the situation Ohio and Florida come back in play as if they ever left.

[Notre Dame rules!]

She is the ONE candidate that gets about 20 camera shots during a SOTU speech per network.  Her every waking moment is covered, whether she's taking a trip to the sandbox to visit the troops, or at her husband's bedside after his operation.  This is free coverage that no Democrat can buy.  She may not have convinced you guys as to her electability, but she's certainly convinced the media.




By the way, I do hope that former President Clinton is doing well and that he recovers fully.

[chris allen]

By the way, I do hope that former President Clinton is doing well and that he recovers fully.

That is another reason why Hillary would be interesting. She would have the ultimate foil in her campaign...Bill F'n Clinton. It would be the two headed monster I think any Republican would have trouble taming. Forget Laura Bush, Bill Clinton would be where it is at.

[ian]

I've got an idea: how about NO

I, once again, find myself in agreement with PADem