Can Hillary Clinton win?

[dazzleman]

I think she is definitely electable.  Whether she will win, assuming she gets the Democratic nomination, depends on who the Republicans run against her and what conditions overall are at that time.

To an unusual degree for a non-incumbent presidential candidate, Hillary is a known quantity, and many more voters have an already-formed opinion of her than is normal at this stage in the election cycle.

She has major liabilities, but also major assets.  She is a cold automaton who is obsessed with gaining power, and would slit her own mother's throat if that were what it took for her to gain power.  This gives her a large advantage in many ways, but also makes more discerning people very wary of her.

Her public positions on the issues are arrived at purely from political calculation (as was her decision to remain in her adultrous marriage) rather than from her real beliefs.  A big achilles heal for her at this time is her vote in favor of the Iraq war, which has alienated her to some degree from the radical left-wing nutcases that would normally be her most enthusiastic supporters.

What happens with Hillary will test my theory that only 'second wave' people from formerly 'out' groups can win the presidency.  I have long believed that it would take a post-feminist woman to win the presidency -- a woman who, unlike Hillary, isn't obsessed with her own gender, but is running from a broader perspective.

[dazzleman]

I agree that her support for the war hurts her, although as Michael mentioned, I hardly see why opposition to the war would be considered far left wing, considering the majority of Americans hold this position.

Indeed. I still can't figure out whether this labelling of anyone with a stance against the Iraq war as a raving extremist left-winger is a smear tactic or genuine naivete on behalf of the right, but the fact is that people like Lamont are moderates whose views resonate with the majority of the people. But then it's like Gore said, when the far right is in charge anyone to the left of them will be viewed as extreme, including moderates. Hopefully the November elections and possibly 2008 should change this.

The problem is not with opposing this war, per se, but in denying that there is any threat from islamic terrorism to the west.  We are currently in a state of denial among large numbers of people about this problem, even as Iran and North Korea collaborate on nuclear missiles.  It's eerily like the period before World War II when the Nazis were gathering strength and building up arms, while the west argued about whether they were a problem or not.

This is a terrible problem, so it's course it's so much more comforting to blame our own leaders for all the problems.  Because we know that ultimately, we can change our leaders.  Dealing with the real problem is much harder.  But blaming our leaders for all these problems, however flawed our own leaders may be in certain ways, is really a tactic of the mentally weak who are unable to face up to reality.

So I think the manner in which one opposes the war policies of this administration are what's important.  If you find fault with the policies of this administration, suggest alternatives that actually address, rather than avoid or deny, the problem.  Otherwise, like the Vietnam War, this war could end up being a boost for Republicans in the long run.  I read an interesting commentary the other day explaining this.  It stated that while the Vietnam War was never popular, most Americans hated the anti-war movement more than they hated the war.  Looking at the vitriol from the liberals in the Connecticut race, it's easy to see that happening again.

I think the last thing we need is another president who is going to be deeply hated by large numbers of people no matter what, and that is what we'd be getting with Hillary.